Category Archives: Foundations

The Evolution of Game

evolution

If you ever need a reminder as to how you came to a particular belief or set of beliefs, the best way to consider (or reconsider) that process is to write a book about it. As most of my readers are aware I’m in the process of publishing my first book based on the writing of the past ten years of my involvement in the manosphere. It wasn’t even known as the ‘manosphere’ back then.

For the men (and women) who’ve read my ideas since the inception of the SoSuave forum almost 12 years ago, I expect they’ll find the book kind of remedial – like going back over old classics they’d internalized and take for granted now. If I make a reference to Hypergamy or the Feminine Imperative, for most, there’s a standard level of pre-understanding about the elements associated to each of these and many other concepts. However, a problem of familiarity arises when I, or anyone else familiar with red-pill awareness makes an attempt to educate the unfamiliar. The Red Pill reddit community makes a good effort of this, but after going through 2 revisions of my book it’s become evident to myself and my editor that familiarizing the uninitiated is a major obstacle to reaching the men who’ll benefit most from unplugging (yet another manosphere term).

Familiarity

The majority of the requests I’ve received over the years for a comprehensive book of Rational Male ideology has come from readers expressing the desire for a condensed version in book form which they can give to family and friends (mostly male) in the hopes that they’ll better understand their need for emancipation from their fem-centric mental models. Of course that’s always been my goal from day one, but it presumes that a large part of those reading will be unfamiliar with common terms and concepts I, or familiar readers, will already have a grasp of.

Another issue I often run into is the presumption that readers new to my blog or commenters on other blogs have a familiarity with my work. I often find myself having to link back to articles where I covered a specific topic that a critic or an inquisitive reader might want to take me to task about. For the most part I make a conscious effort not to repeat something I’ve addressed, sometimes years, before, but that’s simply a part of this medium. For convenience I’ve recently added a new page to the top of the blog with all the relevant links I think cover most of my basics from the Year One post.

It’s a difficult enough proposal to unplug men from their blue pill conditioning, but leading them to an understanding of principles they mentally have a resistance or aversion to is a particular challenge. My editor is only peripherally familiar with these principles which is kind of a blessing and a curse. In one sense it requires me to revise old posts and concepts to be more ‘noob friendly’, but it also challenges me to review how those concepts evolved over the years to be what I and other red pillers now consider common foundations. For instance, while I might rigorously debate the Feminine Imperative with those familiar with it on Dalrock’s blog, I had to spend over an hour defining it further with my editor after he’d read my seminal posts about it.

Game

Of these concepts the one I return to the most frequently is that of Game. My editor asks, “Just what is Game?” Throughout the upcoming book, this blog, and virtually every major manosphere writer’s blog there’s a constant presumption that readers will know exactly what Game is when it’s referred to. Game has been lifted up to an almost mythical state; like some panacea for the common guy struggling with achieving women’s attentions and intimacy. It’s gotten to the point where familiarity with Game has become a flippant aside for manosphere bloggers – we have varieties of Game, we have internalized Game, we have ‘natural’ Game, direct Game, Beta Game etc., but defining the term ‘Game’ for someone unfamiliar with the very involved intricacies, behaviors and the underlying psychological principles on which Game is founded is really tough for the uninitiated to wrap their heads around in the beginning.

For the unfamiliar, just the word ‘Game’ seems to infer deception or manipulation. You’re not being real if you’re playing a Game, so from the outset we’re starting off from a disadvantage of perception. This is further compounded when attempting to explain Game concepts to a guy who’s only ever been conditioned to ‘just be himself‘ with women and how women allegedly hate guys “who play games” with them. As bad as that sounds, it’s really in the explanation of how Game is more than the common perception that prompts the discussion for the new reader to have it explained for them.

At its root level Game is a series of behavioral modifications to life skills based on psychological and sociological principles to facilitate intersexual relations between genders.

Early Game

In its humble beginnings, Game was a set of behaviors, learned, adapted and modified with the express purpose of bettering a guy’s prospective sexual ‘success’ with the women he had only limited (if any) access to. Game was defined as a series of behavioral skills and techniques observationally experimented with, and developed by the burgeoning PUA culture of the early 2000′s. While there was a peripheral acknowledgement given to the psychology that made these behavior sets effective, the purpose was more about the result and less about the head-mechanics that made the result possible.

This introduction was many of the current manosphere’s first contact with ‘formalized’ Game. The quality of the Art in pick up artistry was (and still is) really left up to the practitioner’s capacity to understand the basics of behavioral psychology (with regards to women) and refining a deft ability to adapt and react to his target’s changing behavioral cues on a given environment and/or context..

If this were the only extent of Game it would understandably be very short sighted and limited in scope. In the beginning Game had a utility in that it helped a majority of men lacking the social intelligence to approach and develop a real, intimate rapport with women they fundamentally lacked. The problem was that beyond Game’s “in-field” uses it wasn’t really developed past the point of ‘getting the girl’, and left even the most socially adept PUAs unprepared to deal with the real psychology motivating women on a greater whole. It was just this feminine meta-psychology that drove men, unaccustomed to enjoying and then losing the affections of women formerly “out of their league”, to depression and suicide.

Game was a wondrous tool set of skills, but without the insight and foresight to deal with what these tools could build, it was potentially like giving children dynamite.

Evolving Game

From the earliest inception Game was more or less viewed as a solution to a problem. Game has been described as a logical social reaction to the women that the past 60+ years of feminism, social feminization and feminine primacy has created for the men of today. Courtesy of modern connectivity, the internet and collectivized social media, evolving Game or some variation of it was inevitable for men.  Despite the public social stigma and ridicule attached to men attempting to understand the psychologies of women, privately the internet facilitated a global consortium of men comparing experiences, relating observations and testing theories.

The behavioral psychology that led to Game which prompted the desired reactions in women began to take on more import for men. Sure, the now classic Game techniques like being Cocky & Funny, Amused Mastery, Agree & Amplify, Neg Hits, Peacocking, etc. were effective in their own artfully used contexts, but the latent psychology that made those behavior sets work prompted the questions of why they worked.

The psychological aspects of effective (and ineffective) Game began to take on a new importance. Through this broader exploration of the role biological, psychological and sociological factors affected Game sprang new ideas, theories and experimentative models leading to new behavioral sets and the abandonment of less effective ones.

As connectivity grew, so did the knowledge base of the Game community. No longer was Game exclusive to the PUA pioneers; Game was expanding to accommodate the interests and influences of men who’d never heard of the earlier version of Game, or would’ve rejected it outright just years before due to their feminine conditioning. Married men wondered if aspects of Game could reignite the sexual interests of their frigid or overbearing wives. Divorced men embraced the Game ridiculed when married to improve their potential for new sexual interests, but also to relate their experiences and contribute to that Game knowledge base. Men, not just in western culture, but from a globalizing interest began to awaken with each new contribution not only about how women were,  but why women were. Game was making the unknowable woman knowable. The enigmatic feminine mystique began unraveling with each new contribution to the Game knowledge base.

Game was becoming something more. Men could now see the code in the Matrix: we knew the medium was the message, we began to see the  feminine social conventions used to control us, we began to see the overarching reach of the feminine imperative and fem-centrism, and we came to realize the insidious, but naturalistic, influence feminine hypergamy had wrought in both men and women. Game was prompting Men to push back the iron veil of feminine primacy and see what made her tick.

Predictably, fem-centric society sought to cast the rise, and expansion of Game as a modern version of the ridiculous macho archetypes of the 50′s-70′s. The threat of an evolving, more intellectually valid form of Game had to be ridiculed and shamed like anything else masculine, so the association with its infamous PUA forerunners was the obvious choice for the feminine imperative. The feminine standard appeal to the Masculine Catch 22 was the first recourse: any man who desired to learn Game was less than a man for that desire, but also less of a man for not already knowing Game (as approved by the feminine imperative). Any guy actually paying for, or personally invested in, Game was associated with the PUA culture that was characterized as a throw back to the ‘Leisure Suit Larrys’ of the 70′s.

Contemporary Game

For all its marginal efforts to shame Game back into obscurity, the feminine imperative found that the Game movement wasn’t being cowed as easily as it might have been in the mid 1990′s. The Imperative was falling back on the reliable tropes and social conventions that had always pushed the masculine back into compliance. At the apex of fem-centrism in the 90′s these social constructs worked well on an isolated, shamed and ignorant masculine imperative, but with the evolution of the internet, by the late 2000′s Game was snowballing into a threat that required new feminine operative conventions.

Game evolved beyond the behavioral sets, and beyond the psychological and sociological mechanics that underlined women’s psyches and larger socializations. While still encompassing all that prior evolution, Game was becoming aware of the larger social meta-scale of the feminine imperative. Game began to move beyond the questions of why women are the way they are, and into piecing together how the intergender acculturations we experience today are what they are. Game asked how did we come to this?

