Category Archives: Game

Arm Candy

BwYNPZOCEAEgFzo

In Monday’s post comments there was a lot of back and forth, but in the latter pages there was an interesting exchange I thought might make for an interesting weekend discussion. Commenter Kryptokate resurrected an old feminine social convention I recently covered in Validation Hunting & The Jenny Bahn Epiphany. The premise of this convention is that men seek out, and motivate themselves towards highly attractive women because they enjoy the validation or affirmation they receive from their male peers when they’re seen paired with an HB9 high SMV woman on his arm.

The “arm candy” trope is a useful convention for women in that it assuages her bruised ego and competition anxiety by converting a man’s natural desire for a high SMV woman into a perceived insecurity of his (really all men by association).

Kryprokate:

I’m sticking with my assertion that lots of guys love to show off a hot woman to other guys to gain their respect and increase their status. I’m not saying ALL guys want to do this and maybe you don’t, but lots of them do. I don’t want to “show off” a guy either — I’m an introverted homebody and don’t want a guy for anything but to stay home with, talk, have sex, watch movies, etc. But lots of men love to show off to their peers just like lots (probably most) women do.

Johnnycomelately:

Men don’t seek validation through females, men desire females objectively, tits are tits, don’t matter what the guys thinks. You think men watch porn to get validation?

Women desire to be desired, the process is completely about validation.

Problem with female desire to be desired is that it is not a very high bar to pass, I find it humorous that women brag-splain about getting sex from men.

“Heck, give me ten minutes to download an app and I could get a man to have sex with me in 30 minutes. Nothing to write home about.”

And from the Validation Hunting post:

The idea that men “seek validation” for their earned status or to ‘right’ past wrongs to their egos while they were working their way to that status is a social convention. The Feminine Imperative relies on memes and conventions which shift the ownership of women’s personal liabilities for their sexual strategy to men.

When men are blamed for the negative consequences of women’s sexual strategy it helps to blunt the painful truths that Jenny Bahn is (to her credit) honestly confronting in her article at 30 years old and the SMV balance shifts towards enabling men’s capacity to effect their own sexual strategy.

One of the unique aspects of the Feminine Imperative is its fluid ability to craft social conventions that obscure the worst misgivings of women’s dualistic sexual strategy (Hypergamy) and redirect the liability for them squarely on men’s shoulders. I covered many of these conventions in Operative Social Conventions, but chief among them is the utility of shame.

Shaming features in a majority of feminine social conventions used against men because women are conditioned to fear social ostracization as part of their same-sex peer socialization. Little girls punish each other by ‘not-being-friends-with’ another girl in their peer clutch. Using shame is a skill women learn early in life to effect the ends of their developing solipsism.

If men can be shamed into believing that their natural predisposition toward sexually desiring high SMV, physically ideal specimens of women is due to an insecurity with their personal status the effect would be one of leveling the SMP playing field. “Men only want hot women to feed their egos and impress other men” translates into shaming men (the more desirable men who can merit the attention of a high SMV woman) for being insecure with the perceptions of other men.

This carefully removes any negative association with women’s competitiveness for higher tier men, convinces women themselves that “men are just like that” to Buffer against rejection, and puts the burden of that competition on the man in the hopes that he’ll pair with a woman who is of lower SMV for fear of being shamed about his “insecurity” of wanting other men to see his status as higher than it should be.

Thus, the optimized ends of Hypergamy – a woman pairing with an SMV superior man – are better effected by a social convention.

I should also add that this social convention dovetails with another useful convention that relies on a similar dynamic – that of women complaining men sexually objectify women. The simple truth is that it’s part of men’s neurological firmware to see women’s bodies as objects. It’s a well studied fact that when men see an arousing woman’s semi-nude body it triggers the same area of our brains associated with tool use. Sexual objectification is a feature for men, not a bug.

I’ve gotten into this debate on other forums and comment threads, but it bears repeating. My N-count is a bit more than 40 women, and of those women never did I make an approach (or go along with a woman opening me) with a forethought of wanting to impress my male friends. In fact there were some women I got with I’d rather my friends at the time knew nothing about.

The debate usually spins from there about how men just “do it unconsciously”. That’s an easy fallback, but I’d argue that the limbic and visceral incentive of wanting to sexually experience a smoking hot HB9.5 supersedes any subconscious thought of how good a guy will look when he shows her off to his buddies. I’ve been with strippers, a girl who was in Playboy in the 90’s, and several other women most guys just fantasize about – half the reason I stayed with the BPD girlfriend for so long was because she was just so fucking hot – but not once did I have any thought of brandishing any of them to improve my status with my peers. In fact I preferred we just get after it at her or my place than make any conscious effort on my part to show her off.

From 20 Questions:

This’ll sound facetious, but I’ve never thought of sex as being “validating” or ego-affirming. I honestly think a lot of that expectation comes from a feminized conditioning about “how sex should be” for men. I was, and still kind of am, more into sex as experience. It’s always been something fun to enjoy with a woman for me, not some meaningful act of cosmic significance. I’ve had sex with women I loved and women I didn’t, some were memorable, some were…meh. Even in my bluest of blue pill days my ‘validation’ came from other sources, not sex.

So the question for the weekend is this, as a man, do you give any headspace at all to considering how your status might improve with other men if you’re seen with a hot woman?

When you see a guy who’s physically an obvious 1-2 SMV degrees lower than the woman he’s with, do you think any better of him or do you presume the imbalance is due to some other external factor (such as wealth or fame)?

Do you see the method behind the madness of shaming-down apex Men in order to better optimize Hypergamy for “lesser” SMV women?

 


Acing the Test

B1tK5VoCIAAPQWu

One of the first observations formal PUAs had when they were testing and refining their methods was that of the now ubiquitous shit tests women would present them with. It’s important to put this testing dynamic into context because, as most any guy who’s ever made an approach will tell you (not just PUAs) there comes a stage in that approach when a girl will set up a challenge for a guy. However, as any married man will tell you, that’s not where the shit tests end.

Over the holidays I was hanging out with my brother and watching my niece and nephew interact. My nephew is 16 and his sister is a very mature 12, but to see them interact, it’s one shit test after another. There’s the fluid teasing and taunting that comes from siblings that genuinely like each other (well, mostly), but as I watch these two interact I thought back to how my brother and I used to give each other shit, smack each other around and basically roughhouse like boys used to be able to do before a feminine-primary society decided they needed to be medically sedated for their ‘condition’.

I’ve explored this in Amused Mastery, but there’s a natural flow that’s learned between an older brother and a younger sister (or sometimes a capricious younger brother to an older sister) that translates to an intersexual relating with men and women later in adulthood. My brother is very conventionally masculine, a somewhat natural Alpha in his mindset, and his positive masculine frame carries over into his role as a father. This sets the environment in which his son and daughter are learning intertersexual interactions with one another. Both are very headstrong, but also respectful in a way that only a positively male dominant father can inspire.

I bring this up because I feel this learning illustrates both the problem most men later have with shit tests as well as the key to capitalizing on them.

No Passing

You’ll notice I didn’t say ‘pass’ the shit test. I think it’s a misnomer to view shit tests as a pass or fail proposition. Most men like that easy binary win-lose proposition, but the problem I have with that is that ‘passing’ a shit test implies finality. You will always be shit tested by a woman, so you never really pass that test, however you can and should turn those tests to your advantage.

Many a well meaning Red Pill woman (and a few Purple Pill ‘life coaches’) who don’t like offending the delicate sensibilities of today’s virtuous women like to call these tests ‘fitness’ tests. The renaming sprays a bit of perfume on an otherwise unflattering aspect of women’s Hypergamous psyches, but under that scent is the same truth,…

Women’s shit testing is a psychologically evolved, hard-wired survival mechanism. Women will shit test men as autonomously and subconsciously as a men will stare at a woman’s big boobs. They cannot help it, and often enough, just like men staring at a nice rack or a great ass, even when they’re made aware of doing it they’ll still do it. Men want to verify sexual availability to the same degree women want to verify a masculine dominance / confidence.

I think the early PUAs were correct in calling these test ‘shit tests’ because the nature of those tests they met in their field approaches were very much like the ‘shit’ they’d given and been given by their male peers throughout much of their lives. Part of the male experience is giving your friends ‘shit’, ribbing them, messing with them and otherwise talking ‘shit’ with them. If you’re in a fantasy football league you probably get that “smack talking” has been raised to an art form.

In this context it’s not so much a fitness test as it is a form of male-specific camaraderie – if it’s a test of anything it’s a test for the social intelligence that a guy gets that his friend is giving him ‘shit’ and can laugh about it and give as good as he got. This is part of men’s preferred overt form of communication which baffles women unfamiliar with it; if I’m playfully insulting you, if I’m messing with you, it means I consider you a friend and I expect that you’ll ‘just get it’ that you know this when I do.

Sadly this is often the first offense women take when they insert themselves into Male Spaces. They take the ‘shit talk’ personally, or at the very least have to make an effort (they believe they shouldn’t have to) to communicate in the open, often vulgar, but no less meaningful ways men do. Unless they were raised in the increasingly rare household of a strong masculine influence (fathers or brothers) it’s likely these women won’t “just get it” and bend their efforts to change that communication to something she’s more comfortable with, and something her feminine-primary expectations convince her is correct.

Getting the Test

Even if you had the benefit of having your bratty sister punch you in the arm after teasing her you may not realize this is a form of shit testing you. One of the most important aspects of dealing with a shit test is understanding the basic fundament of Just Getting It:

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.

