Category Archives: Game

The Isolationists

isolation

Pandora at Sosuave has a conundrum for us to solve today:

It seems there are two contradictory schools of thought on dating:

1.) You hear from one side of the argument to pursue your interests in life and women will come to you. This is what the MGTOW movement espouses. Im not sure if men can even be totally indifferent to the power of pussy. But some believe the total indifference is the key to a fulfilling love life. I have found that if you are indifferent then you will get nothing and be celibate. This doesn’t sound very good.

2.) The other argument is that you should not be indifferent at all. This school of thought says that dating is purely a numbers game. Its similar to sales. The more women you meet the higher the likely hood of one of these women liking you. The more approaches you do the more lays you get. Simple statistics. This school of thought is the opposite of indifference. This is the way i personally go about dating and i have had mediocre results. This is represented by the NEXTING mentality.

Not sure which one to choose or which one is correct. I do know that i am tired of being a slave to vagina. I do OK but it takes a ton of work to get one mediocre lay. Its not good for your self esteem either. Being rejected or toyed with mentally is unhealthy for your psyche. Most of my friends are also slaves to getting laid. Roosh V made a post about how ” His Boner is his master”.

So is it ” Pursue your interests in life and women will take care of themselves” vs ” Go out and do the field work”..which one will lead to a more fulfilling life?

Before we get down to nuts and bolts here let me address this last part first. There is no such thing as a “fulfilled” life. God forbid you reach fulfillment in life. The human state is one of a perpetuated discontent, and so long as that discontent is constructively pursued, this is a good thing. When anyone presents you with a plan or an abstract for life fulfillment, understand that they are selling you something based on the very human want for a better life.

That said, the rest of the question makes for some interesting debate. I often read a common thread in the manosphere about how men should develop some mental disposition of “outcome independence.” I understand the sentiment and why it would be beneficial for any guy to simply shrug his shoulders and say “either way, yes, no, I’m good with it”, but what this really boils down to is another indirect Buffer against real rejection.

I’ve read some ‘life coaches’ rattle off something similar. The idea is that if you put yourself out there, just by doing so, a woman will appreciate the inherent risk of rejection in your approach and at least give you merit points for trying when she does reject you. It’s a flawed idea because it presumes the women you’d approach would have any capacity to recognize that risk, much less reward the effort. It presumes that women would have that rational insight in the moment and think “well, he must have confidence for just trying to hit on me” and add that to some subconscious list of pros and cons for accepting or rejecting him.

And of course when it comes to light that the majority of women don’t have any concept of the approach-risk appreciation they’re supposed to have, that’s when a guy is told he’s hitting on the wrong kind of woman – they’re not the “quality” women they should be risking themselves with.

So the next deductive step becomes one of insulating oneself against that rejection preemptively. Thus, outcome independence becomes not just a mindset, but also a (misguided) Game strategy. Therein lies the conflict; is outcome independence who you are or is it a strategy disconnected from yourself which you rely on to Buffer rejection?

I touched on this in Vulnerability:

The idea goes that if a man is truly outcome-independent with his being rejected by a woman, the first indicator of that independence is a freedom to be vulnerable with her. The approach then becomes one of “hey, I’m just gonna be my vulnerable self and if you’re not into me then I’m cool with that.”

The hope is that a woman will receive this approach as intended and find something refreshing about it, but the sad truth is that if this were the attraction key its promoters wish it was, every guy ‘just being himself‘ would be swimming in top shelf pussy. This is a central element to Beta Game – the hope that a man’s openness will set him apart from ‘other guys’ – it is common practice for men who believe in the equalist fantasy that women will rise above their feral natures when it comes to attraction, and base their sexual selection on his emotional intelligence.

The fact is that there is no such thing as outcome independence. The very act of your approaching a woman means you have made some effort to arrive at a favorable outcome with her. The fact that you’d believe a woman would even find your vulnerability attractive voids any pretense of outcome independence.

In a larger scope, there is no real outcome independence. Even making the effort to adopt that IDGAF mindset is itself an investment in an outcome. If you were truly indifferent to the outcome of a situation there would be no discussion about it.

Being truly indifferent to whether or not a woman accepts or rejects you implies a disinterest in that woman’s interests in you. There are certainly ways to insulate oneself against a negative outcome, but outcome independence is not Game itself. You will learn more from your failures than from your successes.

With that in mind Pandora raises some interesting propositions here:

1.) You hear from one side of the argument to pursue your interests in life and women will come to you. This is what the MGTOW movement espouses. I’m not sure if men can even be totally indifferent to the power of pussy. But some believe the total indifference is the key to a fulfilling love life. I have found that if you are indifferent then you will get nothing and be celibate. This doesn’t sound very good.

I think for the most part this want for indifference gets pushed to extremes. As I’ve stated many times, a woman should only ever be a complement to a man’s life, never the focus of it. However, that doesn’t mean a complete dissociation from women is healthy. For a woman to be a complement to your life you’ll need interact with, and understand the nature of, women.