Game branched into specific areas of interest in its scope to answer these broader questions and solve more expansive problems. While we still have all of the prior iterations of Game, we have expanded into christianized Game, married Game, divorced Game, socialized Game, high school Game, etc.

However, underpinning all of these areas of specialization was still the need to internalize and personalize Game in a Man’s life. Game was the path to male re-empowerment; an empowerment that even women today still feel men should Man-back-Up to. Game required a reinterpretation of masculinity towards something positive, beneficial and competent – something entirely apart from the negative, shameful and ridiculous archetypes 60 years of feminization had convinced women and men of. Call it Alpha, call it Positive Masculinity, but Game necessitates the reimagining of the importance of the masculine imperative. Game needs Men to change their minds about themselves.

Needless to say, even in its most positive of contexts, the male re-empowerment that Game led to was a Threat too great for the feminine imperative to allow. Controlling the intrinsic insecurities that the feminine imperative is founded upon has alway depended on men’s ignorance of their true value, and true necessity to women. Men have to remain necessitous to women in order for their insecurity to be insured against, and the feminine imperatives control to be insured of.

The well of knowledge and awareness that Game represented had to be poisoned. The social conventions the feminine imperative had relied on for decades was no longer effective. The continued expansion of Game into the social, psychological, evolutionary and biological realms was evidence that Game was something those old convention couldn’t contain, so the imperative evolved new tacts while reinventing old ones.

Shaming and ridicule were (and still are) the rudimentary tactics that the less intellectual of the feminine imperative would resort to, but the expansiveness of Game needed something more distorting. Proponents of the feminine imperative began to concede certain universal points that Game had long asserted about feminine nature (and the FI had long rejected) in an effort to co-opt the social momentum Game had taken over a decade to develop.

The Feminine Imperative couldn’t argue with the extensive validity of the tenets of Game, so it sought to reengineer Game from within and modify it to its own purpose. The Feminne Imperative wants just enough male empowerment to return men to an improved (really an older) state of usefulness to its ends, but not so much that true male emancipation from the imperative would threaten its dominance. In co-opting Game and conceding to the truths it finds less threatening the imperative hopes to build better betas – men who believe they are empowered by Game, but are still beholden to the Feminine Imperative.

True emancipation from the imperative threatens its dominance, so Men with the vision to see past this are labeled Dark, Sociopathic and Deviant by the imperative. It wasn’t enough just to infiltrate Game and sanitize it fot its benefit, the Feminine Imperative had to categorize Game for itself – Evil vs. Good Game. The good of course being characterized with whatever aspects benefitted the imperative and the bad being whatever ‘selfishly’ benefited the masculine. The Feminine Imperative doesn’t care about the various branchings of Game – natural, internalized, marriage, etc. – it only concerns itself with what aspects can be distorted to its advantage and what aspects cannot.

This brings us to Game as we know it today. Game is still evolving, and had I the prescience to see where it will go next, I would veture that it will come to a real emancipation with the FI. Not an emancipation from women, but an emancipation from their imperative. Not a ‘men going their own way’ negligence of women in the hope that they’ll come around to behaving as men would like being given no other choice, but a true Game driven emancipation from the control that fem-centrism has maintained for so long.

Make no mistake, the Feminine Imperative needs men to be necessitous of it, and it will always be hostile to the Men attempting to free other men from that necessity. In this respect, any Game, even the co-opted Game the imperative will use itself, is by definition sexist. Anything that may benefit Men, even when it associatively benefits women, is sexist. Freeing men from the Matrix, breaking their conditioning and encouraging them to reimagine themselves and their personalities for their own betterment is sexist.

Encouraging men to be better Men is sexist.


Hail to the V

I’m not sure if Mark Minter had plans to submit his essay of a comment on Hypergamy Synthesis to Return of Kings or some other manosphere collective blog, but I felt it was too important a post to allow it to slip into the obscurity of a mere comment thread. Yes, it’s long, but it has to be and it’s well worth the read. Set aside half an hour to read it through in one go. It’s really not as cerebral as you might expect and very ‘illuminating’ to say the least.

In several posts and on various other blogger’s comment threads I’ve debated that the social paradigms of chivalry and feminism are cultural engineerings of the feminine imperative. I delved into the history of chivalry in The Feminine Imperative – Circa 1300 and made my best attempt to outline the history of chivalry, the feminine bastardization of it and how it was the cultural parallel and precursor to feminism. Naturally the more romantic leaning of my critics chose to keep their noses in their holy books and epic poems rather than take the time to consider the historical underpinnings of what we now consider chivalry and monogamous romantic love.

So it pleases me beyond what I think Mark will appreciate to have him provide such an in depth and insightful detailing of the history of courtly love and how it influences our social consciousness, our gender expectations, even the frustrations we experience in today’s gender landscape.

________________________________________________

I continue to explore the concepts of things I learned at this blog. I am bouncing around sporadically from idea to idea and am having trouble staying focused on any one idea. But I keep getting pulled as much as being due to any lack of mental discipline.

I was searching for a study about the lack of congruence and dissonance between physical indicators of arousal in women and their mental perception of arousal. The whole Testosterone thing drving women’s sexual choices.

I was actually searching for “Chimpanzee Porn” because the article I was looking for used it. The researcher had imposed the sound of Bobono monkeys over the visuals of Chimpanzees having sex because they were more “vocal” during sex and the researcher noted that women display measured physical arousal even though they didn’t recognize being aroused.

And one of links in the search phrase I was using came back with this imbedded in the text:

“Cultural historians believe that romantic love was created sometime in the 14th century”.

Google is the most wonderful thing ever created by men. How this linked got included with a search phrase on “Chimpanzee Porn” is a particularly unique result that would prove it relevant only to my particular “Googling” habits. But I guess Sergei felt I needed to see it. And I did.

OK, we moved down this line of thought at some point on Rational Male a few months ago in the discussion of the beginnings of “chivalry”, so I bit on the link that came up.

The link stated that the idea of “Romantic Love” was created by troubadours in verses by the idea of “Courtly Love” that arose in its beginnings the the end of the 12th century. So I started going back,back,back,back, back (-Chris Berman) and I found this:

http://kalpen.myweb.uga.edu/Capellanus.pdf

The book is important. The foreword by John Jay Perry was written in 1941. The title of this book is “The Art of Courtly Love” but it is actually a Victorian Era title imposed on the work that has several other different titles as a function of the era when the translation was performed, country where the translator lived, and particular social attitudes prevalent when and where the translator produced the translation. I think the “Romantic Era” was when these ideas of “courtly love” finally percolated up into mainstream thought, well, actually women’s mainstream thought, and defined love as we believe it be today, or at least defined it as women wish that definition to be imposed on men.

The title I generally use is “Treatise on Love”. Andreas Capellenus was the Chaplain of Countess Marie, and the preface goes into all of this history and I don’t want to get it into it. Read it.

It is the seminal work on the subject and there is no earlier work by a European. There is reference to Ibn Hazm, an Islamic writer from Spain, who began to define the idea of “love” in Islamic cultures. It went through a series of other writers in the 13th century and orally communicated through verse and song during the 14th century and made its way into the consciousness of western thought from the 14th century on.

The key thing is that these Troubadours were not some “traveling band” singing for their supper. Maybe later, but at this time, they were major nobles, from both the nobility and the higher noble classes. The first major one referenced was Duke William of Aquitaine, who was Marie’s grandfather. These were important people of the time. This would maybe be like, God forbid, Senator Harry Reid, breaking into a song after dinner about the importance of passing spending bills to ease the particular issues about the “sequester” that are key issues to Democrats or Ben Bernake letting loose about the Quantitative Easing. Ok, maybe not exactly.

The issue at the time, was that, as the historians state, that “Love as we know it did not exist. Marriage was as much as about land and politics as anything else”. It was said you “Married a fiefdom and a wife got thrown in the bargain”. Imagine a time where firelight and sunlight were practically the only light, when people rarely traveled more than 12 miles from their place of birth, when nothing, and I mean nothing, changed. The major cathedral built in Nimes took 38 generations to complete. The skyline never changed, towns remained the same. There were no books. None. All knowledge was conveyed orally and generally died with a person. The only cultural conditioning was what you got by watching the people you saw. And you saw very few people. Even at the peasant level, most marriages were the tossing together of two available young people, and that was that. But particularly at the noble level, all marriages were entirely based on practical considerations and nothing to do with “love” as we know it.