A woman wants to know a guy Just Gets It, but she still needs a method to determine that he does – ergo she shit tests. For women, this method must be in as covert a form as possible to protect the integrity of not exposing her own sexual strategy to herself.

When openly analyzed this seems like madness to men’s striving for a rational solution to a problem, but her method comes from a subconscious want of not having to convince her hindbrain that he does in fact get it – and gets it so well that he neither acknowledges it overtly nor asks for her assistance in figuring her shit test out.

Observing and / or explicating a process will change that process, and a woman’s Hypergamous hindbrain knows this.

From Plate Theory VI:

Essentially a shit test is used by women to determine one, or a combination of these factors:

a.) Confidence – first and foremost
b.) Options – is this guy really into me because I’m ‘special’ or am I his only option?
c.) Security – is this guy capable of providing me with long term security?

I would also add that these requisites imply a testing for masculine dominance as well as his sexual market value. Women want a man that other women want to fuck, and other men want to be. The conflict inherent in women’s shit testing is that she must simultaneously determine a man has other sexual options than her while also attempting to limit those option and making herself his primary focus.

There’s always been some debate as to whether women are unaware of their subconscious shit testing or if those tests come from a fully aware and deliberate intent. I understand the rational want of men to hold women’s feet to the fire and accept a personal responsibility for their action – shit tests naturally seem like a huge waste of time, not to mention duplicitous and false to men who value straight-talk solutions – but I’m going to argue that these tests are both intentional and subconscious depending on the context in which she delivers a shit test.

However, whether intended or not, it’s more important for guys to get that a woman’s testing is rooted in her inherent Hypergamous uncertainty. And that uncertainty extends to both the Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks aspects of her Hypergamy. Women’s doubt of a man’s Hypergamous suitability is a constant, though subconscious effect for her.

Active Testing

When a woman actively, consciously, shit tests you, understand that it is always intentional. This type of shit test is the most common one PUAs encounter in the clubs or whatever their preferred venue may be. With the exception of maybe Day Game, women in these arenas are expecting men to sarge them, and therefore the propensity to deliver a prepared shit test is a conscious decision on her part. For the most part these tests amount to a fun game for her that serve the purpose of determining a guy’s SMV and his Hypergamy optimization potential.

An active test is entertainment to her in the same way it is for a bratty sister and her older brother. There’s usually a lot of witty (hopefully on your part) push-pull to this shit test exchange, but the latent purpose is her subconscious probing you for the possibility that you might ‘get it’ – that you might be able to play the game rather than having to explain it to her or having it explained to you.

As I’ve stated before, a woman who is into you wont confuse you, but a lot of men (particularly overly conditioned Betas) come to believe that any impropriety on his part might be taken as an offensive so they never boldly push back on these test as they should. They fall back on the “Yes M’Lady” white knight script they believe will set them apart from “other guys”, but the guys who ‘get it’ aren’t confused by shit tests. A big brother hits his bratty sister back when they’re play fighting; not so much as to harm her, but just enough to show her who’s stronger, who’s in control of his situation and isn’t afraid to push her back.

If a woman is not testing you in an environment where she could reasonably be expected to actively be doing so, she doesn’t have the interest in you to do so. A lot of men mistake a woman’s “Bitch Shield” as a cue of disinterest or disgust, when in fact these are often calculated shit tests. There are many ways to push past a Bitch Shield for a guy with the brass (and interest) to do so, but it’s a woman’s indifference, not her poised contempt, that cues disinterest.

Active tests are what single men are most likely to encounter in women, and it’s important for these men to understand that this type of test isn’t something you pass, but rather something you capitalize on. For a guy with even a basic grasp of Game these test should be considered nothing but softballs for him to hit out of the park.

Things to remember are Amused Mastery, Command Presence, Agree & Amplify and a basic Cocky & Funny ambience while employing them. I should also add that women deliberately putting themselves into social environments (like a club) who are delivering active shit test are likely at the ovulation point of their Estrus phase – adjust your Game (and birth control methods) accordingly.

If you recognize that you’re being actively shit tested always remember, play with her, and play with her. Shit tests of this nature are opportunities to build attraction as well as arousal, and women want you to get that they are opportunities.

Passive Testing

While active testing is done in awareness with intent by a woman (with only a passing element of her subconsciously doing so), a passive shit test is a reflexive, subconscious test rooted in a woman’s Hypergamous insecurities. In an active test, the latent purpose is one of playfully determining Hypergamous optimization of a new prospective mate. A passive test is rooted in the Hypergamous doubt that a woman’s choice to settle with that man was in fact the best optimization her SMV could afford her.

Passive testing always asks the question that her nagging, hindbrain Hypergamy can’t give a voice to, “Did I make the right choice? Is this guy really the Alpha I thought he was or could be?’

Passive testing is constantly exacerbated or defined by her previous sexual experiences (or lack thereof) or the fantasies of what could be if her circumstances were to change. For women, this is the mental space where the Alpha Widow dynamic is harbored. This is a where the subconscious testing of the man whom she consolidated monogamy with meets her unconscious comparing of him with her past, idealized experiences – or the experiences she believes could be possible if she could determine his suitability for her.

For the most part these tests are ones of measuring his performance and provisioning capacity against his Alpha tingles generating capacity. Passive tests are insidious in that they need a satisfaction of so many Hypergamous elements: Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks, the outperforming of past or fantasized sexual competitors, pushback masculine dominance, status, and many other prerequisites of long term Hypergamous optimization.

As you’ll probably guess the passive test is usually reserved for marriages and LTRs (live in arrangements being common). Any woman not familiar enough with you wont give you a passive test, however you might get one from your mother or a close female relative who needs some reassurance from you (or wants to put you in your place as a Beta). Passive tests seem to be the most hurtful, but it’s important to predict when they’ll come, what’s triggered them and the root insecurity behind them that women either aren’t consciously aware of or can’t openly reveal because, once again, it ruins the game and her determining if you ‘just get it’ without being told.

As with active tests demonstration, not explication, is the key to resolving and capitalizing on them. These are the types of tests that aggravate most men because they generally feel they’re locked into solving them. Thus, they make grandly overt affairs of bringing a woman’s ‘bull shit’ to light in an effort to quell her insecurities, but also to feel like they’re reasonably holding her personally accountable for her “stupid shit testing”.

And as with most similar efforts, appealing to a woman’s reason never ‘solves’ her problem. Hypergamy doesn’t reason, Hypergamy only feels. Demonstrating you get what she’s doing will help you capitalize on her insecurities far more than explicating that you know what she’s doing by shit testing you.

You’ll probably have guessed that passive tests are most commonly generated while a woman is in the luteal phase of her menstrual cycle, but it when that insecurity relates to her partner’s Alpha suitability there is some crossover into her proliferative phase. It’s important for married men to determine the nature of his wife’s insecurity with regard to her tests and when they’re most commonly delivered.

If she’s testing you at or around her ovulatory window, if she’s regularly insisting on a Girls Night Out around this time (yes, it’s a shit test), if she’s not sexually interested in you during her estrus, it’s likely she’s uncertain about your Alpha Fucks suitability to her. If her tests come during her luteal phase, if she’s nagging or provoking you about money, emotional availability or even how she wants to live closer to her parents, it’s likely her insecurity is based on her perception of your status, provisioning capacity or your Beta Bucks potential to make more of it.

While these types of shit tests based on Hypergamous insecurity may seem like a lost cause, understand that many of the same techniques used to capitalize on active tests still apply. Not all passive tests are delivered in the negative, and applications like Command Presence and Agree & Amplify demonstrate to a woman that you get it, that you see her tests for what they are, and you’re prepared for them without revealing the game you both know you’re playing.

Even well timed Amused Mastery (after you’ve established mastery of her) is enough to defuse a shit test with potentially negative implications. Once the precedence of your mastery is set it’s an easy fallback she’ll expect from you.

Granted, there are more direct ways of demonstrating your optimization to her – staying in better shape than she’s in is an obvious one, casually emphasizing passive dread (a.k.a. married social proof) is another – but the important part is recognizing what aspect of her Hypergamy is generating that insecurity.

In closing here I feel it’s incumbent upon me to address the most obvious response most guys will have to all of this: “Fuck that, I’m not dealing with her shit, just don’t get married, just don’t put up with it, just go your own way, call her on her bullshit” to which I’ll say, “yeah, you’re right, it makes more sense just to disconnect entirely”.

It would be great if women could be relied upon to be rational, reasonable agents as most would like men to believe they are. I mean, they should be, right? You should just simply be able to say to a girl or your wife “Hey I know all the games your playing and why you’re playing them, so lets just drop all of the pretentiousness and get down to fucking and living, OK?” But all this amounts to is negotiating for her genuine desire. Real desire on a woman’s part never comes from rational, reasonable explanations of why she should desire you, it comes from your demonstrations and your example.

Even the men who rule their women with an iron fist will still deal with women’s tests directly or indirectly without even realizing they’re doing so.


The Love Experience

experience

Glenn and a few others had a question about last week’s Love Commodity post.:

@Rollo – This seems very inconsistent to me. How can this be true – ” Men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. ” While this is true? “In an era of unapologetic feminine primacy and unignorable open Hypergamy, this commodification undeniably rests with the feminine.”

You’ll have to forgive a long explanation, I couldn’t simply drop this into the commentary, a full post was necessary.

The first thing we need to consider is the Male Experience vs. the female experience. I hate to get too existential, but it comes down to our individuated experiences as men and women. I’m going to give two examples here and this will also cover the Hypergamy is everything thread I noticed the commentary too.

