Category Archives: Relationship Game

Can’t Buy Me Alpha

Buy_Alpha

I can’t imagine most of the manosphere, to say nothing about MRAs, haven’t read about the latest feminist triumphalism in a recent Pew study that’s determined that 23% of women now out-earn men. The ironic inconsistencies are an easy mark for most red pill men, but I imagine they’re particularly galling for MRAs:

Moms now earn more than dads in almost a quarter of all U.S. families, the highest level in history. It’s a huge leap from 50 years ago when only a handful of moms were bringing home the bacon, according to a study released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center.

Overall, women – including those who are unmarried – are now the leading or solo breadwinners in 40 percent of U.S. households, compared with just 11 percent in 1960, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau analyzed by Pew.

Cue the MRA rage posts about unmarried women receiving uniquely feminine social benefits and entitlements men have no access to, not to mention state enforced male child support for unmarried mothers and remarried mothers. I get it, really I do, but my emphasis here isn’t so much about the factual information being skewed by the feminine imperative, rather its neurolinguistic delivery of  those distortions.

That’s both good news and bad news, depending on which end of the scale you examine. At the top level, educated women are catching up with men in the workforce. But at the bottom rungs, there are more single mothers than ever and most of them are living near the poverty line.

Bear in mind this report by Amy Langfield was what hastily replaced this report by Bill Briggs – For Richer or Poorer?, When wives make more, some men’s health suffers – on NBCs frontpage. As I’ve written before, the feminine imperative will never allow even its own message to be sullied with a male perspective.

When wives bring home more bacon than their husbands, household budgets surely may sizzle but in some cases, men may pay a price. Some guys who lose their role as primary earners are known to lose sexual steam and may deal with insomnia and other issues, researchers say.

In relationships where women’s wages become slightly fatter than what their spouses pocket, scientists have determined that men are about 10 percent more likely to require prescription pills to combat erectile dysfunction, insomnia and anxiety, according to a recent study by Washington University in St. Louis’ Olin Business School.

Naturally the comment section is rife with feminine ridicule and accusations of men’s masculine insecurities being made manifest in not being able to get it up when wifey makes more money. The apex fallacy is a helluva drug for the feminine imperative.

“There is a powerful social norm for many men that it’s important to make more than their wives and, essentially, when that social norm is violated, what this does is make them feel emasculated,” said Lamar Pierce, a professor of strategy at Olin who completed the study in February, working with colleagues in Denmark. Other research has shown that men with wives who earn more are more likely to cheat. 

It’s going to be important to read that linked 2010 article about men who’s wives earn more being more likely to cheat, because this is the crux of who gets to decide what emasculation feels like for men. Lamar Pierce’s assertion, as with most blank slaters, is that masculinity is the result of “powerful social norms”  and not the result of a culmination of what millennia of biological and psychological evolution physically made of men. The nuts and bolts get discarded when the feminine imperative defines the terms of what men feel and why they do.

The problem here is that the nuts and bolts are about the physical male sexual response. What is it about women earning more money (excluding for single mother bonuses) that makes them less likely to pass the boner test? If the feminine imperative is to be believed, it’s due to men’s fragile egos and masculinity being defined by his ability to provide. No mention is made of women’s lack of femininity, physical sexual attraction or simple logistics when she’s the one tasked with bringing home the bacon. No mention is given about women’s desire to even be in the position of being the sole or majority breadwinner.

Buying Alpha

The main problem with women earning more than their men is far more hardwired into both gender’s psyches than the experts consigned by the feminine imperative will ever be allowed to relate. It’s not very complimentary to the imperative because it reveals far too much of its real inner workings and exposes its social engineering to effect them.

On the feminine side we have the cruel reality of feminine Hypergamy that’s constantly reminded that the man she’s paired with (or would pair with) isn’t capable of, or is less capable of, the provisioning her Hypergamy ultimately demands of him, and which she can provide for herself. For the single professional woman this imbalance results in their constant search for a man they consider “her equal”, and is the cause for many post-Wall women’s common lament of not being able to find the guy she thinks she deserves.

By this distorted logic, professional women subscribe to the social convention that they can ‘buy Alpha'; that their credentials, financial and social status ought to be the deciding factor for men’s intimate estimations of them, and any man not abiding by these conditions is by definition “infantile”, has a “fragile ego” and is “threatened by successful women”.

Feminine Operative Social Conventions are the meta-hamster of the gestalt consciousness of the feminine imperative.

On the masculine side the problems are twofold. The first comes from men’s evolved subliminal understanding about how being a provider is his last, best, resort of securing a mate who will send his genes on to future generations. Once this capacity is removed, he becomes conscious of his vulnerability to the predations of his wife’s Hypergamy.

If men met their future wives when the women already were the bigger breadwinners, “they never have any problems later on,” Pierce said. “The problems are all coming in marriages where the guys are making more, they get married, then their pay slips (below their wives’ salaries).” The study was published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Since mass media is rooted in a fem-centric reality, we’re spared the gory details of women’s Hypergamic re-estimations of their husbands. Rather, we’re left to believe that it’s the husbands who have an inability to cope with their wives making more money (due to fragile egos remember?) and suffer from a masculine insecurity that’s making their cocks go soft. No mention is made of men’s now-impassable Hypergamic shit-tests women demand of men affecting their previously stable marriages.

For the majority of Beta men, their cow-eyed confidence and reliance on being able to at least provide an equal contribution to a woman’s wellbeing as part of his Beta-Game sexual strategy gets flushed down the toilet when she out earns him. For Beta men, men’s primary sexual market value is derived from performance – unfortunately Betas are beginning to be outperformed by women and their wives. Once that outperformance is actualized for women, only Alpha dominance defines men’s SMV since it’s the other remaining side of women’s Hypergamy and their pluralistic sexual strategy.

