Category Archives: Communication

Remove the Man

remove

A little over two weeks ago Washington state Governor Jay Inslee signed off on the final installment of a six-year effort to make language in the state’s copious laws gender-neutral. The sponsor of the bill, Senator Jeannie Kohl-Welles’ (hyphenated surname noted) reasoning for initiating the six-year endeavor was,

“It brings us to modern times, to contemporary times, why should we have in statute anything that could be viewed as biased or stereotypical or reflecting any discrimination?”

Thus words such as ‘freshmen’, ‘fireman’, ‘fisherman’ and even ‘penmanship’ are neutralized to ‘first year student’, ‘fireperson’, ‘fisher’ and ‘writing skill’. Perhaps the easiest way to grasp the process the committee used in their six-year effort is to presume that any noun or verb with the successive letters of ‘m-a-n’ in its syntax was replaced with ‘person’ or a substitution for a term that excluded the offending ‘m-a-n’ letters.

This hasn’t been the only effort to geld the English language under the guise of a want for avoiding legal repercussions. The University of North Carolina has initiated a similar effort in their school’s by-laws. Kent Law, Marquette and virtually every state college in the union, while not mandating the ‘manless’ language, has made efforts to encourage linguistic androgyny.

The Washington state initiative is really just the next predictable progression in this gelding, however the six-year effort represents something more endemically hostile; the Feminine Imperative, in its unconsolable insecurity, would reengineer the very language society uses in order to feel more secure.

Now granted, this is English, the second most commonly spoken language in the world, but in order to fully appreciate the scope of the Feminine Imperative and the lengths to which it will go unhindered to assuage the need for feminine-security, a red-pill man has to recognize the importance language represents to the human race as well as the removal of male, not masculine, influence from that language.

In all Latin-based languages there are gender associations with definitive articles. Nouns (and many adjectives) are specifically feminine or masculine as part of their intrinsic qualities. In Spanish ‘La Casa’, the home, is a feminine association. ‘El Toro’, the bull, is a masculine association. Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of a Latin-based language understands that millennia ago the Latin culture found gender differentiation so important that it attached gender associations to the words, written and spoken, that represented the ideas and articles each word meant.

This might seem like a remedial review of language and society, but it’s important to understand what it is the Feminine Imperative hopes to undo, and the magnitude of its insecurities. The six-year effort of gender-abridgment in the Washington state law is really an illustration of the lengths to which the Feminine Imperative would reengineer society; from the very foundations of human communication, language, by eliminating masculine associations with any article or quality. The Feminine Imperative, that is dependent upon men being Men when convenient, simultaneously makes herculean efforts to remove men from its idealized environment and society.

Be a Man

There used to be a time when some cultures had a rite of passage into manhood or a passing into adult responsibility and masculine respect. In Latin cultures a young woman becomes a woman on here quinceñera – her fifteenth birthday. Jewish boys have a Bar Mitzvah, certain Native American tribes had similar traditions, etc. I think that if there’s a modern social complaint about men remaining perpetually juvenile this is the root of it – we don’t respect Manhood enough to define what’s expected and when that adult, masculine respect is due.

A lot has been written on this blog and many others about the ceaseless efforts of the feminine to marginalize and ridicule anything masculine. It’s easy to find consistent examples of this in the past 50 years of popular media, movies, TV sit-coms, music, etc. While masculinity is ridiculed, there’s more to it than this. It’s not simple masculine ridicule, because the same masculine attributes and qualities that make women ‘strong’ are the same that make men strong. The difference is in the application – it wasn’t enough to implant the seeds of masculine self-doubt into men, the Feminine Imperative had to make men, not necessarily masculinity, the problem to be solved.

In all of the examples of masculine gender reversal in popular culture, men are the unique problem, to which only women have the resources, wisdom and intuition to correct. The men of today are characterized as the Lucy Ricardos of the 50’s, requiring women’s guidance to avoid, often mutually destructive, disasters. However, the key to solving those problems, characterized as uniquely male, still require masculine-associated, mindsets, skills and applications.

Guys vs. Men

I was participating in a conversation just recently with a young woman of 26 and a young man of 18. The conversation itself wasn’t important, but at one point the young man referred to himself as a ‘Man’. He said something to the effect of, “Well I’m a man, and men do,..” At the word ‘man’ she cut him off with the unconscious snigger that’s resulted from years of feminine ridicule conditioning. Just the mention of a man self-referencing as a “man” is enough to inspire feminine ridicule. It’s laughable for a man to consider himself a man.

This exchange got me to wondering about the turning point at which I began to self-reference as a “Man”. In the face of a constant conditioned ridicule, it’s almost an uncomfortable recognition to distinguish yourself as a Man. It’s too easy to just think of yourself as a ‘guy’ and never be so presumptuous as to insist upon your manhood. In girl-world, to claim to be a Man is to admit to arrogance – it’s to embrace a flawed nature.

It’s important to note here that in embracing your status as a Man, instead of ‘just a guy’, you are passing a meta-shit test. By embracing self-referenced manhood, you are rejecting what a world aligned against you would like you to believe about yourself. You’re endorsing yourself as a Man with self-assurance despite the self-doubt the Feminine Imperative relies upon men believing about themselves, masculinity and the dubious state of manhood as a whole. By flagrantly referring to yourself as a Man you are passing the meta-shit test – you’re overtly stating you’re a Man, but you you’re covertly stating “I Just Get It.”

Remove the Man

As I addressed earlier, the Feminine Imperative perceives your Manhood as a Threat. By endorsing yourself as a Man, on some level, whether you’re cognizant of it or not, you’re alluding that you have an inkling of your own personal value as a Man. You’re expressing  a self-awareness that is both attractive and terrorizing for women, but due to the constant influence of feminine primacy you’re perceived as arrogant, self-serving and prideful. Even in the most innocuous context, insisting upon your status as a Man is inherently sexist to a world defined by the Feminine Imperative.

But the imperative needs masculinity. To insure its (temporary) satisfaction of security a masculine element is required. Strength, confidence, determination, a capacity for risk taking, dominance and the comfort that women naturally derive from those masculine attributes are necessities of a healthy, secure, existence for women and the feminine.