There’s an interesting conflict of societal messaging we get from an equalitarian / feminine-primary social order. This is one that simultaneously tells us that “we are not so different” or “we are more alike than we are different” and then, yet implores use to “celebrate our diversity” and “embrace (or tolerate) our differences” as people.

This is easily observable in issues of ethnicity, but it also crosses over into issues of gender. The most popular trope is that ideas of gender are a social construct and that women and men are comparative equals and only their physical plumbing makes them different in form only.

From a Red Pill perspective we see the error in evidence of this egalitarian fantasy. I’ve written countless posts on the evidential and logical fallacies that make up gender equalism, but the important thing to be aware of is the conflict inherent within that belief – equalism expects men and women’s existential experiences to be the same, while also pleading that we embrace the differences it purports we don’t actually have.

It fundamentally denies the separation, from an evolved biological / psychological perspective, that men and women experience life in different ways. The idea is that it’s the nebulous ‘society’ that determines our gender experiences and less, if nothing, of it is truly influenced by a human being’s psychological-biological firmware.

zdr01dz posted this:

I think maybe this is in part because men have no innate desire to marry up. Hypergamy doesn’t compute for us. I know what hunger feels like and I assume women feel it the same way I do. I’m empathetic to poor, hungry children because I know what they’re feeling. However I have no idea what hypergamy feels like. I’ve never felt it’s pull.

My second example comes from Women and Sex in which I explore the fallacy of the social convention that insists “women are just as sexual as men” and that “women want sex, enjoy sex, even more than men.”

This canard is both observably and biologically disprovable, but the presumption is based on the same “we’re all the same, but celebrate the difference” conflicting principle that I mentioned above. If a dynamic is complimentary to the feminine then the biological basis is one we’re expected to ‘embrace the diversity’ of, but if the dynamic is unflattering to the feminine it’s the result “of a society that’s fixated on teaching gender roles to ensure the Patriarchy, we’re really more alike than not.”

The idea is patently false because there is no real way any woman can experience the existence and conditions that a man does throughout his life. I mention in that essay about how a female amateur body builder I knew who was dumbstruck by how horny she became after her first cycle of anabolic steroids. “I can’t believe men can live in a state like this” were her exact words. She was just beginning to get a taste of what men experience and control in their own skins 24 hours a day and it was unsettling for her.

Women are used to a cyclic experience of sexuality, whereas men must be ready to perform at the first, best opportunity sexually. These are our individuated experiences and despite all the bleating of the equalists they are qualitatively different. As zdr01dz observes, no man has an idea of what Hypergamy feels like. To my knowledge there is no drug or hormone that can simulate the existential experience of Hypergamy. Even if there were, men and women’s minds are fundamentally wired differently, so the simulated experience could never be replicated for a man.

I understand how Hypergamy works from observing the behavior and understanding the motivating biology for it. I also understand that our species evolved with, and benefitted from it – or at least it makes deductive sense that what we know as Hypergamy today is a derivative of that evolution – but what I don’t have is a firsthand, existential experience of Hypergamy and I never will. Likewise, women will never have a similar existential experience of what it’s like to be a man.

So it should be an easy follow to deduce that how a woman experiences love, as based on her Hypergamic opportunistic impulses, is a fundamentally different experience than that of a man’s. The equalist social order want’s love to be an equal, mutual, agreement on a definition of love that transcends individuated gender experience, but it simply will not accept that an intersexual experience of love is defined by each sex’s individuated experience.

I have no doubt that there are areas of crossover in both men’s idealistic concept of love and women’s opportunistic concept, but this experience of love is still defined by gender-specific individuation. By that I mean that women can and do experience intense feelings of love for a man based on her Hypergamously influenced criteria for love.

I’m actually surprised that more women have yet to call me to the carpet about their personal experiences of love from the commodity post, but if you sift through the comments on Women in Love and other blog/forum comments you’ll come across examples of women describing in great detail how deeply they love their husbands / boyfriends, and are in complete disarray over being told their love stems from Hypergamic opportunism. Again, I have no doubt that their feelings of love are genuine to them based on their individuated concepts of love; indeed they’re ready to fight you tooth and nail to defend their investment in those feelings. What I’m saying is that the criteria a man should need to meet in order to generate those emotions and arrive at a love state are not universally mutual as an equalitarian social order would have the whole of society believe.

So, yes, men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely – from their own individuated experiences. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. The processes they used to come to this love state differs in concept and existential individuation, and what sustains that love state is still dependent upon the criteria of men’s idealistic and women opportunistic concepts of love.

The Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

The commodification of that love state is presently weighted on the feminine because the Feminine Imperative is socially ascendant. The importance of satisfying the female sexual (and really life-goal) strategy takes primary social precedence today. Thus men’s individuated experience is devalued to an assumption of an “it’s-all-equal” universality while women’s is blown up out of all real valuation with collective expectations of “embracing their unique difference” set apart from that universality. If men’s experience is one-size-fits-all it’s really a small, and socially blameless, step for a woman to withhold the reward criteria men place on their idealistic love in order to satisfy their own sexual strategy.

Women’s social primacy allows them to feel good about themselves for commodifying the idealistic rewards men value to come to their own state of love, as well as maintain it.

It is one further step to embrace the concept that men’s experience of love, the idealism he applies to it and even his own sexual and life imperatives are in fact the same as those of women’s – while still setting women’s apart when it serves them better. Thus the cardinal rule of sexual strategies comes to a feminine-primary consolidation by socially convincing men that women’s experience and imperatives are, or should be considered to be, the same as men’s individuated experiences. Add women’s already innate solipsism to this and you have a formula for a gender-universal presumption of the experience of love based primarily on the individuated female experience of love.

In other words, women expect men to socially and psychologically agree with, reinforce and cooperate with the opportunistic feminine model of love as the equalist, gender-mutual model model of love while still believing that women share their own idealistic model. It’s the correct model that should work for everyone, or so women’s solipsism would have us believe.


Mutiny

mutiny35bounty4121

There are times I’m typing away on a particular topic and I get scooped by my own comentariat.

Quote from BadPainter (emphasis mine):

George – “She prefers a dual pluralistic feminine sexuality where she can express and enjoy greater sexual freedom and an artificial feeling of control and dominance.”

Because giving herself sexually to a man who is a provider either makes her a whore (trading sex for material goods), or a slave (giving up power to submit to a dominant man). By chasing Alpha Fux she can submit in that moment and maintain the illusion of independence. By accepting commitment from Beta Bux she gets the very highest price for her sex and can aintain the illusion that’s she is not a whore. Combining the two, Alpha Fux and Beta Bux means accepting a submissive position to a man who provides with an expectation of sex.

This is antithetical to entire feminist paradigm of equality with, and independence from, men. To achieve this ultimate feminist goal women achieve equality, and equality of outcome by political policy, and they achieve independence by becoming lesbians.

George’s response:

Well put, agreed. I wonder how many women really are successful with this plural hypergamy and how many really aren’t. We are seeing many media examples of this and examples of young girls in traditionally masculine leadership fantasy roles (hunger games, etc.). However, I personally know very few real females who are successful with “open hypergamy” and none who characterize real leadership traits. The ones attempting to practice this plural hypergamy expose themselves as the untrustworthy sluts they are, divorced, etc and no man worth a shit wants anything to do with them. They end up extremely insecure bitter hags in short order.

Again BadPainter:

George – “They end up extremely insecure bitter hags in short order.”

This seems to be the case amongst all women who hold to the feminist notion of equalitarian relationships. And I think generates similar results amongst women who don’t actively subscribe to feminism but willingly accept the benefits of feminism. And I think it’s the career track reality that does it.

A woman working outside the home must submit to the hierarchy of the work place. The workplace is the Alpha of her existance because it can and will dispose of her as soon as she is unwanted/not needed. The workplace is dread writ large. When she goes home she can’t as easily submit to her beta husband because she knows he can’t and won’t dispose of her so easily, especially if there are children involved. This is a source of disrespect, she gets away with it because she can. She resists because she has been playing that submision game all day and refuses to simply give in at home.

Likewise a man having to walk the tightrope of workplace politics being both a good follower and showing initiative, and leadership irrespective of rank and position, has little desire to fight those same battles at home. So he gives in out of exhaustion what he wants is a moments peace where his way is the only way because he’s the king of his own castle at least in his own mind.

Both man and woman are ultimately played against each other in this situation. The woman is more resistant to submit, the man more reluctant to dominate because he now has to be more dominant than the woman’s work place without the benefit hard dread sans consequences.  In the past the practiced amount of domestic dominance required would be reduced or mitigated by the economic reality of the woman’s dependence on the man for her material standard of living. Not so today when divorce law favors the woman, and domestic violence laws, and standards for defining abuse only apply to men. Today those influences plus the nuttiness of feminism makes a challenging situation worse as the the gender roles are now competitive instead of complimentary and collaborative

I realize I may raise a few hackles with today’s post. And while I wont apologize for what I’m going to propose here, just know that my intent isn’t to offend or injure, but rather to strip away a degree of what I think is a very pleasant, but sugar coated fiction.

Whenever I read or hear a man consistently refer to his wife as his “bride” it alerts me to his Blue Pill state of mind as well as his conditioning. This is a relatively new colloquialism for the Christian set (“christianese”). Generally I hear and read this from Evangelical Christian men because their context (or domain) is one of a self-enforced reverence for their wives. Usually it’s meant to be a not-so-veiled attempt at pedestalizing their wives in casual conversation with people they think will appreciate it (and hopefully earn cookie points with the wife), but what it reveals in my Red Pill lens is a guy who believes his “voluntary” deference to her makes him more respectable to her.