The Bought Alpha

The second masculine issue is the bought Alpha. When a woman is in fact capable of her own provisioning all that’s left wanting for her hypergamy is Alpha dominance. Most breadwinning women are condemned to being frustrated by this dynamic. The majority of elite earning women simply lack the feminine grace and physical appeal to attract this Alpha dominance. Fewer still have the capacity to surrender to that Alpha, but the upper 1% of elite earning women can, and they illustrate the dynamic here. I realize it’s an old article but have a quick read – Guys more likely to cheat on high-earning women.

In fact, men who were completely dependent on their partner’s income were five times more likely to cheat than men who contributed an equal amount of money to the relationship, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.

You’d think such men wouldn’t want to risk their meal ticket. But lower-earning men may be self-medicating their inner macho guy, says Cornell University sociology graduate student Christin Munsch, who conducted the study.“Having multiple sexual partners may be an attempt to restore gender identity in response to these threats,” she writes. “In other words, for men, sex [outside their relationship] may be an attempt to compensate for feelings of inadequacy with respect to gender identity.”

Despite the masculine shaming threaded throughout the article, what’s not being addressed is women who make substantially more money, or all the money, in their relationships have flipped a dangerous gender script. As elite earners, women tend to want to pair off not with the the guy who’d otherwise be a loyal, respectable Beta provider under other conditions, but rather the men they feel they ‘deserve’. The provisioning part of their Hypergamy has been satisfied, so the visceral part is all that’s left wanting. Thus they gravitate to the Alpha cads they’re aroused by, and they ‘deserve’ by virtue of their earning ability and status. These women’s Game is a reflection of Beta men’s Game – they believe that their provisioning alone will be the lynchpin in keeping their spouse loyal.

An Alpha guy (like Jesse James from the article) grows tired of being his wife or girlfriend’s accessory, and as is the Alpha nature, he’s happy to have the financial backing to fund his infidelity. An inverse of this would be Tiger Woods’ marriage and his indulgences. The marriage becomes a means to an Alpha end (or a hinderance for Tiger), and our rich, empowered wife duplicitously loves and hates that her Man is so desired by other women, but can’t balance her Hypergamic nature any other way.


Soft Dread

soft-dread

 

In the past I’ve covered in various detail the utility of instilling dread in a woman both pre and post monogamy. It’s been one of the more contentious principles I’ve endorsed, with women tending to revile me for having brought men to the awareness of dread’s uses, and men concurring with, but often hesitant in applying dread for fear of the backlash for having used dread conspicuously.

In Dread Games I made an attempt to clear up the real inevitability of dread in any average relationship. Dread is going to be a factor in any relationship due to the Cardinal Rule of Relationships:

In any relationship, the one with the most power is the one who cares the least.

As Roissy and many legitimate psychologists will tell you, the most secure relationships generally result from about a 1-2 point SMV imbalance favoring the Man in the relationship. In this imbalance, the actual strength  of that secure feminine attachment to the man (both in and out of a monogamous commitment) can be expressed as a soft, or passive form of dread. This expression of dread is still rooted in a woman’s imagination of emotional, physical and provisional loss, but just as the application of that dread is passive, so too is a woman’s progressive realization of that dread.

Soft Dread

Mrs. Tomassi and I were recently talking with a woman of about 49. She’s the ever-present front desk host at our gym and a casual acquaintance and friend. She’s not particularly unattractive for her age, reasonably good shape from a body perspective – I can tell she used to enjoy a lot of male attention in her 20s and maybe 30’s – but now just this side of 50 she’s moved not so much into a regret stage, but rather a hopeful sense of well post-Wall self-remorse. That might sound odd, but she’s at least optimistic about her ‘chances’ of getting with a “good man” in the near future.

She’s quite upfront and honest about the Alpha Bad Boy Jerks she’s dated, married one and then divorced from her past. In fact she’s one of the more lucid women I’ve encountered about her present state and how she came to it. Although she’s the typical result of a hypergamous life prolonged past the “eating her cake too” phase, she owns her mistakes.

Although we generally hit Gold’s at different times, occasionally  the wife and I go together in the mornings. It was on one of these mornings, and our friend at the counter stopped us to say,

“I love you guys, I really do. I see a lot of people pass through here but when I see you both together it gives me hope that I can have a good relationship like you two. You’re such a team, I really hope I can meet a guy I can connect with like that.”

We were on our way out, and she always has something else to say about her personal life so, while I guess I was somewhat flattered, I didn’t pay it much mind. That is until our ride back home when Mrs. Tomassi looked me square in the face and said, “I am so glad I didn’t end up like that!” I was actually kind of surprised at the tone of her voice. “Thank God that’s not me, how horrible to be in that position at her age.” I nodded my head because I knew she was expecting my usually analyzations of post-Wall women and the beds they make. Then, with a hint of a tear in her eye, she gave me one of the best compliments I’ve ever heard from her, “I hope Bebé finds and marries a Man just like you.”

That made me feel really good, and what I’m about to type here sound really shitty. After not a small swell of pride, I thought, while it’s nice to be appreciated in this respect, would this realization have come without the influence of our friend and her state of life?

You see, what I experienced that morning was a sort of de fact association of social proof. Granted, I’m not taking anything away from the love and solidity upon which my marriage and our relationship is founded on, but was I just the right guy in the right place for this realization to come to awareness? What I had just participated in was a form of soft dread. A dread that needs no emphasis or prompting from a Man, simply the occasion for it to come to the surface to be actualized.

When a Man’s status is long established it’s easy to take his qualities for granted by women. It takes another woman’s lack to bring that status into focus for her. In the same vein that women will pre-approve or pre-qualify you for another woman’s intimacy, likewise the personal state of other women will serve as a benchmark of social proof for a Man’s wife or LTR. I realize this has the potential to cut the other way for women who are more well off than others, but the dynamic is real. I’ve written in the past that women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices Men must make to facilitate their feminine reality, but if they ever come close to this appreciation it’s only at the prompting of women outside the relationship who can recognize it in the Men committed to other women.

