Category Archives: Operative Social Conventions

Trophies

trophy

Hypergamy is seen 90+% in men while “upgrading” their wives; and only <10% in women for “upgrading” their men. Yet it gets called out disproportionately as a thing women do… Geese and ganders. Geese and ganders.

I got this comment on Hypergamy Doesn’t Care a little while ago. It’s about what I’ve come to expect from women who find revealing the secret of hypergamy offensive. These of course are the women who’s sexual strategy relies on men’s unawareness about hypergamy in order to consolidate on long-term security, but I find it entertaining that when a Man exposes that truth there is a ready social convention to shame him with, rather than the prideful embrace of an ‘empowered’ woman revealing exactly the same truth.

What commenter CV’s proffering here is the Trophy Wives convention. A lot has been made of this recently and it’s brought to my attention that this is a feminine operative social convention that I haven’t covered as of yet.

There was a time when this social convention was a very functional shaming device for women. Right around the mid 1980’s to the late 1990’s the notion of men becoming bored with their wives and “upgrading” them for a newer (younger, hotter) model was a very popular trope. There were romantic comedies based on the convention as well as an underlying presumption that men would just be biologically predisposed to this upgrading.

In the popular media, movies and sit-coms of the period, we could tell the measure of a man’s character by the way he would or would not fall to the temptation to ditch his ubiquitously loving and devoted, but SMV declined, wife in favor of a hot young (usually mid 20s) woman who was stereotypically vapid, immature and shallow. It was fun to ridicule (and pathologize) men’s sexual response while fostering an endearing sympathy for the poor, unjustly served wives who, through no fault of their own, fell victim to so many men’s base urges to wantonly discard her for a hotter, tighter blonde with fake tits.

Naturally the caricature wouldn’t be complete without accounting for a Trophy Wife’s character – always vapid, usually gold digging, and uniquely incapable of relating to him on the same level of intellectual and emotional maturity his discarded wife had so selflessly devoted herself to.

To further the mythology this want for a young ‘Chippy’ was almost always paired with the ‘infantile and ego-bruised’ man’s mid-life crisis, selfishly attempting to recapture his youth in a sports car and a new ‘bimbo’ wife.

This was an effective convention then because it played on women’s fear of the Wall and built upon their, feminine-as-correct, moral / intellectual superiority of men, who could only be counted on to reason with their penises rather than consider the relational equity women would necessarily invest into a marriage with only the best of intentions. In a sense it was the female flip side of the Relational Equity fallacy found predominantly in men today.

As with most of its social conventions, the Feminine Imperative got a lot of milage out of the Trophy Wife fear – not the least of which was due to the perception of men’s more prominent role as financial providers. But with time and a new global degree of connectivity this trope is no longer as tenable as it was.

Dead Conventions

From about the turn of the millennia, the concept of “Trophy Wives” has been a dead feminine social convention.

Whereas most long held feminine social conventions can be socially rejiggered to accommodate new circumstances or even directly proven contradiction as time and society progresses, the Trophy Wife canard simply doesn’t hold water the way it used to. In fact, for men aware enough of it, it’s really a cruel reminder of its original intent now.

You see, when it’s statistically 70+% women initiating divorce, detonating marriages because of an Eat Pray Love script and a “I coulda done better than this Beta” commercialization effort of women’s innate hypergamy, it’s kind of hard to float the male-shame of “men divorce their wives because they want a newer model” trope. At present, there’s enough connectivity and enough shared male experience, even from the female side, to make the Trophy Wives convention an embarrassing holdover from when it was useful.

Oh I still get it occasionally in my comment sections, but now it’s just the “ooh ooh men do it too” script that falls flat, and I think even the hard-sell women are realizing this with such readily available divorce stats online now.

The Trophy Wife convention worked in stupid 80′s movies plots as a vehicle to infantilize men’s commitment to women’s long-term security, but when Stella heads off to Jamaica to ‘get her groove on’ it’s called female empowerment.

Trophy Wife may not be a functional convention anymore, but it’s certainly a good illustration of the Feminine Imperative at work.

Smoking Guns

About a month ago Dalrock did some yeoman’s work in comparing divorce statistics with women’s rate of remarriage. From the Smoking Gun:

I’ve focused on the stats for women because it is women who are driving the divorce rates.  As you can see, divorce rates track very closely with women’s opportunity to remarry.  Note also that the old canard that as women age their desire to be married goes away;  if this were true the divorce curve would slope upward, not downward.

Rather than lift Dal’s charts I’ll refer readers to have a look at his original post. For the purposes of comparing these stats to the old model of the Trophy Wives convention, it’s fairly obvious that the actual trend was never a mythology of discontented men jettisoning their wives for younger ones, but rather common, average women discontent in their hypergamous “Assortive Mating” detonating their marriages for the promises of a guaranteed security and a second chance at optimizing hypergamy “before their looks run out.”

From a legal and social perspective, a feminine-primary society has undeniably made the cash & prizes incentive for women to Cash Out of their marriage a realizable and socially acceptable option.

I may ruffle some feathers with this proposition, but I can’t ignore the prospect that, for some women, this ‘detonation’ may have been part of, or became, their long-term security strategy once she’d ‘settled’ on her post-Wall Beta male provider. Even for women with whom this wasn’t a conscious plan the failsafe of post-divorce social and financial support represents is always present.

Whereas the Trophy Wife convention primarily revolved around elite men with the capacity, status and affluence (if not the intent) to discard their wives depended on suppressing the Apex Fallacy (only men of extraordinary means could entertain it), for women the Eat Pray Love schema can be realized by virtually any western woman – and statistically we see this played out in reality.

High profile men, who took up with a stereotypical Trophy Wife are statistically insignificant compared to women’s divorcing their Beta providers, assured of his support in the long term, and either return to their ‘party years’ model of short term fulfillment, or take up with another provider. The old male-shame Trophy Wife social convention has been replaced by a feminine-primary, feminine acceptable, form of hypergamous optimization.

Assortive Mates

This reality is a fairly ugly one to confront for women and a feminine based society at large. For the most part Beta men are more prone to get along than make waves in a marriage or LTR. So conditioned and prepared for this self-sacrificial monogamy and support, few will consider women’s sexual strategies, much less question their sincerity of their reasoning for wanting out of their marriages later.

Still, that ugly truth is becoming increasingly more unavoidable as men share their experiences with each other. What to do?

As I mentioned there’s a lot of talk about debunking the old Trophy Wives convention. I imagine my readership is already aware of a recent “study” ‘proving’ that men and women tend to pair off according to like interests and attraction – rather than the notion that women would in any way be opportunists and motivated by hypergamy:

Here’s some bad news for men with highly successful careers and fat wallets: You probably will not end up with a “trophy wife,” a new study suggests.

When researchers compared qualities such as level of attractiveness and socioeconomic status within couples, they found almost no evidence of the trophy wife stereotype, which suggests attractive, young women tend to marry rich and successful men.

Instead, couples are far more likely to end up together because they share similar traits. For example, attractive, wealthy or highly educated people are more likely to choose a partner with the same qualities. The same is true for less attractive, low-earning or less educated people. Trophy wife marriages still happen, but not nearly as often as expected, the study revealed.

