Category Archives: Inter-gender Communication

Separating Values

value

Every so often I’m in the midst of considering an idea, sometimes even typing away at a draft, when the internet gods hand me the divine gift of an example of exactly the concept I’m attempting to make a bit more concrete. Today was one of those days.

59 year old Robin Korth made an effort in feigned indignation on the Huffington Post last Saturday. I can’t imagine most of my readers haven’t been made aware of it already since this story is making the rounds in the manosphere; Return of Kings and Chateau Heartiste were predictably first to the punch. Please do, at the very least, skim through these posts (they’re not long); they provide many more examples of red pill wisdom than just the points I’ll make today.

These blogs have already done an admirable job in dissecting Ms. Korth’s feminist boilerplate, male-shaming efforts so I don’t really feel the need to toss another log on that fire. Briefly though, Robin was upset that a 55 year old man she met online found her body beyond his threshold of physical arousal – in other words, she didn’t pass the boner test for him.

For all her self-induced self-perceptions of what she believed men should find attractive arousing about her, the man, Dave, was completely honest with her about his evaluation of her sexual market value. But as I’ve stated in prior threads, women say they want honesty, but they never want full disclosure.

Dave went so far as to make a counter offer, by making suggestions she might better present herself in a more sexy context for him to increase her arousal potential:

We talked for some time more, my head reeling at the content of the conversation. He spoke of special stockings and clothing that would “hide” my years. He blithely told me he loved “little black dresses” and strappy shoes. He said my hair was not long and flowing as he preferred, but that was okay because it was “cool looking.” I felt like a Barbie Doll on acid as I listened to this man. He was totally oblivious to the viciousness of his words. He had turned me into an object to be dressed and positioned to provide satisfaction for his ideas of what female sexual perfection should be.

He explained that now that I knew what was required, we could have a great time in the bedroom. I told him no. I would not hide from my own body. I would not wear outfits to make my body more “tolerable.” I would not undress in the dark or shower with the bathroom door closed. I would not diminish myself for him — or for anyone. My body is beautiful and it goes along with my mind and my heart.

I’m just going to take a moment here to point out a few notable observations.

Initially I assumed Dave was attempting to establish Frame, and maybe in a Beta way he was, but in doing so Dave is negotiating desire – his own desire, and this is equally ineffective when men do it from an advantage because eventually a man will realize he’s compromised his genuine passion and the woman will grow resentful.

Also, Dave makes the mistake of appealing to Robin’s reason – an obvious Beta tell. Like a properly conditioned Beta, Dave lays everything on the table in full disclosure. Most feminized men internalize the popular notion that women want to know and discuss the sexual things “they like” in order to pragmatically and rationally fulfill each other’s “needs.”

It’s counterintuitive for men to express what they like sexually, especially when this trope is taught to them as part of their ‘open communication’ (i.e. “the key to a great relationship”®) sensitivity training. What Robin was really upset with was less about his words and more about her hypergamous filters being tricked by a guy who ‘just doesn’t get it’ that a woman has to want to please a man.

Genuine, unnegotiated desire doesn’t work rationally or pragmatically.

If Dave had read The Gift he would know that buying for, or requesting that a woman wear lingerie is a Beta push. A woman buys and wears lingerie to please a Man for whom she has a desire to please – anything else is a form of negotiating desire.

However, Ms. Korth’s example is one of a commonly solipsistic woman who’s default presumption is that pleasing anyone but herself is self-diminishing servitude.

I can’t say as this comes as a shock – most properly conditioned women now feel that just cooking for a man is a form of submitting to, and appreciating him for, his authority (cooking has become the expectation of men to prove their worth in a fem-centric role reversal). Under the doctrine of egalitarian equalism any act of anything less than mutually autonomous independence has the potential to be turned into (the perception of) patriarchal domineering.

Conflating Values

One of the major problems women have, and more than even some red pill men have, is the conflation of sexual market value with their intrinsic personal value as a human being.

It needs to be emphasized that while personal value is influential in sexual market value, SMV is distinct from your value as a human being. I’m stressing this because, in the age Disney Princess empowerment, this conflation of the two has become a go-to social convention; and not just for women.

What Korth suffers from is presuming her personal value is her sexual market value.

It’s disruptive to her self-perceptions and ego-investments when that presumption is challenged by a man who doesn’t want to fuck her for reasons based on the intrinsic value she believes she’s entitled to by virtue of maturity and imaginings of self-sufficiency. Just as women aren’t aroused by men’s own self-concepts of virtuousness and aspirations of higher purpose, men aren’t aroused by whatever ephemeral self-perceptions a woman may have.

From the Timeline of the Professional Woman:

This is the overreach of the feminine imperative – to attempt to thwart men’s biological predispositions by convincing them what they should find attractive and arousing in women. This becomes all the more ironic when you consider that the women the imperative would have men be attracted to are masculinized versions of  women.

Feminist ‘equalism’ is always shocked that evolved human biology and its feral predispositions won’t cooperate with it, but such is the frustration with any social order or ideology which fails to account for the realities of human being’s natural states and biological imperatives. There is a conceived, higher-order expectation that, through freewill, conviction or some other learned, reasoned means, people will rise above the influence of their base nature and comply with what they believe will make for an idealized existence.

What egalitarian equalisim, struggles against is basic human instinct, nature and impulse.

Sexual Market Value vs. Personal Value

After two years since publishing it, my SMV chart continues to be a benchmark for manosphere / red pill theory and it’s extended beyond whatever humble hopes I had for it. However, it’s always been very contentious because it places a valuation on men and women according to the dictates of the sexual marketplace:

[…] however for our purposes today it is important to note that these valuations are meant to encompass an overall sexual value based on both long and short term breeding prospects, relational desirability, male provisioning capacity, female fertility, sexual desirability and availability, etc. et. al.. Your milage may vary, but suffice it to say the ten scale is meant to reflect an overall value as individuated for one sex by the other. Outliers will always be an element of any study, but the intent is to represent general averages here.

When you attempt to quantify any aspect of human ‘value’ you can expect to have your interpretations of  it to be offensive to various people on the up or down side of that estimate. There is simply no escaping personal bias and the offense that comes from having one’s self-worth attacked, or even confirmed for them.

The first criticism I’ve come to expect is usually some variation about how evaluating a person’s SMV is “dehumanizing”, people are people, and have intrinsic worth beyond just the sexual. To which I’ll emphatically agree, however, this dismissal only conveniently sidesteps the realities of the sexual marketplace.

Again, sexual market value is not personal value. Personal value, your value as a human being however one subjectively defines that, is a definite component to sexual market value, but separating the two requires an often uncomfortable amount of self-analysis. And, as in Ms. Korth’s experience here, this often results in denial of very real circumstances, as well as a necessary, ego-preserving, cognitive dissonance from that reality.

Denial of sexual market valuation is a psychological insurance against women losing their controlling, sexual agency in their hypergamous choices.

You Shouldn’t Know This Stuff!

I recently read a story on the Red Pill Reddit forum about a guy who’s girlfriend discovered my book he’d been reading. She began picking through various sections and, expectedly, got really pissed off at the chapters on SMV (the chart in particular). They both discussed the parts she’d read and she admitted she wanted to read the whole thing, but from what they talked about she confessed that there wasn’t really anything she disagreed with.

Her words were, “You men shouldn’t know this stuff!”

It wasn’t that she was irritated by the sections of the book, but rather the fact that men might become aware of women’s sexual strategies as laid bare by the SMV sections and chart.

In the most visceral, biological sense, the primary value of women to men is sex. Almost a year ago I was involved in a lively blog discussion about how men sexually size up women within the space of a glance. Either a woman has sexual potential or she doesn’t. Women like to complain that this is sexual objectification, but men’s brains are literally wired to do exactly this. When we see an arousing woman it triggers the parts of our brains involved with tool manipulation – that’s a feature, not a bug, of the male sexual response.