And the major church writers the time, just skewered women. The preface named several, and while I can’t find actual text of the writers specific to women, Bernard de Morlaix, John of Salisbury, I can find overall references to what they said about morality in general. They were a group that very much about self control. And it was thought that due to the “wickedness” of women, it was probably superior to remain a virgin. And thus the idea of the “celibate” priest was born. He could not be “godly”, and should be suspect, if he allowed himself to come under the temptation of women.These guys were definitely the “Red Pill” writers of the time. The general idea was not so much that sex was bad, but women were so bad, and sex was lure, the hook, so they damned sex as a means to keep men from getting ensnared in the traps and wickedness that women lay for men. And the thought has a little bit of merit, I must say.

So, think about this. The men in power at the time, saw some of the stuff we see, and they gave a huge “thumbs down” on women. Huge.

Now, heading into the second 500 years of Christianity, throw a “rubbing elbows” with Moslems in Spain, and this idea of “love” starts to percolate about, sort of this “counter-culture” idea of the time. It did not exist at all before in European culture, this idea of “soul mates” and “intertwined” spirits and “the ennobling qualities of love”, love as the be all and end all, the very reason to live.

And it was made up.

By women. Duh?

So there were moments, during this period 1170-1250 were in certain places the women got control. It the case of this Marie, she got control of this region “Troyes” in southern France when her son was named to be noble over the region and he was 11 years old. So she accompanied him down there and was the defacto “regent” during his “minority”. Her husband became King while she was down there. So this was a woman of major influence. And her sister was married to someone that also became King of someplace else. Their mother had been both Queen of France and then Queen of England after she divorced the King of France. This was a powerful woman who got what she wanted. And two of the chief architects of “love” were her two daughters, who married extremely high status men.

The same thing happened at the same time in about 3 other major places in the area, and these women, began to “flirt: with idea of “Courtly Love”. Flirt maybe is a little weak of word. But the general idea of most writers about the theme is that they “Proposed it as countervailing religion or thought to Christianity.” Christianity had so vilified women during the past 200 years, and this “love” stuff was really one of the first “feminisms”.

And near I am can tell, it was literally the birth of the Feminine Imperative. At least, the birth of the version that we know today.

The general idea was this.

“Women are the love. Women give praise to men and the power of that praise is the driving motivator of men. All good things that men do are only done in the true spirit of love to earn the right to the love that the woman confers to the men. Women define what is good. Women confer status on men by allowing them to receive the love they receive from women as a result of high character and accomplishment”.

Sound familiar.

So that was why some “Sir Goodguy” white knight would tie the scarf of the woman around his neck during some contest. It was his sign to her that he was doing this brave dead for her love and his recognition that she saw him as good and worthy.

They actually created these things called “The Court of Love”. And these men and women, and you can imagine the men in those courts were the 12th or 13th century equivalents of Manginas, would literally “rule” on love. They would debate questions, actions, and then determine is an act was good or bad and then that further defined “love”. Remember again, this was not idle chit chat after dinner. These were the major movers and shakers of the time. This was the court that would go on to exert cultural and intellectual control over Europe until 1914. And really even later than that. For nearly 1000 years, the French held sway in everything and Paris was the center of the world. Except at this time, this part of France, the south was the big deal.

One example I saw was letter written by a man that said, he and a woman were having heated discussion of two points, (1) Can true love exists in a marriage. (2) Can there be jealousy between the married partners. The Countess, the Queen of Love, at that time wrote back and said “No, love cannot exist in a marriage. Love is freely given and asks for nothing in return. Marriage is a contract of duties. So there is no love in a marriage. And Jealousy is a prerequisite of love and since only lovers could be jealous and since married people were not lovers, then their could be no jealousy in a marriage. ” And that was that. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Love had issued a ruling. And its weight was everything.

And needless to say, it was a mighty convenient development for women that were traded off into marriage as pawns attached to land. So it conferred the key power of social definition and the final say of what is good in men, and good in society, and that women should and will be the definers, and the arbiters, and the judges of all of that.

The translators, and this particular author John Jay Parry, mention that was nothing particularly distinguishing about Andreas Capellanus that would make it seem like he was the person to end up as this great literary figure that wrote a work that is “One of those capital works that explain the thought of a great epoch, which explain the secret of a civilization”. Parry said often, some of the prose was different in style and “meter”, such that it seemed “dictated” to him.

And frankly I am sure the whole book was “dictated” to him. That he was, in fact, as chaplain, the mouthpiece of these women, and his position as Chaplain allowed the viewpoints expressed to be accepted in a way that a work created and made public by women, given what it expresses, would have viewed more critically by readers. Keep in mind that it was written in Latin, and only those who were either Clerics or the nobility could read the thing. What wasn’t literally dictated, was more or less, transcribed thought, and he knew that Marie was final “editor” in the content. And his position, both as Chaplain, and his very livelihood, depending on her being happy with the finished product.

So let me make an analogy, and step just a little bit in time. Things are little muddled today cultural to make a similar one from a very current example.

Consider Hugh Hefner. And consider his show called Playboy After Dark. This was a time of much “friction”, the early 60s. Civil rights and racism are extreme issues. Sexual “freedom” is coming about. The “rights” of just about everyone are much talked about. The setting which was sort of this contrived “salon” from Paris. The set looked like a large living room in a swanky spiffy Playboy bachelor pad. All these “cool”, meaning avante guarde, “open minded”, intellectually superior, artistically superior, liberal people are just hanging out, having a spiffy party. Hef does more for civil rights in a minute than 50 writers do in 10 years by having Sammy Davis Jr on the show. Hef did more for women’s liberation by having a “guest” on the show to talk about it and the camera sees Hef nodding approval, than 50 screeching female professors could ever do.

So then that “cool” boy, that wants to be like Hef, all through the 60s and the 70s, the “cool boy” believes in Equal Rights, Racism, Feminism and this idea of “gender” and “race” being a culturally imposed concept. And that “cool” boy does it exactly because it is “artistically and culturally superior” than the conservative ideas of the time. So then imagine how pervasive both of those viewpoints on Racism and Sexism are today and how “religious” both have become in such a short time, historically. All of us have experienced the reaction of people to our Red Pill beliefs that border on religious arguments. And some of the biggest fighters of what we propose are men. So a philosophy can quickly move from the fringe and become core if the “right” people get behind it and push it.

So then imagine the same thing back in 1200, the “cool” boy, the son of the nobles, that reads latin, has a little bit of education, he thinks the Catholic church is a bunch of sticks in the mud. He is literally built, wired, for sex, to want women. And this idea of “love” makes absolute sense to him, or at least he wants it to make sense, because the top of line, highest status women, those noble women in that area between Barcelona and maybe, Bologna, were all giving approval to those men that bought into it. So by saying “I believe in Love” or “I am in Love’s army”, or “I am a soldier of love”, what he is saying is “I’m cool, man. Please like me.”

And just like today, any guy that goes against Feminism or attacks the behavior of women is shunned. I hurl some attack on women in comments to an article, and some woman comes back with “Oh, I be you just get you tons”. So in 1200, It is “No ‘Love”, then no ‘love’”, you were ostracized by women, at least the cool French Chicks who were the celebs of the day.

And so it takes hold, and as Feminism has co-opted the church, today’s women have imposed their viewpoint on church acceptance of divorce, premarital sex, with the whole idea of the “magic vagina” of women compelling those men into better behavior and better performance, and the woman has the right and the duty to punish him for failure to live up to the love that the woman has given him as a gift that he must continue to earn, the same thing happens with “love”. It co-opts the Catholic church of the day, and throughout the 13th and 14th centuries, “love” creeps into the morality and consciousness of the people at the time. The “love” thing is dominating the “court” and is leaks into the church in the relationship of accomplices that they first and second estate have which each other. It catches on and becomes the dominant aspect of the culture and women are “rehabilited”, seize control, and never let go. They have the “authority” because they have the “morality”, and they drive the course of society by controlling what is “moral” and what is “honorable”. And what constitutes both, from that point forward, are generally what is in the best interest of women, given their situation, given the time.

So why is this important to us?

First, the whole idea of “Courtly Love” was entirely hypergamistic. Entirely. The Capellanus book has as the heart of the second part, 9 dialogues. These dialogues define the Feminine Imperative.

Keep in mind, at this time, there might have been maybe 500 books floating around in total. And this is the only one on this topic available for a 100 years. The only other referenced work before this was Ovid “The Art of Love” and most scholars really see Ovid as more of a satire on the “treatises” written during his day, and not as a REFERENCE MANUAL that people today, including myself (pre-Red Pill) , see it.

I took it as “how to” book. And what it should be titled is “How to be a AFC Beta”. Also keep in mind that books were so rare, that everything thing was relayed as an oral tradition. Even as late at 1513, Luther said he had been a priest for 3 years before he ever even saw a Bible. And that’s the effing bible.