Progressive Dread

The admittedly very rough graph I created to illustrate the contemporary sexual marketplace (SMP) is almost a manosphere link staple now. However, I’m going to reuse it once more here to illustrate another point:

Print

When I wrote Navigating the SMP it was in response to a need for visualization of how men and women’s respective sexual market value (SMV) differentiate at different phases of their lives. Using this model it’s not too far a stretch to illustrate how dread plays a factor in women’s self, and relational awareness.

At their SMV peak, adjusting for the mean average, women’s potential for experiencing dread is as low as it will be in a lifetime. During this phase the potential for replacing a respective mate (or STR lover) is almost a nonissue. Even in emotionally invested relationships during this phase, the subliminal presence of a basic, unprompted, dread of loss is pushed into unawareness for women.

That dread of loss is replaced with the dread of insecurity as a woman ages toward the Wall. Before I continue here, it’s important to remember that security comes in many different forms – financial, emotional, psychological, spiritual and even self-esteem play a part in the totality of women’s security needs.

During the height of a woman’s SMV, men are scarcely aware of their potential value to a woman in the long term. Men’s recognition of dread is much more heightened when a woman’s SMV is peaking, while his is on a slow ascendency toward his late 20’s and early 30’s. He doesn’t want to miss his “dream girl” and she doesn’t want to sell herself short in the hypergamy gamble she’s playing.

As a woman ages to the Wall and beyond, and while a Man’s SMV accumulates into his 30’s, the role soft dread plays in the relationship is reversed. As women’s primary physical attraction decays, the subliminal dread of loss, and an ever decreasing ability to recreate her security, increases in her psyche. It may not be on the surface of her awareness, but there will be more reminders of her state with each passing year.

It seems unduly cruel to remind women of this dread; that’s not my intent with today’s post. In fact, just because I’m aware of the subtle reminders of soft dread women experience, I may play my relationship Game with a bit more sensitivity. That being the case, there’s no ignoring the reality of this dynamic and the utility it represents for a man aware of the state of women in various phases of their lives.

When I wrote Navigating the SMP the operative intent behind it was to make men more conscious of the predictability of women’s motives and behaviors at various phases of life – and plan their Game according to the signs they were seeing. In the case of soft dread, this realization may at first come as a hint of appreciation to the Man who’s dutifully persevered through his woman’s dominant frame for most of his LTR  Marriage. It may come as a comfort for a guy who’s unused to sentimental declarations of appreciation, but it’s important to remember the why in that declaration, rather than the who in that declaration.


Amused Mastery

I think a lot of guys get hung up on the term “aloof”. The word conjures up the idea that a guy has to pretend to be looking down his nose at some girl he’s interested in a lame effort to get her to qualify to him. When people read “aloof” they tend to think “haughty” or feigned disinterest. Throw that term away right now, because you don’t want to be “aloof”. What you want is AMUSED MASTERY.

Roissy made this distinction a couple years ago; there’s a difference between an arrogant ‘aloofness’ and a confident Amused Mastery.

A presence of Amused Mastery puts you into a position of maturity while still remaining playfully approachable and forcing her to qualify to you by acknowledging your mastery of her (really all women by association). An attitude of Amused Mastery implies to a woman that by virtue of your maturity and/or authority you’ve “seen it all before”, you already know what women mean when they say or do what she is, and it’s amusing to you. You’ll play along, but only so far as to cleverly poke fun at her attempts to get you to qualify to her. It means you never take her seriously, like a bratty younger sister, but also with the presence of mind of a senior Alpha male who knows her game before she plays it.

I’ll admit, I never fully appreciated the potential of Amused Mastery until I had a daughter. I found myself naturally using it with her because that’s the actual, unforced relation I have with her. When she was younger this added to my Daddy-Alpha credentials, but now that she’s 14 theres a history of my Amused Mastery she finds comfort in. However, I also noticed my wife finds Amused Mastery just as appealing, to the point that she includes herself in my Mastery over my daughter.

Amused Mastery is particularly effective for older men / younger women Game. Assuming you’re in reasonably good shape and have some degree of affluence, being older gives you a degree of authenticity. With maturity comes an expectation of knowledge and experience for Men. I’ve used Amused Mastery with my “pour girls” at promo events and it’s like cat nip for them. You become that Father figure to them (FILF?) that they crave, but can’t seem to get from younger guys. There’s a certain Alpha security dynamic at play between a woman and a Man who emits an ambient vibe of having been with enough women to be able to predict her shit tests, and then pass them with a casual roll of his eyes and a knowing smirk. When a man is giving off the cues of Amused Mastery theres an unspoken presumption by women that he “just gets it” when it comes to dealing with women.

Dominance

Another term that gets very abused both in the manosphere and the feminine Matrix is the word ‘dominance’. That word also conjures up a lot of preconceptions in people because it carries the same negative connotation the word ‘power’ has been associated with. Women will rarely admit to wanting a ‘dominant’ man or male influence in their lives because the word seems so binary and absolute. In the feminine defined equalism of the Matrix, if one partner is dominant the other must necessarily be submissive. After having been fed on a steady diet of “independent woman” tropes for the better part of the century, to admit to desiring a dominant man is to admit dependency upon him. Dominance is synonymous with aggression and oppression to this mindset, and women and feminized men have a pavlovian reflex response at even its mention.

On the red pill side we look at the truth of the dominance need women have for men. We can evidentially see women’s desire for dominance in their behaviors and the latent meanings of their words, but I think, at present, the manosphere also has a somewhat absolutist idea about what constitutes dominance. We classify it as ‘social dominance’ in that it indicates an Alpha status, but it really goes beyond this. Ideally I think most guys imagine dominance as having his particular woman present when he’s issuing commands to the underlings which he has power over as some form of social proof she’ll want to fuck him that much harder for.