Before you think I’m unfairly highlighting “Christian Beta Game” there is a similar, but more pervasive dynamic in the married-man set of the manosphere. Whenever I read a man (I’ve never heard a guy verbalize this) refer to his wife as the “First Mate” or “First Officer” it similarly sets off the same sensitivity I get with the “brides” men – and for much of the same reasons.

Any man with a cursory experience in the manosphere recognizes this buzz-term from Athol Kay’s Married Man Sex Life. The principle of the term stems from the idea that a husband needs to be the ‘captain’ of his marriage, his family and the director and decision maker of where that unit will go, what their goals are, etc. On the face of it, this male headship positioning stresses what men (and wives) interpret as an old-order conventional complementarity between the sexes.

A strong male leadership role is very appealing to both men and women, and I’ll be the first to cosign the need for a man’s ‘captaincy’ as it were in his marriage and his life in general. This ‘Manning Up’ into a headship of his relationship hits the right buttons for a man predisposed to Beta complacency (not to mention it gives him a faint hope for resolving a sexless marriage), but also for women who are encouraged by the ‘new’ Alpha-ish husband they hope will take the lead (usually from her) and potentially generate the tingles he’s never quite been able to do for her.

Unfortunately, this push for ‘captaincy’ is self-defeated by the equalist-mindset compromise of allaying a woman’s inherent insecurities by giving her assurances that she will be the “first mate” in this new arrangement. Even in a position of instated headship (relinquished or otherwise), men predisposed to an egalitarian equalism still want to ‘play fair’ and offer an appeasement for being allowed to be the head of the home.

Her voice will be heard, her input will be considered, because he just “loves her that much”; this is the self-satisfying rationale for being allowed to direct the course of his marriage and family. The problems inherent in this are rooted in the compromise of his assuming all accountability for the failures of that arrangement while still granting her his magnanimous assurances that he’ll always have her best interests in mind.

Father Knows Best

I overheard a young woman explain what amounted to open Hypergamy to a Beta kid I know over the holiday. At one point she said, “It’s women’s job to get away with everything they can in life.”

Then the kid asks, “So what is men’s job to do in life?”, “Not to let ‘em” was her reply.

I’ve always stressed that the Frame in which you begin a relationship will set the overall tone of that relationship. That’s not to say the predominant Frame can’t be altered (indeed many men fall victim to their own Beta backsliding in marriage), but that tone, that predominant directorship of who’s Frame will set the course for where it goes and how it develops is set before you sign on to monogamy in its various forms. It is either your reality into which a woman must enter, or hers that you must enter. Their may be compromises, but these will be colored and characterized by whose Frame is the dominant one in the relationship.

Know this now, your wife, your LTR girlfriend, doesn’t want to be your “First Mate”.

While you may think you’re flattering her with your self-styled magnanimity, this compromise only reflects your Blue Pill equalist hope that she will genuinely appreciate the sacrifices you make in considering her Frame. The dominant Frame (hopefully yours) is what matters. While a wife’s input may present you with insight you may have overlooked, she must ultimately acquiesce to your Frame’s primacy.

When you consider her a co-equal actor in what you believe is a mutual Frame (or what you’ve convinced yourself is really your Frame to maintain that relationship) you will own your mistakes and failures, but she will share in, and at times take an equal credit for, your successes.

There’s a reason that the cliché is “Behind every great man is a woman” and not the other way around. Any man claiming a supportive responsibility for a woman’s success – or even being graciously acknowledged by her for it – is perceived as a coattail rider. When it comes to a comparison between Sensitive New Age Guy® and Strong Independent Woman®, a woman is always a support system for a man’s success. Men’s genuine support is emasculating because ‘support’ is a feminine role in either an egalitarian or a complementarian relationship.

Down with the Ship

While it may be comforting for a woman to believe her opinion is valued, or that what passes for her newfound submission to his direction is guaranteed by his considerateness, very few  ‘first mates’ are willing to go down with the ship once it starts taking on enough water. The ‘first mate’ notion is really a win-win situation for women who are already virtually guaranteed of long term support whether her ‘captain’ sinks the ship or not. With so many reassurances of social, emotional and financial support women can always reserve the right to jump ship should her husband’s fates and fortunes not live up to his headship.

When she goes home she can’t as easily submit to her beta husband because she knows he can’t and won’t dispose of her so easily, especially if there are children involved. This is a source of disrespect, she gets away with it because she can. She resists because she has been playing that submision game all day and refuses to simply give in at home.

In other words, the ‘captain’ is really on his own regardless of his ‘first mate’s’ input.

She’s absolved of his failures and shares in his successes – which are made all the better when he convinces himself that the directives of her Frame are really his own. Any consideration for real mutual input will always be mitigated by this foreknowledge of a relatively ensured support should he not live up to the performance demanded of a ‘captain’.

Forgetthesky from last week’s comment thread:

I think George and Badpainter bring forward an interesting hypothesis above: the idea that women are pursuing an AF/BB strategy so relentlessly not only because a man to exemplify both sides are so rare (though they are unusual), but because women would generally avoid such a man – because she would have no power over him, he would command all spheres. And modern women fear submission greatly, they’ve been trained to. And they’ve often enough never experienced it positively, with so many absent and beta father’s around.

A Man needs to command all spheres to genuinely be the ‘captain’, and ultimately this disqualifies any validity of his woman’s considered influence on him.

The idea of a needed balance of including a wife or LTR in a man’s decision making process is not just the result of an equalitarian mindset, it also serves the Feminine Imperative. While equalism is the root belief, the notion of a mutual (though nominally lesser) inclusiveness works on much the same level as Choreplay. If a man “plays more fairly and evenly” the expected reciprocation should be a reward of more of a woman’s love, respect and pussy. In fact this is the sell for both equalist Purple Pill inclusivity and doing a feminine defined set of equalized chores.

The problem then becomes one of the observer effect when a woman is constantly aware of the inclusivity, captain-first mate Game that she and her husband are both overtly playing. Observing the process will change it, so any assuming of ‘captaincy’ and any presumption of a roleplaying legitimacy on his part become suspect of both he and his wife’s genuineness. Truly submissive women want a decisive, unapologetic man with masculine determination and ambition for his life, who doesn’t need to be told he needs to be so. He ‘Just Gets It‘, and so much so that his Frame is the dominant one from the outset of the relationship without any back and forth about captains or first mates. She enters his reality, or she doesn’t associate with him.

Women don’t want to be overtly reminded that they’re “being included”. This is pandering to women who already know they have the blameless option of abandoning or jumping the ship. This overtness then inevitably script-flips to male ridicule.

“I’m the king of the castle. My wife told me I could be” is how the joke that men tell themselves goes, but the self-observation is really one of abdication to a woman’s Frame while he lamely grasps at an authority he doesn’t believe he’s ever earned.

No one laughs at his joke.


The Red Pill Lens

itsawonderfullife

One of the results of becoming Red Pill aware is a meta “awareness” of the feminine centric social order we live in today. On this side of the Red Pill it’s almost routine for me now to filter what’s presented to me in popular media, social doctrine or even casual conversation through a Red Pill lens.

Whether it’s the latest pop hit lyrics of a song my daughter is listening to in the bathroom, the latest movie or book, or just listening to someone rattle off an old Blue Pill trope in casual conversation, my sensitivity to how thoroughly immersed in fem-cetrism our society has become is overwhelming.

I’ve had guys in the manosphere joke with me that having this ‘lens’ is like having the special glasses that let you see the alien/zombies and propaganda in the movie They Live. While I get a laugh out of this I also have to think that those glasses never really come off. So when the holiday season comes around this awareness manifests itself more for me since I’m reacquainting myself with family and friends who are immersed in this Matrix and don’t realize they’re mouthing the meme’s and social focus of a feminine centric order.

I think it’s kind of ironic that during the holidays we’re expected to lock horns with our relatives over the latest generational/political/ideological differences, yet these all take place in a common, feminized social narrative. Your uncle may not agree with you politically, but he’ll slap you on the back while you both drink a beer and say, “Women ‘eh? I guess we’ll never figure ‘em out” and expect you to have some common agreement with him in spite of those differences.

I bring this up today (and for this weekend’s discussion questions) because it was due to this seasonal Red Pill awareness that I was better prepared to appreciate the holiday classic, It’s a Wonderful Life from a Red Pill perspective.

I’d just returned from a work trip last week and my daughter informed me that the movie was being shown in our local metroplex theater on Christmas eve. I’d seen it before on TV with all the intermittent commercials, and remembered how tedious I thought it was (it’s a pretty long movie for 1946), but she insisted and I wanted to do something with the family. I’ve never watched the movie start to finish, and when I did pick up scenes on TV during Christmas time, it was long before I had any Red Pill inclination.

Needless to say I was shocked (pleasantly) by how thoroughly Red Pill I found it. If you want to see what a pre-sexual revolution gender dynamic is like, this is your movie. Yes, it’s idyllic, but that idealism is founded in a social order, an ‘old books‘ social order, that reveals what our new feminine-primary social order is today. It shows you what we’ve become, but unfortunately the greater whole of our contemporary society lack the special glasses to really appreciate this distinction.