Roissy summed this position up well in the 16 Commandments of Poon:

III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority

Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.

What this commandment doesn’t presuppose is that there isn’t a woman in a man’s life to be superseded by his mission. It’s not all mission, no woman. The MGTOW branch of the manosphere is made up of a diverse set of guys. From my experience not all MGTOWs are interested in complete indifference to women; most would be happy to have women be interested in them enough to make an effort to associate themselves with them, they just don’t see the point in making a direct effort to make those connections. Others simply resign themselves to isolation and meeting their physical needs with porn or escorts while they ‘enjoy’ life and pursue their own interests absent of women.

There is an inherent problem in this latter MGTOW preference, they build a fortress around themselves:

Law 18: Do Not Build Fortresses to Protect Yourself— Isolation is Dangerous
The world is dangerous and enemies are everywhere— everyone has to protect themselves. A fortress seems the safest. But isolation exposes you to more dangers than it protects you from-it cuts you off from valuable information, it makes you conspicuous and an easy target. Better to circulate among people, find allies, mingle. You are shielded from your enemies by the crowd.

You cannot entirely remove yourself from the Game. You can cede the governance of your participation in intersexual dynamics to whatever or whomever you think may control it, but you cannot recuse yourself from its influences. This is a foundational truth I think some MRAs and the more isolationist MGTOWs believe they can in some way buffer for themselves. They believe that not playing the Game is a preferable situation to “dealing” with the means and efforts necessary to “succeed” with women.

The natural progression then becomes one of self-affirmation in the belief that they’re not ‘dealing’ with women, and any guy who is is little more than a slave doing the bidding of women by even his interest in applying an effort to understand and interact with them. Even the most marginal effort becomes ‘pussy begging’.

16. Dancing Monkey Hate

Hater: Men who run game are just doing the bidding of women. Alphas don’t entertain women.

If you want success with women, you are going to have to entertain them… one way or the other. The same is true of women. Once a woman stops entertaining men with her body, her femininity, and her commitment worthiness by getting fat, old, ugly, bitchy, or single mom-y, she stops having success with men. We are all doing the bidding of our biomechanical overlord, and on our knees to his will we surrender, by force or by choice. You fool yourself if you believe you have some plenary indulgence from this stark reality.
Or: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

The problem with the ‘pussy begging’ rationale becomes one of defining what degree of interest a man ought to have with women. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy; the women who accommodate this level of (dis)interest become ‘quality women’ while those who don’t align with that impression serve as convenient proof of their isolationist belief. The latent rationale becomes one of sour grapes, disdain the things you can’t have while making necessity a virtue. If there is something you want but cannot have, show contempt for it. The less interest you reveal, the more superior you seem.The logic then becomes circular.

The opposite extreme, and one intersexual isolationists like to promote, is that it’s all a numbers game with regards to any “success” with women. If you throw enough spaghetti against the wall something will stick. Isolationists would have us believe that even what sticks is rarely worth the effort (sour grapes), but if you play the game often enough what you get is due more to persistence than any real accuracy of applied Game.

So is it ” Pursue your interests in life and women will take care of themselves” vs ” Go out and do the field work”..which one will lead to a more fulfilling life?

I’d say a measured balance of both. I don’t believe for a moment that any man is functionally indifferent to the influence of women. Men are the True Romantics; we want our idealistic impression of love to be impossibly reciprocated. We look for ways to buffer the frustration of trying to make our concept of love and female acceptance fit women’s when we don’t understand that each sex adheres to separate ideals. Outcome independence, isolationism, are ways some men think they can enforce our ideal as the standard for women.

With the Feminine Imperative in social ascendance women enforce a Hypergamous ideal that imbalances intergender dynamics, but that doesn’t mean men are powerless to effect their own interests and draw women into men’s Frame. The solution isn’t one of ‘taking all your toys and going home’ to wait for women to come around to appreciate men. It’s going to take a learned interaction.

The real pussy begging comes from demanding a woman to come over to your perspective unbidden and unmerited. Make your mission not your woman your imperative, but in that mission be the Man a woman will want to be associated with. I always stress the importance of Frame control – it’s the first Iron Rule of Tomassi – but this presupposes you have command of that frame to begin with. She enters your reality, you don’t enter hers, but you must have a reality a woman wants to enter into before you can maintain it.


The Invisibles

invisibles

Forge the Sky:

The heart of all this is: in a woman’s mind, humans have three genders. Women, alphas, and betas. The problem is, it’s difficult to distinguish between the latter two as there are no clear biological markers; a few un-fakeable traits like height and muscularity give an indication, similar to how long hair tends to indicate a woman, but not infallibly so.

But women have different relationships with them. To women, betas are friends, helpers, co-workers, employees, servants; unless related by blood, they are practical beings only. There is no romance to them. They are useful, fun, maybe even someone to be a little affectionate toward so long as they remain useful, but they have no deeper self, no soul, no mystical thing to bind to.