However, brutish, ridiculous and stupid men can’t be trusted to universally provide this masculine security that every woman deserves irrespective of attractiveness or merit according to the Feminine Imperative. So Men must be removed from masculinity.

No longer are Men allowed a monopoly on masculinity. Domineering women as a default status in heterosexual relationships pushes masculinity into her domain. Dominant masculine partners in sexually fluid relationships are similarly, unironically, re-characterized.

These are the easy examples. Volumes have been written in the manopshere about how feminine-primary government assumes the masculine providership role in modern relationships, thus freeing an already unhindered hypergamy even more so, but the effort to remove the Man goes far beyond this obvious institution. The fundamental restructuring of gender reference in our very language – as illustrated by the Washington state legislature – attempts to, literally, remove the Man from the equation.

Masculine Security

I can remember an instance at a former workplace where some coworkers were organizing a team to run in a Breast Cancer awareness walk/run. At one point a particularly mangina coworker suggested we all wear the prerequisite pink color at the event, and needless to say I arrived in a black T-Shirt amongst a sea of pink. The predictable accusation of my sexual security came up: “What, aren’t you secure enough in your manhood to wear pink?…herp..derp!” to which I answered “I’m secure enough in my Manhood not to wear pink.”

What the mangina was obliviously parroting back is the same social tool that’s been used by the Feminine Imperative for the past 60 years; inspire self-doubt in male-specific masculinity. By making compliance with the Feminine Imperative a qualification of masculinity, men assign the power to define masculinity to the Feminine Imperative. My answer to him was simply taking that power of definition back into a male-controlled frame – “I’ll tell you what manhood is, your grasp of manhood doesn’t qualify you to tell me.”

This power of defining the masculine isn’t limited just to snarky, subconscious referencing; it’s simply one aspect of a greater effort to remove men from masculinity. While the efforts of certain women bloggers and psychologists (both within and without the manosphere) to build better betas seems ennobling to white knights, the unifying purpose behind their efforts is really one of portioning or rationing masculine authority to men in as convenient a way as would satisfy their immediate needs for those masculine aspects. Be Alpha as needed, but beta for the greater part so as to allow for fem-masculine dominance and primacy.

I’ve explained this previously as the Male Catch 22, but it’s important to understand that this Catch isn’t some unfortunate byproduct of male inheritance; it’s a careful, calculated feminine social dynamic with the latent purpose of making men accountable for masculine responsibilities while simultaneously making them shamed and guilty of ‘male privilege’ when that masculinity conflicts with the dictates of the Feminine Imperative. That’s the crux of the dynamic, but the mechanics of it are still rooted in specifically male masculine self-doubt.

For the Feminine Imperative to sustain itself men can never be trusted with masculinity, solution: remove men from being the definers of masculinity and apportion them only enough authority of it that would benefit the Feminine Imperative as necessary.


Mister Softee

mr_softee

I have friend named Floyd. Floyd is in his early 50’s and spent the better part of his life in the military. He’s in fairly good shape for his age and has the rough, but stoic attitude of a soldier who’s seen actual combat. He doesn’t talk too much about those years, but he is an interesting guy and has a wealth of world-learned experiences that he’s more than ready to let you know about.

Floyd is not what I’d call a Type A personality, but he does have the pragmatic ‘get it done’ personality taught in the military, and he’s prone to being opinionated. At the risk of splitting hairs again, I’d definitely say he’s Alpha, but in a subdued, matter-of-fact, self-evident sense rather than the stereotypical in-your-face douchey Alpha caricature most beta chumps like to associate it with. Being a Man comes natural to him, and his expressions (or non-expressions) of such irritates the betas we know – but in a passive sense rather than an aggressive one. Just being who he is, often enough, gets eye rolls from our more plugged in friends.

Unfortunately Floyd’s Game-ignorant. After his discharge, he followed the ex-military formula for marriage by getting involved with a very domineering woMAN who promptly got ‘accidentally’ pregnant 12 years ago. They have a son whom they share custody of, the divorce not being final until last year. For all his Alpha cred, he followed the ‘do the right thing’ script right up until the finalization of his divorce. In the military, he was ostensibly a badass; with his ex he was always trying to find a solution to her problems with a rational ‘get the job done’ approach. He didn’t see the method behind her madness then, he does now.

Since the finalization Floyd has gotten together with a new girlfriend, Ann, who is the polar opposite of his ex. Against my advice he’s moved her into his home, but the bright side of this arrangement is that Floyd has learned the importance of maintaining Frame with her. Maintaining Frame with Ann isn’t too difficult for him as she’s about a point below Floyd in SMV. She’s not unattractive, but Ann loves Floyd because he takes care of business like the Alpha  her ex never was.

I was hanging out with Floyd last weekend and the conversation got around to how unlikely it was that Ann would get with a hard ass like Floyd. She say, “Oh that’s just his schtick, he’s really a big softee. Underneath all that he’s really a sweet guy.”

The Scripting

Now I realize these are the words of a 48 year old woman who’s vested interest and second chance at long term security are in my tough-guy friend, but it struck me that no matter how genuine a Man can be in his personality, no woman wants to accept a personality that is incongruent with her own imperative.

The main reason for this is rooted in women’s innate solipsism. If the reality doesn’t fit with her interpretation, rationalize the reality to force fit it to that interpretation. The nuts and bolts of it is that Floyd represents a valuable prospect at a second chance for provisioning. Floyd is not an overly emotional or emotionally available guy, but to reconcile the wish that he would be, Ann must tacitly endorse that he is; “you just don’t know him like I know him.”

A lot of freshly unplugged guys have trouble accepting Game as being anything more than an act – a series of behaviors meant to elicit a response in a woman, and once she’s been attracted they can go back to their regularly scheduled personality. They rely on rote memorization instead of learning and internalizing Game. What a lot more don’t understand is that even in their blue pill Beta Game days they also followed a similar ‘acting’.