That may seem shallow or dehumanizing, but just because sexual valuation is a prime value for women it doesn’t mean it’s their only value – in fact far from it. However, there is a distinction between the two, but there’s is a definite utility to women’s interest in maintaining their hypergamous selectivity when they conflate the two together, or deny / reject the validity of sexual market value altogether.

This is what Ms. Korth, and countless other women who share her mindset, has illustrated here. The reality is that a man, Dave, is separating her sexual market value from her estimation of her personal self-worth (inflated and exaggerated as it may be). Robin mistakenly believes her self-impression should be her sexual market value, but this simply isn’t, and never will be, the case.


Controlling Interests

controlling

I realize I dropped this quote last week, but it provides us with a unique illustration of the prevailing feminine psychology that’s been evolving since the sexual revolution.

“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

In last week’s post I made note that Sheryl Sandberg was blissfully ignorant of her blatant admission of feminine hypergamy, but I felt her ‘advice’ to women here represented so much more than just a display of her solipsistic ignorance.

For as long as I’ve butted heads with many obstinate deniers of hypergamy’s influences, on women personally and society on whole, I’m not sure I’ve read a more damning indictment of hypergamy from a more influential woman. Sandberg’s advice to the next generation of women essentially puts the lie to, and exposes the uncomfortable truth about, women’s efforts deny the fundamental dynamic of female sexual strategy – Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.

Even if you want to argue the evolutionary (psychology) and biological origins of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, the fact is now socially evident; women have come to a point where they’re comfortable in openly admitting the truth that Red Pill awareness has been drawing attention to for over a decade now.

Courtesy of Sheryl Sandberg, the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks basis of women’s sexual pluralism is now publicly recognized. It’s kind of ironic considering that what the manosphere has been trying to make men aware of for years is now being co-opted, embraced and owned as if women had always practiced an open sexual pluralism – incredulous to any man’s shock over it.

However, the truth is that a feminine-centric social order can no longer hide the increasingly obvious fallout and consequences of a society restructured to accommodate women as the predominant sexual interest.

Last week I speculated that Sandberg was ignorant of the feminine-primary implications that her statements draw attention to – and I’m still of the opinion that an innate feminine solipsism motivates more and more women to this admission – but it’s impossible to ignore the new degree of comfort in which women feel in laying bare their dualistic sexual strategy.

To some significant extent the Feminine Imperative no longer needs to keep the ‘Good Genes’ / ‘Good Dad’ dichotomy ugliness a secret from men.

In last week’s post I mentioned that a new ambient sense of an assured long-term security in the feminine mind was predisposing women to prioritize the ‘Best Genes’ (Alpha Fucks) side of feminine hypergamy. Sandberg’s ‘advice’ is a vital confirmation of this, however, she tacitly acknowledges a window of  opportunity during which women possess a better capacity to pursue this side of hypergamy:

The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner.

In these two sentences Sheryl (and by extensions the Feminine Imperative) essentially confirms women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, my (now infamous) sexual market value graph depicting women’s peak SMV and decay, and the first half of the time line of women’s phases of maturity I laid forth in the first two installments of the Preventative Medicine series.

Selling the Beta

With regards to men, I believe the most salient part of Sandberg’s admission is found at the end:

These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.

For the better half of the time since the sexual revolution it was necessary for the Feminine Imperative to convince a majority of men that their eventual Beta providership for women was not only their duty, but also a prime aspect of feminine attraction. As I mentioned last week, under the (pre-sexual revolution) old-order attraction model this may have been the case to a large degree. However after the revolution, and as women’s hypergamy prioritized towards ‘Good Genes’ short-term sexual partners, the ‘Good Dad’ (Beta Bucks) men needed an ever increasing ‘sell’ of their own attractiveness by women.

This persistent sell was a necessary element of ensuring a future long-term security for women while pursuing increasingly more short-term breeding opportunities as feminine-primacy expanded into society. The future ‘Good Dads’ would need to be patiently waiting out women’s “indiscretion years” during their SMV peak, so the sell became an ever-evolving definition of what women found attractive in men based on that old-order model of dependability, patience, industriousness, and every other characteristic that defined a good provider.

Quoted from Why Muscularity is Sexy:

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.

Strategic pluralism theory is a pretty good definition of feminine hypergamy, but what this theory hadn’t yet accounted for (at the time it was published) was the necessitousness of women with regards to short-term mating strategies and long-term parental investment opportunities over the course of the various phases of maturity as they aged.

The Beta investment sell was necessary because it ensured male parental investment at a later (usually just-pre-Wall) time in a woman’s life. Thus, Sandberg’s praise of men “who think women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. [Men] who value fairness and expect or, even better, want to do his share in the home” will eventually be sexier than the Alpha “bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys” she encourages women to fuck earlier in life is an excellent example of this sell.

Ironically it’s exactly with this sell that women encourage the very transactional nature of sexual relations with men they’re screeching about recently. It’s the Choreplay fallacy on a meta scale – do more around the house, play into the equalitarian schema women think they need in a provider, support her ambitiousness and opinionatedness and you’ll be considered “sexier” and get her Best Sex she’s been saving just for a guy like this.

Building the Beta

The problem the Feminine Imperative runs into with selling the Beta is that as women’s “independence” expands this sell becomes less necessary and less effective. Less necessary because women’s personal, social and legal long-term security insurances have become almost entirely disconnected from men’s direct (not indirect) provisioning. Less effective because men have become increasingly aware of their disenfranchisement of the old-order provisioning model as being something they might equitably be rewarded for.

As the consequences and repercussions of women’s hypergamous priority shift to Alpha Fucks become more evident and real for men; and as their capacity and comfort with connecting and relating these experiences with other men becomes more widespread, the less effective the sell is for Beta men awaiting their turn to enter into a pre or post Wall monogamy with the women attempting the sell.

Throughout the 70′s, 80′s and most of the 90′s, the sell was effective because men were isolated socially and technologically from each other’s relative experiences. From the late 90′s onward that isolation has diminished while the societal results of feminine-primacy have become more glaringly, and painfully, evident to men.

In its ever-reinventive fluidity, the Feminine Imperative found it necessary to transition from selling men on being later and later life long-term providers for women into building a generation of men who would expect of themselves to fulfill that role when the time came. These men would be raised and conditioned to be the patient Beta providers women would need once they had followed the Sandberg model of hypergamy.

These would be the boys / men who would be taught to “naturally” defer to the authority of women under the auspices of a desire to be an equal partner.

These are the men raised privately and created socially to be ready for women, “when it comes time to settle down, and find someone who wants an equal partner.”

These would be the men ready to expect and accept a woman’s proactive cuckoldry of him in the name of being a pro-feminine equal.

These are the men raised to accept an open form of hypergamy in place of the selling to an old-order Beta provisioning model.

The Hypergamy Schism

The problem this creates for women becomes one of dealing with the men they need to sell a secretive hypergamy to and the men they build to accept an open form of hypergamy to. The increasing comfort with an open admission of hypergamy is relative to a woman’s capacity to get away with it.

A woman like Sheryl Sandberg has the means to decisively ensure her future independence and long-term security (at least in the financial sense) whether she’s married or not. She could very well return to the Bad Boys she found so arousing and advises women ‘date’ and never rely on a man’s direct provisioning. As such she’s very comfortable in publicly revealing the ins and outs of post-sexual revolution hypergamy without so much as an afterthought.

While she publicly affirms the build model of Beta provisioning (under the guise of equalism) and expects “those guys will be awaiting you” this doesn’t hold true for a majority of women. Women with affluence enough, or a physical attractiveness sufficient to virtually ensure their future provisioning are much more comfortable with the build a better Beta model than women who find themselves more lacking in this assurance.

The more necessitous a woman finds herself in the sexual marketplace, the more likely she is to deny the mechanics of her own hypergamy.