After 50 Shades of Grey became a best seller it became sort of an ‘ah ha!’ moment even for the men still plugged into the Matrix. Women really do get off on being dominated, but this too is a very narrow facet of masculine dominance. Obviously the popularity of that particular type of fem-porn is enough to reinforce that women do in fact harbor fantasies of dominant men, but does it require a sex dungeon and bondage paraphernalia to confirm masculine dominance?

Personal dominance, social dominance, doesn’t have to be cast in such extremes. I am the dominant personality in my marriage and in my family, but that doesn’t mean Mrs. Tomassi plays step-and-fetch-it or wants me to include zip ties in the bedroom. Dominance is much more than making demands and issuing commands. I display it in my speech (even my silence), the way I dress, the status of my career, my attitude towards people on either end of that status spectrum, my tolerance and my intolerance, etc. As Men we have a tendency to think that the more overt our displays are the more women will take notice, but women are far more sensitive to the nuances of our actions than most could imagine. A little goes a long way, and what we think are useless gestures are often the most memorable for women.

Amused Dominance

I got ran up the flag pole by femosphere pundits when I wrote my essays on Dread and Dread Games. Women don’t like overt dominance, just as they don’t like overt objectification or adoration. It’s when it’s covert that they respond most favorably – women love to be objectified, dominated and adored, but only by men who know better than to remind her of it. I’ve always advocated the positive effect of maintaining an ambient threat of competition anxiety with women, but this form of dominance cannot be an overt display. Dominance must be playing in the background, only occasionally being amplified as situations warrant. Women need to know it’s there, but her imaginations of that masculine dominance are more useful to a man than a constant, present, overt reminder of it.

And thus we come full circle; Amused Mastery is a form of social dominance. That sense of knowing the answer before the question is asked, but still giving the answer with a smirk is a very effective form of demonstrating higher value (DHV). An attitude of Amused Mastery begins from a default position of social dominance.


Just Get It

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

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

Higher risks mean less margin for error

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

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

Crossover

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just Get It

From Female Dating Advice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Flushing the Nest

Esteemed SoSuave member HITHARD relates a recent flushing of a nest:

It must be an attitude shift or something. But every time I come back to the SS forums my relationships blow up. I don’t notice myself doing anything different but if I’m with a girlfriend they must notice a change and purposely start pissing me off. Perhaps it’s a good thing, a wake up call that I’m not with the right girl and I should go back to FB for a while. My now ex started getting bitchy last week and it just escalated from there. I’m pretty laid back – but arc up if someone tries to stand over me or dictate terms. Her jaw dropped when I told her to pack her things and leave. She hasn’t been living here on a permanent basis but had managed to horde a bit of her stuff over here in the past three months. She was a really nice girl, very pretty good with money. But she started to not so much nag, but nitpick at me and I’m over that at this stage of my life. It’s either something she has managed to hide for all these months or I bring it out in her. Either way it’s a no go from here. Am I being selfish over this?

So perhaps SS is bad for me short term but a deal saver long term. Or it’s a subconscious thing of ‘relationship is already over time to go on SS’
After all the FB, plates and relationships, I do look around and am just not impressed with the quality of the women out there.
I do worry I’m starting to form a trend of breaking it off with women when I get bored or irritated though. My longest LTR was with what I think was a BPD chick long before what I knew what BPD or the SS forum was. I sometimes worry if that has left a lasting effect.

There’s always going to be a contingent of guys – mostly White Knights, but some well meaning red-pill men too – who’ll presume you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater when ever they read a situation like this. A Scarcity Mentality is one of the hardest mental schemas Men deal with in transitioning over to becoming Game-aware. For most, the better part of half their lifetime has been spent in a psycho-social condition that’s taught them women are to be prized, and her intimacy is a rare and precious gift, rewarded to only the man who can prove himself worthy of it.

It’s a hard schema to unlearn, and even the most unapologetic of PUA still feels that twang of doubt about a decision to NEXT a girl he thought might be of LTR potential. So it’s no shock that to NEXT a woman for what appears to be some minor infraction of nitpicking seems like a wanton overreaction – like stomping on a flower before it has a chance to blossom. Necessitous men, and men recovering from being so, will often adopt the same mentality women will when they hear about situations like this, and call it callous, or selfish, maybe even vindictive of past hurtful experiences. The reason for this is because these men, and women by default, still view monogamy from the perspective of the feminine imperative. Monogamy is meant to serve the feminine, so any action that controverts that, no matter how justified, is by definition selfish.

In the time I’ve been writing in the manosphere I’ve read more stories about how Game saved an LTR more so that the reverse, but that isn’t to say there aren’t breakups that result from a new Game-awareness. Hithard’s self-evaluation about his NEXTing isn’t unexpected. His story isn’t the first I’ve encountered about “Game destroyed my LTR” – that Scarcity Mentality self-doubt needs a scapegoat and Game is an easy foil for this, especially for guys who’ve just unplugged, pushed the envelope back against the shit they were accepting up to that point and the LTR imploded. In virtually everyone of these instances where a man reclaims his balls and the result is a breakup, inevitably the guy realizes what a tough, but ultimately good decision it was to rid himself of a toxic woman, or a woman too insecure in herself to want to relinquish frame after having been in control for so long.

Often enough, a breakup is the red-pill solution.

Flushing the Nest

However, I know Hithard (virtually) well enough to know this isn’t his case. He’s been unplugged for a while now, so my guess is twofold:

First I think there’s more to the ‘nitpicking’ and the nesting that this girl was initiating than he’s going into detail about. I think he’s trying to be more judicious about this because he’s seen (or is subliminally aware of) behavioral cues and attitude cues that are familiar to him from his prior (BPD) LTR, and wants to give her the benefit of that doubt.