Some notable scenes:

  • George Bailey, the cab driver Ernie and the cop Bert ogle the sexy Violet Bick after she flirts with George and just flows down a busy street to be checked out all the more by every man on the street. In modern terms these men are all guilty of sexual harassment, but in 1928 (the film’s beginning) and viewed from a 1946 perspective of that time, there is nothing harassing about it. It’s de rigueur, and she enjoys the attention.
  • The family interaction between George, his brother Harry, and their father with Ma Bailey just prior to Harry’s graduation party. There is matronly deference to their mother, but both of the boys are being boys and there is no expectation for them to settle down. Both the brothers are naturally, effortlessly, cocky & funny with the maid and their mother. This isn’t a forced attitude, it comes off as both positively masculine and fun at the same time. Also, their father is the respected head of the household, both by virtue of his social status and integrity as well as his position as ‘father’. Needless to say, he’s never ridiculed as the buffoon he’d be portrayed as on a post-sexual revolution social order, and in fact dispenses a wisdom that benefits George later in life.After the graduation party George and Mary walk home in the odd dry clothes they were able to find after having fallen into the school pool. Mary is in a bathrobe and George in a football outfit. This flirtation and interaction is perhaps one of the best examples I can think of as an old order form of Game. George is cocky, funny, confident, ambitious, playfully teasing and yet still conscious of Mary’s perception of him as he effortlessly delivers a positive, masculine vibe.Again, it’s idyllic, and men being the true romantics will want to believe such receptivity could actually take place without any confusion of signals with an idealized, Quality Woman woman like Mary, but it’s the atmosphere and the attitude of expecting Mary to respond to George’s delivery that belies the era this scene and story was written in. Nothing seems forced at all, and we don’t expect Mary to match George’s masculine Game with one of her own feminine-empowered forms of Game. From a Red Pill perspective, we want a gal like Mary to exist, but you wont find her in 2014.

These were just a few scenes I thought stood out, but this film is an essay in the old order social structure a lot of well meaning Red Pill advocates would like to believe is still a possibility.

In the last thread commenter Xsplat asked the question whether an Alpha man could also be a provider. His criticism of the manosphere is that Alpha men are being painted as caricatures of cads, assholes and bad boy players women want to bang as part of their Hypergamous mating protocol. Betas are the opposite of this; good for provisioning only – cuckolds to be used for parental investment with only a perfunctory servicing of mediocre ‘duty’ sex as an intermittent reward to keep him pulling the cart.

If there are caricatures of Alpha and Beta being drawn I’d suggest this is due more to women and their comfort with Open Hypergamy and men deductively modeling their gender expectations as a result. That said, Xsplat’s not wrong. It is entirely possible for an archetypal Alpha Man to be an upstanding member of society, provide for his family and be well respected both by his peers and his wife. The character of George Bailey is an old order example of exactly this kind of man.

In our era women have an unprecedented facility for providing for their own security need, but that doesn’t eliminate the root level, emotional need for optimizing Hypergamy with a man who is an Alpha provider. For the most part women simply don’t expect to find this optimization in the same man. There are men they want to fuck and men they want to consolidate monogamy with, and finding this satisfaction in the same man is so rare, so unexpected, that his character becomes unbelievable. The George Bailey of 1928 is an unbelievable character in 2014.

As I’ve illustrated in many a prior post, Alpha is a state of mind, not a demographic. Just because the Alpha energy of a kid like Corey Worthington will get him laid without trying doesn’t preempt a woman from being aroused by, and attracted to a George Bailey. Context is king of course, but what matters is that self-interested Alpha mindset. While many a convicted felon possesses this mindset, and receives women’s sexual interests as a result of it, I’d still encourage men to use that Alpha energy to a positive, self-benefiting effect.

So the questions for this weekend are:

What Red Pill observations do you find unignorable in contemporary society? It’s dangerous to attempt to make others aware of this perception, but do you try anyway?

Do you see examples of the old order as I have in It’s a Wonderful Life? Understanding the idealisms inherent in it, what other examples of this old order to you know?

Alpha providers, while being an idealistic character, can exist, but are they realistic? I’d propose that embodying this role has become one of being seen too readily as a Beta by women due to the unbelievability of it. Does men’s romantic nature predispose them to thinking they can adequately fulfill this role? Does that romanticism expect women to be receptive and appreciative of it? Is that expectation on of investing in Relational Equity?

 


Domain Dependence

domain_dependence

I received the following email from a reader this week:

Hi Rollo, I ran across the below thread on the TRP discussion on Reddit. I’m not normally a big follower of reddit but this one was good and is something that I’ve thought for a long time. Online Dating really, really, really sucks for men. And turns women into bitches. And has changed the world from an 80/20 market to a 95/5 market. The average male and actually for most above average males too … like SMV 6s and 7s have been completely shut out. And learning Game does little good for these men.

Was wondering if you’d care to discuss such things.

One of the founding Red Pill principles I explored over a decade ago was the tendency for men (and women) to create Buffers against rejection for themselves. I’ll still argue that men being the ‘initiator’ sex are subject to the consequences of rejection far more than women ever will be, but left unchecked, and if we’re honest, deliberately ignored, these rejection Buffers often develop into psychological schemas men internalize as a specific “preference” when it comes to interacting with with women:

Buffers are generally the paths of least rejection that become ego-invested “preferences.” Buffers aren’t so much about those “preferences” as they are about the motivations behind them.

At this point you might be thinking, “well, what the hell, I don’t want to feel rejection, why not employ buffers against it?” The main reason for embracing rejection is that rejection is better than regret. Scan back through this short list of buffers; how many of these have become greater, longer term problems for you than a briefly painful rejection would’ve been? Buffers also have a tendency to compound upon themselves in that one tends to dovetail into another, or more, until you no longer realize that they were originally rejection prevention methodologies and gradually become associated with your genuine personality. After a long enough period, these buffer become “just how I am.”

In the past Roosh has gone into some speculation that there will be a narrowing of the already harsh 80-20 rule of the SMP the closer western society gets to a total consolidation of feminine social primacy. Certain bloggers will debate the numbers, but I tend to agree with his proposition, though I’d say that a starting point of 80-20 might be a bit generous. However, considering the comfort with which women and popular culture are embracing open Hypergamy, I think I would actually step up his timetable for ‘Peak Hypergamy’.

For now, men are being presented with some very simple and pragmatic choices:

  • Learn Game, stay in the Game. Make the most of what they have to work with in their given circumstances and focus on self-motivated self-improvement. In a sense it’s a form of MGTOW, but with the expressed purpose of actively engaging in the SMP as it’s accessible to an individual guy. In other words, don’t wish it were easier, wish you were better – play the game better but always with yourself as your own mental point of origin.
  • Exit the Game. No one truly exits the Game, but they can minimize their active involvement in it. For the most part this doesn’t have to be a complete capitulation to one’s sexless, intimacy-less fate, but it does imply a degree of self-imposed indifference to women’s interest. Unfortunately this option seems the most pragmatic for men who either haven’t the patience or circumstance to opt for improving themselves and succeed at the Game, or they simply don’t see a commensurate reward for the investment they’d need to make in assuming the liabilities that come with dealing with most women these days.
  • Continue on in a Blue Pill ignorance. Although this ‘choice’ is the most common (i.e. at least 80% of Beta men) it will be the one to disappear the most rapidly. Even without a growing Red Pill community, Red Pill awareness is becoming more difficult for even the most plugged-in of men to ignore. Women’s flaunting of Open Hypergamy and blatant admission to a sexual strategy of Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks combined with a widespread Red Pill awareness will challenge even the most ardent of White Knight’s and idealistic ‘average frustrated chumps’. Still, there are diehard self-righteous Betas who’s dedication to the path that the Feminine Imperative has set before them has made any deviation from it unthinkable. They build a life of dependency on the untenable Blue Pill goals and the means to realize them.

The problem inherent to all of these options is that to a lesser or greater degree they rely on a static state of a particular environment, condition or domain.

Domain Dependency

Just for the record, yes, I’m quite familiar with the anti-fragile doctrine proposed by Taleb with regard to domain dependency. I do see a parallels in this with regard to Red Pill awareness, but this is in no way an endorsement of the book – I simply don’t have enough familiarity with it.

For Red Pill purposes though, Domain Dependence is being good at what you do in one setting, but completely unable to transfer that ability to another setting. I think this dependence is one of the more overstated preoccupations Game critics have in really accepting the validity of greater Red Pill truths.

A cheetah is a deadly and effective predator when he can use his speed to run down prey on the wide-open African plains, but put him in the Brazilian rainforest, with its dense jungle, and he’s probably going to sleep hungry more nights than not.

Translated into predictable Red Pill critique, the idea is similar – “Yeah, sure, game works well for picking up low self-esteem bar skanks, but I’m looking for a Quality Woman.” What’s implied isn’t necessarily incorrect; the most ridiculed, stereotypical examples of Game came from the trials and errors of early PUAs making observations and applying what they’d learned in a contextual domain – night clubs, bars, etc. While those observations were, and still are, invaluable information to a greater meta-understanding of Red Pill awareness, for the most part those early successes were dependent on that specific (club style) domain.

Game has branched out from that beginning to be applied in broader domains. Thus we have specific areas of application dependency based on what can produce at least somewhat replicable results in those settings. Nick Krauser writes the book on day Game, Roosh the book on South America and Northern & Eastern Europe, while other authors ply their trade writing about Game in marriage or under the auspices of religion(s).

And while I have a great deal of respect for the most of them, a creative mind doesn’t work like this. The creative mind has the ability to migrate from one realm to another without even thinking about it. It’s what allows us to connect this dot with that dot. There is a certain applied reasoning and science behind a Red Pill awareness, but it’s important to remember what the ‘A’ in PUA stands for – Artistry.