Alphas are something else entirely. They are actually people – people drenched with desire, romance, spirit. Him, she can respect. In greater cases even worship. It matters little how well he performs objectively, so long as he does nothing to make her doubt her assessment of him as alpha. If he does perform, she admires and praises his performance – but she’s doing that about something or another regardless, even if she’s gushing about how he bought her a bag of skittles.

No woman will stand beside a beta as he faces, and succumbs to, death. Not unless it’s convenient, or she would be shamed otherwise. It simply would not make sense for her to do so. Would you hold your employee’s hand as they lay dying? Only if they had a fatal accident right in front of you. Past that, condolences to the kids.

Men see two genders. Men and women. Better and worse, more and less attractive, but no fundamental difference. Without being trained in a (for us) counterintuitive mindset, we will by default project our understanding of gender upon women. And so we try to improve our beta game, instead of flipping the script.

The blue pill is miserable because it is learned helplessness. From within, it is the cracking of an invisible whip, punishment meted capriciously and without time or reason. There is no pattern or method to the blue pill man’s pain.

FTS must’ve been reading my mind this week because his comment made a perfect segue into what I’ve been developing this week. The most salient part of this comment, I thought, was “Without being trained in a (for us) counterintuitive mindset, we will by default project our understanding of gender upon women.”

This was a good observation because there are intrinsic parts of the male psychological firmware that the Feminine Imperative picked up on long ago and deliberately co-opts to better aid in optimizing women’s control of Hypergamy.

From the utility-need side of Hypergamy, this mostly manifests in various forms of serviceable security. The Beta Bucks aspect of Hypergamy can be distilled to a need for security, protection, and a certainty that a woman and her offspring will be insured against any uncertainty. Every psychological and sociological dynamic that contributes to feminine-primacy keys on this need for existential certainty. The War Brides dynamic, the evolution from old-order chivalry to modern feminism, and now the social / legal handicapping of men to ensure that feminine-security certainty above all other considerations are all manifestations of this need.

The Feminine Imperative learned long ago that men’s innate protectorate instinct for the feminine was its second most valuable means of masculine control – the first being men’s ‘always on’ sexual impetus. Thus pairing the two as a means of control is a simple deductive proposition for the imperative. The rudimentary connection being, “protect the woman and I get sex.”

This is the unspoken exchange that’s part of our evolutionary past. Men are nothing if not deductive (yet creative) problem solvers, and women have used this to their hypergamous advantage since our hunter-gatherer beginnings.

This is what confounds modern men under the auspices of our present feminine-primary social order. We’re emphatically told that women “never owe men sex“, yet the latent message is, and has always been, “but, if you perform to her satisfaction, she might be more inclined to give you sex.” Carrot to pull the cart, I know, but this mental algorithm is a sociological buffer for women – exclude the sexually unworthy, but leave an acceptable caveat in order to leverage the possibility of sex with those who are still useful in providing security.

Bear this in mind the next time you read a story about a savior White Knight who was beaten to a bloody pulp for his effort to protect a woman from the “predations” of some Alpha(s) she likely wants to bang anyway. Men will project, by default, our own gender interpretation onto women, and sometimes pay the price for it. Betas believe the feminine-primary, equalist advertising that men and women are functional equals while still force fitting an expected, old-order, male-protectionism (completely based on an unequal state presumption) into that belief – often at their own expense.

Invisible Men

While I disagree that there are no distinct physical and cultural markers that women use (sometimes subconsciously) to distinguish Alpha men from the bulk of Beta men, I strongly agree with the distinction and characterization Forge the Sky makes with how women regard Beta men.

The vast majority of men are sexually invisible to women, but all males are visible in terms of their utility to women and the role those men are expected to play in deference to women’s solipsism.

There’s an important difference in that visibility with respect to men and women we need to consider.

I expect that female readers will trot out the “ooh, ooh, men do it too” counter that women are invisible to men who don’t see them as a sexual prospect. That may be the case, particularly for mature women convinced they should be sexually viable into their 50s, however, those women’s functional utility is never an issue for men. Neither is it an article of attraction for a man. As much as a feminine-centric culture would like to convince women of the opposite, men simply don’t factor a woman’s provisional utility into their attraction equation.

Invisible men never become visible to women until either those men intrude on a woman’s’ awareness or she has a specific utilitarian need of him. At this point, whether due to arousal / attraction awareness or her specific need (usually protection or security insurance), that man must perform to prove his maleness. He must qualify for her visual acknowledgment of him.

Over prolonged periods, this invisibility, and the fear of having his insistence rejected, can influence men’s overall perception of women and their intergender interpretations. Invisible men tend to confuse a woman’s utility interests in him as genuine indicators of interest (IOIs). The Feminine Imperative prepares for this ‘mixed message’ with a constant, self-perpetuating social narrative that tells the invisible men they are never, under any circumstance, owed a woman’s intimacy – it is always a gift, a reward, for her approval.