He’d hit the 3 month point, and this is usually the time when a woman starts to get comfortable enough with a guy to attempt a frame grab. The obvious tell was how she was semi-permanently establishing a nest at his place. Never a good idea, but entirely expected of a woman who feels the urgency of sex decline with her competition anxiety. I don’t know for certain that this is Hithard’s experience, but it follows a very consistent pattern. At the very least she’s reached a stage at which she feels comfortable enough to make demands of behavioral change (nit picking, nagging, complaining).

On a basic, relational level these are shit tests, but these are now the variety of shit test that qualifies for LTR frame control, as opposed to the types of shit test a man receives whilst dating when the urgency of competition anxiety mediates a woman’s delivery. For example, while single, only the most vapid, self-absorbed women will feel comfortable in making the demands most other women will commonly expect of their LTR man. When single, the art of the shit test is in its nuance and subtlety, when monogamous the shit test is overt and unmistakably direct.

Secondly, after a certain age (SMV), and after some degree of prior relationship chaos there’s a want for some sense of stable normalcy. Most guys are all too willing to compromise what seem, at the time, like small concessions to their women’s demands in exchange for keeping the peace and the legs open. The problem is that this progressively becomes a situation of death by a thousand paper cuts, or frame control by a thousand conceded nitpickings. For beta men, frame control is ceded as part of their wedding vows, but of the Alphas I know who were “fixed” by their women, their backsliding into beta-dom was the result of an incessant etching away of that Alpha dominance by a steady stream of small shit tests and concession of frame by little compromises.

Dumping a woman is DHV (demonstrating higher value) of the highest order. True or not, It implies you had other, better options than her. Dumping a woman is the antithesis of the Scarcity Mentality and it broadcasts this not only to her, but her girlfriends as well as any other girls in her (your) social periphery. Dumping her implies you’ve just gone from a comfortable, familiar beta to the indifferent Alpha that she never realized you had a capacity for. My guess is Hithard will hear from her again. At first it will be desperate and crying, later it will be casual with feigned nonchalance – don’t take the bait.

Whether or not Hithard takes her back or bumps her down to fuck-buddy status, the message is now clear for her – he will control the frame. She will enter his reality or not at all. Most freshly unplugged guys have a very tough time owning this, because for most of their lives it’s been endlessly bashed into their heads that they don’t deserve it. This is the conflict Hithard must resolve.


The Meaning of Sacrifice

Take a deep breath and check your heart-rate before you hit play gentlemen (and ladies), you’re in for a ride.  In general I don’t necessarily promote nor disparage the MRA movement, but after watching this video I can better understand the contempt behind the groundswell. However, my point in posting this wasn’t to trigger any MRA outrage (The Spearhead and A Voice for Men has that covered), rather it was prompted by Rational Reader Dan’s comment in my 16 Years On post:

Rollo, you mention that men make a sacrifice of their desire for sexual variety and their sex life in general, when he marries.

But you are forgetting that for many men, marriage *is* the only or most feasible way to have a regular sex life. one-night-stands, flings, FWB’s, casual relationships – these are not for every guy. Most men dont get the opportunity to be promiscuous. Most men are simply not built for the going out in the jungle and hunting…physically or mentally.

I dont want marriage. I dont even want a committed relationship at this stage But I feel compelled to consider commitment and marriage because of my sexual / intimate needs. I am sure many mediocre young men are in the same boat as me. But you havent considered them here. You’re talking from the perspective of a man who is atleast relatively attractive and can sexually attract women with reasonable ease.

Forgive me Dan, I’m not trying to run you up the flagpole here. My assumption is that Dan hasn’t read Appreciation or Women In Love in their entirety. There’s much more to men’s sacrifices than just a trade off between a regular piece of ass and the potential for more varied sexual experiences. The predictable, feminized reflexive response is to presume that men would fixate on how their sacrifices would impact their sexual strategies, but sexual opportunism is only a single sacrifice among many. The feminine imperative would like nothing better than to have both men and women presume that men’s only concern is about the legs that might have been spread for them had they not opted for marriage, but there’s a lot more to men’s sacrifices.

As illustrated in this video, career, relationships, family, education, and the overarching threat of losing all of his investments in a no-fault divorce are all very real risks men tend not to consider and women would rather they not. A lot of men lament losing half (or more) of their financial assets, but what gets lost in that is the personal investments necessary to establish those assets. Those investments required a sacrifice of time, effort, emotion, determination, etc. and all whilst maintaining an intimate relationship with a woman who cannot appreciate in-full the totality of those sacrifices – because she never experienced them from a male perspective. Men’s sacrifices are only appreciated through the filter of women’s expectations and perceived benefit.

At 46 years old, I have no doubt that Charles Bruce had well over half a lifetime of personal investment into himself, his wife, their family and extended families. For most Men, and manosphere readers in particular, the initial response to Mr. Bruce’s dilemma is one of (understandable) blind rage at the feminized system. As hard as it is, I’m going to ask that readers look past this anger and see the conditions, investments and sacrifices Bruce made that makes his story so tragic.

BRIFFAULT’S LAW

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

In other words, hypergamy doesn’t care about Relational Equity. It’s one set of conditions to consider this in terms of how your girlfriend might’ve cheated on you in spite of all your best efforts to invest in your relationship and play by the “rules”, but it’s entirely another when you consider fallacy of Relational Equity in terms of a life long, expected, entitled, commitment. Charles Bruce is on the sharp end of women’s inability to appreciate men’s sacrifices.

If you’ve ever wonder why no male hormonal contraceptive has ever been developed or marketed since the sexual revolution, look no further than Briffault’s Law. For all the bleating about equalism and gender equality of the past 60 years, women have effectively organized and fought like cornered animals to keep the power of controlling the family unit out of the hands of men.