So here you are somewhere in 1200, and this major Noble dude guy, or high status babe, gets up and starts talking or singing about this new “love” thing, and everyone is nodding and agreeing. And if they don’t nod and agree, then they don’t get to be in the group, they’re fired. The High Status women turn on them, and they are ostracized.

So in the 9 dialogues, there are a series of conversations that men of one of three statuses would have with a women of one of the same three statuses. Those statuses being “commoner, noble, high noble”. And these dialogues set the ground work, the rules, of what both men and women of all three classes should, do, feel, and think about “love”. And “love” is only between those classes. Peasants don’t love. They need to stay on the farm and work it. They have no time for “love”. And love is only between people that aren’t married.

And there you go right there, with anachronistic thought. You probably thought, single people. No. Single people weren’t dating and marrying. No way. That was decided by someone else. You were probably going to be part of some arranged marriage. “Love” was between married people, at least married women and a man, but not married to each other. You can already see the way hypergamy is influencing the idea of “love”. Girl gets pawned off as a 14 year old or 15 year old as part of some arrangement between older family members. She probably didn’t like her husband very much, given what we know about women today. And he probably didn’t like her much either. I am sure there were just as many men when they first saw there “betrothed” thought, “Oh fuck, you have got to be shitting me. I have to marry this bitch?”

And in these dialogues, pure hypergamy is enforced and codified. The dialogues enforced class, at least enforced it for men. Men could try and love “up”, but most likely they couldn’t unless they displayed such extreme good character that their character was better than all of the available men in the class of the woman he was “hitting on”. But it also set a nice set of rules for women “move up”. But the women were the ones, in every case, to judge the men, the determine that even though the women were “moving” up, they still were to ones to say “OK, I’ll take you You are worthy of my love”.

And then it also codified acceptance for women to be able to “cheat” on their husbands. “Courtly Love” was only between people that were not married. They got around the 10 commandments, by stipulating that the true lover never asks for sex in return for his love. He loves merely for the purity of his love. And that the whole endeavor was supposed to remain entirely secret. That if it became public, then the “love” was dead. Over. At best he got a kiss, maybe an embrace. Gentlemen in the army of “love” never tell. And Gentlemen never demand sex. Which of course, all of this was bullshit. But since “Courtly Love” was “love” for “love”‘s sake then those husbands couldn’t get jealous, and nobody loves their husband anyway. So it gave a socially acceptable way for this woman that had this beta forced on her by marriage, then get out their and have exposure to the alphas that she truly wanted. And it gave her a social means to circumvent the church. And since everyone, at least everyone who mattered, was married to someone they didn’t like, then it was an early version of “Don’t ask; don’t tell”.

This also forms the basis of monogamy, as we know it, codified by women, in that the definition of it truly benefits women. “The true lover that truly loves only loves the one. He cannot love two. The sight of other women do not affect him because he has true love for his true love.” Notice that there are a lot of “he” and ‘his” words used. The book asserts that those men that would want sex with lots of women and have passion for someone other than “the one” under the guise of love is an an “ass”, mule, dressed up in the finest livery, but still an “ass”.

Schopenhauer said “Love! If you would have thought it up, your fellows would have thought you daft. The mere idea that because a woman allows you her favors, that you should support her for life.”

Well, it was thought up, by these women in the south of France, and it curled around and snaked its way into the current consciousness of people like it was something that people have done since the dawn of men. And it wasn’t.

When you read Capellanus’ statement of what “love” is, it is the seminal definition, the very “jump street”, the Genesis of the codification of “OneItis”. And when you read the dialogues, and then this list of the “Rules of Love” which is the part of the book that is most public, you see the fingerprint of the Feminine Imperative.

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/rules_of_love.html

I think at some point in my reading, someone had described Capellanus as being very “Copernican”,as in Copernicus, and astrology, threatening the religion and the concept of the world.

I say we use him again in a Copernican manner, as the very argument that the Feminine Imperative is an entirely contrived ideal.

And we reject “love”, as in the definition of it by Capellanus. We see it as the social manipulation that it was to orchestrate the emotions of men, and actions from those emotions, entirely for the benefit of women.

Churchill said “In England, it is permitted unless it is not permitted. In Germany, it is permitted only if it is permitted. In Russia, it is not permitted even if it is permitted. And in France, it is permitted, even when it is not permitted.”

To some degree that combination of all four “permitteds” describes the Feminine Imperative. It is permitted when they want it to be permitted and not permitted when they do not. Even if it is not permitted then it is permitted, if it is in the benefit of women. And especially, it is not permitted even when it is permitted, in the case where it might benefit men at the expense of women.

They only way to put a brunt on the Feminine Imperative is make them pay a cost for their behavior. And the best way for men to do that is the rejection of “love”.

In the words of YaReally, “The manosphere is the new counter-culture”.

We are the new “cool boys”. We are the new “rebels”.

And you need to read Capellanus, and as you read it, to see the manipulation in the pages. Maybe it was adopted because it had social value to blunt the negative behavior or the men of the time and turn it in a constructive direction.

But today it is only something that is used to provide advantage for women. And that advantage is often used at the expense of men, and furthermore, for the punishment of men, the social shaming of men, when women deem the men’s behavior or actions to be at the detriment of women. And they are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner of their verdict. And no one ever challenges them.

And we begin by rejecting unilaterally, out of hand, “love” for the pack of lies it is.

So I say we use our position as influence peddlers, taste makers, of our day and time, and shame men, Mangina men, and White Knights as fools; toadies for women and their “love”. And make no mistake, that whole White Knight shit comes exactly from this book. We all should read “Treatise on Love”, deconstruct it, and expose it for the bullshit sham it is.

I have ranted this in the past. It is time for men to gain an entirely new consciousness, a new awareness, a entirely new set of constructivism abstracts on which to frame their thinking.

The constant whine, complaint, criticism of the manosphere is that is attacks “love”, it makes “love” impossible, it kills “love”.

And I say, no it doesn’t. It exposes the reality of the impossibility of “love” because “love” is entirely a manufactured ideal. And modern Feminism has brought about the recognition of the impossibility of it and rubbed it in the face of men. If you pine for it, it you whine about it, the end of it, the lack of it, then you deny the truth of it.

Modern life is entirely developed as a means to blunt the natural advantages that men have. This “love” is a further handicap, a weight on your shoulders, that limits your ability to use your advantage, physically, mentally, by women exploiting the emotional advantage that women have over men. She only has this advantage if you allow her to have it.

So discard it. It is religion in you that does not work to your advantage.

So yes, “They have a right to do anything that we can’t stop them from doing”.

But we have the capacity and the ability to make them pay for it.

In the end, and my life right now is living proof of this, they need us more than we need them. We want them; they need us. And the things that most women want, they get from us. And without the handicap of “love”, you can make them pay, and pay, and pay, until they fucking cry uncle.


Consumer Confidence

url-1

After having worked in the liquor industry for over 8 years I can tell you that the most difficult demographic to appeal to is men. You might think that’s hard to believe but by comparison men are much more difficult to engage than women when it comes to introducing a new spirits brand. Men tend to lock in with a particular brand of liquor or beer (usually what’s cheap) and resist anything new, while women are much more experimentative with choice of intoxicants.

When introducing a spirit such as a bourbon or whiskey, one that is traditionally a male taste, the field is incredibly broad. There are literally thousands of craft brands all vying for the same male demographic, however, only a dozen of these brands are ever commercially successful. Not so with flavored vodkas or rums, which appeal to the much wider female drinking demo. The common mistake is to think men wont drink “froo froo” drinks with umbrellas in them for fear of seeming unmanly. This is the feminized marketing perspective; in actuality the female drinking demographic has much more depth and much more purchasing influence.

That may seem odd considering the aggressiveness with which the better known alcohol brands market to a male, drinking age demographic, but that aggressiveness is necessary to maintain brand awareness with men due to one simple fact: women are the primary consumers in westernized societies.

Alcohol is an easy illustration, not just because I’m intimately involved in the industry, but because it’s one of the few markets that actively tries to engage a male demographic. Most advertising since the rise of social feminization has simply written off male consumer involvement. Men don’t buy shit, women do. Even uniquely male necessities are purchased more often by women (wives  or LTR women) than men today, so rather than make attempts at inroads to male brand loyalty advertising and marketing directs its effort to the demographic that is doing the actual purchasing – women.

Feminist love to paint this patronization as some triumph of women becoming more economically equatable with men. The fem-logic being that women have more purchasing influence because they have more money from being more economically successful (only to bemoan the tired 77¢ on the male dollar trope 10 minutes later). Some of that may be true, but the greater influence is men’s general apathy about who’s making purchases in their names.

Men’s innate rationality is a tough obstacle for most marketers. The fact that most advertising is controlled by a female influence further exacerbates the difficulty of reaching men’s purchasing influence. And really, why bother? It’s much easier to induce women’s purchasing decisions with appeals to their predominantly emotional natures. Women buy from feeling good about buying something, while men buy from pragmatism – even when that pragmatism may only benefit themselves.