Crossing Domains

I’ve known a number of guys in my time who swear that there’s nothing hotter than a woman 15 – 20 years their senior. Others love to explain to me how behind the times I am by pointing out the inherent dangers and liabilities of dating single mothers (for anything more than a one time bang). Still others tell me how enthusiastic a lay the obese women they regularly bang are. All of these guys express a preference for the type of women they can reliably get into bed with and will staunchly defend and praise their preferred type of woman.

Their domain dependency became their internalized, ego-invested preference.

I’ve touched on this dynamic in a few of my earliest posts, but I think it’s important to realize that domain dependency isn’t just about the type of woman you’ve developed a preference for, but rather how you’re predictably rewarded (in this case with sex) within that particular domain. You can semi-reliably do well with Goth girls, fat girls, older women, single moms? It’s important to understand the specifics and motivations of the women within that domain. You went on a sex safari in Southeast Asia or the Philippines, yet get flaked on by every western girl you approach? There are (obviously) specifics that influence those domains.

After all of this, the Red Pill is universally applicable, or it’s not. The same fundamental Red Pill dynamics, operating within the context of a specific domain, are applicable with the correct art necessary for that domain.

Red Pill truths are domain independent. Hypergamy is the same to a girl in Brazil as it is to a girl in Vegas. The domain changes, and with it the necessary art based on a woman’s incentives and the priorities for that given domain, but the underlying purpose and requisites of Hypergamy is unchanged. Yes, cultural, religious and familial limitations of that Hypergamy may apply within that domain, but root level Red Pill truth is still the prime directive for women.

Within a man’s lifetime he will have no choice but to cross into, and adapt to unfamiliar domains many times. These domains are not just locales or social settings, but the specifics of a particular stage of a woman’s life as well as his own life. Marriage is a domain. Single man sex life plate spinning is a domain. Online dating, a dependency on impersonal texting, really any of the Buffers I’ve elaborated on in the past are all examples of a domain men develop a dependency on, and later a rewarded preference for.

While it’s vitally important for a man to have a solid grasp of the elements of his own, temporal, domain it’s equally important to understand how and why he came into it. What rewards did he receive or hope to receive that led to his developed “preferences”? Were those preferences dependent upon a Blue Pill condition for reward?

This is key in avoiding domain specific dependency. That’s a pretty tall order for most men, and actually it’s one of the prime reasons most Blue Pill men never come to Red Pill truths. The Blue Pill is itself a meta-domain that men are largely conditioned to be dependent upon. Coming to Red Pill truths requires the self-realization of a domain dependency on Blue Pill idealisms, their promised rewards and then letting them go.

It’s important for a man to develop a fluidity of transitioning from domain to domain. Red Pill awareness prepares him for fundaments that will be applicable in all domains, but accepting that those domains exist and influence (sometimes adversely) his ‘preferences’ is the first step in developing the art necessary to excel in a new domain.

Isolation is dangerous. The presumption that conditions will never change and / or the preoccupation with security is a woman’s realm. Men must accept that they must adapt themselves to adequately perform in changing domains.


Estrus

 

Thomas_Doherty

Last week saw the publication of the latest paper by Dr. Steven W. Gangestad and Dr. Martie Hasselton titled Human Estrus: Implications for Relationship Science. Anyone who’s read the Rational Male for more than a year is probably familiar with my citing Dr. Hasselton in various posts (her catalog of research has been part of my sidebar links since I began RM), but both she and Dr. Gangstad are among the foremost notable researchers in the areas of human sexuality and applied evolutionary psychology. For this week’s post I’ll be riffing on what this paper proposes with regard to a condition of estrus in women.

In the introduction section of The Rational Male I relate a story of how in my Red Pill formative years I came to be a connector of dots so to speak. While I was studying behavioral psychology and personality studies a great many issues jumped out at me with regards to how many of the principle of behavioral psychology could be (and were already being) applied to intersexual relations. For instance, the basic concepts of intermittent reinforcement and behavioral modification seemed to me an obvious and learned practice of women in achieving some behavioral effect on men by periodically rewarding (reinforcing) them with sex ‘intermittently’. Operant conditioning and establishing operations also dovetailed seamlessly into the Red Pill concepts and awareness I’d been developing for several years prior to finishing my degree.

Since then the ideas I formed have naturally become more complex than these simple foundations, but what I only learned by error was how thoroughly disconnected both students and my teachers were with what I saw as obvious connections. I met obstinate resistance to flat denial when I wrote papers or gave a dissertation about the interplay between the foundations of behaviorism and interpersonal relationships. It was one thing to propose that men would use various aspects to their own advantage, but it was offensive to suggest that women would commonly use behavioral modification techniques to achieve their Hypergamous ends.

This peer resistance was especially adamant when I would suggest that women had a subconscious pre-knowledge (based on collective female experience) of these techniques. I never thought I had brass balls for broaching uncomfortable considerations like this – I honestly, and probably naively, assumed that what I was proposing had already been considered by academia long before I’d come to it.

I was actually introduced to the work of Dr. Hasselton during this time, and along with Dr. Warren Farrell, she’s gone on to become one of my go-to sources in respect to the connection between contemporary behavioral ‘dots’ with theories of practical evolved function in intersexual dynamics. I owe much of what I propose on Rational Male to this interplay, and while I doubt Hasselton would agree with all of what I or the manosphere propose, I have to credit her and her colleague’s work for providing me many of the dots I connect.

I understand that there are still evo-psych skeptics in the manosphere, but I find that much of what passes for their piecemeal “skepticism” is generally rooted in a desire to stubbornly cling to comforting Blue Pill idealisms. That said, I’d never ask any reader to take what I propose here on faith, but personally I’ve found that the questions proposed by evo-psych reflect many of the observations I had in my college days.

Hypergamous Duplicity

For the social theater of the Feminine Imperative, one of the more galling developments in psychological studies to come out of the past fifteen years has been the rise of evolutionary psychology. The natural pivot for the Imperative in dealing with evo-psych has been to write off any concept unflattering to the feminine as being speculative or proving a biased positive (by “misogynistic” researchers of course), while gladly endorsing and cherry-picking any and all evo-psych premises that reinforce the feminine or confirm a positive feminine-primacy.

Up until the past two years or so, there was a staunch resistance to the concept of Hypergamy (know as sexual pluralism in evo-psych) and the dual natures of women’s sexual strategy. Before then the idea of Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks was dismissed as biased, sociologically based and any biological implications or incentives for Hypergamy were downplayed as inconclusive by a feminine-centric media.

However the recent embrace of Open Hypergamy and “Sandbergism” of the last two years has set this narrative on its head, and the empowered women who found the idea of their own sexual pluralism so distasteful are now openly endorsing, if not proudly relishing, their roles in a new empowerment of Hypergamous duplicity.

Your Beta qualities are officially worthless to today’s women:

For those of you that aren’t aware, women now are often out earning men and more of them receive college degrees than men. As of now there aren’t really any programs to help guys out. Assuming this trend continues what do you think will happen to dating? I think that attractive women, will have their pick regardless.

However, for a lot of women, trying to lock down a guy in college will be more of a big deal. I don’t think hook up culture will disappear, but will definitely decrease.

With the exception with my current boyfriend, I have always earned more than any guy I have dated. It has never been an issue. I just don’t have to think about their financials, my attraction is based on their looks and personality. I am guessing the future will be more of that.

I thought this TRP subred was an interesting contrast to the Estrus theory proposed in the Gangstad-Hasselton paper (comments were good too). Yes, the woman is more than a bit gender-egotistical, and yes her triumphalism about the state of women in college and their earning is built on a foundation of sand, but lets strip this away for a moment. The greater importance to her in relating this, and every woman embracing open Hypergamy, is the prospect of better optimizing the dual nature of her sexual strategy.

In many a prior post I’ve detailed the rationales women will apply to their sexual pluralism and the social conventions they rely upon to keep men ignorant of them until such a time (or not) that they can best consolidate on that dualism. Where before that strategy was one of subtle manipulation and pretty lies to keep Betas-In-Waiting ready to be providers after the Alpha Fucks decline at 30, the strategy now is one of such utter ego-confidence in feminine social primacy that women gleefully declare “I’m not just gonna have my cake and eat it too, I’m getting mine with sprinkles and chocolate syrup” with regard to Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks.

The Estrus Connection

For all of the ubiquitous handwringing the manosphere imparts to the social implications of today’s Open Hypergamy, it’s important to consider the biological underpinnings that motivate this self-interested conceit.

From Human Estrus: Implications for Relationship Science:

In the vast majority of mammalian species, females experience classic estrus or heat: a discrete period of sexual receptivity – welcoming male advances – and proceptivity – actively seeking sex – confined to a few days just prior to ovulation, the fertile window. Only at this time, after all, do females require sex to conceive offspring. The primate order is exceptional. Although prosimians (e.g., lemurs, tarsiers) exhibit classic estrus, the vast majority of simian primates (monkeys and apes) are sexually active for at least several days outside of the fertile period [2]. Humans are an extreme case: Women may be sexually receptive or proceptive any time of the cycle, as well as other nonconceptive periods (e.g., pregnancy).

Do Women Retain a Functionally Distinct Fertile Phase?

Graded sexuality. Women’s sexual activity is not confined to an estrous period. But are women’s sexual interests truly constant across the cycle? Many female primates (e.g., rhesus macaques and marmosets) are often receptive to sexual advances by males outside of the fertile phase, but they initiate sex less [2].