I’ve read studies documenting men’s most productive, creative, endeavors being attempted and/or achieved in the years before they married; innovations, academic degrees, scientific discoveries, great masterpieces of art. etc. Then, a precipitous drop off in what we are meant to assume is ambition and motivation occurs after marriage. Roissy has more than a few links to these articles, but my impression of these studies is less about the neutering effects of marriage (i.e. the responsibilities of settling down) and more about the lack of opportunity inherent in maintaining a committed monogamy and addressing the sacrifices a man must make to advance his interests. Missing opportunities to get laid with new and varied women pales in life-importance when you consider the sacrifices a man makes in having to turn down opportunities that would advance his (and possibly society’s) better interest. Women are the Dream Killers because they cannot appreciate men’s sacrifices.

This is an interesting quote from a man citing Briffaults Law:

“Men love women, but I truly believe that women are incapable of what we men call love. “Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends.” How many women are willing to die for their husbands, friends, country, or comrades in arms? Damn few, if any.

Yet it is commonly expected of men (made compulsory under certain circumstances). How many men continue on in their marriages, supporting their family and their wife, while the wife is making their life a living hell? Far too many. How many men choose their wives over their parents and siblings? Most.

Women do not behave like this. Men take out large insurance policies so their wives and children will be well taken care of should they die. Even if the wife is making (nearly) as much money as the husband, she will not have insurance. She sees no reason to reduce her current ability to spend to take care of others after she is dead. She could care less what happens to the husband, and doesn’t want the husband to be able to spend money on some young bimbo, after she dies. The life insurance gender statistics are well known, and widely available. None of this should be a shocking revelation. When my second wife died, her mandatory insurance (free) provided by her teacher’s union covered her funeral expenses. It would have made life much easier if her insurance had paid the over $350,000 my life insurance would have paid.

When does the expectation of mutual benefit in marriage go seriously wrong in the west? It goes wrong as soon as the “I Dos” are said, or very shortly thereafter. Why is this so? Because you, the man have just entered into a contract with the state where you have promised that you will provide everything to your bride, and where the bride has promised nothing. By the way, the full weight of the law and public opinion will support her stripping you of every thing you have, including your children, and most of what you will ever make in the future, when (not if) she decides to dump you.

Hence, once you enter into the contract you have nothing left to offer her. Everything you have, or will have, is already hers.

Seem like a harsh statement? I thought so too, the first time I heard it, during an argument with my first wife towards the end of our marriage. She asked me the eternal female question, “What do you do for me?” (i.e. what benefit do I get from associating with you?) I responded, “I pay all your expenses. I feed, clothe, and house you. And, I am paying for your college tuition.” She told me that all the money I earned was her money and that if she let me have any of it that was pure charity on her part, so I was doing nothing for her. I thought this was unduly harsh.

The divorce courts showed me that it was pretty much just a statement of fact. The wife has it all, and can make her part of the marriage contract, the portion where she is to provide you with companionship, comfort, loyalty, sex, etc., null and void at any time while keeping everything you have/had/will ever have. She has no need to associate with you further once you are married.

To be a married man entais a sacrifice of such utter powerlessness, on so many levels, that no woman will ever comprehend, much less appreciate.


Value Added

There’s nothing more refreshing for me than to read the insights of new Rational Readers. Generally it’s not that most offer anything terribly novel (some do), but it’s the predictable, persistent, feminized societal interpretations that keep reusing the same tired rationales which gives me hope that positive masculinity is cracking that shell. In other words, girl-world isn’t really coming up with anything new; it’s just retreads of old tropes.

One new Rational Reader, ‘S’ (maybe for Susan?) decided to take me to task for my graphically detailed essay on Navigating the SMP. Have Hamster, will spin.

While S suffers from the common female malady of reverse rationalizing her ‘circumstances’, she does provide a perspective on a topic I have yet to cover here in her followup response:

Fine, I read that. I just don’t agree with you philosophy that women somehow have no purpose after the age of 30. What if say there were circumstances outside of her control that prevented her from getting married at what a simpleton might deem as an acceptable time…what if she never partied and slept around? There is more to a woman than physicality and it pisses me off that there are men like many of the above (bitter much?) who don’t appear to see worth in a women once her..what’s it called..sexual market value declines…it just strikes me a scarily misogynistic..like some creeped up from of American Psycho shit and it makes me scared for our society.

There is a lot to be said for developing true companionship with someone, having a kind of partner in crime relationship that endures…A woman of any age is appropriate for this.

To paraphrase Roissy’s inimitable words, the closer you get to the truth the louder the feminine will screech. As odd as this is going to sound I actually agree with most of S’s point here. You see, when I was detailing the timeline of men and women’s respective sexual market values, my intent was to provide a raw and unvarnished view of how, in contemporary social dynamics, men and women’s sexual market values differ over the course of time. I made the efforts (loose as they were) to reveal the slow-burn valuation of men’s SMV in contrast with women’s quick-burn SMV.

Emotional Response

Exposing uncomfortable truths is kind of a mixed bag when it comes to the emotional response to those truths. For instance when I read articles about feminist triumphalism regarding how much more ‘advanced’ women are over men today, or I read reviews like ‘The End of Men‘, the analytical portion of my brain gives way to the more emotive response. Why try right? If I’m obsolete, if the cards are stacked in women’s favor before I even get dealt a hand, why not go my own way? There’s a certain hopelessness to that initial emotional response, especially when there’s no hint of sympathy or contrition forthcoming from ‘powerful’ women and all the women aspiring to that empowerment. This is just how the game has shaken out, too bad for you men, you’re fucked now.

I imagine S probably feels the same way when she sees the landscape of the sexual marketplace on display in such Darwinian, graphic terms. Once you’ve hit the Wall ladies, your value begins its decline in earnest, so The Threat then becomes men becoming self-aware enough of their increasing SMV to capitalize upon his increase and your decrease accordingly. This is the nasty part of hypergamy; the countdown to the Wall is ever-present, but so is the subconsciousness-level doubt about having made the optimal hypergamic mating choice before the clock reaches zero. Every SMP opportunity after that point will always be colored by what opportunities she could’ve consolidated upon before it.