Despite this aspect of their social conditioning, the Invisibles still read more into those IOIs and perceive that a woman’s attraction is a genuine extension their own serviceability. This is the foundation of the Savior Schema. Much of what the manosphere considers sexual ‘thirst’ is a direct result of the scarcity mentality that results from an Invisible becoming an unexpected service-providing option for a woman.

Invisible men become more compliant when women’s utility needs make them visible. They confuse their use with genuine appreciation and desirability.

If we consider the 80 / 20 rule of the sexual marketplace and figure that 80% of Beta men are sexually invisible to women we get a broader perspective of how the gender landscape has evolved in an era where women’s security-side needs are planned for and met with a relative degree of certainty.

I had a teenage kid I used to consult who related this story about how one of his nerdy friends had somehow spontaneously generated the interest of a girl who was an obvious two points above his SMV. His initial frustration was one of wonderment about how this guy could be ‘dating’ so hot a girl while he wasn’t bumping the needle with even the girls he thought were a point below himself.

His nerdy friend assumed the predictable self-righteous Beta position that some “special” girls just understand and appreciate guys like him in favor of the brutish jocks “society tells them they should like.” All this came two weeks before that year’s homecoming dance (and after-party), where she promptly left him to go dance and party with her girlfriends and their jock guy-friends for the rest of the evening.

This kid had served his utilitarian purpose of fronting the money for the evening, a limo, corsage, photos (of their group) and the bit of risky underage liquor he could manage. In spite of all that he still refused to make the connection of his being used for her purpose. Invisibles feel validated in their own manipulation because that utility made them visible (“do my homework nerd”) even if just momentarily. As bad as that extortion was, that brief moment of visibility implies the prospect that another woman in the future (a really special one) will also appreciate his utility and reward it with her intimacy.

Needless to say, this visibility differential becomes an internalized factor in men’s approach to women. There are ways an invisible man can make himself visible; all require effort and risk. As I stated before, a man remains invisible unless his physical presence and arousal prompts make him unignorable, his performance is outstanding enough to draw attention or he simply asserts his visibility towards that woman. Physical bearing and performance recognition being the Alpha Fucks side of the Hypergamy equation is an easy follow, but a man asserting himself and his personality is where the Red Pill and applied Game come into play. This prospect will always imply risk of rejection until such a time that an Invisible’s confidence supersedes his self-image as an invisible.

We had a long discussion in the last thread about the mindset of the MGTOW contingent of the manosphere and the sentiment of men wishing to remove themselves wholesale from the sexual marketplace. I understand this sentiment and I know men, like Advocatus Diaboli, who have legitimately recused themselves from the SMP, but it seems to me this want is the result of having been invisible to women for so long. They get to a point where they become invisible by choice.

The Third Sex

I can’t finish this essay without drawing attention to FTS’s first observation:

The heart of all this is: in a woman’s mind, humans have three genders. Women, alphas, and betas. The problem is, it’s difficult to distinguish between the latter two as there are no clear biological markers; a few un-fakeable traits like height and muscularity give an indication, similar to how long hair tends to indicate a woman, but not infallibly so.

After I’d reconsidered this I had to dig out my copy of Plato’s Symposium and pore through it to read the part where Aristophanes proposed that there were, in fact, three sexes (in primal times) that their all-male discussion collective ought to consider:

 There were three sexes: the all male, the all female, and the “androgynous,” who was half male, half female. The males were said to have descended from the sun, the females from the earth and the androgynous couples from the moon.

A lot is being made of transgenderism recently and the fluidity with which people want to arbitrarily “gender-identify” borders on the ridiculous, but FTS’s observation has more implications than I think most are aware of. I’m sorry to go all philosophus on you, but I can definitely see parallels with the symbolism Aristophanes suggests and the female perceptions of the division of maleness FTS brings out here. Although Aristophanes would say that these primal beings split into gays, lesbians and heterosexual beings, I’d suggest that this primal awareness stems from a male understanding of the division of Alpha and Beta men and how women perceive them, visibly and non-visibly.

I covered this a while back in Queens, Workers & Drones:

Selective Breeding

So powerful is this sense of entitlement, so consuming and convinced of the correctness of their purpose is the feminine that women will literally breed and raise generations of men to better satisfy it. Hypergamy is cruel, but nowhere more so than in the relationship between a mother overtly raising and conditioning a son to be a better servant of the feminine imperative.

But to breed a better worker, the feminine imperative’s queens can’t afford to have any corrupting, masculine, outside influence. On a societal scale this might mean removal (either by disincentives or forcibly) of a father from the family unit, but this is the easy, extreme illustration. There are far more subtle social and psychological means that the imperative uses to effect this filtering – via mass media, social doctrines, appeals to (feminized) morality, the feminine is placed as the correct imperative while the masculine is filtered out or apologetically tolerated as vestiges of an immature and crude reminder of masculinity’s incorrectness.