Obsidian over at JustFourGuys has done an admirable job of picking this study apart. Needless to say the study begins from a point of error, relying on a sample group of early 20s couples to determine the overall social “trend” of assortive mating. Commenter John Albertsen makes the old model Trophy Wife observation:

Trophy wives are, according to the generally accepted definition, not only attractive, but considerably younger than their husbands. Limiting the study to “couples in their twenties”,eliminated the older guys with younger wives, as the difference in the ages of the pair would be a maximum of 9 years. Further, very few highly successful men reach those heights by 29 and of those that do, how many would be married at all?

The sample used in this study seems to eliminate the very people who would need to be included to accomplish it’s stated goal. Studying married couples in their 50s would be just as invalid as it would still not include a fitting age difference.

It would be better to study couples where the MEN were in their 50s to see how their attractiveness and financial success compared to the age and attractiveness of their wives. I suspect that you will find very few such ‘elderly’ gents paired up with young cuties unless they were loaded. In other words, what the young women find attractive about the guy is what’s in his wallet.

After considering this, an astute Red Pill Man needs to question the true underlying motive, not just for the study itself, but the reason for it being popularly reposted and relinked in a feminine-primary cultural bubble.

In western society it’s a statistical rarity for early 20s men and women to be married (or seriously monogamous enough to consider it) at all. Feminine-primary culture can’t seem to make up its mind; why would men need to Man-Up, stop being ‘kidults’ and accept mature marriage responsibilities at 29 if so many early 20s men (like those in the study) are pairing with their equalist approved fiancés?

Any number of studies and polls empirically show that women not only want their husbands to be older (5-7 years), but also wish to marry at or around 28-30 years of age. Furthermore, there’s no shortage of articles and blog posts relating how women are postponing marriage to pursue professional goals or are frustrated in being forced to ‘settle’ for monogamy with men they consider beneath their status, financial and educational levels later and later in life.

What the McClintock study was trying to prove had nothing to do with Trophy Wives, but rather the intent was to disprove and distract from the realities of feminine hypergamy – while conveniently shaming older men that feminine-primary culture largely still believe harbor plans to marry younger women once they consolidate their fortunes.

The intent isn’t to disprove the Trophy Wives social convention (created by the same influence attempting to disprove it), but rather to prove that women aren’t actually the opportunists an innate hypergamy would have them, by necessity, be. The intent is to distract men’s increasing awareness of women’s opportunistic, strategic sexual pluralism.

As I illustrated last week:

…hypergamy does not seek it’s own level. An ever pragmatic evolution drives hypergamy to seek a better-than-equal pairing. This is the evolutionary jackpot: to combine and send one’s genes into future generations with a (at least perceptually) better than equitable genetic match – and ensure one’s progeny with a better than SMV equitable provisioning.

Assortive mating (Alpha Fucks) is not the same as Assortive pairing (Beta Bucks). The conflicting sides of feminine hypergamy ensures that the prerequisites of satisfying both are met with different qualifiers. McClintock’s efforts here (besides her own professional aggrandizement) are yet one more attempt to sweep the unpalatable truth of hypergamy under a rug she’d rather men not have the curiosity to look under. This is simply an obvious effort in keeping hypergamy a secret, and to inspire men to shame for even being curious about it.


Balancing Act

balancing-life

Donal Graeme had some very relevant ‘musings’ about last week’s post that summed things up and provides me with a great prelude into this week’s post. I hadn’t intended these last couple of posts (and now this one) to become another series (again). I suppose they are now, but I don’t think I’ve quite hit this from all angles just yet. In the interests of full disclosure I should point out that these last three posts were inspired by the first section of the Preventive Medicine book I’m presently working on so it helps organize my thoughts.

From Donal Graeme’s Removing the Mask:

Many, if not most, men would not be content to marry a woman whom they realize is choosing to marry them solely as a meal ticket, and effectively a sperm donor as well. It should surprise no one that men don’t like to be used in that way, and will balk at it if they realize that is what is happening. Hence the importance of hiding what is going on from them.

On the other hand, this repulsion at being used is mitigated/countered by a sense of desperation in many men in the West. Owing to the nature of the SMP, they have limited options when it comes to female companionship. Naturally, this makes them desperate, and they are willing to take on women they wouldn’t otherwise if it gets them at least some measure of opportunity with them.

What seems to be happening is that many women are now certain that male desperation in the future will be greater than any sense of male self-respect, and so they can do whatever they want and not have to hide it. Part of me wonders if women see the ability to be open about their intentions/strategy as a status symbol- a woman who can act that way is a woman of value, and therefore a woman to be envied. The problem with this strategy, though, is that it relies on male desperation not having any limits. I suspect this to be a grave mistake. This is because the average quality of women in the West has been dropping fast, perhaps even faster than male desperation has been rising. If that is the case, we will soon reach a point where most men will simply not accept the (Western) women who are available, no matter how desperate they might have become.

All of this plays into part of this subject- the looming fight between women. Women at the margins of “value” will start to feel the pinch first. The “where have all the good men gone?” articles out there seem to indicate that this has already begun. It will only increase in tempo over time as more and more women drop below the acceptable rate for most men. Combine this with many men being burned or realizing what a danger most Western women are, and you get a huge disparity in outcome between the female “haves” and “have-nots”.

This may seem optimistic coming from me, but I think it will be ‘educated’ men who are the 3rd rail in this equation.

Men at the top end of the SMV curve will always be the commodity over which women will feel entitled to. Feminine hypergamy does not seek its own level, it looks for a better-than-market optimization. Thus the ideal ‘balance’ is one where there is a greater than 1-2 SMV degree difference between that of a man and the women he spins as plates or considers to become intimate with in the long term.

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies
For one sex’s sexual strategy to become realized, the other sex’s strategy must be compromised or abandoned entirely.

One of the greatest misdirections of gender understanding over the past 60 years has been the idea that both men and women should share the same sexual strategy. A naive equalitarian ideology dictates the need for both genders to have equally similar, cooperative gender life goals, and equally similar methods to realize them. But as with most feminine-primary social engineering, Mother Nature and men and women’s biological imperatives are always at odds with this.

Generally this assimilation of a commonized sexual strategy is ingrained early on in men’s feminization conditioning. I use the term ‘assimilation’ because men are taught and conditioned to presume that the feminine sexual strategy (however most women subjectively choose to define it) is universally the correct strategy – and any deviation from what ultimately serves feminine hypergamy is met with ridicule at best, accusations of misogyny and ostracization at worst.

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Roissy dropped this maxim years ago, but in its simplicity it defines the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies as they apply to a post-sexual revolution, feminine-primary society. Remove all constraints on hypergamy, maximally forcing men to compromise or abandon the male sexual strategy.

As I outlined in the last post, feminine hypergamy essentially revolves around optimizing (and maximally protracting) women’s unilateral sexual selection from Good Genes men and Good Dad’s men. Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.

From a biological perspective men’s sexual imperative is one of unlimited access to unlimited sexual availability. This isn’t to discount the very strong impulse in men to seek assurances of paternity in the children they ultimately sire, however, prior to his parental investment, the male impetus is to seek unlimited access to unlimited sexuality.

When we consider a male sexual imperative in the biological respect, and the strategies men use to effect it, it becomes easier to understand the social conventions and engineering the Feminine Imperative uses to control and maximally restrict men as sexual selectors.