I often get called a cynic or uncaring in the delivery of my observations, but try to understand my approach is always about pragmatism. Should women’s overall value mean more than just her physicality and sexual availability? Yes, of course, just as Men’s intrinsic value ought to be more broadly appreciated for the qualities of his character and the sacrifices he makes to facilitate a woman’s reality. I would love nothing better than to think that the human spirit combined with mutual good-will and understanding could lift us above our base, innate drives. I would love to live in a world where men could get a hard-on based solely upon his estimation of a woman’s respective “worth”, and where women swoon for a humble, noble, loyal and devoted overweight and underemployed man with a negative balance in his bank account.

In the manosphere, every day I read about the conflict between what our higher selves should want in a woman. There’s no lack for articles and blog/forum responses making impassioned pleas for women’s fidelity, loyalty, intelligence, grace, femininity, appreciation, and a long list of other ephemeral qualities as being ideal for an LTR prospect. In fact I’d argue that the majority of men’s misreading women comes more from seeing past the red flags and attributing more importance to these qualities than a woman actually merits. For every divorced man who uttered the words “I never thought she was capable of this” I’ll show you a guy who rationalized his attraction to his ex based on what he thought were her ‘value added’ qualities.

Relationships – Nature and Nurture

I would never argue that a man or woman NOT aspire to be better than they are as human beings. There are always going to be human elements to any relationship that transcend what we’d expect the nature of the Game to dictate to us, but underneath that compassionate understanding, behind the flowery sentimentalism, is still the base drives, the feral hypergamy, the cruel reality of the Wall, etc. that we will never be exempt from. On Friday I’ll have been married for 16 years to a beautiful, loyal, feminine, woman. Mrs. Tomassi embodies a great many of the ideal qualities that most men would put on their LTR vetting list – she’s a great partner in crime for me, but my initial attraction to her had far less to do with those qualities and far more to do with how much she turned me on. However, as comfortable as I am with her, as intimate as we are with each other’s identities, warts and all, I still understand the base framework necessary for all of this to take place within.

A relationship based solely upon physicality and sexuality is every bit as weak as one based solely upon esoteric appreciations of ‘higher‘ value-added qualities.

The strongest, healthiest relationships are those in which both parties have a mature, mutual understanding and embrace of both the natural aspect and the nurturing aspect of the SMP. Women will never come to appreciate men’s intrinsic sacrifices made for them without coming to terms with naturalistic side of Game and the SMP. Likewise men need to come to terms with the reality of their conditioning and the fem-centric Matrix in order to appreciate the gravity of their decision to commit to a formalized monogamy / marriage. They need to appreciate the risk of the situation they find themselves in, but have hitherto ben unaware of. For both genders, coming to this understanding is often an ugly prospect.

Likewise it’s important to develop an appreciation for, and an embrace of those value-added qualities which move beyond the naturalistic side of the SMP. While being of primary importance, sex and the feral aspects of the SMP aren’t the only aspects of a healthy LTR. When it comes time to make the transition from spinning plates to informed, committed monogamy, you still have to live with that person and this is when those value-added attributes make or break the LTR.

I understand S’s and so many other women’s frustrations with the Game as it applies to women’s deficiencies. I’ve written at length about how women would rather have the Game changed to better suit their capacities to play it. In this instance S repeats a common moan in that she expects men to appreciate the ‘value added’ elements of a woman’s persona in priority to her base attractiveness. Her fears that men might adopt some policy of neglecting “quality” women in favor of “arousing” women, while understandable in terms of feminine competition anxiety, are really unfounded. If anything it’s the majority of beta men conditioned to believe that “it’s what on the inside that matters” who’ve borne the brunt of women’s social dissatisfaction for the past 40 years.

Guys don’t seek out the community because they’re getting too much pussy from being ‘Nice’ and appreciative of women’s ‘deeper’ qualities and they don’t know how to let down all these women easy. If anything compromises self-respect (assuming an AFC even has a concept of that) it’s a Scarcity/Sniper mentality. Worry less about the guys tapping their “harems” and more about the chump crucifying himself to be the martyr for his singular “dream girl”. He’s far more common.


Is Seduction Real?

From a SoSuave regular:

This has been driving me crazy for awhile so I got to post this question. Can you REALLY, honestly, seduce a girl? When I say “seduce” her I’m talking about taking a girl that just wants nothing to do with you at all for whatever reason that you might have no control over, and literally saying this or saying that and changing her mind?

Here’s what I’ve experienced:

1.) My “presentation” is mostly the same with every girl and really there’s no presentation at all. I’m about all personality. Most girls that I meet say that I’m “cute” (you know how girls talk) in the looks area, I always present myself wearing high fashion and my car is nice.

2.) But here’s the thing, the results I get depend upon the girl. There are girls that will love me, some that will just “go with the flow,” then some that will flat out say boy get lost. But here’s the WEIRD thing. I would have some average looking chick reject me to turn around and have a total dime accept my offers lol. Looking at it, it doesn’t make any sense, but I think it’s coming back to what I’m starting to see in the field and that’s the result of the interaction with the girl has more to do with the GIRL in question rather than you. I mean of course you need to work your Game, look good and do your thing, but what I’m finding is that the results often depend upon the state of the girl and her life and her background, etc.

I mean are guys here seriously whipping out “lines” and player shit to turn girls that are just totally not interested to being interested? I guess from reading the manosphere I’m more in line with the focus on the girl being interested when I show up rather than believing I can create interest.

Are you really seducing the girl or did the girl find you sexy when you walked in the door and already decided that she would fuck you JUST AS LONG as you didn’t come off as a loser, creep, etc?? Which means all this shyt comes down to is having the balls to go up and spark interesting convos, have an interesting personality, and knowing WHICH girl in the room to go up to and which ones not to?