Yet for all of this social engineering Hypergamy still demands satisfaction of women’s most base imperative, Alpha seed. The queens need physically / psychologically dominant drones – if just for a season and at their ovulatory pleasure. While beta workers are endlessly vetted in sisyphean tasks of qualifying for the acceptance of the feminine imperative, the Alpha drones live outside this shell; their qualifications only based on how well they satisfy the feminine’s visceral side of  hypergamy.

The great irony of this social solution to hypergamy and long term parental investment is that the vast majority of the offspring of this arrangement would be raised to be better workers. Those betas-to-be boys must be insulated from the corrupting influence of the drones lest they devolve into the Alphas they crave yet cannot control. It may seem counterintuitive, to raise what should ostensibly be optimized genetic stock as a cowed, sometimes medically restrained, feminized beta males. However it is through this harsh conditioning that truly dominant Alphas must rise above. Essentially the genetic lottery isn’t won by women in such a social environment – it’s men, or the ones who rise above in spite of the conditioning efforts of the feminine imperative.


Lonely Hearts Club Game

LHC

Just a blog / book update here first: I’m ass deep in the final edits of the second book so if my comments attention seems sparse now you know why. I’m not a full time author so I have to balance my work life with completing-a-book-life and when it gets down to the final phases it closes me off to all leisure and personal time. This is only the second time I’ve done this and I’ve come to realize it’s best to put in the extra effort now than have to go back and reedit and update errors later.

Unfortunately this also forces me to concentrate on aspects and concepts of prior topics with a magnifying glass and I have to make a real effort not to get repetitive in my blog posts. Once the book drops my focus will be on the blog more intently.

Zip asked from this week’s post comments:

For single men the situation is a pussy bonanza if you can play the ‘lonely hearts club’ Game correctly. On any other V-Day I’d suggest men capitalize on GNOs and women commiserating about how inadequate men are these days while they tie one on. The likelihood that an order of 50 million women will have seen 50 Shades just prior to hitting the bars with their girls on this night only makes your efforts that much easier with better sexual dividends.

While not overtly playing the Christian Grey role, if you cop the dominant energy (or if that’s what you’re about already) you can help a girl work off that energy. It would be too easy to say these women will be primed for Game, but remember, feminine-primary acculturation has taught her to justify the action of her sexual self apart from her real self. Saturday night may be the one time getting a girl to sign a sexual consent form will work in a man’s favor.

What is “lonely hearts club” game?

I’m probably not the best guy to ask about the particulars and techniques – Christian McQueen or YaReally might be better professors here – but I can give you a basic outline and the mechanics behind LHC Game.

The idea is pretty simple: Single women have a penchant to get together with the express purpose of commiserating about their sex lives, complain about the substandard men who are in their lives, complain about the men whom they wish were in their lives and to generally open themselves up to opportunities of meeting new prospective men all at the same time. I suppose I shouldn’t limit the Lonely Hearts Club just to single women since when you “get any group of women together and you can be sure they’ll talk about their husbands — and it will rarely be complimentary.”

I should point out that a GNO is not necessarily a Lonely Hearts Club because the dynamic and purpose is different. Girl’s night out may be a pretense for the LHC, but not always the purpose (think bachelorette parties, etc.). Valentines Day get togethers and “Hen’s Nights” however are prime examples.

As I’ve illustrated before, women talk, men do. Women’s gatherings are arranged for the purpose of relating to one another and in this instances it’s to commiserate. One reason I advise men to keep their mouths shut and work a ‘breadcrumb‘ line with women is exactly because of this dynamic – women cannot keep a secret and particularly if it relates to a man she’s interested in or involved with.

The Lonely Hearts Club is a unique situation for a guy and represents some real advantages for sarging. Women in these ‘peer clutches’ may seem like they’re in bad moods and resistant to men intruding on their set, but the ‘lonely’ predisposition actually makes women far more approachable for a smart player.

Try not to think of these women as being ‘lonely’ (though they might be) so much as being discontent with their lives, the men in their lives or the type of man they wish was in their lives. It’s this emphasized state of discontent in which you’ll capitalize.

From V-Day:

Note to PUAs

Valentine’s Day is ripe with opportunity for an enterprising Man with the ability to see it. Go hit the clubs tomorrow night, particularly the ones that cater to a 25-40 y.o. affluent crowd. There’s a million different venues you can hit, all with promotions to help single ladies feel better about not having a date – usually with genderist drink specials to help your approach too. You’ll notice impromptu GNOs (girl’s night out) set up just for this occasion to prove to themselves “they don’t need men to have a good time.” A good PUA couldn’t arrange a better opportunity to hook up in multiple sets.

Don’t go play ‘pity friend’ with any girl on V-Day, don’t be the “you’re such a great friend” consolation date.. Call up your best wing man and sarge on the best night of the year to sarge. Wedding receptions aren’t even as good as V-Day for this.