In fact, women’s sexual interests do appear to change across the cycle. Women exhibit greater genital arousal in response to erotica and sexually condition to stimuli more readily during the follicular phase [5-8].

A recent study identified hormonal correlates of these changes by tracking 43 women over time and performing salivary hormone assays [9]. Women’s sexual desire was greater during the fertile window, and was positively related to estradiol levels (which peak just before ovulation), but negatively related to progesterone levels (which rise markedly during the luteal phase).

Changes in the male features that evoke sexual interest. Since the late 1990s, some researchers have argued that what changes most notably across the cycle is not sexual desire per se but, rather, the extent to which women’s sexual interests are evoked by particular male features – specifically, male behavioral and physical features associated with dominance, assertiveness, and developmental robustness. Over 50 studies have examined changes across the cycle in women’s attraction to these male features.

The importance of behavioral features? Whereas preference shifts of major interest early on concerned male physical features (e.g., facial masculinity; scent), several recent studies have focused on women’s reactions to men’s behavior and dispositions. Previous research had found that women find male confidence, even a degree of arrogance, more sexually appealing during the fertile phase [e.g., 15-16]. Recent studies replicate and extend that work, finding not only that fertile-phase women are more sexually attracted to “sexy cad” or behaviorally masculine men (relative to “good dad” or less masculine men), but also that, during the fertile phase, women are more likely to flirt or engage with such men [17,18]. Females of a variety of species, including primates [2], prefer dominant or high ranking males during the fertile phase of their cycles. These males may pass genetic benefits to offspring, as well as, potentially, offer material benefits (e.g., protect offspring). Women’s fertile-phase sexual attraction to behavioral dominance appears to have deep evolutionary roots.

Much of what’s explored here I laid out in Game terms in Your Friend Menstruation over two years ago, but the implications of the behaviors prompted by women’s menstrual cycle and biochemistry strongly imply an estrus-like predictability. This estrous state is a foundational keystone, not just to developing Game, but a keystone to understanding the dynamics behind Hypergamy, women’s dualistic sexual strategy, Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks, and can even be extrapolated into the drive for ensuring feminine social dominance in both overt and covert contexts.

When women embrace a social order founded upon a feminine state of openly revealed Hypergamy they confirm and expose the reality of this estrous state.

Whereas before, in a social order based on concealed Hypergamy, this state could be dismissed as a social construct (and a masculine biased one at that), or one that had only marginal influence to reasoning women with a “higher” human potential. No longer – the confirmation of a true estrus in women via open Hypergamy literally confirms virtually every elementary principle Game has asserted for the past 13 years.

Dual Sexuality

Within the dual sexuality framework, fertile-phase sexuality and non-fertile-phase sexuality possess potentially overlapping but also distinct functions [22,23]. In a number of primate species, extended sexuality – female receptivity and proceptivity at times other than the fertile phase – appears to function to confuse paternity by allowing non-dominant males sexual access [e.g., 24]. These males cannot rule out their own paternity, which might reduce their likelihood of harming a female’s offspring. In humans, by contrast, extended sexuality may function to induce primary pair-bond partners to invest in women and offspring [e.g., 22].

I found this part particularly interesting when you contrast this dynamic with the social resistance that standardized paternity testing has been met with. In a feminine-primary social order based on open Hypergamy, the Feminine Imperative can’t afford not to legislate a mandated cuckoldry. If Beta provider males will not comply with the insurance of a woman’s long-term security (as a result of being made aware of his place in Open Hypergamy) then he must be forced to comply either legally, socially or both. The old order exchange of resources for sexual access and a reasonable assurance of his paternity is replaced by a socialized form of cuckoldry.

Some studies have found that women’s sexual interests in men other than partners are strikingly rare during the luteal phase, relative to the fertile phase [25,26]. Other research has found moderating effects; for example, women who perceive their partners to lack sex appeal experience increased attraction to men other than partners, less satisfaction, and a more critical attitude toward partners, but only when fertile [27,28]. Fertile-phase women in one study were more assertive and focused on their own, as opposed to their partner’s, needs, especially when attracted to men other than partners during that phase [29].

Most research on cycle shifts has been inspired by theory concerning women’s distinctive sexual interests during the fertile phase. One study explicitly sought to understand factors influencing women’s sexual interests during the luteal phase, finding that, at that time, but not during the fertile phase, women initiated sex more with primary partners when they were invested in their relationship more than were male partners [30]. This pattern is consistent with the proposal that extended sexuality functions, in part, to encourage interest from valued male partners. Others have proposed that women’s estrus phase has been modified by pair-bonding.

Initiating sex or being receptive to a primary partner’s sexual interest during the luteal phase (the Beta swing of the cycle) follows when we consider that a woman being sexual during this phase poses the least potential of becoming pregnant while simultaneously (rewarding) reinforcing that primary partner’s continued investment in the pairing with sex (intermittent reinforcement). This is a very important dynamic because it mirrors a larger theme in women’s socio-sexual pluralism – it’s Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks on a biological scale.

Compare this intra-relationship predisposition for Beta sex and contrast it with the larger dynamic of open Hypergamy Alpha Fucks during a woman’s prime fertility window in her peak SMV years, and her post Epiphany Phase necessity to retain a comforting (but decidedly less sexually exciting) Beta provider.

Women’s sexual strategy on a social scale, mirrors her instinctual, estrous sexual strategy on an individual scale.

Cues of Fertility Status
Females across diverse species undergo physical and behavioral changes during estrus that males find attractive: changes in body scents in carnivores, rodents, and some primates; changes in appearance, such as sexual swellings, in baboons and chimpanzees; changes in solicitous behavior in rodents and many primates [2,31] Because women lack obvious cyclic changes, it was widely assumed that cycle shifts in attractiveness were eliminated in humans, perhaps with the evolution of
pair bonding [32].

In 1975, a pioneering study documented increased attractiveness of women’s vaginal odors midcycle [33]. A quarter century later, research revealing other detectable fertile-phase changes began to accumulate, including increased attractiveness of women’s upper torso odors, increased vocal pitch and attractiveness, and changes in women’s style of dress and solicitous behaviors [34]. Meta-analysis of this literature confirms that changes across the cycle in women’s attractiveness are
often subtle, but robust (K. Gildersleeve, PhD dissertation, UCLA, 2014).

A notable recent study demonstrated that hormones implicated in attractiveness shifts in non-humans also predict attractiveness shifts in humans [35]. Photos, audio clips, and salivary estrogen and progesterone were collected from 202 women at two cycle points. Men rated women’s facial and vocal attractiveness highest when women’s progesterone levels were low and estrogen levels high (characteristic of the follicular phase, and especially the fertile window).

Emerging evidence suggests that these changes affect interactions between males and females. During the fertile window, women report increased jealous behavior by male partners [25,29,36]. A possible mediator of such changes – testosterone – is higher in men after they smell tshirts collected from women on high- than on low-fertility days of the cycle [37; cf. 38]. A recent study examined related phenomena in established relationships by bringing couples into the lab for a close interaction task (e.g., slow dancing) [39]. Following the interaction, male partners viewed images of men who were attractive and described as competitive or unattractive and noncompetitive. Only men in the competitive condition showed increases in testosterone from baseline – and only when tested during their partner’s fertile phase.

What remains less clear is how we can understand shifts in attractiveness from a theoretical perspective. It is unlikely that women evolved to signal their fertility within the cycle to men [22,34]. In fact, the opposite may have occurred – active selection on women to conceal cues of ovulation, which could help to explain weak shifts in attractiveness relative to many species. Concealment might have promoted extended sexuality with its attendant benefits from investing males, or
facilitated women’s extra-pair mating. Possibly, the subtle physical changes that occur are merely “leaky cues” that persist because fully concealing them suppresses hormone levels in ways that compromise fertility. Behavioral shifts, by contrast, may be tied to increases in women’s sexual interests or motivation to compete with other women for desirable mates [e.g., 40].

Usually after first-time readers have a chance to digest the material I propose in Your Friend Menstruation the first frustration they have is figuring out just how they can ever reliably detect when a woman is in this estrous state. On an instinctual level, most men are already sensitive to these socio-sexual cues, but this presumptuousness of sexual availability is rigorously conditioned out of men by social influence. In other words, most guys are Beta-taught to be ashamed of presuming a woman might be down to fuck as the result of picking up on visual, vocal or body posture cues.

Beyond this perceptiveness, there are also pheromonal triggers as well as behavioral cues during estrus that prompt a mate guarding response in men.

I would however propose that the evolved concealment of an estrus-like state and all of the attendant behaviors that coincide with it are a behavioral mechanic with the purpose of filtering for men with a dominant Alpha capacity to “Just Get It” that a woman is in estrus and thus qualify for her sexual access either proceptively or receptively.  Women’s concealed estrus is an evolved aspect of filtering for Alpha Fucks.

In addition, this concealment also aids in determining Beta Bucks for the men she needs (needed) to exchange her sexual access for. A guy who “doesn’t get it” is still useful (or used to be) precisely because he doesn’t understand the dynamics of her cyclic and dualistic sexual strategy. Her seemingly erratic and self-controlled sexual availability becomes the Beta Bucks interest’s intermittent reinforcement for the desired behavior of his parental investment in children that are only indeterminately of his genetic heritage.

Evidence of this intermittent reinforcement can also be observed in what Athol Kay from Married Man Sex Life has described as wives “drip feeding” sex to their husbands. The confines of a committed monogamy in no way preclude the psycho-sexual influences of estrus. Thus placating a less ‘sexy’, but parentally invested man with the reinforcer of infrequent (but not entirely absent) sex becomes a necessity to facilitate the prospect of a future sexual experience with an Alpha while ensuring the security of her Beta.