A woman less confident in consolidating on her future long-term security (and / or cooperative parental investment) has a much more personal investment in keeping the truths of hypergamy a secret from men. As such, these women will be more predisposed to misdirecting the men becoming more aware of this truth and relying more on the selling model of Beta provisioning.

Needless to say this split between women comfortable in open hypergamy and women reliant upon secretive hypergamy is a point of conflict between the have’s and have not women in the sexual marketplace. The more men become aware of women’s hypergamy and strategic sexual pluralism, through women’s open embrace of it or the manosphere, the more pressure the ‘have not’ women will feel to also embrace that openness.


Male Space

female-boss-motorboat-elite-daily

There’s an interesting discussion that’s been belabored in the manosphere for a while now, that of traditionally “male spaces” being infiltrated by women and / or being redefined by feminized restructuring. The modern, western, workplace is the easiest example of this, but whether it’s the recent inclusion of women in the formerly all-male membership of Augusta Golf Club, or the lifting of the ban on women (and accommodating their prevalent physical deficits) being in combat roles in the military, the message ought to be clearer to red pill men; the feminine imperative has a vested interest in inserting itself into every condition of male exclusivity.

Whether this condition is an all male club or cohort (gender segregated team sports for example) or a personal state that is typically attributed only to the masculine – characteristic strength, rationality, decisiveness, risk taking, even brashness or vulgarity – the Feminine Imperative encourages women to insert themselves, and by association the Feminine Imperative itself, into masculine exclusivity. Scout Willis’ (Bruce Willis’ daughter) most recent ‘activism’ to encourage female equality by going topless in public is an example of this female-to-male parity (google it) – in an equalist utopia, if men can do it, women should be able to as well.

The First Woman

This push into male space is rarely due to a true desire to belong to a traditionally all-male institution or condition, but women are encouraged to believe they’ll make some dent in the universe simply by being the first to push past a “gender barrier.” It’s not about making a true contribution to that male institution or endeavor, but rather a goal of being ‘the first woman to do it too’.

For all of the misdirections of a hoped for equalism, it’s not about becoming an astronaut for a woman, but rather becoming the first woman-astronaut – then moving on to being the first woman assigned to a combat role in the military, then the first woman to play at Augusta. If equalism were the real intent, we could expect the desire of the endeavor itself would supersede this, but  the Feminine Imperative motivates women (and socially demotivates men’s resistance) to the first woman goal, not the actual accomplishment or excellence in that accomplishment or endeavor. The trail being blazed is less important than being the first woman trailblazer – in fact it can simply be the same trail men blazed centuries before and still be recognized as a significant accomplishment.

The goal is to be a woman in male space.

The cover story is the same trope the Feminine Imperative (and its social arm, feminism) always finds useful; the never ending push towards gender equalism. The practice however reveals the push into male space serves two purposes – social control and male oversight.

Social control is the easier of the two to grasp. Even when changing the rules of an all-male game to accommodate a lack of genuine female interest in a male endeavor, it fundamentally alters the nature of that game. The first woman allowed participation in that game is novelty enough to extend the Feminine Imperative’s social control into that male space (i.e. “nowadays women do it too”).

An easy example of this would be NASCAR’s embracing a driver like Danica Patrick. It’s not that she’s an exceptional driver, and I can’t vouch for her genuine passion for NASCAR, but the social control she represents is that she is the first woman to (dubiously) be taken seriously in the nominally all-male space of NASCAR drivers. The goal has been achieved, all that’s left now is female oversight of this male space.

Overseers in the Locker Room

The second purpose in the goal of female inclusion into male space is really a policing of the thought dynamics and attitudes of the men in that space. When women are allowed access to the locker room the dynamic of the locker room changes. The locker room can take many different shapes: the workplace environment, the sports team, the group of all-male coders, the primarily male scientific community, the ‘boys club’, the group of gamer nerds at the local game store, even strip clubs and the sanctuary you think your ‘man cave’ is – the context is one of women inserting themselves into male space in order to enforce the dictates of feminine social primacy.

When the influence of feminine-primacy is introduced into social settings made up mainly by men and male-interests, the dynamics and purpose of that group changes. The purpose becomes less about the endeavor itself and more about adherence to the feminine-inclusionary aspect of that endeavor. It starts to become less about being the best or most passionate at what they do, and more about being acceptable to the influence of the Feminine Imperative while attempting maintaining the former level of interest in the endeavor.

Men unaccustomed to having women in their midst generally react in two ways; According to their proper feminized conditioning, they embrace the opportunity to impress these ‘trailblazing’ women (hoping to be found worthy of intimacy) with their enthusiastic acceptance of, and identification with, their feminine overseer(s), or they become easy foils of an “out moded” way of thinking that the new ‘in-group’ happily labels them with.

Once the feminine-primary in-group dynamic is established a ‘feminine correct’ social frame follows. This feminine correction restructures the priorities of goals, and validates any accomplishments, in terms of how they reflect upon the feminine as a whole. Thus any in-group success is perceived as a feminine success in male space, while in-group failures or simple mediocrity is either dismissed entirely or blamed on out-group men’s failure to comply with, or the rejection of, the Feminine Imperative’s ‘correcting’ influence on the in-group.

‘Bro Culture’

When I was writing The Apologists I briefly delved into the topic of Bro Culture. It seems that a constantly self-reinventing feminism loves to attach “culture” to the end of anything it sees as threatening – Rape Culture, Male culture of privilege, and of course Bro Culture. Make no mistake, the concept of Bro Culture is an operative feminine social convention. It may be convenient to think of the stereotype of Bro Culture as a male creation, but this convention is the direct result of the Feminine Imperative’s controlling need to insert itself into male spaces.

There are other feminine social conventions with the same latent purpose, but the ‘Bro Culture’ meme is really a dual purpose shaming tactic intended to restrict and control traditional male bonding while also fostering infighting amongst in-group and out-group men once feminine influence has been established in a formerly all-male space.

One of the most threatening aspects of conventional masculinity for the Feminine Imperative is the cooperative potential of male bonding. When only men comprise an in-group, team building, common purpose and a masculine-primary environment tend to define that group. I would argue that the modern insertion of feminine influence into all male spaces is a concerted effort to limit this bonding and unity in favor of a feminine-primary ‘correctness’.

This limitation may not be directly influenced by a present female; often all that’s needed to foster feminine-primary correctness is a feminine-identifying male in the in-group (anonymous White Knight), or even just a prevailing attitude of not wanting to offend the suspicions that other in-group men may subscribe to this feminine-identifying influence for fear it may get back to a woman they perceive may have authority.

Infighting

From The Apologists:

This is the hallmark of a feminized Beta mindset – to believe that “guys being guys” is inherently aberrant. It’s something other guys do. I could go into detail about how men giving each other shit is an evolutionary (and useful) vestige of tribalism and how men would use this “challenging” to ensure the strength and survivability of the collective, but this will only grate against his ‘gender-as-social-construct’ belief.

This discomfort with ‘being a guy’ is the root disposition of many high-functioning Betas, and particularly those seeking to better identify with the feminine in the hopes it will pay off in sexual dividends. These are the guys who never ‘got it’ that shit talking and locker room jabs (the same male space invaded by the feminine) are intended not just to determine masculine fitness, but to foster living, building and measuring up to a better masculine standard that benefits both the individual man and the collective of humanity.

The fact that ‘Bro Culture’ is even a term, or the go-to archetypal examples of it begins with stereotypical jocks, “douchebags” and team sport locker rooms, illustrates the threat to which male-exclusive forms of communication poses to the Feminine Imperative. If male space can be co-opted in the name of gender equalism, it’s far easier to restrict that male communication and influence it to encourage a sense of responsibility towards  feminine-primary security needs. In other words, it’s a much easier task to create future Beta providers if a feminine influence can pervade all male spaces – this is facilitated all the better when it is men themselves who hold other men accountable to the dictates of the Feminine Imperative and feminine sexual strategies.