This dynamic will be even more pronounced tomorrow after these LHCs / GNOs are let out from the debut of 50 Shades of Grey and make a beeline to their favorite martini bars. Modified versions of the Boyfriend Destroyer approach I mentioned in The Art of AMOG will do well for PUAs if you tweak it to presume these women are out in groups with the express purpose to ‘get revenge’ on no-good boyfriends or substandard men who don’t compare to Christian Grey’s sexual and personal dominance. You’ll find Lonely Hearts with bad (see Beta) boyfriends are already doing most of the ‘destroying’ work for you.

Law 32 – Play to People’s Fantasies

The truth is often avoided because it is ugly and unpleasant.  Never appeal to truth and reality unless you are prepared for the anger that comes for disenchantment.  Life is so harsh and distressing that people who can manufacture romance or conjure up fantasy are like oases in the desert:  Everyone flocks to them. There is great power in tapping into the fantasies of the masses.

Being that oasis after Lonely Heart Club women have worked themselves into a proliferative phase, ovulatory lather from watching 50 Shades of Grey with their reaffirming girlfriends will make for a pickup environment that you’ll rarely find so easy to accomomodate.

In fact I’d suggest that your opportunity for managing a three-way might never be better. If you play to one woman’s fantasies in the LHC you’re likely hitting the right buttons for a few others in the group too. That’s not to get your hopes up, but rather to illustrate that, if you can manage even a marginal amount of social proof with the clutch, one or more women in that group will likely preselect you for their approval and affirm their girlfriend to go make out with you in the parking lot. The socio-sexual dynamic is charged if you can present yourself as ‘close enough’ to the fantasy one or more girls associates you with.

The trick of course is not to overplay that fantasy so much as to tip your Game hand. If you are Christian Grey (the prevailing fantasy), you dress the part, talk the part and act the part, even drunk women will call your bullshit. If you’re subtle in playing to her fantasy, you’re commanding, you’re focused, well dressed (but in a casual way) you’ll be able to close, pull, whatever with a facility you wouldn’t be able to under normal conditions.

As I stated in Art of AMOG, know your environment and know your quarry. Be prepared to avoid women who are too drunk. Issues of consent and rape-fraud not withstanding, a sloppy drunk woman is never a good intimate experience. And intoxicated they will be; drinking is a good indicator of an LHC, but they won’t be in the over-the-top drink mode of a GNO or a bachelorette party.

The key to managing drunk women is to catch them after the first drink, but before the third one. Women commiserating aren’t trying to relive their sorority days, but I think most guys severely underestimate the drinking habits of  modern women. Take it from a guy who’s worked in liquor branding for the last 12 years, women are far more prone biologically and habitually to drinking more than they believe is their actual tolerance threshold. In an age where women believe they should be the equals of men, alcohol tolerance is a glaring example of the real physical differences between the sexes.

So, feel free to discuss this over the weekend. I’d love to see some ‘live’ comments from the field on Saturday night if you’re so inclined. I’m actually working a cocktail promo for most of the night, but I’ll keep an eye on the iPhone. Field reports are encouraged.

 


The Art of AMOG

If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.

One of the more contentious aspects of intersexual competition the early PUAs hit upon was the phenomenon of the AMOG – Alpha Male Of Group – and how ‘that guy’s’ apparent social dominance focused all interaction within a peer group on himself. The AMOG was an easy parody of a guy to hate on for early Game practitioners because his archetype was so relatable for men looking to improve their chances with women they’d never been able to consider before they discovered Game. The nefarious AMOG was their worst cock-blocking villain.

For a recovering Beta experimenting with Game for the first time it was bad enough that the very real, in-his-face proposition of rejection by women was always to be considered, but to have to account for a guy that looked (in his mind) like the typical jock who regularly out-Alpha’d him back in high school seems like an unfair obstacle to need to overcome. I think that a lot of men’s competition anxiety focuses on a very overdramatized caricature of the Alpha ‘bullies’ they were familiar with when growing up.

This characterization is also the basis of the long-clichéd plot of every boy-meets-girl, boy-overcomes-shyness, boy-overcomes-bully-to-get-the-girl story ever told, and not just by Hollywood.

While female written romance stories revolve around multiple suitors for a woman protagonist to tame the most Alpha among them – usually ending with the one who’s a misunderstood asshole to everyone but her – male written romance generally centers on an underperforming Beta male (with a heart of gold) who, through extraordinary circumstance is placed in a position of  outperforming all of his previous rivals for his dream girl, or the girl he ‘should really be with’ instead of the shallow girl he thought would be so great. Instead of selfishly abusing his newfound Alpha powers by kicking sand in the faces of lesser Betas, he fashions himself as the hero exemplar of how Betas should act if they find themselves in a similar empowerment.

The stories of Spider Man, Captain America and even Back to the Future follow these male-romance scripts to the letter, but in every case the Beta-with-a-chance has to teach the bully a lesson before he can qualify for the girl’s attention, much less her intimacy. This clichéd story arch is a manifestation of men’s internalized understanding of their burden of performance. And while I can’t entirely assert this is an intrinsic part of men’s own mental firmware, I have to speculate that the fantasy of fulfilling it is part of men’s ubiquitous need to adequately perform for women’s intimate approval.