Means of Production

I was recently reading a forum thread I got a link back from and the topic was the timeless classic, “what make a man a man?” The predictable responses were all present: Confidence, Responsibility, Integrity, and all of the other subjectively definable esoteric attributes you’d expect. I thought about this question in terms of the difference in consumer influence of both men and women. I’m not an economist, but I am an ideas guy, and it occurred to me that the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.

To maintain a wife, children, even a dog, a man must produce more than his consumption. Once you’ve lost that capacity (or never developed it) you are less of a man – you are a burden. You must be provided either by charity or guile, but you’re not producing.

On a limbic level, women’s hypergamy filters for this. You see, while women have the societal option to provide for themselves, there is no onus on her to produce anything more than she herself consumes. For all the fem-centric male professions of how rewarding being a stay-at-home Dad is, what eats away at them is the hindbrain awareness that he is not producing more than he consumes. This is the same awareness etching into a woman’s psyche when she’s the one doing the provisioning.

Every complaint about men not Manning Up, every article bemoaning the End of Men or the dearth of datable / marriageable men of “equatable” socio-economic, educational levels as the women seeking them, finds the root of its discontent in the very simple formula that men must produce more than they consume. Women’s displeasure isn’t that a man might be less intellectual than they are so much as he can provide for himself, and her, and a child, and a dog, and a relative, etc.


The Choice of Attraction

choice

This has always been an interesting debate. I think it was  David D’Angelo who coined the phrase, “Attraction is not a choice.” This notion is so popular even red pill carpet baggers like Aunt Sue had to give it wings.

Pandora from SoSuave broke it down thusly:

What is the true nature of attraction? I am often ambivalent about this myself. This is ultimately the root the contention between the so called “AFC”s and the so called “cynical” red pill guys.

Camp 1:
Attraction is a deeply psychological phenomenon that is largely unpredictable. This camp implies that there is no deliberate decision that a woman makes to become attracted to a man. Her decision is made largely within the first few seconds of meeting or noticing you. They claim that whether a girl is into you or not is largely out of your control ( D’ Angelo). This philosophy gives credibility to the people who say money and looks really don’t matter too much. They are just icing on the cake. In all honestly I have seen example of this play out many times in real life. I mean we all know the common phenomenon of a hot girl with a loser boyfriend who sits on the couch all day and plays video games. We all had a girl that just was “attracted to us” no for no apparent reason. There are plenty of examples of successful women going after losers (not marrying, but screwing regularly). These guys are pretty average looking to tell you the truth. These guys are not really even that “alpha”. Kinda like Casino, I know its a movie, but when DeNiro’s wife who had everything was still deeply in love with the scumbag loser pimp who had nada. Many of these guys have self destructive tendencies really, aka bad boys types, emo losers, broke artsy dudes to plain ol average joes. If you ask the female why do you like this guy so much when you could get just abut any other guy… 9 outa 10 times they say ” i dont know, i just do, i wish i didnt”. They have no rational explanation for it. Many times the girl will admit that the guy isnt even attractive or her type thus supporting the view attraction is not a choice and deeply psychological.

Camp 2:
Money, looks, power, and overall dominance will get u women more reliably than anything else. This is the red pill crew. There are a TON of examples of this also. Go to any rock concert, football game or club and you will see this in action. There’s a reason why women want to marry the rocker,doctor, lawyer, CEO, athlete. The catch is by agreeing with this viewpoint you have to agree that the nature of attraction in women is largely logical and deliberate. That women turn off or on their attraction based on status and resources. If you are this camp then how do u explain the examples of hot women going out with loser to average boy friends. Are these truly exceptions to the rule? How do you also explain chicks that dig you for no apparent reason at all (rare but it happens) and we have all had these types of girls once or twice.

This is an important question to answer because i think its the cause of many of the conflicts in the manosphere. Its also a fundamental question for any man. I think the truth is in the middle. I think that both camps are making something that is very complex into a cut and dry matter. For every instance of a chick being attracted to a high status male there is an instance of a chick just being attracted to a regular guys. Im starting to believe attraction is just one of those things that is largely unpredictable and mysterious. This is the whole basis of when women say they just felt or didnt feel any “chemistry”. Its largely mysterious. Like Rollo eludes to, attraction is a chemical thing.

There’s a very clichéd truism from the 80′s that states “a woman knows if she’ll fuck you in the first 5 minutes of meeting you.” I disagree somewhat, I would say a woman knows if she wont fuck you within the first 5 minutes of meeting you.

Attraction is instinctual and predictable, but is it a choice? It really depends upon the conditions of the persons involved. Honestly I think it’s kind of a loaded question because the answer tends to validate the beliefs and ego-investments (also prompted by personal conditions) of the one promoting it.

For the unemployed, chubby guy, believing that attraction is some nebulous, random occurrence gives him hope that, with a bit of Game, he can enjoy sex with the HB 9s that his douchebag “natural” friends are. Similarly, the good looking, affluent guy with a bit of Game is rewarded with sex so often that he attributes his success to his own capacity for ‘creating attraction’ that he presumes a woman is making a choice to be attracted to him.

Choosing Attraction

Like pretty much everything else, attraction is conditional. I wont go so far as to say it’s a choice, but I will say there exist many prompts that can spur attraction when they are congruent with the conditions a woman consciously or subconsciously requires at a given time.

For example, in high school, teenage girls tend to focus their attraction (which is prompted by sexual arousal) on the teenage boys who best display an ideal physicality. Cute face, good body, maybe a slight bit of status with regards to exceptional performance (sports or drama for instance), but generally affluence and personal status aren’t an issue since none of them can expect a high school junior to be the CEO of his own company. Remove money & status from the sexual environment and physical arousal will tend to dominate. Personality and game, play in of course, but to a far lesser (adolescent) degree than when a woman is 19 and in a college environment where potential status, affluence, game and personality begin to take on more importance. Physicality still dominates arousal, but compatibility and future emotional and parental investment potential begins to factor into attraction. As a woman approaches 30-35 her preconditions for attraction and the priority she places on them shifts towards long term security. Physicality, while still important, is compromised in favor of long term security potential.

Now, is she choosing to be attracted to specific characteristics or types of individuals at different phases of her maturity? No, not consciously, but on some level of consciousness we are all aware of our own conditions and what (we believe) is necessary to meet satisfaction of particular deficits we lack. For the 32 year old AFC who’s never done anything different and has waited the better part of his 20′s for the, now 30, HB 8, he thinks his ship’s finally come in and that attraction is indeed some random act of divine kindness – rather than the fact that he now makes the kind of money his dream girl subconsciously realizes is necessary for her (and her offspring’s) long term provisioning.

Predicting Attraction

Human nature being what it is, it’s important for Game aspirants (and those applying Game for other reasons) to understand that Game, inter-gender dynamism and the physical elements of arousal / attraction are Probablistic not Deterministic.

I don’t believe attraction is a conscious choice – no girl says to herself “hmmm,..I think I’ll be attracted to him” – but there are definite, predictable determinants, based upon the personal conditions of the woman, that influence a subconscious state of arousal and attraction. I know those are big $10 words, but try to think of it in terms that a woman doesn’t make a rational choice to be attracted to a guy, but rather is influenced by motivators she’s not fully aware of and makes an emotional association with them and the guy she is attracted to. Accurately determining what those motivators are and manipulating them (within any one Man’s capacity) is the heart of Game. Attraction may not be a choice, but what you do to stimulate the motivators of attraction is a choice – your choice.

I rarely engage in the “american chicks suck / foreign chicks rule” debates, but one of my best friends is Filipino who’s recently been making frequent trips back to the Philippines to visit family and (still) help out with the recovery effort after the last hurricane. He comes back with stories about how eager all the hottest Filipinas are to do anything sexual with him. He’s not an ugly guy, but by American standards he’s not all that desirable – short, stocky, about 15lbs overweight, well off but not wealthy. But because he’s American and Filipino he’s got status that few guys in P.I. can match. He has what we joke is the ‘Golden Ticket’ (ala Willy Wonka) to Amercia since he’s single. He’s got decent game and he does hook up in the U.S., but he says he doesn’t even have to make an effort in P.I. Women catch wind that he’s American and their legs spread involuntarily.

This is an excellent illustration of how status can influence attraction based upon personal conditions / deficits that prompt it. However, sustaining that attraction after that personal deficit has been satisfied is another post altogether.

The Choice

So in layman’s terms you are saying Attraction is not a conscious choice made by women but one that can be unconsciously evoked by a guy with good game?