Widespread ubiquitous pornography and then the social pathologizing of the male sexual response (while empowering and encouraging the female sexual response) are two very easy observations of this control. However, when we consider paternity laws, legal bans on genetic paternity testing, outlawing testosterone while making female hormones readily available and many other legal and social trends that restrict the male control not just of women’s hypergamous priority, but any degree of a man’s shadow of his own sexual strategy’s control, Roissy’s maxim becomes all the more clear.

Is Game Adversarial?

Almost three years ago I considered this question in a post. My critic at the time posed this to me:

“My biggest problem with the Ro writers is that Game is by definition adversarial. It’s us against them, don’t let the bitch win. That is most definitely Rollo’s approach, yet he commands respect from men here. I can only assume that good men read a lot of Roissy, Roosh or Rollo, incorporate some small fraction of it, and use it to improve their relationships, rather than for nefarious means.”

It took time for me to come into an understanding of the real nature of this distortion concern until May’s tragic events and the deliberate misdirections that followed it in the media and the blogosphere proper.

Game is adversarial because it has to be. I’ve gone on record stating that Game is the logical response to the changes feminism has wrought in society and gender relations over the course of the last 60 or so years, but it’s really more than that.

Game is a threat to feminine-primacy because it returns a degree of control of sexual strategy prioritization back into the hands of men. Game challenges that maximal restriction of male sexuality and leverages (however marginally) some of women’s hypergamous choice to his own purpose.

The Feminine Imperative hates Game because it’s an effective tool against its control – so anyone steeped in the conditioning of the imperative will naturally perceive that challenge as being adversarial. You’ll notice this (female) critic’s first concern was to presume men would use Game and a red pill awareness for ‘nefarious’ ends. This is a prime illustration of that terror of losing hypergamous control.

Tricks and Traps

As I mentioned at the beginning, hypergamy does not seek it’s own level. An ever pragmatic evolution drives hypergamy to seek a better-than-equal pairing. This is the evolutionary jackpot: to combine and send one’s genes into future generations with a (at least perceptually) better than equitable genetic match – and ensure one’s progeny with a better than SMV equitable provisioning.

For all of the handwringing about assortive mating recently, evolution’s capacity to adapt stagnates and stunts under conditions of homogeny. It may occur under less than ideal circumstance from a moral perspective, but assortive mating is regularly thwarted by the (usually hypergamous) drive to mate with a better than equitable sexual market value than the lesser partner.

The problem with the assortive mating equation is that hypergamy has two sides and two (often conflicting) aspects to optimizing it – Good Genes / Good Dad (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks). Assortive mating is not the same order as assortive pairing.

Nature has selected-for women with an instinctual capacity to satisfy and optimize the visceral needs of short-term breeding and optimizing on the genetic aspects of hypergamy. However the better-than-SMV assortive pairing aspect  relies on men adhering to and behaving within defined roles in order to optimize it.

The Feminine Imperative needs honest provider males to behave predictably in order for women to select a better than equitable provider.

The Feminine Imperative demands assurances of both better than equitable breeding and better than equitable provisioning – and it’s got a very brief window of sexual peak SMV competitiveness in which to assure them.

The imperative needs men to fulfill these roles according to calculated and defined sexual stations of each man. So any duplicity or challenge on the part of men to this defined order is a threat to the assurances that women need to optimize hypergamy. Hypergamy’s optimal window of peak SMV for women can’t afford to be tricked into presuming men are anything less or more than their feminine sexual strategies define those men’s roles as.

Hypergamy can’t afford tricks, the ‘tricks’ that Game’s breaking of their sexual strategy’s code represents to women expecting to have their sexual strategy remain unilaterally dominant. As women’s comfort level has increased with the confidence that their strategy will contain that of men’s, they are that much more offended when their strategy is figured out and read back to them by red pill aware men.

It’s an uncomfortable reminder that they’ve traded their believed capacity to intuitively filter for themselves the men who best fill their hypergamous roles; traded that is for the comfort of having men socially controlled to expect to fulfill those roles as a default.

This outrage isn’t just limited to women’s hypergamous ‘exploratory’ years in her SMV peak. Whenever you read an article or hear some 33 year old woman lament the lack of marriageable men of ‘equal’ pairing to themselves (intellectually, professionally or otherwise) know that every cry of ‘Man Up’ is really a frustrated cry over men not playing by the conditioning the Feminine Imperative assured them men would play by, before or once they got to the point of losing the capacity to attract those men.

That’s the trap.

 


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.

 


The ‘Real’ Nice

fake_nice_guy

I once posed this question to the SoSuave forum:

Let us say, in a strange alternate world, women would LOVE you if you were a Nice Guy. In this world, you could do all the things you wanted to do. You could be sappy. You could write her poetry and SHE WOULD LOVE IT. The more of a Nice Guy you were, the more women in general would love and appreciate you.

And in this alternate world, the jerks and players would be the ones sneered at by women. If you were a jerk in this world, no woman would like you. If you were cocky, they would dismiss you immediately.

Would you remain a Nice Guy if you were in this alternate world?

I got a variety of answers ranging from the want for clearer, but no less useful terminologies,…

First off, I object to the labels. I know they’ve been used here and in the seduction community for a long time, but I don’t really believe in the stereotypes. I’m not a ‘nice guy’ or a jerk or a bad boy. Having said that and cleared the air, let’s go back to the stereotypes:

How many guys came here to this forum as “nice guys”? They were probably perfectly happy with themselves and only decided to change so they could do better with women. So they became assholes. Just to please women. I don’t see why they wouldn’t do the opposite in this “alternate reality”. I don’t care for the stereotypes. Half the guys on this forum think a “jerk” or a “douche” is a desireable thing to be. Something’s wrong with this picture. Somehow a “jerk” has become a guy with backbone who stands up for himself. 

The definition of a “nice guy” should just be a man who respects others as well as himself. But instead, in dating circles, “nice guy” means wimp.

…to the hope for Relational Equity and an appreciation for being ‘nice’…

I don’t think it’s that simple. You can be compassionate and kind without supplicating–and the whole “nice” thing isn’t really about kindness, it’s about supplicating and expecting something in return. “Nice” is really just synonymous with needy, unattractive behaviors, as I see it-it’s not even GENUINE kindness, as when you expect nothing in return.

To me, being an alpha “bad boy” just means going after what you want. It means pushing the envelope and being aggressive in pickup. It doesn’t mean being antisocial or violent, or being a dick to people. It often happens that an aggressive guy has these tendencies, but I don’t think they contribute to his success with women unless they bring him some fame, too. I think women DO have a capacity to appreciate kind gestures, and will certainly judge a man by how he treats his family, etc. The “protector of loved ones” is an attractive archetype to women. 

The guys that lose out are the ones that do “nice” things in the hopes that a woman will grow attracted to them. They let the women control the frame in this case, and act like children trying to please their mother. This is always an attraction killer–it doesn’t matter if they’re a jerk or an alpha in every other aspect of their life. Lots of really tough dudes are complete wussies around women. 

It is truly one of the cosmic ironies of the universe that women should completely lack the capacity to truly appreciate the niceties of men – yet still perpetually claim to desire those niceties.