Regardless, the objective purpose is still to ‘get the girl’.

Examples of this Alpha bully archetype are part of most men’s formative learning. Not all men learn the lesson of the bully (some play the role with relish), but if we hold to the 80/20 rule of the manosphere we’re statistically looking at around 80% of (Beta) men who do. From grade school to high school to college, that guy, the douchebag, the guy who can’t help but actively or passively draw attention to himself, becomes the AMOG – and damned if he’s not the most contemptible bastard (or type of bastard) you know.

I’m highlighting that guy because more often than not he’s less a real person and more a manifestation of the anxiety that results from men’s insecurity about performing adequately for feminine approval. It’s easy to poke fun at the guys you see on hotchickswithdouchebags.com because they’re representations of the bully you hate. They’re the Jerks that every woman loves and every ‘normal’ guy vainly tries to make women rationally understand are the worst possible romantic option for them.

One very difficult hurdle men have in unplugging is getting past what they believe is the emulation of the Alpha Jerk who so regularly outperformed them, if not bullied them – yet, his asshole ways were still undeniably effective with the women he wanted to get with. Thus, for men who come to Red Pill awareness there’s a natural resistance to become that guy.

This AMOG archetype impression is tough to confront for men, but it’s important they do so.

This impression for men is an incredibly useful tool to effect women’s sexual strategy later in life when the woman (or type of woman) he’s held in such high regard and pined to be intimate with for so long finally “comes to her senses” around her Epiphany Phase and accepts him. For men with this AMOG mental impression, that woman’s acceptance comes with a certain degree of (sometimes smug) vindication. He waited her out and finally she’s “realized” what he’s been trying to make her see for so long – he’s actually the ‘perfect boyfriend’ for her.

He doesn’t realize he’s just playing the convenient ‘savior’-provider role women’s sexual strategy has conditioned and prepared him for, but believing his Beta Nice Guy life track has finally won out over the nefarious AMOG in his head is a strong reinforcer of a belief women need him to strongly believe when it’s time to cash in their Beta Bucks chips and her SMV starts its decline.

And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him.

I’m going to flip your AMOG impression upside down now. That AMOG isn’t the one you should concern yourself with.

Most of the first PUAs always suggested a process of containment and isolating your target woman in order to ‘poach’ her from that guy. I understand the proposed isolation idea is to remove a girl you like from her social group, but the effect is really similar to Mate Guarding – isolate her awareness of all other sexual competitors and focus her on yourself. 

However, unless you’re making your approaches in clubs or loud bars it’s likely the context you’re working on a woman in isn’t one where an active, in-your-face AMOGing is happening. Isolation becomes a security measure to focus her on you being her best immediate prospect.

Roissy once stated that there are groupies for every male endeavor, I should also add that there are AMOGs in every male endeavor. Every group of nerdy programmers, geeks, chess club, your bowling team and even in your Bible study group, there’s an AMOG. Some are more significant than others, but rest assured, you know him, or you will.

Most men will compartmentalize themselves socially so as to best facilitate their chances of meeting, banging, marrying or otherwise interacting with women. This compartmentalization is really a form of Buffering against rejection, but it’s also a logical social positioning of a man putting himself into an environment where he can (hopefully) excel and be noticed for it.

All warfare is based on deception – Bear this in mind when you enter into a new social group dynamic or an unfamiliar social environment. You are an unknown commodity and therefore your strengths are novel to the group. Your weaknesses (your Beta-ness) will be more obvious than your strengths and thus more easily attached to you.

Playing to one’s strengths usually involves defining a man’s social environments. King Douchebag at a Vegas pool party is excelling in his environment, just as Bobby Fisher is at a chess tournament. One reason less ‘socially adept’ men enjoy more confidence at a ComicCon is because the environment buffers their social deficits, but emphasizes their particular talents. The first mistake most men make when considering an AMOG situation is underestimating the importance of that environment. In high school the environment was probably set for you, but as an adult you’ve got a greater degree of control over it.

Bear this in mind when you’re confronted with a guy “all the girls love”. There’s a tendency on the part of Beta leaning guys to think the AMOG is a ‘natural’ Alpha when in fact he’s really domain dependent on the social environment you share with him. Of course there will always be guys who excel in almost any environment because Hypergamy is universal to women and a ‘hawt guy’ is ‘hawt’ to all women, but remove him from his preferred domain to one you’re better adept in, or, outperform him in his domain with a particular strength or expertise you possess in such a way that he’s forced to acknowledge your skill.

To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.

The caricature of an in-your-face belligerent AMOG is really a social anomaly, and usually your experience of him is the product of an environment you’re not at home in. Far more common however is the AMOG who is unassuming, affable, and honestly a guy you probably can’t help but like. In fact this likability is his primary appeal. Obvious Alpha superiority combined with even a marginal humility makes for an irresistible AMOG to women.