In closing here I think the importance of how this estrous state influences women on both an individual and social level can’t be stressed enough in contrast to the social embrace of open Hypergamy. The Hypergamy genie is not only out of the bottle, but women are, perhaps against their own interests, embracing the genie with gusto.

Just today Vox posted a quick hit article about how men are discovering that pornography is now preferable to relating with the average woman. In an era of open Hypergamy I don’t believe this is a rationalized preference so much as it’s simply a pragmatic one. Men are rapidly awakening to a Red Pill awareness, even without a formal Red Pill education, and seeing the rewards (the intermittent reinforcement) simply aren’t worth the investment with women who blithely express their expectations of them to assume the role they would have them play in their sexual strategies.


Rational Male – Q&A

RM_Q&A

SoSuave and Rational Male reader compleks had a few questions about what he read in The Rational Male book. Since I’ve been doing these weekend questions lately I thought these might make for some interesting discussions. Hopefully they wont distract you from family time this holiday weekend, but maybe they make for some interesting dinner table talk.

Just a side note here, I’m deliberately leaving my own answers less detailed than I normally would so as to inspire your owndiscussions:

If The Rational Male was recommended to me as a book about game, I probably wouldn’t have read it. But my friend who put me onto it basically described it as a life altering piece that would forever change the way I viewed the world of inter-gender relations.

Big sell!

So I read it.

Being freshly unplugged I’m still just awakening from that groggy comatose/confused state. However I feel as though I have a slight head start on at least some of the material. Just by sheer chance, rather than any real research into the subject.

I’ve only ever been in one LTR (2years), and it was with the girl I first hooked up with (she let me sleep with her, better hang onto this one!). Anyway, I ended that (5-6years ago) and have been single ever since, with no desire of entering another relationship.

I started ‘spinning plates’ about a year ago, just through a natural realization that any moral/ethical objection was actually completely unfounded. Not just my own (programmed) objections, but objections from the feminine perspective, which I guess are one in the same. I thought I must have been ‘wired’ differently because I had no desire of settling back into a LTR. I actually argued my case on multiple occasions to avoid it happening.

This book was eye opening and definitely shed some light on issues I never would have even thought to question.

If you care to keep reading I’m just going to spew some thoughts/questions having just finished the book. Keep in mind this is from a very rudimentary understanding of the text.

QUESTIONS

1) Does ONEitis best Hypergamy?
We all know a girl (either personally or anecdotally) who is in a committed relationship with some deadbeat. Everyone knows she can do better, but you can’t possibly convince her to leave him. What factors are at play here? Does SHE suffer from ONEitis to the point that her hypergamous tendencies have been shut off?

Or could it be a case of low self esteem and lack of self worth, so much so that she believes he is the best she can do? Or could he actually just be an Alpha male (albeit a bad example of one)? I’m sure there’s a grey area or middle ground here with many factors potentially at play depending on the specific scenarios. But it’s a pretty common scenario and I’d like to hear what you guys think.

I get this one now and then – “What about this one great looking girl I know who’s stuck on this complete douchebag, deadbeat, scumbag, suckup, :insert invective here:?” While I’m not sold on the idea that women ever get ONEitis for a guy, I am thoroughly convinced that women being 1-2 SMV points below a particular man they’re involved with develop a strong attachment for him.

For women, oftentimes that attachment gets paired with the soul-mate myth. I’d separate that “spiritualism” from the ONEitis a man gets for a woman, but it’s still rooted in the same dynamic – the subconscious realization that this person is the ‘best they can do’ in the SMP.

The reason I’d make the separation between how men experience ONEitis and women is due to the concepts either have when it comes to love. Women’s concept of love is rooted in opportunism as a result of their innate drive towards hypergamous optimization. All this ‘deadbeat’ needs do is be perceptually 1-2 levels above her own perceived SMV and the Alpha prerequisite for Hypergamy is met.

Most guys looking from the outside of that perception in realize the guy’s a fuck up (even Alpha Buddah, Corey Worthington is an example), and we can’t understand why that subjectively hot woman can’t use reason and rationality to see that he is, but then, this is due to our own self-perceptions and our mistaken belief that women’s reason can be appealed to.

2) Genuine Inter-Gender friendships?
Okay, so i don’t have the book with me. But I remember reading a sub-section on inter-gender relationships. It didn’t sit well with me when I read it, but it’s probably something I will have to re-read. I have a lot of female friends. Friendships that go back 15 years. Some of these are very close friends in a completely non-sexual way.

I’m closer with some of these girls than I am with many of my male friends.
Initially these friendships may have blossomed based on the fact that I was a shy kid and didn’t have any ‘intimate’ relationships with women till I was 19. But they are now concreted as some of my most valued friendships.

What is your take on Rollos opinion of inter-gender friendships (as outlined in the rational male)?

My take in the book, and still is, is that men and women cannot be friends in the same way and to the same degree of intimacy that same sex friendships develop.

Men and women cannot be friends in the way or to the degree that most people perceive same sex friendship to be. Now the natural response to this is “I have lots of female friends” or “what are you trying to say, I can’t have female friends, they all haffta be enemies?” Which of course is the standard binary (black or white, all or nothing) retort and the trained AFC thinks anyone suggesting that men and women’s relations as friends could be anything less than equitable and fulfilling is just a neanderthal chauvinist thinking. However, they are incorrect – not because you wouldn’t want to actually be a woman’s friend. There are fundamental differences in the ways men and women view friendship within the framework of their own sex and the ways this transfers to the concept of intergender-friendship.

Quite simply there are limitations on the degree to which a friendship can develop between men and women. The easy illustration of this is that at some point your female “friend” will become intimately involved with another male; at which point the quality of what you perceived as a legitimate friendship will decay. It must decay for her intimate relationship to mature. For instance, I’ve been married for 18 years now; were I to entertain a deep friendship with another female (particularly an attractive female) other than my wife, my interest in this woman automatically becomes suspect of infidelity – and of course the same holds true for women with man-friends. This dynamic simply doesn’t exist for same sex friendships because the sexual aspect is inconsequential.

I should add here that the presumption of an equatable degree, character or quality of intergender friendship (platonic) being the same as a same-sex friendship is a product of the same “we’re-all-the-same-with-different-plumbing” naive equalism that deliberately ignores complementary differences between the sexes.

This presumption is actually a vetting mechanism for women’s control of sexual selection and Hypergamy. The social convention that promotes the idea of equitable concepts of friendship only serves women’s imperative of being able to hold the attentions of multiple male orbiters until such a time that she can optimize both sides of her sexual strategy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks). The longer you’re rapt by the idea of an equal intergender friendship, the longer she has to consolidate on whatever side of hypergamy she’s prioritizing at the phase of life she’s in. In other words, the longer you’re in the bullpen, the longer you’ll be a Plan B prospect.

3) Religion vs Evolution vs Habit?
This is a bit abstract. But in terms of a decayed loveless marriage, what would you say are the factors holding these marriages together? Neither party is happy, but they are also unwilling to do anything about it.

One clings to a religious frame as reason to not leave/divorce, as the children are all old enough now that “staying together for the childrens sake” no longer applies.

The other seems completely indifferent and stuck in the routine. Both are mid 50’s and have been married for 30 years and probably just scarred shitless of being alone. But what would you make of this from an ‘unplugged’ point of view. (might be a stretch from the realm of this book, but just curious).

What you’re describing is akin to the phenomenon of Grey Divorce. In the time line from my Preventative Medicine series, I briefly outline what’s known as the 20 year itch – the period of life, usually after 50 around the time a long-married couple becomes ‘empty nesters’ and the binding responsibilities of raising children is at, or almost at an end.

It’s around this phase that a reassessment of one’s partner takes place and the prospects of living out the rest of a life with that person gets serious consideration. This is a phase that’s very telling of the overall prospects of marriage as an institution on whole and how either sex really considers their idealistic, loving union from very mater-of-fact practicality, when there is no longer a mutually cooperative goal (childrearing) as the centerpiece of that relationship.

Religion and/or a conviction that children are better raised by an involved two parent (male and female) family who are both mutually invested in the success of their kids is generally a bond that both parties mutually agree to as the cornerstone of their marriage.

Once that goal has been met (or termed out) then that relationship must be reestablished and based on a genuine interest and desire for the other person. For a man this may involve his realizing an understanding of tenets of the Game that he’s, until then, unwittingly been a party to. For women this may be a longing for renewed interest from extra-marital (but not necessarily infidelity) attentions and desire from other men.

It’s kind of telling how men’s idealistic concept of love endures beyond his late-life Epiphany stage. In spite of having experienced the consequences and all-downside risks men face in their prior marriages, it’s still overwhelmingly men who want to remarry and take another shot at that idealism.

It is women, in either their veiled pragmatism or their aging, unrealizable opportunistic concept of love who are more or less indifferent to the prospects of remarriage.

“Most currently divorced or widowed men are open to the idea of remarriage, but women in the same circumstances are less likely to be,” says the report, which draws on figures from a survey it conducted in May and June. Almost two thirds of men either want to remarry or would at least consider it, while fewer than a half of women would.

These stats alone are more than enough to verify my assertions of how either sex hold different concepts of love.

Men still dream of an idealistic love, and women have find precious little use for men beyond the practical when presented with the prospect of having to optimize Hypergamy at an age they are no longer capable of intersexual competition.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,460 other followers