I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight of the way men communicate, test each other, hone each other, give each other shit, etc. being primarily defined in the context of Bro Culture, douchebaggery, team sports, etc. That intra-male dynamic crosses so many social, racial and cultural strata it becomes an overarching threat to the Feminine Imperative.

It’s an easy task to set men against each other when they perceive sexual rivals to be part of an out-group, and feminine influence in male space fosters this passive (sometimes active) infighting amongst men. Disrupting male bonding, or even the potential for it, limits men’s potential to unify in their own interests and their own imperatives. There are many in-group examples of all male space where this infighting and resentment plays out – it’s important to understand that male-exclusive forms of communication, testing, encouragement and shit talking, are in no way limited to just the locker room. Even guys in the chess club will give each other shit – at least until the Feminine Imperative inserts itself there.

Resisting the Influence

I can’t end this post without drawing attention to the all male meta-space that has become the gestalt of the manosphere. The manosphere is male space writ large and a testament to what men can do when they come together, share experience and put their minds to a common purpose. The methods may vary, but the desire to collectivize male experience for the benefit of other men is a meta-scale form of male bonding.

And as should be expected, there will be resistance to that communication and bonding on a comparatively meta-scale by the Feminine Imperative and the men and women who subscribe to it. I should also add that a very obvious attempt on women’s inclusion into red pill ideology, theory and practice is also a move by the feminine into a male space with much of the same purpose I’ve outlined here – social control and female oversight of it.

Even the most well meaning of women involved (however peripherally) in the manosphere are still motivated by their innate security needs – and those hypergamous security needs imply a want for certainty and control. As such the psychological influence of the Feminine Imperative will always be a predominant motivator in their participation in this all male space. This leads women to a want to sanitize Game to fit the purposes of the imperative, as well as oversee the thought processes of the men who come to participate in it.

Just like any other male space, the manosphere is subject to all the sanitization efforts of the Feminine Imperative I’ve outlined in this post – by both women and men who still ascribe to feminine-primacy.


Purgatory

purgatoryheader1

I’m going to apologize in advance to commenter Softek (hopefully you’re cool with my posting this), but his comment from The Real Nice was exactly what I was digging into this morning:

I’ll tell you where the friendzone is: it’s in your head. You want to believe that something is going to happen with a girl and that you’ve got your foot in the door because you’ve always been there for her for so long, and you always have “so much fun” when you hang out, they like you, they tell you they enjoy spending time with you.

Yeah…no.

Rollo’s said if a woman’s interested in you, she won’t confuse you.

A girl that I was not interested in was interested in me. That girl let me know she was interested in me because while we were hanging out she initiated physical contact herself, I just went along with it, and next thing I know I’m on my back and she’s pulling my boxers down and sucking my dick.

After she swallowed I figured out, “Oh. She must be interested in me. Okay.” For real. That oblivious.

And that was the second day we were hanging out. I’d never met her or hung out with her before. We’re talking 0 to 60, although in her mind when we started hanging out I guess she was already going 60. She did not tell me she liked me or cared about me or wanted to be with me. What she “said” was ask if I wanted her to go down on me, and then she did.

Night and day. I’ve known other girls for years and years and spent so much time with them and never saw one iota of pussy, and only on a couple of occasions got a hug. Nothing was ever going to happen. And I was in the friendzone in my mind. I’d spend all my time there wishing and hoping and never realized how short I was selling myself and how by being the pursuer, I’d already lost.

If you’re waiting for something to develop, you’re already fucked. I learned that one after reflecting on that experience with that other girl. That was the first time in my life any girl showed sexual interest in me — and it was very, very clear. She was the one throwing herself at me. And when she did and I just soaked it all up she was very happy about that and it was just this torrential downpour of praise and compliments and how great I was and everything inbetween.

I haven’t had a lot of experience, but the little I have had has shown me the difference between pursuing a girl who may or may not be interested in you eventually, and one who absolutely, unequivocally is. It is night and day. There’s no mistaking it.

We’re not being nice to ourselves and loving ourselves when we willingly stay in the friendzone in our minds — wishing and hoping and fantasizing. A girl who’s interested will give you so much more, and she’ll give it at the drop of a hat.

I’ve done posts in the past about the utility LJBF rejections mean to women, men’s Beta Game tactics of Playing Friends in the hopes of qualifying for a woman’s intimacy at a later date, and how men and women differ in their approaches to friendship based on their same-sex friendships. In all of these I brush a bit into the concept of the “friend zone” and how it’s really men who put themselves (usually willingly) in this state:

Men get a LJBF rejection because of a process. These are the “friends first” mindset guys; the guys who put far too much emphasis on a solitary woman and wait her out until the perfect moment to attempt to escalate to intimacy, at which point her most comfortable rejection (Buffer) is to LJBF. This is made all the more easy for her because of the process the guy used to get to that point.

[…] Get it out of your head now that you’re even in a so called “friend zone” with any woman. There is no friend zone – there is only the limbo between you being fooled that a girl is actually a friend on an equitable level to your same sex friends, and you understanding that as soon as she becomes intimate with another guy your attentions will become a liability to any relationship she might want to have with the new sexual interest and she puts you off, or you do the same when you become so involved with another girl.

I probably could have mentioned this in The Real Nice post, but I’m noticing a social trend from overly ‘empowered’ women in not simply rejecting the concept of the ‘friend zone’, but outright hostility towards the men who insist they’re forced into it. Women are angry about men complaining about the friend zone.

Neo-feminism HATES the idea of the friend zone for the same reasons it hates Faux-Nice Guys; there’s an implied state of exchange. They hate the reciprocal part of the Savior Schema because it’s considered one degree away from rape.

Nothing upsets the feminine-primary balance of sexual selectivity and betrays the secret mechanics of women’s need to optimize hypergamy than having a man overtly expose the transactional side of women’s sexual strategy. The side that puts him into a friend zone purgatory for being a ‘tryer’ when it comes to sex, but her need for his trying hasn’t reached a critical point.

This is what the friend zone does; it makes a man simultaneously responsible for, and accountable to, his want for sex by attempting to qualify for it with a woman. The friend zone is a Beta man’s punishment for expecting to be entitled to the rewards reserved for an Alpha. The Alpha doesn’t qualify himself for a woman’s intimacy, she qualifies for his sexual approval. And the longer you stay rapt by her in the friend zone the readier you’ll be when she needs your dutiful, sex-lured, providership.

If you want an example of the feminine imperative’s fluidly reinventing social conventions for itself look no further than how the concept of the ‘friend zone’ has evolved since the mid 90′s. In 1994 it was cute in an “Aww, hang in there fella, she’ll come around to loving you for who you are eventually (once she’s “grown” from the experiences of banging bad boys). In 2014 it’s  “Any guy who thinks he’s in the so called friend zone is just a potential rapist because he thinks he’s owed sex for his friendship.”

A Way Out of Hell

One of the most common questions you’ll read from desperate blue pill men, not just in the manosphere, but on damn near every dating forum, to Dear Abby, to AskMen is “How do I get out of the friendzone?” Type that question into a Google query and look at the number of returns you get. The question of course is usually followed by some plea for advice or a script to follow in order to finally get with the Girl of his Dreams®, and rationally and reasonably make her aware of how he measures up to everything on her ‘boyfriend list’.

If you want some actionable Game advice about the ‘friend zone’ here it is – leave it yourself!

Even if you think you have the best and noblest of intentions in your White Knight ‘friend zone’ status, the fact remains that women in general, and the woman you have set your noble intent upon, will consider your ‘friend zoning’ a prison of your own making – not theirs.

Even the most complicit or implicit woman in a guy’s ‘friend zoning’ will never accept the liability for placing him into that state, and even the most culpable woman in this will still resent him; not just for pointing out her own participation in it, but because it irrecoverably confirms him as being a Beta chump who would allow himself to participate in his own ‘friend zoning’.