Yes, if that particular guy’s Game is what she’s subconsciously lacking. However, it’s all in the ‘read‘ of any given woman. If you read the Art of Seduction by Robert Greene, the first foundation of seduction is to have as full an understanding of your target as possible – this is called ‘reading’ your mark. To the best of your abilities, it’s important to evaluate where she is in her stage of life and pick out areas where she’s in a deficit. You may think this is impossible to do in the short space of sarging a girl at a bar for instance, but once you have a general understanding of the cues to look for it actually becomes second nature. I’ll give you an example.

There’s a woman I know named Julie who I bump into on occasion at promos I do. On first sight I see: she’s attractive, mature (late 30′s early 40′s perhaps), dresses to get attention, she’s thin, bleach blonde, and married (I know from the big diamond ring). After speaking with her for less than 10 minutes I know she’s attracted to me; there are ‘tells’ in her conversation with me, verbal cues that she’s hoping I will pick up on and deliver back covert confirmation of. 10 minutes in and I know she’s in a marriage of convenience with an affluent man, who can take care of her financially, but who’s incapable of meeting her physical deficit, her excitement deficit, her covert communications deficit, etc. If I wanted to seduce her, these would be the areas I would adjust my sarge to emphasize. She’s attracted to me because she sees my potential for satisfying her deficits, and then probes me for confirmation of her suspicions. I tell her I’m married in code-speak, and she chooses not to be attracted to me any longer, or at least not to such a degree that she wants to pursue any more.

Some people would call this being a good judge of character, but essentially the ability to ‘read’ a person (of either gender) is the beginning of good ‘natural game’.


The Men in the Garage

man-cave-art-02

Down Low on the SoSuave forum makes an observation:

I once lived in a suburb where all the men were relegated to their garages. Whenever a garage door was up, there’d be a man puttering around inside. He’d have a couch and desk, TV on, maybe clicking on a computer, and some mini fridge or hot plate going.

Of the neighbors I knew, none of the men were happily married. Some of them were relegated to upstairs bedrooms that had been converted into home offices. Others slept in a different bedroom from their wives. The men made quickie snacks all day out of cold cuts, chips, and cola. They all drank heavily.

Thing is, most of them had pretty good paying jobs and two cars out front. It seems that their wives were all unhappy over living for free in a new house, having a free car to drive, and having credit cards to go shopping with all day.

Burroughs then distills the phenomenon down for us:

Our main weakness as men lies within our inability to recognize when and how men are hated, we want so desperately to believe the illusion, we want so desperately to be liked and wanted and needed, that we have lost all sort of instinct for self preservation, to the point where we will literally jump in front of knives and bullets for women we dont even know.

The system is not designed for male contentedness, it doesn’t want male happiness, it wants you to constantly feel incomplete, it thrives off of your insecurity , it needs you to question yourself, it needs you to be in constant fear… of being alone of being a virgin, of continuing to have sex after your no longer a virgin, of being muscular, of not going bald, of this of that of everything.

Because remember you are not allowed a shred of weakness or vulnerability, it stifles the spirit of men it is pesticide on the male soul, society still has no clue, their pumping out these man up articles one right after another arent they?

Have we raised a generation of men that dont know how to be men? Where have all the good men gone? How come women are outperforming men in this and that? They simply will not come admit that this is a result of a sustained effort to disenfranchise men, one in which the end result can only be men turning their backs on a society that will to the bitter end hate on men for doing so.

Becuase you exist to serve there wont be an equal treatment of male victims of domestic violence, for example, no matter how much the inequality of it is pointed out, simply because you as a man have no right in this society to demand equal treatment.

I think the men in the garages have realized…or are realizing what a terrible waste their lives have been…and that their wives are not their allies but their slave-masters.. nagging endlessly while parasitically living off the income of the husband until such time as he is depleted…at which point the woman can cast him aside while continuing to extort money from the man through the police state….the men in the garage realize this…they realize the lies they have been fed through media and church have led them to this…so they drink….to avoid blowing their brains out.

Stay strong men.

Man Caves & Manctuaries

While I really like the idea of in-garage-bars (I can think of at least 2 I know around here in Florida), I’m of two minds about this. On one hand, I think it’s essential for a healthy marriage that a Man set aside his space in the home. This is essential in establishing independent identities that is vital to a woman maintaining respect for her spouse. There are long established habits and interests and things that are part of my personality that I know damn well Mrs. Tomassi loathes, but the moment I allow her to “fix” me is the moment she loses respect for me in my independence because I’d be identifying with what she ‘thinks’ is best only to placate to her. There has to be that separation or you end up becoming this homogenized, asexual assimilation of what she thinks you should be – this is the ultimate form of male supplication. So as a necessary part of living together there must be areas that you are uncompromisingly separate in. This is a HUGE shit test that most married AFCs fail and then become slaves to the expectations and entitlements their wives have.

On the other hand, when routine life with a woman decays into this for a long period of time, understandably even AFCs will want a refuge. This used to be the local bar or some other man’s refuge. Depending on his degree of servitude, a weekend in his “man cave” ends up being preferable to the constant nagging of his wife. This is why escapisims (such as MMO type computer games) are so popular. Working life AND personal life become so intolerable that the escape is preferable to dealing with his realities. So he creates his own treehouse with a big sign on the outside that says “no girls allowed.”

In John Gray’s travesty that is Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, he makes a misguided attempt to characterize men’s want for a cave as something inherent to the male nature. This makes accepting a ‘man cave’ a bit more palatable for women steeped in feminine social primacy, but the phenomenon is so much more as Burroughs illuminated in his post. It’s not a want for solitude, it’s a necessity for escape.

Law 18: Do Not Build Fortresses to Protect Yourself— Isolation is Dangerous

I can understand a want for isolation and an escape, however brief, from dealing with one’s reality. We all have them in one form or another, but what the men in the garage signify is a more permanent form of surrender to feminine primacy. It’s not enough that a man be (even partially) responsible for the provisioning of his spouse and children, she must occupy the home so thoroughly that he’s pushed to the peripheries (sometimes even a separate location) to have any domain over what is his. It may be the garage, it maybe an off-site storage facility, it may be a customized basement “she allows him” to convert, but in the end it’s the summation of his surrender of frame.

It’s gotten to the point that men are so obliviously accepting of this frame surrender that his customized, pseudo-bachelor pad, underground dwelling becomes a point of pride for him. It’s something to impress other, equally as frame-oblivious men with. The guy with enough income to maintain a home his wife controls and a separate man-cave apartment of his own is envied by men less capable to do so.

What these men don’t see is the danger in their reasoning for isolation. For men so thoroughly conditioned by the feminine imperative, women’s control of the home is a given; it’s just how it is – if they want to get laid with any regularity. While consoling oneself in the garage amongst the big screen TV, pool table and wet bar, there’s not much impetus to give a man insight as to why his ‘fortress of solitude’ would even be necessary for him in the first place. He doesn’t wonder about why he should need to support a home and family while simultaneously living like a bachelor in his apartment on the weekends.


The Soul Mate Myth

With apologies to Dalrock for thread-jacking his “The one” vs “my one and only” post. After reading Dal’s take on the fallacy of the ONE and picking back through the comments on Casualties I thought I might clarify a few things about the concept of the ONE.

There is no ONE.

There is no ONE. This is the soulmate myth. There are some good Ones and some bad Ones, but there is no ONE. Anyone telling you anything else is selling you something. There are LOTS of ‘special someones’ out there for you, just ask the divorced/widowed person who’s remarried after their “soulmate” has died or moved on.

This was one of my earliest posts back on the SoSuave forums from around 2003-04. I was finishing my degree then and had the Fallacy of the ONE graphically illustrated for me in a psych class one day. I was in class, surrounded by (mostly) much younger students than myself, all very astute and as intellectual as they come for mid twenty-somethings. At one point the discussion had come around to religion and much of the class expressed being agnostic or atheist, or “spiritual, but not religious”. The rationale was of course that religion and belief could be explained as psychological (fear of mortality) constructs that were expanded to sociological dynamics.

Later in that discussion the idea of a ‘soul mate’ came up. The professor didn’t actually use the word ‘soul’, but rather couched the idea by asking for a show of hands as to how many of the class believed “there was a special someone out there for them?” or if they feared “the ONE that got away.” Damn near the entire class raised their hands. For all of their rational empiricism and claims to realism in regards to spirituality, they (almost) unanimously expressed a quasi-Karmic belief in connecting with another idealized person on an intimate level for a lifetime.

Religion of the Soul-Mate

Even the Frat guys and hook-up girls who I knew weren’t expressly looking for anything long term in their dating habits still raised their hands in assent to a belief in a ONE. Some later explained what that ONE meant to them, and most had differing definitions of that idealization – some even admitted to it being an idealization as the discussion progressed – yet almost all of them still had what would otherwise be termed an irrational belief in ‘destiny’ or, even amongst the least spiritual, that it’s just part of life to pair off with someone significant and there was “someone for everyone”.