With the notable exceptions of natural born Alphas, I believe most men would overwhelmingly default to being compassionate, empathic souls, steeped in romantic notions of chivalry, dedication and honor. Whether this sentiment is the result of a genuine dedication to principle or inspired by a hope that women will appreciate his sacrifices to principle and reciprocate with her intimacy is really a Crisis of Motive.

That was really the gist of my question – are guys just playing nice to get laid or is “niceness” (for lack of a better term) something deep rooted that they have to necessarily repress in order to be taken seriously as a sexual competitor because women would despise him were he to be as ‘nice’ as he really has the capacity for.

Most guys make lame attempts to redefine raw, natural, Alpha masculinity to fit into accord with all these noble qualities. Tragically women and reality prove them wrong at virtually every instance, but their fallback denial is an easy one (ironically provided for them by the Feminine Imperative) – “those women who don’t appreciate your niceness are just Damaged Women®, no quality woman would value an asshole above a real Nice Guy.”

Men are simply never rewarded for displays of these higher-self aspirations with genuine appreciation of women. They certainly appreciate them on a by-need basis, and as a ‘value added‘ benefit, but the esoteric, self-actualizing concerns men believe women should prioritize as primarily attractive aspects of themselves are never what they hope women will appreciate. If anything overly ‘nice’ men are punished for it, either in the instance or progressively over time.

The only way to garner true appreciation, true valuation, truly inspired displays of affection, from women is to covertly imply the risk of losing a high-value Man. Whether the man is even truly of a higher value is irrelevant, only the perception needs to be reinforced for her. Risk of loss is all that factors. Risk of losing an investment in optimizing hypergamy is weighed against her own perceived sexual market value and the effort needed to reinvest in another, potentially higher SMV man. Risk of loss is why her imagination furiously spins the wheel in her head.

That sounds horrible, but the truth often is. Women’s lack of appreciation for the more compassionate natures of men, and their consuming regard for rewarding men that appease their hypergamy is so well proven it’s become predictable enough to develop techniques and behavioral modifications to exploit it (i.e. Game). Most guys would like nothing better than to honestly play the loving, white knight, romantic who women bemoan a lack of in the world. Yet for every sonnet composed, every provision met, every compliment delivered and every well planned candlelit dinner conversation, there’s a woman feverishly fucking her Alpha bad boy in his low rent apartment for fear of losing him to the competition.

Attraction and Arousal


Occasionally we return to a common theme of debate with self-proclaimed ‘red pill women’ in various manosphere comment threads about how women may be attracted to certain characteristics men would like to identify as being ‘nice’, but no woman is aroused sexually by these qualities. As I’ve argued in the past, attraction and arousal are two separate elements of hypergamy. Alpha Fucks is arousing, Beta Bucks is attractive.

A couch surfing Alpha will be arousing enough to bang women indiscriminately despite his impoverished condition. He has no relational equity, and so frustrates the efforts of men who believe that the definition of Alpha ought to be based on the equity they hope women will appreciate. Women will return (even if just mentally) to the callous or cavalier Alpha because he arouses her, but she will stay faithful to her well-providing husband because what he offers is attractive to her.

This is why I say, by and large, women love most men for what they represent – once they cease to represent that, once they stumble in maintaining that, hypergamy is free to run. On a personal level this may be you losing a job or how you failed a shit test, on a meta scale it may be women’s social capacity to provide for themselves.

A lot of guys get lost in these definitions. They believe a woman at her word in what she finds attractive in a man, but then conflate this list of qualities (read any woman’s online dating profile) with what a woman finds arousing. While there may be attraction without arousal, there is never arousal by way of what makes a man attractive. Your respectability, sterling character and being good with kids doesn’t make you look any better when your shirt comes off.

The New Nice

There’s an interesting social convention that’s developed as Game-awareness has become more widespread. As with all social conventions it provides a convenient rationale for women to cling to in order to alleviate uncomfortable truths, but the dilemma of the Faux-Nice Guy has picked up a lot of steam in the feminist / feminine-primary set of women. I covered this a while back in Play Nice, but since then I’ve been reading more about how this convention is dovetailing into the re-imagining of a so called Rape Culture.

As women become more aware of Game (even if just peripherally) there’s developed a convenient distrust of men’s ‘Nice’ qualities. The dynamics I put forth in The Savior Schema all become suspect for what in essence is really a tit for tat exchange of services rendered for intimacy at a later date (once his niceties have proven his worth).

The problem with this is twofold, first, the guy’s relying on Beta Game, convinced that what women say they are attracted to is what they are also aroused by, believe that faux Nice Guys are blowing their chances with the women they believe will eventually come to love them for their earnest Niceness. If all these charlatan Nice Guys are jading their pool of prospective nice-appreciating women it ruins their Game. Consequently they get agitated by women doubting any man’s sincerity and by extension their own. This then leads to Nice Guy infighting and greater, more sincere displays of a Niceness that really only ruins their Game that much more.

Second, women’s doubt of a Nice Guy’s sincerity and unsolicited ‘niceness’ is really a red herring meant to distract men employing Nice Guy Game away from the point that they simply don’t find them all that attractive (and certainly not arousing). Being nice, supportive, dutiful and possessing all the intrinsic characteristics on her list of attractive traits in the hope of proving his worth and qualifying for her intimate acceptance is really one long Appeal to a Woman’s Reason. It’s very convenient for a woman to enjoy (and often become dependent upon) the services a Nice Guy renders to her, but when that Nice Guy is discovered to have a sexual interest in her the “you weren’t really nice, you just expected something sexual in return” social convention finds its use.

Women have been aware of this Nice Guy Game, prequalification schema for generations, because it used to actually work in a time and culture where the Beta Bucks / parental investment side of women’s hypergamy was the predominant factor for determining of a man’s intimate acceptability. The problem now is that the deductive reasoning men use – find out what women want in order to become intimate, become it and solve the problem – in order to achieve a woman’s intimacy comes from an old set of books that no woman is still using. However the reliance on the responsibilities outlined in that first set of books are still useful when it comes to control the intents and actions of men.

Chivalry is an anachronism in a post-feminist society, particularly where equalism is concerned, but it’s a liability when it’s useful to the feminine imperative. It may be a man’s duty not to expect sex in exchange for his niceties and services, but when his chivalry is useful to her then it becomes his responsibility.


The Apologists

apologists

Posted this morning, Obsidian at Just Four Guys had an excellent 10 question interview of Professor Michael Kimmel who has been so concerned about the male anger simmering in the manosphere that he was distracted from his professorship of Sociology and Gender Studies and executive directorship for the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook University that he was forced by academic passions to write such titles as Guyland and Angry White Men (not to be confused with Stupid White Men).

The open format interviews of semi-mainstream authors are starting to carve out a missing manosphere niche for J4G, so I don’t want to steal any of that thunder with this post, but since “angry manosphereans” was the topic du jour at Aunt Giggles’ echo-chamber (“Oh my stars and garters! Tindr is really a hook up app populated by men and women who just wanna fuck?”) I thought I’d riff a little on a few of his answers and what I think are the esteemed Professors’ most glaring problems.

But the real answer to your question is not “why am I so different from other men?” but rather how am I so similar to other men? I grew up breathing the same air, and drinking the same water as you did. I believe firmly in the ideals of American democracy, and so I feel compelled as a citizen to speak out against inequality and injustice. Supporting gender equality is right, fair, and patriotically American.