This acting is encouraged in much the same way as Ann was attempting to distort her own reality. As with most women, they fall in love with a dichotomy; they want a sweet guy, who’s tough and gets shit done. If one of these aspects is out of balance her rationalization engine (i.e. Hamster) will make subconscious attempts to compensate for it in her words and beliefs. “I want a sweet guy with a good heart” is boilerplate for the feminine imperative because it ‘sounds right’. Men hear this and ‘act’ on it in the deductive belief that it will endear him to women in general.

The greater truth is that, for all the conflicting messages about men needing to get in touch with their feminine sides, and then men need to Man-Up, your personality is still going to be rationalized to fit a woman’s psychological ideal.

Upping the Alpha Doesn’t Mean Offing the Empathy

I think too many critics in the manosphere believe that the underlying message is about men needing to kill off the emotional, sentimental or impassioned aspects of their personalities. I would never advocate this. Firstly because I don’t think it’s entirely possible, but more importantly, you shouldn’t have to. No man should lessen himself or his human experience to accommodate the feminine imperative.

When I wrote Kill the Beta people assumed I meant that doing so would also include killing of the better parts of their  personalities. Beta is a mindset in the same way Alpha is. You can be an emotional Alpha, and women will swoon, but be an emotional Beta and you’re doomed to feminine pity. Emotions and passions only reinforce a self-defeating loop for a Beta mindset, but in careful, self-controlled measure they strengthen an Alpha mindset.

The problem is in the measure. Most Betas, raised from birth to believe that women want a “sweet man with a good heart”, build a personality around that message. Thus we have several generations of men trying to out “sweet” one another. In the end of The Game Neil Strauss worried that PUA practitioners would turn into “emotional robots”; men only aping the behaviors that have value in their getting laid and not genuinely emotional. I think his worries are unfounded, because most men of the last generations have such a foundation of ‘being in touch with their emotions’ the issue is more about the self-control necessary to maintain that emotionalism.

Upping the Alpha doesn’t mean offing the empathy. Game doesn’t mean learning sociopathy – it means learning control of one’s psychology. Most Betas find themselves miserable because they’ve been raised to believe that self-expression and open communication of emotions are the keys to successful living with women. It’s interesting that for all the understanding about how women are wired for emotion and men are wired for reason that it should be the men of the last generations who are more emotionally expressive than any preceding generation.

Guys like Floyd aren’t any less emotional or compassionate or sentimental, they simply know the value in controlling their more ephemeral aspects. They know when to apply it and when to withhold it. They know the reward value a rare display of emotion means to women who want to write their own script for the Man they’re in love with.


Case Study – Adam’s Lament

 

The following dialog is from a recent consult (published with permission) from a young man, Adam, who’s becoming red pill aware in the wake of a breakup. I’ll let his quotes tell the story here:

 My girlfriend broke up with me last month due to her want to find herself and her self-imposed reasons to remain single (she just turned 22 and I just turned 24).

The first consideration I’ll make is that both of you are far too young for a monogamous relationship. Your 20s should be a period of learning for both sexes. Unfortunately it’s becoming more common for guys to hear this and take offense due to this socialized romantic notion that an LTR ought to be some idealized goal state, but the truth of it is that an LTR in this period of a man’s life more often than not becomes debilitating in his maturation.

What young men raised on Disneyesque romantic ideals fail to consider is that a mature LTR requires responsibility, liability and accountability that limit a young man’s potential and paralyze him in the prime years of his life. These are the years that should be devoted to ambitions and passions that will lead to financial and personal success (i.e. college, career, etc.) and contribute to his peak SMV later in his life.

Too many men lament later in life that they should’ve done more in these years preparing for their own successes rather than becoming saddled in dead end relationships. They lament their lives that could’ve been once they realize that their SMV maturation happens after  women’s peaks. Time and the freedom to maneuver within your interests are a man’s most valuable resources. As a Man on the other side of this I can tell you that there are few material things I have a want for now, but time for myself and my passions, that is constantly adjusted by my career, my wife, my daughter, my commute in traffic etc., is the most precious thing I can think of. Why young men who would otherwise fiercely defend their own independences would so readily and voluntarily give this up in order to secure the intimacy of a single woman is one of the greatest crimes perpetrated on men by a feminized, romanticized society.

Also understand that your Ex is going through a similar phase as well. Between the years of 18 and about 26 are the prime years for a woman to weigh her hypergamous options. I call these the “party years” for attractive young women. Generally they include college, but it’s during this period that women explore the benefits afforded to them by their peak SMV and looks.

The hard truth is that most women on some level understand that this period represents the peak of their sexuality and attractiveness and this is their best chance to explore sex and relationships without consideration for limiting the conditions they place on their intimacy. All women have an innate understanding that the older they get the less sexually marketable they become.

This frustrates young men (particularly plugged-in betas who internalized an ideal that an LTR is a goal state) until they come to the realization that the older a man gets, the more sexually marketable he becomes since this generally implies he has attained a certain amount of confidence, professionalism, status, affluence and a list of other conditions women value in trading their intimacy for long term security. At 22, these principles go unrecognized in women, yet their behaviors are predictable enough to prove that these conditions and understandings are in play later in life.

She complimented me when we dated for the 5 month relationship that I was the best catch she had found so far, but the timing was off in that she met me at a time where she was trying to force herself not to be co-dependent (she broke up with her last b/f of 1.5 years so she could find herself and remain single) it didn’t last long because she found me 2 months later and dated me for the second half of this year.

You were flattered by her compliment because it affirmed your ego-investment in LTRs as a goal state as correct. Your frustration is that her behavior and her stated reasoning for it confounds this ideology. Lets also consider that if she had a year and a half “relationship” with a previous boyfriend, a half-year with you, and she’s now 22, her relationship experience has been limited to adolescent socializations. She still uses whatever behavioral skills she learned in her adolescence. Not a good benchmark for validating you as the “best catch she has found so far” to put it mildly. Rather, this is a convenient way of “letting you down easy” in order to preserve her own ego and hopefully make you feel better for going off to do what she really wants to do anyway.

She was my first g/f in nearly 6 years and also the girl I lost my virginity too.