This discussion was the catalyst for one of my red pill realizations – despite all odds, people largely feel entitled to, or deserving of, an important love of their life. Statistically and pragmatically this is ridiculous, but there it is. The feminized Disney-fication of this core concept has been romanticized and commercialized to the point of it becoming a religion, even for the expressly non-religious. The shakespearean longing for the ONE, the search for another soul (mate) who was destined to be our match has been systematically distorted beyond all reason. And as I elaborated in Casualties men will take their own lives in the delusion of having lost their soul-mate.

Soul-Mate Men

This perversion of the soul-mate myth is attributable to a large part of the feminized social conventions we deal with today. The fear of isolation from our imagined soul-mate, or the fear of having irrecoverably lost that ‘perfect ONE’ for us fuels so much of the personal and social neuroses we find in the Matrix. For example, much of the fear inherent in the Myth of the Lonely Old Man loses its teeth without a core belief in the Soul-Mate Myth. The fear of loss and the delusions of Relational Equity only really matter when the person men believe that equity should influence is their predestined ONE.

The feminine imperative recognized the overwhelming power the Soul-Mate Myth had over men (and women) from the beginnings of its rise to ascendency as the primary gender social imperative. Virtually all of the distortions of the core soul-mate dynamic evolved as a controlling schema for men. When it is soul-mate women who are the primary reward for a soul-mate necessitous man, there are a lot of opportunities to consolidate that power upon. To be clear, don’t think this is some fiendish plot of a fem-centric cabal socially engineering that soul-mate fear into men. Generations of men, raised to be oblivious to it, willingly and actively help perpetuate the Soul-Mate Myth.

Soul-Mate Women

Although Hypergamy plays a large role in determining what makes for an idealized soul-mate for women, they aren’t immune to the exploitations of that core fear. Though it’s more an unfortunate byproduct than an outright manipulation, I’d argue that in some ways hypergamy intensifies that neurosis. Alpha Widows know all too well the languishing associated with pining for the Alpha that got away – particularly when she’s paired off long-term with the dutiful, Beta provider after her SMV decline.

For women, the soul-mate represents that nigh unattainable combination of arousing Alpha dominance matched with a loyal providership for her long term security that only she can tame out of him.

Hypergamy hates the soul-mate principle, because the soul-mate is an absolute definition, whereas hypergamy must alway test for perfection. Hypergamy asks, “Is he the ONE? Is he the ONE?” and the Soul-Mate Myth replies, “He HAS to be the the ONE, he’s your soul-mate, and there’s ONLY one of those.”

Building the Mystery

Due to this core concept and soul-mate mythology, both sexes will seek to perfect that idealization for themselves – even under the least ideal of conditions and expressions. We want to build our intimate relations into that soul-mate idealism in order to relieve the fear and solve the problem, and most times so badly that we’ll deftly ignore the warnings, abuses and consequences of having done so. For women the impact of the most significant Alpha is what initially defines that soul-mate idealization. For men it may be the first woman to become sexual with him or the one who best exemplifies a woman he (mistakenly) believes can love him in a male-defined orientation of love.

However, these are the points of origin for building that soul-mate ideal upon. This ideal is then compounded upon with layers of investments in the hopes that this person “might actually be the one fate has prescribed for them.” Emotional investment, personal, financial, even life-potential investments and sacrifices then follow in an effort to create a soul-mate.

This process is why I say the Soul-Mate Myth is ridiculous – it’s psychologically much more pragmatic to construct another person to fit that ideal than it ever will be to “wait for fate to take its course.” People subscribing to the myth would rather build a soul-mate, consequences be damned. So women will attempt to Build a better Beta, or tame down an Alpha, while men will attempt to turn a whore into a housewife, or vice versa.

One of the most bitter aftertastes of having taken the red pill is abandoning old paradigms for new. I’ve described this before as akin to killing an old friend, and one friend that needs killing is exactly this mythology. Disabusing yourself of this core fear is vital to fully unplugging, because so much of fem-centric social conditioning is dependent upon it.

Dropping the Soul-Mate Myth isn’t the nihilism a lot of people might have you believe it is. If anything it will free you to have a better, healthier future relationship with someone who is genuinely important to you – a relationship based on genuine desire, mutual respect, complimentary understanding of each other and love, rather than on a fear of losing your one and only representation of contentment in this life.


Casualties

I’ve been meaning to write this post for some time now. I’d thought about it again in August when the James Holmes Colorado theater shooting incident occurred. There were plenty of other incidents I’ve had over the years to contemplate this premise, and unfortunately I’m sure there’ll be more in the future.

As a few of you know I live in Central Florida and we’ve recently had a shooting at an area salon. More recently over the weekend there was this incident in Milwaukee as well. As a writer and thinker immersed as I am in red pill awareness, and an observer of the Matrix in general, the first question that comes to my mind when confronting stories like these is to wonder about the perpetrator’s personal life. There are a lot more notorious killers than these to speculate about – James Holmes, George Sodini, Seung-Hui Cho(VT shooter), Anders Brevik, etc. come to mind, but there are far more inconspicuous killers and incidents that go unreported.

When I read about killings, and often suicides, of this nature I find myself wondering about how the shooter’s Matrix conditioning contributed to his mental state. These are uncomfortable questions for me, especially considering the direct loss of life, when I take into account that what I propose here, the observations I make about the feminine imperative and the correlations I come to in part or in whole may influence the decision for a man to kill his wife, his children, his girlfriend or himself.

Average Frustrated Suicide

The first guy I knew to commit suicide over a woman was my brother-in-law. I don’t like to go into too much detail about it as critics may think it’s my casus belli for getting involved in the manosphere, but suffice to say it was after a 20 year marriage and 2 children. My sister-in-law promptly married the millionaire she was seeing less than a year after he was in the ground. This is a real point of contention her family and I have with her, but it was his terminal  beta-ness / ONEitis conditioning that greatly contributed to his hanging himself. The psychologist in me knows there are plenty of imbalances that dispose a person to suicide, but I also know there are plenty of external prompts that make taking action more probable.

My brother-in-law hung himself as a response to having the unthinkable happen to him; his ONE, his soulmate, a woman he was very posessive of, was leaving him after 20 years of marriage (for a millionaire we discovered later). She was the ONLY woman he’d ever had sex with and had been (to the best of my knowledge) a faithful and dependable husband and father since they married at 18 and 19. He did the ‘right thing’ and married her when he’d gotten her pregnant at 17 and stuck by her, sacrificed any ambition he had and worked his ass off to send both his kids to college – an advantage he’d never achieve. He wasn’t a saint by any means, and I’m not going to argue my sister-in-law’s motivations, since those aren’t my point; my point is that he was an AFC who never came to terms with it and believed his life was only completed with his ONE. He literally couldn’t go on without her.

He couldn’t kill the beta (if he was even aware of it), so he killed himself.

He never displayed any sign of mental illness, he wasn’t an aspie-geek, never saw a therapist, never had issues with depression even up to the day of his suicide and generally had his shit together for the most part. We can call crazy “crazy”, but when I read reports of 16 y.o. boys gunning down the parents of their 14 y.o. girlfriends so they can “be together as they were meant to be” there’s more than just mental consideration to account for.

The Illness

AFCness (for lack of a better term) I see as a form of conditioning. If a man internalizes for the majority of his life that he “can’t live without” a woman and he has even mild self-esteem issues or personality disorders it may be that he literally can’t live without a girlfriend or wife.

The second person I’ve known to take his own life was a radio DJ named Nick. Nick decided swallowing a bullet was preferable to life without his ONE girl. I’m not faulting the girl with his suicide for breaking up wiith him, quite the opposite actually. It’s this proclivity for which men have been socialized into AFCness that makes for fatal actions like this. As part of my coursework in college I once counseled a 17 year old girl who’s former boyfriend stabbed to death (30 times) the guy she broke up with him for. He’s doing life in prison now because “She was his soul-mate.” I had to shake my head when I read The Game and about how Mystery got (gets?) suicidal because, although he’s a master PUA, he’s never addressed the AFC that he still is inside.

Now let me be clear, in no way do I mean to infer that these women had anything directly to do with these guy’s suicides. They only did what women will do as hypergamy and their conditions dictate. These men were both 100% responsible for their own deaths. And that’s just it, it was their ego-investment in their Beta-ness (for lack of a better term) and in their ONEitis that killed them. It was their inner AFC that drove them to suicide.