If you believe you’re in some friend zone with a woman, never overtly admit to or complain about it with anyone, man or woman – you will only reaffirm your perception of being a necessitous Beta. Men will judge, women will talk, and your self-perception gets caught in a negative feedback loop.

Next, remember Iron Rule of Tomassi #7:

Iron Rule of Tomassi #7
It is always time and effort better spent developing new, fresh, prospective women than it will ever be in attempting to reconstruct a failed relationship. Never root through the trash once the garbage has been dragged to the curb. You get messy, your neighbors see you do it, and what you thought was worth digging for is never as valuable as you thought it was.

Your “friend zoning” is a failed relationship. Approach new women, develop new prospects. A Woman doesn’t want the ‘liability’ of implied sexual exchange (actual or imagined) for your friendship? Don’t give it her.

 


Women Talk, Men Do

talk

Towards the end of last week’s comment thread there were some very insightful questions about how Men and women communicate.

Jeremy:

Honestly, [Stingray], I’ve never met a woman who actually wanted…”deep meaningful conversations, often.” I think this is another lie that women tell themselves. What women seem to want, conversationally, is an authority figure. They want someone who can talk for hours about things they have no understanding of. They want to be intellectually dazzled more than participate in a “deep meaningful conversation.”

[...] To be honest, and this will sound like I’m being arrogant, most women I’ve spent any time conversing with are poorly-read, lacking creative thoughts, and have an abysmal understanding of politics and the world at large. Having said that, I still can’t stand it when women say nothing on a date.

Yohami:

”deep meaningful conversations” for a woman, means “emotional stuff about how I feel and what I want”, “reaffirmation and validation of my viewpoints” and of course “entertain me with stories that show me your character and make me feel good about myself for being with you”

So of course they want that often.

jf12:

Yohami, deep doesn’t mean just telling her how you feel about her feelings, it means also helping her to uncover her inner goodness in the way that she agonized for almost a few moments when she betrayed one friend at the expense of another. In other words, you hold your metaphorical conch of an echo chamber to her metaphorical ear and its solipsistic otoacoustic emissions, and she can hear what she wants to hear, deeply.

Stingray:

Woman are not good at and hate what men mean by a deep meaningful conversation. The argument and debate, presenting and then criticizing ideas, and the ad hominems (that so often you all can then get up from the table and it is ALL over). That is not our idea of deep conversation at all. Then the feelings are NOT good and most women hate it.

Deti:

And the last thing a woman wants in a “deep, meaningful conversation is for the guy to talk about things important to HIM or, even worse, about HIS feelings. HIS feelings, wants, needs, and desires are the LAST things she wants to talk about because that’s so….beta.

The best male friends I have share one or more common interests with me – a sport, a hobby, music, art, fishing, lifting, golf, etc. – and the best conversations I can remember with these friends occurred while we were engaged in some particular activity or event. Even just moving a friend into his new house; it’s about accomplishing something together and in that time relating about shit. When I lived in Florida some of the best conversations I had with my studio guys were during some project we had to collaborate on for a week or two.

Women, make time with the express purpose of talking between friends. Over coffee perhaps, but the act of communication is more important than the event or activity. Even a ‘stitch-and-bitch’ is simply an organized excuse to get together and relate. For women, communication is about context. They are rewarded by how that communication makes them feel. For Men communication is about content and they are rewarded by the interchange of information and ideas.

Women talk, Men do.

Josey Wales:

Women typically don’t give a shit about world affairs, history, etc. They just don’t seem interested in pondering, learning about, debating the big issues.

There has to be a bio/evo explanation for this, and my best guess is that women’s concerns/interests have always been more provincial, localized and trivial. Picture a bunch of women sitting around a campfire hen party cluck session in primitive societies… Sharing gossip as they threshed the grain or made clothes.

I’m inclined to agree this. It’s no secret that men and women’s brains are wired differently, but what’s interesting is the complementarity between between both sex’s brains. It’s a mistake to think that women’s neural predilections for emotion and intuitiveness is inherently a weakness or a liability, but it’s equally a mistake to think that men’s dispositions towards rationalism, problem solving and inventiveness.

Maps of neural circuitry showed that on average women’s brains were highly connected across the left and right hemispheres, in contrast to men’s brains, where the connections were typically stronger between the front and back regions.

Ragini Verma, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes, with men’s brains apparently wired more for perception and co-ordinated actions, and women’s for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking.

“If you look at functional studies, the left of the brain is more for logical thinking, the right of the brain is for more intuitive thinking. So if there’s a task that involves doing both of those things, it would seem that women are hardwired to do those better,” Verma said. “Women are better at intuitive thinking. Women are better at remembering things. When you talk, women are more emotionally involved – they will listen more.”

This pretty much confirms men and women’s communicative methods I outlined in The Medium is the Message:

We get frustrated because women communicate differently than we do. Women communicate covertly, men communicate overtly. Men convey information, women convey feeling. Men prioritize content, women prioritize context. One of the great obfuscations fostered by feminization in the last quarter-century is this expectation that women are every bit as rational and inclined to analytical problem solving as men. It’s result of an equalist mentality that misguides men into believing that women communicate no differently than men. That’s not to discount women as problem solvers in their own right, but it flies in the face how women set about a specifically feminine form of communication. Scientific study after study illustrating the natural capacity women have for exceptionally complex forms of communication (to the point of proving their neural pathways are wired differently) are proudly waved in by a feminized media as proof of women’s innate merits, yet as men, we’re expected to accept that she “means what she says, and she says what she means.” While more than a few women like to wear this as a badge of some kind of superiority, it doesn’t necessarily mean that what they communicate is more important, or how they communicate it is more efficient, just that they have a greater capacity to understand nuances of communication better than do men. One of the easiest illustrations of this generational gender switch is to observe the communication methods of the “strong” women the media portray in popular fiction today. How do we know she’s a strong woman? The first cue is she communicates in an overt, information centered, masculine manner.

From an evolutionary perspective, it’s likely that in our hunter-gatherer tribal roles had a hand in men and women’s communication differences. Men went to hunt together and practiced the coordinated actions for a cooperative goal. Bringing down a prey animal would have been a very information-crucial effort; in fact the earliest cave paintings were essentially records of a successful hunt and instructions on how to do it. Early men’s communication would necessarily have been content driven discourse or the tribe didn’t eat.

Similarly women’s communications would’ve been during gathering efforts and childcare. It would stand to reason that due to women’s more collectivist roles they would evolve to be more intuitive, and context oriented, rather than objective oriented. A common recognition in the manosphere is women’s predisposition toward collectivism and/or a more socialist bent to thinking about resource distribution. Whereas men tend to distribute rewards and resources primarily on merit, women have a tendency to spread resources collectively irrespective of merit. Again this predispositions is likely due to how women’s ‘hard-wiring’ evolved as part of the circumstances of their tribal roles.

Men Like Women

When a man attempts to communicate like a woman (context-primary), women associate him with the feminine (i.e. he talks like a woman). This subconsciously indicates to her that a guy is Beta and making concessions of his maleness to better identify with the feminine. When you read about angry women feeling duped by the Nice Guy, who was only ‘playing nice’ in order to earn her intimacies, that deception is rooted in a guy relating to women as a woman would.

As you’re probably guessing, with the rise of social feminization, post-sexual revolution, men have been socialized and acculturated to express themselves increasingly as a woman would. This is part of boys-men’s earliest feminine conditioning; a calculated effort by the Feminine Imperative to train men to communicate as women do. I call this men’s “sensitivity training”, but in essence it’s a social effort to force men to rewire their brains to better accommodate a feminine-primary society. “Get in touch with your feminine side”, is really a plea for men to contort their natural ways of communicating into a feminine aligned mode of communicating.

The results however are very much the same as the faux-nice guy effect I describe. There is a subtle disingenuousness that the feminine mind perceives when a man communicates as a woman would. Alpha Men wouldn’t care enough to accommodate women’s communication preferences.