And here’s the rub. I swear, basic math skills are all a red pill advocate needs to pick apart situations; If she was your first girlfriend in 6 years and you are now 24, this would mean the last girl you considered a girlfriend was back when you were 18. Again this implies that you yourself are employing an adolescent social skill set in evaluating what course you think inter-gender relationships ought to follow. There’s no shame in this, I’m not pointing it out to put you down, but understand that this is how you and she are operating even if you’re unaware of it.  

You also lost your virginity to her. Stop thinking of it in these terms, this is what I’d expect to hear an emotional girl say. Only women”lose” their virginity, this is part of the feminine imperative’s controlling of the language. When women ‘lose’ their virginity it perpetuates their vaginas as the precious prize while also continuing the narrative of default female victimhood.

For you it was the beginning of opening a new part of your maturation process since sex (even casual sex) always implies new responsibilities that must be compensated for. However I do understand your attachment to her due to this and the fact that you’ve internalized monogamy as goal state myth. We all have a life long affinity for our first sexual partner since they are the ones with whom we share this life experience – you never forget your first.

 I matured a lot and unfortunately didn’t find your blog until too late. I’ve read all the articles online and now started reading the DJ Bible at SoSuave so I won’t get so screwed next time and be able to walk away sooner instead of dragging it out.

Good.

Do you really think she broke up with me because her reason?

No, I think she’s obeying her hypergamous biological imperative that the phase her life is in is dictating for her.

Personally, I think it’s a copout and she’s afraid of commitment.

This is, to the letter, exactly what I’d expect a girl to say about a guy when she is 30+ years old and ready to cash her chips in on marriage. The irony of a guy using the same jingoisms (“commitment phobic”) women use to describe the men they want to coerce into monogamy with them is an indictment of the power of the feminine imperative. Stop thinking like a chick and start thinking like an adult man with a firm understanding of his own masculinity. You MUST unlearn the idea that an LTR is the key to life’s happiness; it is not.

I think that she’d rather be able to have one night stands where she lives (bay area) whereas I live in San Diego.

Of course she would, she’s in her party years and it is what it is – so long as she’s mature enough to acknowledge and accept responsibility for her actions (doubtful). Also, this isn’t a statement on yourself, stop interpreting it like it is. She’s not a worse person for not subscribing to your romanticized conditioning of how women ought to want commitment. On some level of consciousness she understands the hypergamic opportunities this period of her life presents her with and her behavior is the result of this. 

Will she regret this part of her life later? Most likely. Will she look back to you as someone significant to her during her 20’s when she’s 30 and ready to cash her chips out? Probably not, but this isn’t your concern. This episode represents a point of departure for your life – departure from your old adolescent self into a mature, Game aware Man. You’re unplugging.

What’s more concerning to me is that after all you’ve described to me, this half-year “relationship” is long distance. Are you kidding me? How often could you have had sex with her while you’re on opposite ends of the state? You’re pining over an LDR and my take on this is that there is no such thing as an LDR; you do not have a relationship with her, nor did you ever really have one.

One or both parties in an LDR are going to “cheat” – though I can’t really call it cheating since it’s simply behavior manifesting itself in conditions that aren’t conducive to what our natural impulses are. Adam, this girl hasn’t hurt you, she’s helped you. By breaking it off she’s given you the freedom you need to grow beyond these silly adolescent ideologies that an LDR should ever have been an option for a mature Man.

She’s an atheist whereas I am a Christian and that kind of bugged her even though I dropped some values to date her…



For men, sexual impulse will almost universally trump moral conviction when the opportunity presents itself. Again, no shame here, but it’s telling that you’d expect her to appreciate your having sacrificed some (loose) convictions for doing what you wanted to do anyway. You’re not a martyr for dropping any values for having sex with her and it doesn’t place you on some moral high ground that she should change her mind about entertaining an LTR with you.

She said even if I moved up north to be with her or her down here she’d still break up with me to “find herself” because of her major need to be single.

They very fact that you considered altering the course of your young life to better accommodate your idealized relationship with this girl by relocating to San Francisco ought to scare the hell out of you. Are you so optionless that a girl 600 miles away is a better prospect than exploring other women in your own area? I can’t tell you how many men I’ve counseled who’ve irreparably damaged their lives, made career choices they’ve regretted for decades and voluntarily killed any hope of genuine ambition they may have had by doing exactly what you considered here – changing their address to better facilitate a ONEitis hope that the one girl who ever fucked them would eventually become their soul-mate wife.

I just don’t get this girl. After a month of blackout and breakup now she’s really trying hard to be friends. I suspected her screwing a guy before she came down to see me, so maybe that’s why she called it off when she did.

So what? Spin more plates. If you had other potential women interested in you it would make no difference whether she wanted to play “friends” with you or screwed some other guy.

I was an AFC then, but I still spoke up for myself and stood my ground. Basically, I gave her an ultimatum.

Sorry Adam, but you still are and AFC or at least an rAFC. Ultimatums are declarations of powerlessness; by doing so you’ll kill any interest a woman may have had for you as this is the last resort of a lack of confidence. This is the kiss of death. You get points for manning up and speaking your mind, but it’s not what you said, it’s how you said it.

I said if we have sex then we need to be exclusive. It’s all or nothing and if she doesn’t then she needs to be out of my life because I couldn’t trust her with all the guys I knew that were trying hard to sleep with her.

For as noble as your intent, she will only interpret this as a supreme insecurity on your part. You’re not going to talk her off the cock-carousel, neither should it be your responsibility to do so.

Adam, you need to let go of this notion that you require exclusivity in an LTR, particularly at your age. It’s self-defeating.

You have to unlearn this misguided idea that exclusivity is a necessity at your stage of life. All the Game skills in the book wont help you get past this basic idea. You will only settle for the first girl to respond to them. My advice to you is to NEXT this girl and get out into the field and sarge. Stop it with this LDR crap, they are fundamentally flawed and are only exacerbated by the ONEitis you have for this girl and will fluidly develop for the next one because it fits your old paradigm.