He is correct, he’s JUST like the majority of ‘other’ men – suffering from a  lifetime of thorough social feminization conditioning to become the champion of feminine-identification Game. His Beta mindset is easily recognizable, but his Game is still the same ‘like attracts like’ mentality that’s characteristic of a solid insaturation in blank slate equalism. Hugo Schwyzer left a vacuum, Kimmel is just stepping into it. Be more ‘like’ a woman and they’ll appreciate your efforts in supporting and understanding them, and you’ll be rewarded with reciprocal sexual interest.

It is a compassionate look at the lives of young men, and especially the things that those young me are being asked to do – by other guys – to prove their manhood. And the argument of the book is that proving masculinity becomes a sort of relentless test for guys, and that THAT is what we have to pay attention to. The book is a sort of catalog of how guys feel they have to prove it — video games, porn, sports, binge drinking, hooking up, initiation and hazing. All of it. It’s not about how awful guys are because they are doing it. It’s about how awful it is that they often feel they are being forced to do those things they don’t want to do because if they don’t other guys will call them pussies.

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.

Why do men think they’re so great? Because that’s the kind of men women love.

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. Risk taking, physical aggression (constructive and destructive) and physicality in general, ambition, team reliance and individualism are all part of this masculinity. That potential for violence scares the shit out of men like Kimmel, but that potential is also precisely what’s need for survival and success of a species.

Betas like Kimmel who grew up in fear of Alpha aggression instead of embracing and matching it directly, see bullying in every marginalized form of boys being boys, to say nothing of Men being Men, when they reach adulthood and still haven’t figured out how to relate to men and the masculine beyond what the easy answers feminization has provided for them. These are the men who’ll explain their feminine identification Game as being a personality issue, “I’ve always related to / better with women.” For feminized male apologists anything resembling an intrinsic understanding of masculinity is indistinguishable from Hypermasculinity.

Because of this embrace of feminine-primacy, the Professor is probably not the best equipped to educate men on issues of anger. As such, my guess is he cannot discern the difference between aggression born from anger and aggression as a vetting and honing mechanism of the male psychology.

Kimmel, presumes that men don’t want to participate in this vetting, but as always, want’s got nothing to do with it. It’s easy to characterize this vetting in the context of Bro Culture, but the fact of the matter is that it exists in every masculine subdomain from Frat Brothers and the football team to coders, gamers and 4Chan /b/rothers.

What’s “wrong” with the pickup seduction manuals is not so much that they treat women as objects, the means to get laid, notches on belts etc., and not as whole people. That’s pretty silly in the modern era.

Apparently Kimmel’s has yet to discover Tindr in this modern era. Someone ought to link Kimmel and Aunt Giggles to @Tinderfessions on Twitter – don’t say I didn’t warn you. It may be silly, but it’s reliable in the context of reality. If women have to be “warned” about this or that PUA tactic, it stands to reason said tactic will be effective. It also stands to reason the technique was based on a provable, intrinsically valid, female dynamic to be effective.

But what bothers me about these books is that they treat men as pathetic losers, utterly incapable of honest conversation, genuine affection, and authentic emotion. So they male-bash. They treat men as such losers that they have to be inauthentic game players in order to be successful with women. I have a much more sanguine view of men than that. I believe that when men are honest, communicative, and authentic, they will have great relationships.

What if these pathetic losers could become ‘authentic’ Men by learning how women actually relate to them on every level; from sociological to psychological, from evolutionary perspectives to the underlying biology that motivates women’s behaviors not only sexually, but emotionally, pragmatically and sympathetically? Would they still be pathetic losers?

What if these men could be ‘authentic’ in their understanding the nature of women and how women solipsistically and subconsciously institute their own Game socially and psychologically to ensure optimizing hypergamy to their best benefit?

What if these men could “Just Get It” and leverage that understanding not only to improve their own lives, but also the lives of other men, their sons, their brothers, and the lives of the women they involve themselves with? Would they be pathetic losers then?

What if these men’s genuineness in honesty, conversation and emotion were the result of red pill truth and having the blinders removed that a feminized acculturation fitted them with for the better part of a lifetime? The nature of that honesty, conversation and emotion might be something quite different than what your own feminine conditioning would have you envision Professor Kimmel. So are they pathetic losers because their genuineness derives from the red pill, or are they genuine because they buy into what you and a feminine-centric culture tells them they should adopt and internalize in order for women to love them? In other words, what are you selling that’s any different?

I agree, if men could be honest, communicative, and authentic, they will have great relationships, but how a guy comes to being honest with himself after shedding his blue pill programming, how he learns women ‘actually’ communicate, and how he becomes ‘authentic’ after having internalized Game-awareness and red pill truth is a far different prospect than telling men to just be themselves and trust in the alleged rationalness, equalism and zero-sum goodness inherent in ‘most’ women today.


Preventative Medicine – Part IV

prevent_4

From The Myth of the Quality Woman:

Back when he had a terrestrial radio show Tom Leykis did a topic about this: He had everyday women call in and tell their stories of how they used to be sexually (i.e. slutty) and how they are now. He came up with this after driving past a grade school on his way to the studio and seeing all of the women there waiting for their kids to come out and wondered about what their lives used to be like in their childless 20s. This was a wildly popular topic and the confessions just poured in like all of these women had been waiting for years to come clean anonymously about the sexual past that their husbands would never dream they were capable of. Each of these women sounded proud of themselves, almost nostalgic, as if they were some kind of past accomplishments.

This is why I laugh at the concept of the Quality woman. Don’t misinterpret that as a “women = shit” binary opinion. I mean it in the sense that most guy’s concept of a quality woman is an unrealistic idealization. There’s not a guy in the world who committed to monogamy with a woman who didn’t think she was ‘quality’ when he was with her. Even if she was a clinical neurotic before he hooked up with her, she’s still got “other redeeming qualities” that make her worth the effort. It’s only afterwards when the world he built up around her idealization comes crashing down in flames that she “really wasn’t a Quality Woman.”

Print

The Schism

An interesting internal schism occurs for women during the latter half of the Security and through the Developmental Phase. The first aspect of this psychological schism is a drive for an unalterable sense of security. As she matures, the priority for an enduring security intensifies with each child she bears and / or each life incident where that degree of security is tested.

For the married woman who consolidated upon her best available provider male, this intensification usually manifests itself as a ceaseless series of shit testing, not only over his capacity to consistently deliver an ever increasing need for that provisioning, but also the Alpha suitability she convinced herself that he would mature into later. The primary conflict for her during these phases is that her provider male’s SMV Alpha potential never quite looks like or compares with the idealized memories of the Alpha men she entertained in her party years.

I’ve written several essays regarding the dynamics of the Alpha Widow, but at no other phase of a woman’s life is she more prone to mourning a prior Alpha lover than when she enters the Developmental stage. This is when the security a woman was so incensed to in her Epiphany Phase becomes a burden, but still a necessity of her life. Unless a man has reinvented himself and capitalized on his SMV potential so significantly as to separate himself from the prior impression of ‘providership acceptability’ a woman initially expected of him, five minutes of Alpha experience will always trump 5-10 years of Beta dedication.