Incongruent communication styles is a tough obstacle for blue pill men to overcome when transitioning to red pill Game-awareness. The sincerity they hope to convey to women about their intentions is incongruous with how women’s limbic understanding of male communication style works. Men are men, because they talk ‘like men’ and are concerned with what Men are concerned with. Granted, the socialization of men to be more feminine-oriented doesn’t do a man any favors in unlearning this, but overcoming the fear of asserting himself as a Man and communicating to a woman as a Man would is imperative.

As most of the male commenters above will attest, there comes a point (usually for older, mature men with the experience to know) where forcing himself to relate to a woman on her terms is simply exhausting. It becomes mentally taxing to maintain interest – at some point men will want to speak their own language, feminine-primacy be damned, but it’s when he does revert back to his native gender language that he becomes more attractive.

When a Man drops the pretense of catering to the feminine, this is when he sets himself apart as a truly masculine agent. He is unapologetically masculine, and that is the mark of an Alpha – to not bend over into the feminine to better identify himself with the feminine. There is strength(and tingles) in our differences from women. So if you’re a newly red pill Man, start making efforts to consciously identify where you’re aligning yourself, your beliefs, your personality with accommodating the feminine and start unapologetically shifting them to a masculine-primary purpose.


Beta Fucks

beta_fucks

I had an interesting experience last Friday. I had finished a good workout and was on my way home when Bebé Tomassi texted me asking if I would pick up a sandwich for her from Subway and bring it to her at a school function. Sure, why not.

I get into the local Subway at around 6:30 pm and it being a Friday night and Subway isn’t the most happening place to be on a Friday, I’m there with only a couple ahead of me in line. The woman looked to be late 20′s, I’d guess 27-28, and not too bad looking – 5′ 9″-10″, blonde – if she’d been dressed better she might rate a 7 on the Tomassi scale. The guy she’s with was thin, short mop of hair, about the same height, maybe around her age.

What made them notable was the gender dynamic between them I picked up on immediately. Within the first 3 minutes of coming up behind them in line the guy had made every Beta tell I think Roissy has a term for. When I got in line he was hugging up on her from behind, leaning in and she stood there like a tree. His posture and body language, as well as his attitude instantly told me this couple’s relational dynamic – he was the qualifying Beta and she was the mouthy, hard-to-please Hyena.

She noticed me when I came up. I was the only other person in Subway and I still had my gym clothes on. Some top 40 crap song came on the overhead and she blathered out, “I hate this shit music. They should put Metallica or Slayer on, that would be funny.” as if she expected the Beta to ask the management to switch stations. She gives me a glance as if offering an opening after that comment. I order my daughters sandwich.

“No! Don’t get me lemonade, it’s too syrupy here, get me diet Dr. Pepper.” she belts out to the Beta dutifully getting their drinks. The sandwich artist asks here what she’d like on her sandwich – reaches over and touches my forearm (IOI, kino) “This might take a while, I’m very choosy”, she says to me in her ‘tone’.

“I’m not in a hurry.”

Sandwiches get made, Beta pays. My girl’s sandwich is done at the same time (she’s not too choosy), and as Alpha Girl and Beta Boy are about to leave she grabs both their sandwiches and mine ‘by mistake’. The Subway cashier stops her to tell her she picked up my sandwich (remember, we’re the only people in the store), Beta puffs a nervous laugh, she looks at me, “Ohh, sorry,..” hands me the bag and holds eye contact just that beat longer than normal.

“Come on we gotta go.”, Beta reaches around her waist, and like the cane that pulls a bad actor off the stage, they exit.

Passive Game

I did nothing to actively Game this girl, she was Gaming herself. I’ve seen this before. There’s a branch of Game (I think Roosh mentions it) that speculates that sometimes girls will Game themselves and all you need to do is not fuck it up. Sometimes less is more; when a woman is already attracted to you, Game becomes remaining aware of the indicators, allowing the proper flow and just presuming the sale.

I preface today’s post with this because it ties in nicely to a particular discussion last week’s post sparked. I’ll admit, being married kind of puts a Man in a ‘nothing to lose’ perspective. A lot of guys like to speculate that a wedding ring makes a man more desirable – it doesn’t. If married men are at all attractive to women it’s not due to some fantasy of preselection by his wife making him more attractive as a long term prospect; it’s because, generally, he’s not actively pursuing women. There’s a certain power in indifference – you’re far more desirable when you aren’t qualifying yourself to women, and no guy is more indifferent than one who knows with all certainty who he’ll be banging that evening.

However, there is also an amplification of attraction and arousal for a more Alpha man when a woman is in a relationship with a man she perceives as Beta. A similar amplification also becomes heightened when a woman is the focus of one or more Beta orbiters. The persistent affirmation by, and supplication of, Beta men puts that Alpha in a spotlight. A constant atmosphere of Beta attention and concern has an effect of preselecting that (more) Alpha Man for a woman. A common complaint many Beta men share is being an emotional tampon for a woman, listening and commiserating with her about the ‘asshole boyfriend’, only to have her desire for him become more amplified and off she goes for her desired sex with him again. The Beta(s) rationalizes this as ‘a moment of weakness’ for his special girl, but is unaware that his constant Beta affirmations contribute to her attraction to that Alpha.

As I stated, I wouldn’t have had to apply much Game to the Subway girl – the Beta boyfriend had already done a lot of the heavy lifting. This particular dynamic is something to remember if you’re Gaming a girl with a boyfriend or a girl who drops a boyfriend disclaimer into casual conversation. A girl’s boyfriend may not be the Beta this guy was, but if he is, let that form the basis of your Game. I should also add that this ‘Beta does the lifting’ dynamic is the root of AMOGing and running boyfriend destroyer Game. You should also be aware when this tactic is being run on yourself.

Husband = Beta

Now before you think I’ve gone completely mercenary, this incident made me think of this comment from last week’s post from Lucas Bly:

So essentially, I’m reading the last four paragraphs of your essay to read:

“She married you because you are a provider, not because she was attracted to you. She’ll never be as attracted to you as she was to her previous Alpha Fucks.”

That’s a tough pill to swallow, my brother.

The issue being, of course, what to do with yourself, and with her, after you discover you got gamed into that kind of marriage.

Here’s a tougher pill to swallow, she’ll never be as attracted to you as she is of the guy’s she sees as Alpha after you’re married too.

In the interests of full disclosure, Lucas had petitioned me earlier about his particular situation being similar to the guy in Saving the Best. What the kid in the Subway made me think of was a wondering if he had at one time been relatively Alpha enough to attract this dominant woman, or if she perceived him in a good provider role. She certainly fit the script of the 27-29 year old woman looking to cash out of the SMP before her attractiveness capital (such as it was) expired. But on the other hand, she wasn’t averse to giving a perceptual Alpha IOIs right under his nose. It’s an interesting passive cuckolding effect.

Lucas’ musings prompted the question: Does an Alpha (perceptually) drop in status for a woman once he’s committed to monogamy with her?

One common situation I get from newly red pill men is that after a few years they find themselves trapped in a sexless marriage or living arrangement and they want to know how to get back to the hot monkey sex they had (or their wives had with previous lovers) in the early stages of their relationship. Once they become red pill / Game aware and realize what they are and how they got there, the next question is how to get back to what he had before.

The question is usually along the lines of “Help Rollo, I used to be really Alpha back in the day, but now my wife sees me as a Beta provider, what do I do?” Virtually every man on the Married Man Sex Life forums looks for a solution there for some variation of this situation, but is it that marriage itself, by it’s very nature predisposes a woman to view her husband in a Beta status? The go-to definition is Beta Provider, not Alpha provider.

Hypergamy being what it is, it’s Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks; if a woman, being the arbiter and decider with whom she will pair-off with in the long term, has agreed to commitment with a man, it would follow that on some level (whether true or not) she believes this man will be a provider and parent for her and future children. So the question then isn’t so much about a man backsliding to Beta after having been considered Alpha enough to fuck the woman who would be his wife, that may be, but rather it’s the familiarity and provisioning that define marriage makes a woman consider him Beta-provider by default.