Just Get It

I don’t usually cite Athol Kay on Rational Male, but I have to give him props for his recent How Walkaway Wives Run a Dirty MAP. There’s a lot going on in this post, and as per usual Athol approaches all of his observations from a married perspective constrained by a limited single-life experience, but a few fundamental points of Game really shine here. To be sure, relationship Game (or married Game) varies widely in application compared to the Game used in single-man-sex-life, but the foundational principles are essentially the same – as are the pitfalls – only the risks are higher and the rewards negligible by comparison.

I’ve stated this before, but, having experienced the ups and downs of single-man-sex-life as well as married-man-sex-life, I can honestly say that I’ve never found Game more necessary than when it’s within the context of marriage. I’ve also written volumes about the all-risk proposition of marriage for men, and women’s utter inability to appreciate the all-risk sacrifices men assume in committing to marriage. So it should be obvious that under such conditions if a man chooses to entertain a lifestyle of marriage the only acceptable condition is that it be within his frame and his terms. And this, gentlemen, requires not only a commitment to Game itself, but an understanding of, and an internalization of a much tighter Game than would be necessary in single-man-sex-life.

Higher risks mean less margin for error

In your single-man-sex-life Game, you have the leisure to Spin Plates, drop the ones which don’t produce dividends, and non-exclusively enjoy the ones who do. Though it may pain you to lose a particular girl as the result of fumbled Game, or to miss the opportunity of experiencing a woman due to a failed approach or consolidation, it pales in comparison to the risks inherent in lacking the long-term Game necessary to contend with women’s hypergamy in the context of marriage. Dumping a girl (or getting dumped) when single may be an emotional ordeal for some guys, but the decay of a marriage and the financial, familial and emotional consequences for lacking Game in marriage is a punishment that will make a single man’s break up tears seem like a blessing. Tight relationship Game means much more than just getting your wife to fuck you more regularly after the honeymoon.

A lot of men will respond that marriage is just not worth all that contextualization of Game, and they’d be right. It’s all risk with negligible reward / appreciation and the liabilities are too steep. Furthermore, there’s a contingent of men who’ll say that it’s impossible to perpetuate the solid Game necessary to assuage female hypergamy indefinitely, and they’d be right too, if Game was a constant act for them that they felt they had to keep up forever. Some guys get mad at just the suggestion that they’d need to Game their potential wives. “She should just love me for who I am!” They expect to be able to drop the Game, relax and be who they are, only to have their wives progressively convert them into an imagined ideal which really isn’t the guy who tingles their vaginas. Then they find out that their wives loved them for who they were.

Crossover

One of the points that jumped out at me from Athol’s post:

When the lines of communication are broken between you and your wife, you aren’t going to get a message that the lines of communication are broken. That’s what the lines of communication being broken means. When she checks out of the marriage, she doesn’t tell you because she checked out of the marriage. That’s what being checked out of the marriage means.

I usually have to control my laughter whenever I overhear an AFC in the crab barrel parrot back the Matrix-speak about how “good relationships are all about communication with your GF/wife.” When this is coming from a single guy I can at least partially excuse him for lack of any practicable experience, but when it comes from a married Plug-In it’s just evidence of the totality of his conditioning. Most guys who tell you this are repeating what their girl-friends always told them was the most important key to a good relationship, but as with everything femme there’s always a latent purpose underneath the veneer of aphoristic truth they sell themselves.

A few months back I was at a liquor event with my usual ‘pour girls’ and during our conversations one tells me about her ‘guy problems’ with a “clingy boyfriend” obviously on the down end of an SMV imbalance.

“It’s so frustrating Rollo, why can’t guy’s just get it?”

With a practiced, but cute, little wrinkle of her nose, and the huff of her $5K tits, my girl had just indirectly revealed one of the most vexing complexities of intergender communication – women want men to “just get it.”

Just Get It

From Female Dating Advice:

The guy with the capacity to call a woman’s bluff with a confidence that implies she is to be worthy of him rather than the other way around is the Man to be competed for. Essentially the ‘chick speak’, ‘chick advice’ phenomenon is a shit test writ large on a social scale. And even your own mother and sisters are in on it, expecting you to ‘get it’; to get the message and see the challenge for what it really is, without overtly telling you.

She want’s you to ‘get it’ on your own, without having to be told how. That initiative and the experience needed to have had developed it makes you a Man worth competing for. Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ‘the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be.

Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shit test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.

In my Pour Girl’s example we see this ‘get it’ paradox from the single-man-sex-life perspective, and in Athol’s scenario we see it from the married-man (or LTR) -sex-life perspective. Many men will complain that they hate the presumption that they need to be a mind reader and ideally women ought to just communicate overtly and directly – just as a reason-based man would communicate. The problem is that in doing so it changes the dynamic for hypergamy. As I’ve stated so often, women say they want the truth, but they never want full disclosure. Hypergamy will not be pandered to, and will not be negotiated with.

This is why the “communication is everything” meme has been responsible for the demise of more relationships than anyone will ever admit. It’s not that you communicate, it’s what you’re communicating and how you communicate it. I’ve counseled more men than I care to recount who’ve sobbed from the depths of their souls, “IF SHE’D JUST TELL ME WHAT I HAVE TO DO TO MAKE HER LOVE ME I’D DO IT!” not realizing that their very verbalization of that and a belief in open, rational communication is the very thing that’s killing (or killed) their woman’s desire for him.

As I’ve written a thousand times, a cardinal truth of the universe is that genuine desire cannot be negotiated. The moment you tell your wife, your girlfriend, that you will exchange a behavior or attitude or belief or any other compromise for her desire you fundamentally change her organic desire into obligation. What she wants, what her hypergamy wants confirmation of, can never be explicated, it can only be demonstrated. If her desire is for you to be more dominant, her telling you to be so negates the genuineness and the validity of your becoming so. Again, observing a process will change it – on a limbic level of consciousness her innate hypergamy is aware of that truth.

She wants a man who knows he needs to be dominant with her, that is the confirmation of hypergamy.