If women can realize the Alpha Fucks aspect of hypergamy during her party years, and then realize the Beta Bucks aspects of hypergamy after the Epiphany Phase, then the internal schism a woman experiences in her Developmental phase becomes the difference between her reconciling those two aspects within the man she’s currently paired with.

The second aspect of this schism is a marked re-interest in the Alpha attributes of either the man she’s currently paired with, or the Alpha attributes of men outside that pairing. This side of the schism is particularly frustrating for both Alpha and Beta men paired to a woman experiencing it.

Deal with It

The more an Alpha man actualizes his SMV potential – through maintained (or improved)  looks, career, maturity, affluence, status, etc. – the more a woman’s need for enduring security becomes threatened as her SMV consistently decays in comparison. A woman’s logical response to this new form of competition anxiety usually manifests in two ways.

The first being an intense motivation to domineer and control her relationship by placing herself in a dominant role. She assumes (or attempts to assume) headship of the marriage / relationship by way of convenient conviction or from a self-created sense of her husband’s (really all men’s) untrustworthiness bolstered by social conventions that insist women need to be the head of the house (i.e. “she’s the real boss, heheh”). Her insecurity about her own comparative SMV manifests in her demanding he ‘do the right thing’ and limit his SMV potential for the sake of a more important role as her (and their family’s) dutiful provider.

Of course the problem with this is that a man acquiescing to such dominance not only loses out on his capacity to maximize his SMV peak potential, but also confirms for his wife that his status isn’t as Alpha as he’s confident it is. This Alpha disenfranchisement will play a significant part in a woman’s Redevelopment phase.

The second logical response is apathy and resentment. A disconnect from her SMV peaking mate may seem like a woman’s resigning herself to her non-competitive SMV fate, but it serves the same purpose as a woman’s insistence for relational dominance – an assurance of continued security and provisioning as the result of his limiting his SMV potential. This apathy is, by design, paired with the guilt that her mate is more focused on his own self-development than the importance he should be applying to her and any family. The result becomes one of a man chasing his own tail in order to satisfy this passive insecurity and failing passive shit tests.

In either instance the seeds of a man’s decline are rooted in his ability to identify this schism in relation to how it aligns with his SMV potential at the same time it affects his long term partner. The problem with the schism is that for all the limitations a woman would emplace against a man actualizing his SMV potential, the same limitations will also constitute a significant part of her justification for being dissatisfied with him during her Redevelopment phase.

Redevelopment / Reinsurance

The Redevelopment phase can either be a time of relational turmoil or one of a woman reconciling her hypergamous balance with the man she’s paired with.

The security side of this hypergamous balance has been established for her long term satisfaction and the Alpha reinterest begins to chafe at the ubiquitous certainty of that security. Bear in mind that the source of this certainty need not come from a provider male. There are a lot of eventualities to account for. It may come from a ‘never married’ woman’s capacity to provide it for herself, the financial support levied from a past husband(s) or father(s) of her children, government subsidies, family money, or any combination thereof.

In any event, while security may still be an important concern, the same security becomes stifling for her as she retrospectively contemplates the ‘excitement’ she used to enjoy with former, now contextually Alpha, lovers, or perhaps the “man her husband used to be”.

Dalrock has long covered the topic of women entering the Eat, Pray, Love phase very well, coining the term “She was unhaaaaaappy,..” This is the justification call of for women entering the Redevelopment phase.

Depending on when she consolidated on long term monogamy, her kids are at, or almost at an age of real independence. It may even be at the “20 year itch” empty nest stage I described in the last essay, but there is a fundamental reassessment of the man she’s paired with and how his now realized SMV potential has either proved a good bet, or a disastrous misstep. And as with the various prior phases of maturity, she finds there are convenient social conventions already pre-established for her to help justify the decisions she’ll make as a result of this reassessment.

The binding, cooperative arrangements of childrearing that necessitated her drive for security gradually decrease in importance, giving way to a new urgency – pairing with someone “she really connects with” before her (imagined or otherwise) SMV / looks are entirely spent on the provider male she now loathes the idea of spending a future with. This is the turning point at which most Beta men, hopefully reliant upon the false notions of Relational Equity, find themselves on the sharp end of the feminine hypergamy they cognitively dissociated themselves from for a lifetime.

It’s not all doom and gloom however. Depending upon a woman’s degree of self-awareness and realism about her late-stage SMV, the decision may simply be one of pragmatism – she understands she’s with the man who can now best embody a hypergamic balance for her in the long term – or she genuinely has a long term (feminine defined) love and affinity for the man she’s paired with, who finally Just Gets It. Other considerations factor in as well; it’s entirely possible his SMV peak will endure longer than her reassessment of him will take to determine, religious conviction may play a (albeit sometimes convenient) part in this reassessment, or she may realistically assess her own SMV as decayed to a point where staying with her provider male is her only tenable option.

There’s an interesting trend in the divorcing schedules of Baby Boomers that strongly correlate with this Redevelopment phase reassessment I’ve described here – it’s called Grey Divorce:

Americans over 50 are twice as likely to get divorced as people of that age were 20 years ago.

Jim Campbell, 55, of Boulder, Colo., says he and his wife grew apart after 34 years together. “The No. 1 best thing in common that my ex-wife and I had was raising kids,” Campbell says. When their two sons grew up, he says, “we just didn’t have enough activities, passions, interests that were in common. And when the boys were gone, that just became more and more — to me — obvious.”

As is the wont for a feminized media, the focus is on men who divorce their wives, but statistically it’s women who initiate over 70% of all divorces. It’s important to bear that in mind when considering the psychological impetus for women’s Redevelopment phase. In spite of that oversight, the ‘grey divorce’ stats dovetail with this mid-late life reassessment.

In the interest of fairness, a woman can also find herself forced into this Redevelopment as the result of a man who’d come to realize his SMV peak and became actively aware of how hypergamy had influenced his decisions for him. There is a minority of men who take the red pill or otherwise and exit a marriage they’d been ‘settled’ on for, or they may in fact want to redevelop themselves for the same reasons women make the reassessment and capitalize on what value their SMV has.

Regardless of how she comes to it, nothing is more daunting for a woman than to reenter the sexual market place at such a severe disadvantage. After the Wall, women dread the idea of having to start over in a sexual market place in which they are grossly outmatched, so even the slightest deviation from the ‘security forever’ script becomes a major ego threat. If that security is more or less assured, there are feminine social conventions ready to make that prospect more palatable. ’40 is the new 30′, “you still got it”, and of course the strong independent woman® brand offers a plan for ‘cougardom’.

Depending on a woman’s relative SMV (that is to say amongst her generation’s peers) she may entertain these convention more or less successfully, but this reinvention of a woman’s party years, still suffers from a need to reestablish a semblance of security after a point. While it may be ‘exciting’ to relearn how to maneuver in a new SMP, the underlying desire is still one of security.

Late Phase Security

Finally we come full circle and back to, an albeit new interpretation of, the same security a woman sought after her Epiphany Phase. During this late phase, that may last from a woman’s late 40’s, 50’s or even indefinitely, as a result of an inevitable SMV decay, the security side of a woman’s hypergamy swings into its final, permanent, position. It’s important to make the distinction that this security isn’t necessarily founded on financial provisioning, but rather an emotional, intimate dependence and acceptance for a woman from an acceptably masculine man – often in spite of a past that she would rather be (expects to be) forgiven for by virtue of her age and her perceived experiences.