Dr. Warren Farrell explored this in some of his writing. He posited that the familiarity of marriage predisposes women to consider their husbands as family members, thus the concept of sex with a family member is repelling for women. This is further complicated by parenthood; when boyfriend becomes husband, and then husband becomes Daddy, the family familiarity dynamic makes having sex less and less appealing.

I think there may be something to this, but when you combine it with a fattening and less appealing Daddy, and Mommy, the complex worsens. Thus any strange, outsider, Alpha becomes the stuff of fantasy for women.

Burninator picks up the narrative:

“After the marriage, sometimes just a few short years, then we hear of the sexless husband, fully betatized, begging for sex. But based on his previous experience with the woman, what should he have been looking for to tip him off?

My question is pointed more towards the men who are alpha who get duped.”

He’s referring of course to the husband in the Saving the Best post. I’m not entirely sure most guys, and especially men with a Beta mindset, are very receptive to the red flag warnings telegraphed by women, but Deti makes a good stab at it:

1. A guy in that situation should take note of the kinds and types of men she was attracted to/fucked before. Huge red flag if you are markedly different from those kinds of men. For example: She used to date guys in shitty bands and small time pro athletes. But she’s now taken quite a shine to mid level business managers and guys with steady jobs. Indicates she’s changing lanes; going for the beta bucks. This woman is for dating; not for marriage.

2. She was a slut with other guys; makes you wait; then when she finally does take the plunge, the sex is of pornstar quality. Seems to be putting on an act; a performer on stage.

3. Entitlement mentality surrounding sex. To her, sex is a commodity which she uses as a currency for exchange. She expects something in return for giving you sex.

4. Firmly controls the sex. Won’t do certain things; will have sex only at certain times; doesn’t like certain sexual acts because “only sluts do THAT” and “I don’t want you to think I’m a slut”. Immediately gets up after sex to expel the semen because “I don’t want to get a yeast infection” or to take care of the wet spot.

5. Closely related to this is that she remains in control of herself during sex. Never seems to be completely free or enjoying herself; always assessing her own performance and your evaluation of her sexually.

6. Wants to move rapidly to commitment. Puts out overt and subtle hints that she expects ever increasing investment and commitment in exchange for the sex she’s doling out.

These are pretty good tells for a woman looking to cash out of the SMP with a provider, but again, I’m not entirely convinced that women in the Epiphany Phase of life are reserving these tells exclusively for Beta men.

Validational Sex vs. Transactional Sex

Commenter jf12 brings us to the heart of the matter:

At J4G we were discussing validational sex vs transactional sex. I pointed out it was really primate alpha sex vs beta sex. In alpha sex, the female gladly services the male, and she gladly pays him (bananas and grooming). In beta sex, the female ungratefully requires servicing from the male, and demands payment from him (bananas and grooming).

It should also be noted that when a female primate does engage in a transactional sex exchange with a Beta male, it’s during the down cycle of her menstruation (point of lowest potential fertility). As with female primates (including humans), when she is in the proliferative phase of her menstrual cycle (just pre-ovulation, and the highest potential fertility) her biochemistry predisposes her to seek out the sexual attentions of more Alpha (masculinized) ‘good genes’ males.

I covered this fundamental at length in Schedules of Mating. Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks is the behavioral manifestation of feminine hypergamy and the dualistic nature of women’s sexual strategy as prompted by female biology. From an evolutionary / adaptive species-survival standpoint, women’s sexuality is nothing if not pragmatic and often opportunistic.

Most often when I’m asked the “How do I get my wife to fuck me again?” it’s coming from a man who once thought he had the best his wife had to offer, sexually, emotionally, etc. only to discover she had or still has the potential to be much more than he can coax from her or she’s willing to give to him. Again, I have to come back to the question, does his being her husband make her impression of him Beta by default?

I’ve had the premise that only Beta men consider getting married thrown at me on occasion. I think this presumption may be putting the cart before the horse – maybe, eventually, a man cannot help but be perceived as a Beta by his wife because he is her husband, a parent and provider (or should be). Many divorced men express disbelief when they discover just how wildly sexual their ex-wives can be with their new lovers. They take it as some personal failing that they were unable to bring out the slut in their wives when they were married, but I might argue that their position as husband and father made this impossible for them.

There’s a lot more I could write about this. What do you do if you find yourself in this situation? Leave, divorce, cheat on her? That may be enough to push past that comfortable familiarity. I can think of one married blogger who’s husband cheated on her with the result being her unconditional submission. Dread Game, both overt and soft dread, might cut through that familiarity. Strong Frame control is the lynchpin to a good relationship, ensuring that your SMV is above that of your wife or LTR, and knowing the power this has can keep an Alpha impression functional.

However, in the end, you have to evaluate the worth of changing yourself in order to reestablish that Alpha sex connection. If divorce isn’t an option for you due to religious convictions, then you’ll have to factor that into your evaluation. If not, then you’ll have to consider the depth and importance your commitment means to you versus the effort (or even having to make an effort) you’ll make to reestablish yourself. You’ll need to consider this with all the logic and rationalism at your disposal, divorced from emotional considerations – most times that’s the most difficult part. You’ll want to couch your decision making process based on Relational Equity, but you have to set aside that emotionalism and use cold pragmatism.


Secret of the Red Pill

B3FXCT conspiracy

Joker79 from the SoSuave forum relates a common red pill dilemma;

I’m a huge fan of the rational male and I can’t deny that it helped my a lot in these years. I’m spinning plates and I can literally pull out from the crowd the girl I want to bang. I find really amusing though when I challenge some chicks with the uncomfortable truth of the matrix (e.g. their hypergamy, decreasing SMV with age, the feminine mystique and so on). I wonder which is the common (and the worst) reaction you got from your female friends, girlfriend, women you’re meeting daily when you show them that you know the game they’re playing? I usually get “pffff NAWALT” or “you’re a player” or they seems to be butthurt once they realize I turned the table against them… nothing concrete of course because they know I’m right. any meaningful and/or funny experience?

Synergy1 adds the most common response:

I don’t openly discuss the RM and other theories with people, but its funny how a lot of the truths are actually accepted by people. Just the other day I had a discussion on how if you insult a man its funny, but if you mention a fact about women, it’s considered misogyny. The coworkers’ comment was that women are weaker than men are and I responded – why do you hate America. It got some laughs.

Some people get it. These are the same people who have been through divorce and see things for as they are. The younger guys who are still in fairytale land don’t understand or buy into it.

Joker79:

It’s not really discussing openly or starting a conversation about red pill topic, it’s more about observing their behavior when your reaction is different from what chicks expect (e.g. walk away when you’re supposed to beg them to stay, hitting on different chicks when she’s with you and disrespects you and you’re not trying to qualify for her attention at all). More often than not you get either an annoyed reaction (he’s a player) motivated by the discomfort of her knowing that you know her strategy and how to workaround it or a butthurt behavior where she pretends not to care and avoid you (rationalization hamster spinning!)

Think about it this way – you can never tell a woman about the red pill or how Game savvy you are, you can only show her.

Demonstrate, never explicate. While it might be satisfying to overtly crush a woman’s gender perceptions, being overt will always come off like conceit, or bitterness or melancholy.

If your purpose is to alienate and/or correct a woman you have no interest in by pointing out the brutal truths of being Game-aware, that’s certainly your prerogative, but you will never get into a woman’s pants or be more attractive to her by explaining the Game you are engaged in with her (or hope to be).

Women want a guy who Just Gets 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 shït test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.