This is why I argue that ONEitis is a mental disorder, and in extreme cases, has the potential to be terminal. As I stated, if a man internalizes for the majority of his life that he “can’t live without” a woman and he has even mild self-esteem issues or personality disorders it may be that he literally can’t live without a girlfriend or wife. I wont blame women out of hand – put simply, women will do what women will do according to their conditions. So when paired up with an AFC and then quite understandably she wants to leave him either for her own good or a better option, this AFC extremisim comes into play. Honestly, I think this degree of an AFC mentality is comparable to Borderline Personality Disorder in neurotic women.

The reason I’ve followed and written in the community at all is because I believe the effort I put out in order to free Men’s (and women’s) heads of damaging ideologies is worth it if it saves a life. I mean that literally. Whether it means preventing an immediate suicide or a slow death in an AFC marriage, so be it.

The fundamental delusion that all suicidal AFCs entertain is the Fallacy of the ONE. They are predisposed (and pre-whipped) to ONEitis even when they are still dateless virgins. I realize this runs contrary to the popular belief that ONEitis is an all-consuming concern to identify with one solitary woman. This presumes the AFC is in an LTR of some kind with an actual subject to base his ONEitis on, however it’s really only one half of the equation. Most men are predisposed to ONEitis before they stumble into an LTR. Essentially they prepare themselves to identify wholesale with what feminized society tells them is their responsibility as a man to do. Once that purpose is removed from them, once they can no longer measure up to even a marginalized hypergamy, this is when men conditioned by the feminine imperative consider suicide as an option.


Balancing Sexual Pluralism

Homecoming

I had an interesting occasion to do a bit of social observation this weekend. I drove Bebé Tomassi to her first high school Homecoming dance and got a glimpse of the Ghost of Hypergamy Future. As you might guess from growing up in the Tomassi household, Bebé is an exceptionally attractive girl, and this is coming from a red pill advocate, as well as a proud father. However, for all her innocent charm and Disney Channel inspired understandings of high school social dynamics, she was more than a bit shocked by the dress and behavior of the girls at her first ‘real dance’.

As I waited in the pick up line of cars at the end of the night I saw more short club skirts on teenage girls than I see on most liquor promo events I attend. I wouldn’t go so far as to say they looked like whores (my daughter’s analysis), but I will admit to being somewhat taken aback by how closely these 15-16-17 year old girls resembled the early to mid 20′s women I see in my line of work. At a club, at a tasting, or a promotional event, I will admit I enjoy the eye candy, I love a hot outfit like any other guy, but something just didn’t sit right with me seeing these girls dressed for a high school dance. Maybe I’m showing my age, but it did give me some food for thought.

Later Bebé told me she didn’t dance all that much, because she was surprised by how the gym looked more like a rave dance floor than a homecoming dance. She’d gone with 4 of her girlfriends, but none felt comfortable grinding their asses on some guy’s crotch whom they’d have to see at school the following Monday. Bebé has been a practiced dancer since she was 7. “They weren’t even dancing” she explained on the way home, “it was more like dry humping to music I didn’t even know.”

Varsity Blues

I kind of had time to take mental notes of all this when I was waiting in the car line. On SoSuave we have a high school forum (which I regrettably haven’t had much time to participate in lately), and when I do take the time to give advice there, the dynamic is drastically different for the young men there than the mid 20′s, 30′s and mature men I generally counsel. The reason for this dynamic shift is due to the fact that in women’s pluralistic sexual strategies, the long term side of that pluralism is practically nonexistent.

It’s very difficult for a teenage boy to display higher value beyond physical prowess and conveying a confident Alpha dominant attitude. Beyond maybe owning a car or truck, a teenage guy’s SMV is based almost entirely upon his physical presence and/or performance. Teenage girls only really care about how cute/hawt! a teenage guy is. It’s a Game of raw, Darwinistic tingles for adolescent girls, because even if they had some rudimentary appreciation for a guy’s intrinsic value, all of their security needs are more or less provided for by there parent(s).

From the sexual pluralism side, girls don’t develop an appreciation (or attraction) of men fulfilling that long-term security imperative until well into their mid to late 20′s. Throughout high school and through college, via their Fathers or the state’s provisioning, the security side of this sexual pluralism (the Good Dad attraction) is satisfied to varying degrees.

Short Terms

As I outlined in Schedules of Mating, hypergamy dictates women secure (commitment from) the best male exhibiting the traits of both genetics (short term breeding) and parental investment (long term provisioning), but rarely do the best of these traits exist in the same man. Then it hit me as I waited in that car line; these westernized teenage girls and their college age sisters, to a greater degree, have this long term part of their sexual plurality accounted for – or at least accounted for well enough that their primary sexual strategy focus is mostly fixated the short term breeding model.

Under such conditions ‘gina tingles preempt long term security concerns. So the logical next step is for girls to develop a sexually competitive strategy with other girls around hooking up with the highest value Alpha their looks can arouse. That isn’t to disqualify the attractiveness of intrinsic qualities (especially as a woman approaches the Wall), only that extrinsic qualities hold a higher prioritization. Thus, with the long term side of sexual plurality almost a non-issue, we see girls at earlier and earlier ages, learn to eroticize (not sexualize) themselves to be better prepared for that competition.

Long Terms

Rational reader, Wesley Dabney had some interesting input on Up the Alpha that dovetails nicely into this dynamic:

we can disagree all you want but that won’t make it any less true. a healthy woman’s central emotion is love. if you return that love to her, she will love you back and be faithful. no alpha can crack that connection. however, most men today have been so damaged by the sexual market place they are incapable of showing a woman the love they need to commit resulting in what you see today.

I’d advise anyone of this interpretation of women’s nature to read these posts first to get a better understanding of how women love (in this order):

Women in Love

Men in Love

Of Love and War

Wes, I have no doubt that your personal experience with your girlfriend’s love might lead you to think it contradicts what I’ve detailed in these posts, but she, like all women (including Mrs. Tomassi), loves opportunistically. I’ll explain, but don’t take this as an insult about you or your girlfriend:

I had a hard childhood. i have ptsd and anger management issues. my g/f makes more money than me.. etc etc.. according to many here.. she’s prime bait to be taken away from me by someone with higher status. however, she has proven to me that won’t happen. i put her through hell and she stayed by my side. i got lucky though and i know that.

The fact that you did put her ‘through’ hell’ is exactly why she’ll stay with you. After looking at your profile pic and FaceBook, from a physical standpoint, I’d estimate your SMV at least 2 points higher than her. Again, just being purely analytical, I’d put you at about an 8 and her about a 6 and this imbalance is exactly where Roissy has posited that ‘ real love’ exists between men and women. Your higher SMV provides you with default dominance.

Just from perusing your profile I get the impression that you enforce (maybe subconsciously) an Alpha dominance (anger issues), but this only contributes to her secure attachement to you. Your deficit in that she makes more money than you is sublimated by your own SMV. When women on some peripheral level of consciousness, doubt they can do better than the guy they’re with, hypergamy is satisfied. This is precisely why divorce rates level off progressively with age – post-Wall women can’t afford to reinsert themselves back into single life without a lot of motivation. A restart after the Wall is impractical, thus the rationalization hamster self-convinces women that her attraction cues are really her arousal cues.

All of this however simply proves that women love opportunistically. If Wes didn’t have the counterbalancing qualities to make him 2 points higher in SMV I doubt we’d be having this conversation. Women’s emotional center (if there is such a thing) isn’t love, but security. At its core, Hypergamy is an issue of optimized security.

Balancing Hypergamy

Security comes in a lot of different forms; financial, emotional, familial, etc. When a woman has established a base line of security for herself in one of these forms, other forms take precedent. So for a woman to make herself (or be by default) more or less financially independent, her impetus will be to find a guy who satisfies that hypergamic need of Alpha dominance and sexual prowess. Thus the hawt guy, with Alpha swagger outclasses the boring beta with equitable wealth to her own. Even a beta of higher socioeconomic status wont stimulate a woman who can comparatively and contextually assess that the Alpha she’s committed to, though lower on a socio-econ level, is still a better hypergamic match because his Alpha impact has left a long term impression on her (i.e a potential Alpha Widow).

You can also find parallels to this in the Cougar Effect. Past-prime women with their financial needs met by divorce settlements, child support and alimony will tend to look for the hot young(er) guy with whom she can satisfy the sexual short term strategy that a long term prospect can’t offset for her because she’s already provided for.

One important fact about Feminine Hypergamy is that it applies to both sides of a woman’s sexual pluralism. “Alpha fucks and Beta bucks” is a useful euphemism, but hypergamy applies to both of these instances and seeks a balance. It’s also important to understand that, while hypergamy may not care about much of anything, it does seek its own level. Despite social media and the feminine imperative’s attempts to convince a woman otherwise, to some limbic degree, women are aware of their own SMV. Hypergamy wants an optimized state, but that impulse is mitigated by the realities of her capacity to attain it.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,649 other followers