While she may experience some desire to live vicariously through the experiences her now grown daughters or younger female friends in various phases themselves, her message to them is one of precaution, but tempered with the subconscious awareness of how hypergamy has set the frame for her past. This is the phase during which (hypocritically) women tend to cognitively rewrite their past for what they believe should be the benefit of younger women.

As an aside, I should point out that with the advent of the internet and the permanency of all things digital, this is becoming increasingly more difficult for mid-life women.

This is the phase during which a woman not only desires secure acceptance of who she is from a suitable man, but it’s also the phase she attempts to create a secure social paradigm for herself. To be sure this drive is firmly couched in a woman’s innate solipsism, but her desire for security extends beyond a want for her own personal, assured security, and to woman-kind in whole.

Women in this phase may be concerned for the futures of their daughters – and sons who may come into contact with women following the same hypergamic paradigm she used on their fathers – but the concern is voiced for society and women as a whole. Rarely is this social concern an admission or testament of her own regret, but rather it’s something she must address to reconcile the parts of her past, the undeniable results of her hypergamy, that  she can’t escape.

Once menopause ensues that retrospective need becomes more urgent.

Conclusion

I understand that this series probably wont address particular personal issues some readers will want it to, but that’s what comment threads are for. As I stated when I started this series, I could probably write a more comprehensive book about this entire process – I may do just that at some point.

I also understand that while I can provide this outline, it doesn’t really go in depth into how a man might use this knowledge to his best advantage with a particular woman. However, my hope is that it will put certain behaviors and mindsets you find in a woman, and how they align or don’t align with this outline, into something more understandable for your individual experience. This is in no way comprehensive or meant to account for every woman’s circumstance, but rather to help a man with what he can expect in various phases.

It’s preventative medicine, not a cure to any particular disease.

Thanks for sticking with this.

RT


Preventative Medicine – Part III

baby2

Before I move on in this study I’m going to take a moment to clarify the purpose of this timeline /schedule. It’s important to remember that this chronology is meant to serve as a general direction for women’s maturation and the priorities of attraction they put on men’s attributes during these phases of their lives.

By design this graph isn’t intended to be a specific outline to account for every woman’s individual circumstances, but a somewhat predictable series of phases coordinated with events, behaviors and mental schemas that occur during those phases. The perspective I’ve approached in this outline is one of an unattached (long term single) or semi-monogamous woman with the personal and social options to leverage her sexual agency as well as a subjective degree of control over the direction of her life (or the strong impression that she actually has this control).

Of course, it would be ignorant to assume all women’s individual circumstances would follow the same series of instances subject to the same set of circumstances. In any one woman’s life there are far too many subjective eventualities to consider that would fit into the scope of a series of articles (I could actually dedicate a book to this topic alone), which is why I’ve detailed these phases in as general terms as I can fashion them.

Uses

To the point though, it is up to any one Man to determine how a woman’s personal conditions, her past decisions and the results of her past discretions or indiscretions contribute to what is motivating her along this general outline of life phases. It’s entirely possible, if not likely, a woman would have had a prior marriage or be a single-mother during any or all of the phases I’ve detailed. It’s also not unlikely a woman might be a serial monogamist or married during the duration of her party years. The art of determining what motivates a woman according to the phase of life she’s in, her socialization and how her circumstances modify or are modified by it is what the ‘A’ in PUA represents – artistry.

The important part of determining what motivates women’s behaviors and mindsets is to frame these personal circumstances against this outline of women’s life phases. In general, the phases and progression of maturity (socially, personally and biologically), her prioritization of attractive male attributes, and the resulting purpose-driven behaviors don’t change much for women as a whole. It’s when you consider how an individual woman’s circumstances work within or against this progression, and how you as a Man can first, determine that woman is worth varying degrees of your investment, and then better leverage what you know about her conditions and the phase of life she’s experiencing to your (or your mutual) benefit.

If you browse the backlog of my posts you’ll see how I frame individual observations and understandings of specific topics as they relate to both women’s stage of life and their circumstance. This has been a part of my writing process since I began making forum posts on SoSuave, but in real life, in the moment, you need to have a basic grasp of who you’re dealing with, and what motivates her according to what priorities she places on men and herself at any phase of life – as well as considering the social influences she’s subject to.

Who cares?

Right now all this probably seems like a lot of effort and hassle; “Why the fuck even bother Rollo? If I had to untangle a chick’s psyche and socialization every time I want a new piece of ass I’d just be a monk.” In truth, on various levels of consciousness, you already make most of theses assessments about a woman when you invest any degree of effort (Game) in her – even if just to get laid. You may not realize you’re doing it, and your investment in a woman is itself modified by your own conditioning, your deficiencies and strengths, but rest assured, you are making these assessments. The difference now is that you have an outline to better be consciously aware of the framework you’re making these assessments in – that’s a cornerstone of red pill truth.

Understanding what motivates a woman at any phase of her maturation isn’t terribly difficult to grasp,…once you yourself have experienced that phase with a woman. And that’s the intent of my developing this outline, to help (younger) men without the benefit of this prior, often detrimental, experience make informed assessments about the motivations of women they may be interested in at various stages of their maturity.

Equally important is an understanding of how the social conventions and rationales a fem-centric society endorses and propagates for women factors into their own ideologies, as well as how they absolve women’s already solipsistic nature from personal accountability as she matures. Also important is the understanding of the guilt and regret that results from not having lived up to the expectations these social conventions convince women they should be entitled to have experienced by a certain developmental phase. Women tend to be both the perpetrators and (later) the victims of these conventions by design.

With the rise of instant communication, only recently have men began to connect the dots with regards to how these social conventions have been established to correlate with the decisions women make for themselves and the fluidity with which these conventions allow them to rationalize the outcome of those decisions. Hypergamy has always been Hypergamy for women, but until the sexual revolution’s ‘liberation’ of women from the societal and ideological balances that previously kept Hypergamy in check, there was less need for the myriad social conventions now necessary to balance women’s culpability (psychologically and sociologically) in that new ‘freedom’.

 

Print

 

The Security Phase

Women’s priorities for attraction (not necessarily arousal) are dependent upon the necessities dictated by which phase of life she’s currently in.

One reason I tag men’s peak SMV at or around 36-38 is partially due to their relative capacity for having attained the characteristics and accomplishments that women find the most desirable for long term commitment at about the same time women are the most necessitous of those qualities.

As women approach the Epiphany Phase (later the Wall) and realize the decay of their SMV (in comparison to younger women), they become progressively more incentivized towards attraction to the qualities a man possesses that will best satisfy the long-term security of the Beta Bucks side of her Hypergamy demands.

Too many blue pill / purple pill dipshits like to dismiss the SMV realities my graph depicts by comparing the desires of an SMV peaked 23 y.o. girl with the vested value an SMV peaked man represents to women’s overall, dualistic-need Hypergamy. What maximizes the SMV of a woman in her peak isn’t equal to what maximizes the SMV peak of men.