One of my best friends to this day was a guy I despised when we were in high school. We ended up becoming lifelong friends, but initially I hated him for having such a natural Alpha affinity with the girls I wanted to get with. I actually attribute part of my early 20s sexual success (and if I’m honest some proto-Red Pill awareness) to many of the lessons women’s behavior around him taught me.

Both the nervous Beta and the PUA like to encourage the idea of an AMOG as being the drunk, loud-mouthed frat boy who pushes you aside to get to the girl at the bar you’re sarging (“Step aside McFly!”), but the Alpha Male of the Group to really consider is the guy women can’t stop talking about when he’s not even present. He’s the guy who leaves the room and girls giddily huddle together to agree about how ‘hawt’ he is. He doesn’t even have to be in the group to be the Alpha of it.

The best form of social proof is the unsolicited kind. The kind where women can’t help but talk about a guy, and ask his Beta-chump friends how they can get to know him better.

He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.

In the immediate sense, unseating this AMOG would be a challenge only the most exceptional men could hope for. He’s established in his environment and his status and social proof is perpetuated for him within his social group. This situation may seem hopeless, and if your goal is to supplant him you’d have to really consider what the rewards would be in doing so, however there is much to learn from him within your shared environment.

Pose as a friend, act as a spy. Befriending the AMOG may be your best option as it opens you up to his social proof as a peer. You may not replace him in the short term, but if you’re spinning plates as you should, his confirmation of you as a peer will only benefit you. This confirmation will allow you an insight into the dynamics of that social environment. Your ultimate success doesn’t lie in destroying the AMOG, or becoming one yourself, but mastering a shared environment in which your strengths are best applied.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance. The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

This tact is useful for both the in-your-face AMOG as well as the non-direct, status affirmed AMOG. Sometimes proving one’s superiority is simply allowing the mediocre enough time and opportunity to self-destruct. The trick of course is in being prepared to swiftly capitalize on that AMOG’s missteps.

Law 33 – Discover Each Man’s Thumbscrew
Everyone has a weakness, a gap in the castle wall.  That weakness is usualy an insecurity, an uncontrollable emotion or need; it can also be a small secret pleasure.  Either way, once found, it is a thumbscrew you can turn to your advantage.

In the early part of my career in liquor branding I worked for a very rich man in his mid 60s. This guy had quite the resume of “successes”, but for the greater part they’d come from his self-importance and borrowing money than any real talent of his own. He was the owner, but had a reputation for attention seeking and a love of flattery that bordered on arrogance. Usually this would come at the expense of whomever happened to be outshining him as the master.

He was a consummate AMOG, but with no real legitimacy. At one point we had an important negotiation with a Chinese distributor to get our brands into an Asian market and as he’d typically do he wanted to entertain the reps over dinner after a big trade show we’d met them at. They were impressed with me because I was responsible for the creative side of the company, but even with my own deferential credits to my ‘boss’ he took it as an opportunity to AMOG me in front of his new ‘friends’.

I actually saw this coming (it’d happened on other occasions) and I had a good prior knowledge of the sensibilities of the Chinese from my time in doing casino marketing, so I diplomatically let him hang himself with his self-aggrandizement and bluster at my expense. Predictably the reps were off-put by this and we lost the distribution. The good news was that about a year and a half later I was offered a string of very lucrative branding contracts for several of this Asian company’s holdings (2 of which I still front now) because of this patience and letting my boss implode. And all I did was see it coming and let him convict himself.

Every AMOG has a weakness to exploit. Sometimes discovering this requires a patience most guys simply don’t want to wait around for, but with a bit of tact and attention it doesn’t take long. I think the older a man gets the easier it is to judge the character of others (or it should) – you experience the “types” enough to gauge a predictable character action.

There’s an old, but fantastic breakdown of the classic Boyfriend Destroyer script on RSD Nation. I wont repost it here, but if you take a moment to read the script, the premise is one of breaking down a boyfriend’s reputation by indirectly whittling away at the most predictable areas of contention in most relationships. Emphasize his Beta attributes while leading (not telling) her to consider and appreciate your Alpha attributes.

Yes, it’s bad form, and yes, your efforts would be better applied to new prospective plates to spin instead of working on some girl with a boyfriend. However, it is an excellent study in understanding how to deconstruct an AMOG and learning his thumbscrews.

Amused Mastery isn’t just a technique to hold women’s attention, it’s also an effective tool in defusing an AMOG. Once you have an understanding of that AMOG’s weakness – a penchant for self-aggrandizement, a taste for booze or a kind of woman, lack of legitimate ambition, Beta thinking/behavioral tendencies, etc. – the plan then becomes one of emphasizing those character flaws indirectly by exemplifying counter-strengths to those weaknesses.

Women love a man who Just Gets It, and the best, playful way of expressing that is with Amused Mastery; but it’s even more sexy when that Mastery extends to men who she perceives are your intersexual rivals. This then, by association, compliments her ego for your Amused Mastery of her.


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.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,922 other followers