Remember what I’ve bolded here, the same applies to you revealing your understanding of Game. As I’ve stated many times, women may think they want the truth, but they never want full disclosure. Women want to play the Game with you, but they want it running covertly in the background, not overtly and in her face. Much of the reason the red pill, Game and the manosphere are vilified by a blue pill public is due to the overt nature of explaining the psychological and sociological mechanisms operating underneath the social conventions, ego-invested beliefs and masks we wear in engaging with the opposite sex.

The red pill strips away a comfortable veneer – we’re supposed to Just Get It, without explaining how we just get it. Men being the more pragmatic and rational sex tend to think that a reasoned approach should be the most practical one. We deduce that women ought to be just as reasonable and can handle the truth – after all the constant repetition of how women and men are the same with different genitals – so to the uninitiated, newly unplugged red pill guy it seems sensible to remove all the pretense and explain all his understanding to a woman he’s interested in.

Play with her, and play with her.

As I’ve explained before, appeals to a woman’s reason will never bear the fruit that hopeful Beta men expect it will. Women don’t want to be told how the Game works (on some limbic level they already know how it works), they want to play the Game with a Man to determine that he knows how the Game works. There is nothing so self-satisfying for a woman than for her to believe she’s figured a Man out using her (mythical) feminine intuition. Understanding this basic tenet of women is one of the most under-appreciated advantages men have in Game.

This is where the ‘Art’ in Pick Up Artist is important. Too many men believe that understanding red pill truths and the underpinnings of Game should be enough to be convincing with women, but that learning isn’t enough. Playing the Game and applying that knowledge with women without revealing an overt understanding of it is an art that must be practiced and developed to the point where adaptation and improvisation become second nature to a man. Men with this understanding are often the ones with the most comfort and facility with women – Amused Mastery is his natural state, because he knows his advantage in not revealing the secret of the red pill to any woman he’s interested in.


The Brand of Independence

independence

The archetype of the Strong Independent Woman® has been culturally reinforced over the last half century in virtually every imaginable media. Whether it’s Disney’s capable Princesses ready to save themselves from certain doom – as well as their quirky, hapless but handsome male heroes – or the now clichéd ‘tough bitch’ of action movies and video game protagonists who measures herself by how well she can kick ass and /or swear as the culturally contextual equal of “any man”. Her template-crafted character is strong, confident, measuredly aggressive, decisive (but usually only when shit gets serious so as to prove to the audience she’s ‘digging deep within herself to discover her yet unrealized resolve), judicious, loving to those loyal or dependent on her (immediate family, children and female friends), capable of solving problems with little more than the feminine intuition men magically lack – but above all, she’s independent.

As this cultural archetype is broadcast to society at large, the want then is to find parallels of this Strong Independent Woman® in the ‘real’ world. The media character is only marginally believable now thanks to endless revisions and replications, so we look for the examples of independent women equalling and exceeding the, paltry-by-comparison, achievements of the unenlightened ignorance of their male “oppressors.” High ranking company CEOs are usually the first rock star independent women to nominally shine (often undeservedly) in such a role, but then, by order of degrees, we can move down the economic social strata and cherry-pick or conveniently create the match of any mediocre man. As most men are, or have been conditioned Betas it’s not too difficult.

It really is the End of Men you see. You’re no longer necessary because, well now, there is nothing men can collectively and uniformly do that women cannot find some individual example of matching and / or exceeding. Women don’t need men anymore, they’re independent.

The Branding

If there’s one thing I know, it’s branding. The Strong Independent Woman® caricature has generously earned it’s registered trademark. I sometimes use that ® to emphasize a particularly long-evolved meme; social conventions so embedded into our cultural fabric that they literally have become their own brand. The Strong Independent Woman® is actually one the best examples of this branding. However, to really understand the gravity of so long a cultural branding, you must go to the root of how the brand of the independent woman was originally intended to evolve by the 2nd wave cultural feminists who spawned it. In a way it’s succeeded far better than any feminist of the period really had the foresight to expect.

An Independent Woman was to be independent of men.

While a lot of feel-good aphorisms like confidence, determination, integrity, and the like became associated with this desire for independence, make no mistake, the original long-term feminist goal of fostering that independence in women was to break them off into individuated, autonomous entities from men. That individuation needed to be as positive and attractive to women as possible, so a social pairing of that independence from men, with a sense of strength and respectability, had to be nurtured over time.

Since the beginnings of the sexual revolution, women were acculturated to believe they could ‘have it all’, career, family, a husband (of her optimal hypergamous choosing) and, if she were influential enough, leave some indelible mark on society to be remembered by for posterity. To achieve this she’d need to be an autonomous agent, strong, and above all independent of men. Women would embody and perfect the maverick individualism that men seemed to enjoy throughout history. If she couldn’t manifest ‘having it all’ then she was still, by male force or by personal choice, not independent enough to realize it. Of course, the irony of all this can be found in the marriages of virtually every ‘high profile’ feminist luminary of the time (all the way up to our current time) to the very powerful and influential types of men their stated independence was to emancipate all women from in order to truly be independent.

The Case Against Male Self-Esteem

Matt Forney’s lightning rod post, The Case Against Female Self-Esteem drew a frenzy of internet hate, but at the core of that post was a question that Strong Independent Women® and their male identifiers don’t like be confronted with; do they truly want independence from men? Do the men they want to be independent from even exist, or are they conveniently useful archetypes; vaudevillian chauvinist cartoons from the 50′s, planted in their heads, courtesy of the feminine imperative?

While I can’t endorse a message that would diminish anyone’s self-esteem, male or female, Matt’s post, even so much as suggesting the idea of limiting female self-esteem, uncomfortably turns a cultural mirror back on over 50 years feminist and feminized social engineering. For over the past 50 years the case against male self-esteem, with the latent purpose of emancipating women from dependence on men, began in earnest — not with some anger inducing blog post, but as a progressive social engineering that would run the course of decades to effectively erase men’s inconvenient masculine identity, or even memory of what that identity ever meant to men. The case against male self-esteem has been the social undercurrent of popular culture since the early 1960′s.

I think it’s important for red pill men to internalize the popular idea of feminine independence. The true message that the Strong Independent Woman® brand embodies is independence from you, a man.

Its latent purpose isn’t the actual empowerment of women, or efforts to bolster self-esteem, strength (for whatever loose definition seems convenient), confidence or any other esoteric quality that might flatter a feminine ego. Its purpose isn’t to foster financial or economic independence (as evidenced by ever evolving fem-centric laws, educational and financial handicaps), or religious social parity, or even efforts to achieve its vaunted social equalism between the sexes. What feminine independence truly means is removing the man – independence from men. Feminine independence’s idealized state is one where women are autonomous, self-contained, self-sufficient and self-perpetuating single-gender entities.

If that revelation seems aggrandized and over the top, it should. It’s extreme, because the purpose itself is extreme. When you consider that the sexes have coexisted in relative gender complementarity, to produce our very proliferate species, for a hundred thousand years, the idea and implementation of separating the sexes into independent and solitary entities is extreme. Obviously effecting this independence is an impossibility for a race of social animals like human beings. We’ve relied on cooperative efforts since our tribal beginnings and the species-beneficial psychological hardwiring of that cooperation is one trait that made us so successful in adapting to changing, dangerous, environments.

For most manosphere readers (especially MRAs) I don’t think I need to illustrate the many manifest ways that women are dependent upon the men; if not men’s generated resources and provisioning, then certainly their parental investment, companionship, emotional and sexual interest. We’re better together than we’ve ever been apart – even when the ugly mechanics of hypergamy, or male aggression, or any number of negatively perceived gender dynamics prove useful survival traits for us, there is no true independence between the sexes. There is interdependence.

This is what equalism makes a mockery of. In its striving for a homogenous goal-state of androgynous gender-parity it fails to account for where the species-success that the complementarity of the past 30,000 years has brought us. From a heroic male perspective we generally accept that no man is an island, but feminism and equalism disagree – a Strong Independent Woman® is an island,..or she will be just as soon as a man gives her her due to become so.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,342 other followers