Reality vs. The Internet

As much as I’d love to read more Field Reports and follow ups (which I do agree are important) the simple fact of the matter is that you’re relying on whatever it is any one blogger or forum poster is telling you. I speak ‘manosphere’ very fluently. I could very easily go on the RSD boards, create a new identity, and fabricate a very believable story about how I managed a 4-Way with three HB 9 swimsuit models using using a direct approach or any number of PUA techniques. Once I posted, there’d be guys who’d virtually pat me on the back and ask how they could repeat it themselves because they want to believe it.

Then there’d also be another set who’d believe it, but take the faux-pity position and say I was wasting my life away in meaningless orgies with the ‘low quality’ centerfolds they wish their LTR girlfriends looked like.

And finally, there’d be the nonbelievers who’d accuse me of making it all up. Not because it was too fanciful a story, but rather they’d think all women are just smarter than to be suckered into an instant porn movie with a random guy – only to lose all faith in women in general after watching another home-made amateur porn video.

Legitimacy of experience vs. Online personae.

Even when PUA gurus go to the trouble of making as anonymous, and as inconspicuous as possible, videos of themselves showing their approach techniques, the first thing anyone says is it was staged. And unless he could someway get a camera secretly into his bedroom after the successful pull, there will still be an element that will think it was arranged, or there’ll be another element that say the girl is just a common slut so of course it worked.

Now as bad as all that sounds, I think Field Reports definitely have their place as field testing experiments, doubters or not. Just bear in mind, you will never filter out that situational bias. Observing a process will change that process.

What’s interesting is this constant, perceived conflict between “theorists” and “practitioners”. Honestly, I don’t believe you can separate them. All the tools a guy will have at his disposal to practice don’t amount to much if he doesn’t understand why those tool work in the first place. Similarly all the theory in the world is useless until you develop an application of it by trial and error. Now, add to all that the situational bias I just described – what do you tell an AFC who’s stuck on Matrix conditioning “try using negs” or “here’s why Negs work”? I’d say both of course, but which do you start with?

Wax On, Wax Off

If you’ve seen the original Karate Kid, where Mr. Miyagi teaches Daniel-San karate by having him wax his car you kind of see the disconnect here. Wax on, wax off; silly in premise, but useful in teaching. Here you have Daniel wanting to be able to fight, but for the moment his teacher seems like an exploitative fool, and he wonders if he’s been duped by an old man who doesn’t know shit about karate. That is until he puts it into practice.

Mr. Miyagi knows his shit, but Daniel has to take all that on faith; faith that Mr. Miyagi is who he claims to be, and possesses the experience he claims to have.

I am not a Guru, nor am I a Master Pick Up Artist, nor am I some motivational speaker, pastor or self-help psychologist. I’m a man with experience. What I write here is in the hopes that others can benefit from that experience and the insight that comes from sorting it out. When I can devise practices from those insights I’ll offer them, but understand that the validity of what anyone you have respect for professes or suggests you do, it’s still up to you to decide what works best for yourself and critically determine its veracity.

I can tell you, you can trust that I am who I say I am, but my experiences and how I relate them is how you can verify my own or anyone else’s perspectives. It’s exactly for this reason I take a hands-off approach to moderating my comments on this blog. I may sharply disagree with certain perspectives, but it’s more important to read them to know just what that commenter’s experience and/or legitimacy is.


The New Sensitivity

With profuse apologies for shamelessly lifting this thread from CH’s most recent post comments, but it dovetailed perfectly into my topic today.

From The Whammer:

I can acccurately predict who is the Alpha or Beta with a simple test which I will prove here. I’ll tell you who will get laid within the next week. Do this, take out your wallet and then describe the wallet and list the contents (don’t bother to list that condom that expired in 1999) I can determine from this test how well you will do with females and whether you’re a true Alpha.

OK I’ll explain then. Have you ever seen someone carrying around a wallet bulging with stuff? Sometimes you’ll even see a rubber band around it it’s so full of junk lol This is typical prole (beta) behavior. They carry all of this stuff in case they have to “prove” something. You will never see an Alpha carrying around all of this crap. Alphas carry a slim wallet with perhaps some cash, a credit card and a license at most. Alphas have certain habits or traits and they’re reflected subconsciously in a lot of outward ways. An Alpha would never even think that he’d ever have to prove anything to anyone.The first guy who answered said he just carries some cash in a money clip and that would indicate Alpha behaviour to me. I wasn’t really concerned with the amount of cash.People, especially females, subconsciously equate a bulging wallet with a beta flunky and that’s not even taking into considerstion the bulge you’ll have in your chest suit pocket. Betas don’t get laid.

I’d encourage readers to read the thread in its entirety. It’s some real funny shit, however there is a germ of truth in The Whammers humor. A lot has been written about Beta (and Alpha) ‘tells’ in the manoverse. In fact, I’d argue that in its infancy formalized pick up artistry was fundamentally about ridding oneself of the Beta ‘tells’ and emphasizing Alpha ‘tells’ to maximize guy’s chances of getting laid.

However, with the unplugging from the Matrix comes a progressively developing sensitivity to the feminized world around us. We see it all around us, usually in advertising first – maybe the undertone of masculine ridicule in TV commercials, then the subtle association we make when considering that women arre the primary consumers in society. The next easy observation is how men are portrayed on television; feckless, ridiculous slobs in need of feminine intuition to solve their problems.

This new sensitivity then becomes more refined. We pick up idioms and subtle attitudes in people’s conversations. We pick up on terms and assumptions of premise that previously, in our Blue Pill fog, we would’ve taken for common sense or matter of fact. We hear the same tropes offered as the solution to the same issues that we thought were so confusing in our plugged-in existence.

I use The Whammer’s wallet test as an illustration here to detail this new sensitivity. It’s fairly easy to assess the difference between a Beta’s Look (or lack thereof) and that of an Alpha. Like most other higher order animals, human beings have an evolved sense, on the subconscious level, that helps us determine the looks, posture and vocal cues of sexual competitors. But looks can be deceiving, and in an age of feminization, the guy who outwardly may be the very specimen of an Alpha in a physical sense, can also be the most debilitated Beta due to his life’s conditioning.