There’s a PUA idiom that states 80% of seduction is simply not fucking up what’s already there. Attraction is not a choice – however, what you do from there is entirely up to you.

I think people get hung up on the word “seduction.” It conjures up melodramatic associations of doing something nefarious to tempt someone into doing something against their own interests. In some instances that may be the case, but far more often seduction is really just selling yourself effectively by manipulating the emotions and psychologies of others. Politicians, religious leaders, salesmen, etc. are all seducers of varying shades. There’s a very blurry line between influence and seduction, but in both cases there’s a willing participant always present. No seduction, or call-to-action was ever consummated with a person who wasn’t already somewhat desirous of being seduced.

Advertisers have known this for years; the best seductions are the ones where the target isn’t aware of being seduced, plays a willing part in their own seduction and are so rapt in their own involvement that they’ll prefer pathological denial when confronted with having been seduced. To varying degrees, people have an innate, limbic level ego-preservation mechanism that protects them from the damages that humiliation might injure them with. No one likes to think that they could be so inured or naive (i.e. suckered) that they’d fall for a seduction, yet whenever they buy a lottery ticket their heads are filled with fantasies of what they’ll do with all that money.

So, given all of that, naturally no one is going to ever get any concrete, totally verifiable feedback as to what produced an effective seduction from the target that was seduced. That’s the subjective nature of all seduction – you can only draw your conclusions from what worked and what didn’t according to your own observations of your own goals, not the target’s.

For instance, I’d argue that it’s a rare woman who’ll admit to having been seduced by a man. It’s a point of pride for women to think that they have some preternatural ability (feminine wiles) to seduce men (really by virtue of having a vagina). And for those women who would admit to having been seduced, it’s always couched in a sense of complimenting herself for being a woman of such value who could attract a man capable of seducing her.

Bear in mind, everyone has Game. Even the worst beta AFC in the world believes his supplication, pedestalization and outright prostration for a woman will separate him from the rest of the herd of “other guys” and increase his appeal to her. Everyone of us, learned or not, has a Game in that we approach our sexual interests in the way we believe will best produce the desired result – sexual response. The average chump wouldn’t think to call it “seduction”, but his ‘Game’ that’s evolved, misguided as it may be, is still an effort in influence and persuasion over a girl to get to sexual response.

Learning from Failure

In terms of learning seduction, failure is more beneficial than success, and this is exactly what guys fear because failure comes in the form of rejection, or in the case of the already committed chump, a fear of rejection. The young AFC will rely on a deductive reasoning (as most males do) which plots something like this:

I have a physical need for sex -> Women have the sex I need -> I must find out what women require for their sexuality -> I ask women what prerequisites they require for this exchange -> I must model my personality, behavior and ambitions to best exemplify these prerequisites -> I must perform these behaviors for her approval -> I get sex.

This is simple male logic and ultimately self-destructive because the women he petitions find it easier to require the dictates of social contrivances that they feel should be expected of him (and modified by their own set of contrivances) than to actually give him the honest truth which would likely set him on his ass in rejection, but moreover would help him better learn how to genuinely develop his own identity.

It’s this failure that teaches most accurately. On several occasions I’ve advised guys to be more wary of their successes than thier failures. Men meticulously pore over and analyze the minute details of why a date went sour or why a woman cheated on or LJBFed them, but the moment they F-Close for the first time, the minute they taste that sweet successs they’ve been aching for so long to achieve, the story changes to “OK Rollo, thanks for all of your help, I can take it from here.” I can think of at least 4 recovering chumps I’ve personally counseled that aped the behavior well enough to get their “ONE” dream girl then crashed and burned in exactly the way I warned them they would because they never paused to question why they succeeded.

The goal of their ambition was more important than the process of understanding how they came to achieve it.

When I was counseling, the single most common complaint I heard from older AFCs was how they got a “raw deal” for doing everything that was expected from them. They did, to the letter, everything that they thought women expected of them. They were “good guys”, they played by the rules (women had set for them), they weren’t ‘Players’, they paid their bills, they were “Supportive®”, sacrificed their own ambitions to benefit their wives and children, they fed the dog and took out the garbage; but these guys were miserable because the fear of rejection, the “I’d lose her for sure if I rock the boat” scarcity mentality was more powerful than recognizing a deficit in appreciation from their wives for the life-sacrifices they made in order to keep the peace and ensure a steady supply of mediocre sexual exchange.

However, for all of their complaints and commiserations they never stopped to look at the process of events that brought them to their condition. The ‘success’ of having found a woman who’d marry them was all that was important to them at the time. Much of that “don’t question it” mentality was due to them having a Scarcity Mentality, but as their relationships decayed the focus became more about repairing it and themselves rather than untangling the process of events that contributed to it. The car was running, the TV came on when they hit the power button, and that’s all that mattered – it’s only when the car breaks down and the TV wont come on that they finally get to the nuts and bolts.

Romantic seduction has never been one-size-fits-all. In fact this is expressly spelled out in the introduction of the Art of Seduction by Robert Greene (required reading for Rational Readers). A lot of men forget what the ‘A’ means in PUA – artist. You can’t just blindly expect one style of seduction to work for all types of women – that’s why it’s called an Art. Being a good artist of any sort requires time, discipline, an ability to improvise, creation, adaptation, attention to detail, etc. There are certain basic foundational principles women adhere to (hypergamy being the most universal) either due to social convention or biology, but the good seductive artist uses these as a basis for an individual seduction. For instance, the seduction of a church mouse and a goth chick require two separate seductive approaches, but they’ll both be influenced by the underlying influences common to all women (i.e. hypergamy, dominance, etc.). A Man’s Alpha prowess will appeal to those biological foundations, but his approach in seduction needs to be measured by the conditions presented by his target.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,955 other followers