Maybe it’s from having been unplugged from the Matrix for so long, or maybe it’s my constant observation and writing about it, but I am very sensitive to the choice of casual words men use when talking about gender issues. It’s been acculturated into feminized men’s vernacular to use words, idioms and presumptions that are assumed, on the subconscious level, to be more neutral or inoffensive to women-as-authority or feminine primacy. I can pick out the subliminal self-deprecations men filter into their conversations, often with a nervous laugh, or else they’ll drop some blunt truth only to casually (but practiced intentionally) to backpedal by ridicule themselves or men in general for being ‘how they are’ as if it were some kind of apology.

Everything you need to know about a guy, or really the state of feminine primacy in society, is in the choices of words he uses. It’s a fairly easy task to pick through the writings on someone’s forum posts to determine where they stand on the Beta-Alpha spectrum. Is he using Disney-esque dialogue about the girl he thinks is special? Is he using Shakespearean prose, words he would never actually speak in casual conversation, to describe his yearning and longing for a soulmate? These are easy ‘tells’ when you read them on your monitor; all but the most Aspergery of men probably wouldn’t use Arthurian vernacular when casually speaking about women.

Better to beg forgiveness than beg for permission.

On my commute to work I often listen to local talk radio. No, not the conservative AM band, rather the variety show FM band type shows. I actually work somewhat closely with a few of the stations and hosts  whenever I’m doing a brand promo or a launch party at some local club or event. Of the talk show personalities I know, it’s really only in a business sense. Most of them are pretty likable enough guys, but every time I listen to any topic on their show that veers into intergender issues (which is quite often) the Beta just oozes from every pore. Matrix trope after trope, constant repetition of fem-speak colloquialisms, I swear, some of the worst offenders in perpetuating feminine social primacy are talk radio hosts – even the conservative ones. Naturally I bite my tongue in the interests of my business, but these guys are worse than any White Knight, mangina or Beta I’ve ever encountered in the manosphere; and all are blissfully oblivious to their conditionings.

In all of their ramblings, there is always a default premise of female authority. I’m convinced it takes the better part of a lifetime to inculcate into a man, but on the limbic level the Beta mindset uses the feminine imperative as his starting point for everything. In every issue, and on a subliminal level, the origination of a thought is tempered with how it will be interpreted in a feminine-primary context. This is almost a default state of mind for the Beta mindset: ask permission from the feminine.

I’ve got another friend who’ll always abdicate to his wife’s authority by saying “Gotta clear that with the boss” in reference to his wife when we’re making some plans to hang out. This tells me everything I need to know about his perception of gender and his history of success with women in general. Woman = authority; before all else, in any decision the thought is colored by the feminine.

Just as in the wallet test, the unplugged develop a sense in placing an Alpha mindset. Although we may hear it occasionally in their choice of words, it’s the lack of words that indicate an Alpha. Just as an Alpha doesn’t need a wallet full of safety measures, the Alpha doesn’t need superflous words. By virtue of his confidence-through-options the Alpha mind doesn’t care about feminine priority. He may occasionally say “uhm,…sorry?“, but his first thought isn’t to ask permission from the feminine.

When your silence inspires more intimidation, more respect, more gravity than your words, then, you’re thinking like an Alpha.


The Pet

One requirement I have of most of the men (and women) I do consults with is that they read The 48 Laws of Power (The Art of Seduction is in the class syllabus as well). In the introduction author Robert Greene runs down the ethical implications of understanding and employing the various laws. If you look at the synopsis of the laws I linked you can get an idea of how uncomfortable some of these laws will naturally make people feel. Many of these laws understandably rub the uneducated the wrong way because for the better part of our lives we’ve been taught to emulate socially acceptable mannerisms and adopt a mindset of cooperation above self interest.

Most people are conditioned to think that deliberate use of power is inherently manipulative, self-serving and sometimes evil. In context this may or may not be true, but in so demonizing even the desire to understand power, not only do we inhibit a better critical understanding of power, but we also make the uneducated more vulnerable to the use of power against them. The 49th Law being: Never educate others of the principles of power, which is itself a form of using power. Never talk about Fight Club.

I bring this up because, just as with the Laws of Power, there will be articles of Game, or foundations of intergender communication – complete with all of the underlying motivators – that Men (and women) will be uncomfortable accepting or employing to the point that it challenges some deep rooted emotional or ego investments. Let me be the first to establish that discomfort is part of understanding; truth is supposed to make you uncomfortable in order to inspire you to action.

I should also add here that even though you may not be comfortable in exercising a particular tactic or don’t feel confident in approaching an interpersonal situation in some way, it is still vital that you do understand the concepts and methodologies behind why those laws, principles, techniques, attitudes, etc. do work. You may have personal reasons for not wanting to involve yourself in some particular aspect of Game, but it’s imperative that you fully acknowledge the mechanics behind that aspect before you decide it’s not something you can employ. Declining to use a particular Law or aspect of Game doesn’t make you immune to the consequences of it, nor does it invalidate that aspect when others use it for their own benefit, and potentially to your own detriment.

Half the Battle

The primary (though not exclusive)  focus of this blog has been devoted to the critical analysis of the mechanics behind intergender dynamics, Game-practice, Game-theory, social and evolutionary psychology just to name a few. I can understand the want for practical applications of this field of study, and while in my line of work I have done my own ‘field testing’ with the majority of what I explore here, I have neither the time, opportunity or resources to develop practices beyond what I offer here. At least not to the degree of which the majority of my readers are able – and that’s the good news.

“This is brilliant stuff Rollo, but how do I use this to make my life better with the next girl I sarge, etc.?” This is a common desire from my readership, and the best I can offer is Knowing is Half the Battle. One size doesn’t fit all for everyone in Game or intergender relations. Anyone hawking a book giving you an instruction manual on how to have a great marriage or how to pick up chicks is still limited by their own individual experience. In other words, they’re not you.

It’s for exactly this reason I spend more time and critical thought on the foundations and functions of gender dynamism than pick up artistry. When I get associated with the “manipulative machiavellian Game gurus” it only serves to highlight an ignorance and lack of any depth of understanding what I focus on here. Game is psychology, sociology, economics, biomechanics, evolution and politics. Game is far broader than simple tricks and techniques. And it’s exactly the latent purpose of these applications (PUArtistry) and the mechanics behind their workings that threatens the ego-investments of those who’s feminized interests would rather see them marginalized and passed off as folly, or usefully ridiculed to shame the curious for fear that the underpinnings might be exposed.

Head in the Sand

Sweetening the poison doesn’t make it any less deadly.

I can remember a time in my mid-20s working as a stage tech for a casino cabaret show. The magic act I set up and struck every night involved a Bengal tiger and a black panther. Both of them were professionally handled by trainers, but even though they seemed the most docile of animals I knew they had the potential to seriously fuck me up under the wrong set of circumstances. The trainers would keep them at  distance from the rest of the cast and crew, only myself and one other tech were able to get close since we were the ones wheeling them out in special cages at their particular point in the show. One trainer told me, “the moment you think of them as pets is the moment they’ll go feral on you.”  They would play with these wild animals, and they seemed to have a special connection (almost like a pet), but when you watched them eat, you knew what they were capable of.

I learned a valuable lesson from this when one night I was wheeling the panther out to the curtain. She was in what was basically a reinforced acrylic aquarium on casters with a velvet cloth draped over it. A few minutes before my cue I’d thought the drape was falling to one side and lifted it to even it out. It was then that I was face to face with this “pet” in nothing but faint stage lights and about 4 inches of transparent acrylic between us. She looked at me with those yellow-green eyes and gave me a very low, almost muted growl and flashed just enough of her teeth to let me know this was not a “pet”.

It’s a mistake (and sometimes a fatal one) to ignore what you know is just under the surface. It’s comforting to believe that you’ve got a special connection, and while the conditions are right, you’ll preserve a relationship based on mutual trust and shared affinity. The flaw is in believing that trust, and kinship is unconditional; that the underlying feral motivators are subdued to the point of being inconsequential. It may be that you do have a special bond that goes beyond just the physical, but that relationship is still founded on physical rules that constantly test and influence that individual.

You know better, but the desire for that connection is so strong that you marginalize the natural impulses into feel-good rationalizations. Every divorced man I know has uttered some variation of “I never thought she was capable of this.” In their comfort they wondered how they dropped the ball, especially after having played by the rules for so long. Some knew about Hypergamy, others made it their “pet”, only their beautiful panther went feral.

Play My Game

It is a far healthier approach to accept the laws of power, the laws of Game, Hypergamy, etc. and fashion a life around an understanding of them than to convince oneself that they are an exception to them.

There are those who seek power by changing the game – by lowering the basketball hoops in order to better shoot a basket – but in ‘leveling the playing field’ they only succeed in changing the nature of the competition to better suit their individual abilities, neither improving the game nor themselves. The temporary change of rules only serves their inadequacies in that game.

Then there are those who accept the game for what it is, they understand it and they master it (or at least attempt to do so). They understand the need for adversity and the benefits it gives them when they reach the next level of mastering the game – not only in technique, but from the confidence this genuinely and verifiably confers.

Don’t wish things were easier, wish you were better.

It’s the aberration who seeks to legitimize her cheating at the game as the new way the game should be played. Shoot the arrow, paint the target around it, and you’ll always get a bullseye.


Moral to the Manosphere

Putting angel’s or devil’s wings on observations hinders real understanding.

I say that not because I don’t think morality is important in the human experience, but because our interpretations of morality and justice are substantially influenced by the animalistic sides of our natures, and often more than we’re willing to admit to ourselves. Disassociating one’s self from an emotional reaction is difficult enough, but adding layers of moralism to an issue only convolutes a better grasp of breaking it down into its constituent parts. That said, I also understand that emotion and, by degree, a sense of moralism is also characteristic of the human experience, so there needs to be an accounting of this into interpretations of issues that are as complex as the ones debated in the manosphere.

Although I’m aware that observing a process will change it, it’s my practice  not to draw moralistic conclusions in any analysis I make because it adds bias where none is necessary. The problem is that what I (and others in the manosphere) propose is so raw it offends ego-invested sensibilities in people. Offense is really not my intent, but often enough it’s the expected result of dissecting cherished beliefs that seem to contribute to the well being of an individual.

Let that sink in for a moment; the reason that what I propose seems nihilistic, cynical and conspiratorial is because it’s analytical without the varnish of morality. For example, when I wrote War Brides, it was in response to men’s common complaint of how deftly and relatively unemotionally women could transition into a new relationship after they’d been dumped by a GF or wife. I wanted to explore the reasons how and why this functioned, but from a moralistic perspective it is pretty fucked up that, due to hypergamy, women have an innate capacity to feel little compunction about divesting themselves emotionally from one man and move on to another much more fluidly than men. If I approach the topic in a fashion that starts with, “isn’t it very unjust and / or fucked up that women can move on more easily than men?” not only is my premise biased, but I’d be analyzing the moral implications of the dynamic and not the dynamic itself.

I always run the risk of coming off as an asshole because in analyzing things it’s my practice to strip away that moral veneer. It challenges ego-investments, and when that happens people interpret it as a personal attack because those ego-investments are uniquely attached to our personalities, and often our own well being. Although there’s many a critic on ‘team woman’ shooting venom from the hip as to my emphasis on the feminine here, don’t think that iconoclasm is limited to the fem-centric side of the field – I catch as much or more vitriol from the manosphere when I post something like Looks Count or Women’s Physical Standards and the importance women actually do place on a man’s physique.

If you choose to derive your personal value from some esoteric sense of what sex ‘should’ mean, more power to you, but I find it’s a much healthier position to accept a balance between our carnal natures and our higher aspirations. It’s not one or the other. It’s OK to want to fuck just for the sake of fucking – it doesn’t have to be some source of existential meaning. If you think it means something more, then that’s your own subjective perspective – even in marriage there’s ‘maintenance sex’ and there’s memorable, significant sex – but it’s a mistake to think that the totality of the physical act must be of some cosmic significance.

It is as equally unhealthy to convince oneself that self-repressions are virtues as it is to think that unfettered indulgences are freedoms. There is a balance.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,419 other followers