During what I term the security phase, women’s prioritization of attraction shifts to a man’s potential for provisioning.  While the new found attraction to intrinsic qualities of a man are overtly exaggerated as appealing to women during this phase, it’s essentially a man’s proven capacity to provide excessively for himself and a potential mate and family that are key to this attraction. These are qualities an SMV peaked man is socially expected to possess, and socially expected to deliver for a woman precisely at the time in which she finds herself the most necessitous of these qualities and provisioning.

It is during the security phase women will begin to alter their self-expectations, as well as overtly bemoan their frustrations about their own inability to secure commitment from what they perceive would be a socially equitable male. The social conventions already in place for women in this phase make them comfortable in attempting to shame men into compliance with their long term security needs. This is the phase you will most likely hear a woman complain about “men’s fragile egos”, men being threatened by ‘strong independent women®‘ or some other frustration about men not cooperating with their rapidly decaying, dualistic sexual strategy.

Settling

Security anxiety and the conflict a woman experiences with her SMV decay forces two outcomes for her; she can continue to believe her SMV is still comparative to her intersexual competitors (another social convention intended to placate unrealistic women and further postpone an LTR commitment), or she can settle on a hypergamously substandard man who’ll gratefully embody what the provisioning aspect of her hypergamy demands. If she’s followed the Alpha Fucks schedule during her party years it’s also possible she finds herself as a single mother seeking a provider male to assist in the parental investment her Alpha gene provider wasn’t (or is a limited) part of.

I should mention that the Transition and Security phases are a point at which most men’s (i.e. Betas) feminized conditioning comes to fruition for the Feminine Imperative. The Beta providers who’ve been patiently awaiting their moment of sexual vindication find their moment of peak attraction – and not uncommonly with the same women who had no use for them during their party years.

But the well conditioned Beta is nothing if not patient and dutiful in his feminine-primary purpose and it is at this phase he begins to see dividends for his steadfastness in supporting the feminine cause. His willingness to forgive a woman’s party years “indiscretions”, he believes, will be an investment in Relational Equity any ‘rational’ woman will appreciate.

It’s important to understand that the social engineering of the Feminine Imperative conditions Beta men to be predisposed to this (and/or White Knight) mentality at precisely the moment women need his provisioning the most – the point her SMV decays and his is in ascendency.

During the Security Phase, affluence, provisioning capacity and the status that should be associated with it become a primary attractant for women. The want for physical appeal and arousal are still a factor in attraction, but indicators of maturity, affluence, and other intrinsic qualities become a priority. That isn’t to say a random short term mating opportunity with an arousing Alpha would be ignored (especially around her ovulation cycle), but long term security takes precedence.

Women who consolidate on monogamous commitment during this phase (or in their Epiphany Phase) generally run through a series of mental self-rationalization for their decision to marry the Good Dad, rather than the Good Genes father. This is an effort women engage in to justify to themselves for consolidating on the security side of their hypergamous sexual strategy. Once children are part of her reality this mental subroutine has to be forced to the periphery of her attentions, but it is a psychological conflict she’s either going to resolve by eventually leaving her provider male (and seek out her Alpha widow substitute) or convince herself and her hypergamous conscience that she has in fact optimized her hypergamy with the male she settled on.

As a woman matures into her late security phase, and her offspring become more self-sufficient, it’s at this point she becomes more self-critical and retrospective of her Epiphany Phase, and more realistic about her true reasonings for experiencing it.

The Development Phase

From The Curse of Potential:

Because a woman’s capacity to attract her hypergamous ideal decays with every passing year, her urgency demands an immediacy with a Man embodying as close to that ideal as possible in the now.

Hypergamy takes a big risk in betting on a man’s future potential to become (or get close to being) her hypergamous ideal, so the preference leans toward seeking out the man who is more made than the next.

The problem with this scenario as you might guess is that women’s SMV depreciates as men’s appreciates — or at least should appreciate. The same hypergamy that constantly tests and doubts the fitness of a man in seeking its security also limits his potential to consistently satisfy it.

From the security into the developmental phase is generally the time during which a woman has satisfied the security needs side of her hypergamy (Beta Bucks) with a man she consolidated a long term security on during her Epiphany-Transition Phase.

Before I elaborate further I should point out that this particular phase can sometimes precede the Epiphany-Transition Phases for women who by circumstance (e.g. an unplanned pregnancy), personal conviction, or simply pairing with a man she believes has such future SMV potential, or believes is so far above her own foreseeable SMV (looks, affluence or status/fame) that she feels compelled to consolidate on him. This early security phase may also be the result of a particularly bad experience a woman in her party years had with a prior Alpha – the emotional trauma of which convinced her to connect with an accessible Beta orbiter who was patient enough (and fortunate enough) to be his dutiful, forgiving and supportive self in the right place at the right time.

Most commonly however this phase usually occurs within a 7 to 9 year window just after a woman consolidates on (or should have consolidated on) a long-term security prospect male; and this usually after her transitioning from her party years and dealing with the urgency of finding that prospective male.

It’s important to delineate the circumstances which affect women who’ve successfully paired prior to this phase from the women who remain single, never-marrieds or early divorces. Between the ages of 27 and 37 these circumstances define how a woman engages and copes with her development and redevelopment phases.

The 7 Year Itch

For this 7 to 9 year stretch a married woman will likely content herself with some semblance of what fem-centrism defines for her as domesticity. That may likely include a working/motherhood role, but for the most part the vestiges of her party years usually become something she’d rather not be reminded of, particularly so if she’s settled on a provider-male who doesn’t tingle her the way her former Alpha lovers did, and she gradually tires of his whiney wonderment at why she’s not as sexual with him now that they’re married with children.

There’s a very interesting social convention that accompanies this phase for the married woman, there was even an old movie dedicated to it, it’s called The 7 Year Itch. It was a cute movie, but it was based on a very real psychological phenomenon. The cutesy social convention revolves around men’s developing a wandering eye for strange vagina after mysteriously being married for 7 (a magic number) years. The reality is that most marriages tend to dissolve at two stage, after the 7 year mark and then again at the 20 year mark.

Primarily this is due to a couple having had at least one child (possibly 2) and after that kid reaches 7 and is becoming more autonomous men and women do some relationship evaluation. From an evolutionary perspective this would be the point at which a child is more or less self-sufficient with a minimum investment on the part of a male, but in contemporary relationships it’s also the point at which a woman has had time enough to reevaluate her Epiphany Phase decision to pair with the provider (father of her children or otherwise).

Just to be complete, the 20 year mark is generally the point at which both parents become ‘Empty Nesters’ and a second reevaluation takes place. More on this in part IV.

The Path to Spinsterhood

For women unable or unwilling to settle, compromise or otherwise consolidate on a long term monogamy, her security phase becomes a personal effort in generating that security for herself. This security may come with some help from a generous, fem-centric state, or with the help of child support and / or alimony from a marriage or pregnancy prior to this phase, and of course she may entirely ignore the dictates of her biological clock (fertility window) and double down on her own feminine-masculinized conditioning by providing (what she believes is) exclusively for herself. These are the origins of the Hyenas.

Since Roissy so eloquently outlined this woman’s demographic, I’ll finish here with his outline of 31-34 year old unmarried women:

31 to 34 year olds

In some ways, women in the 31-34 age range are the toughest broads to game. (By “toughest”, it is meant “most time consuming”.) It’s counterintuitive, yes, but there are factors at work besides her declining beauty which mitigate against the easy, quick lay. For one, it is obviously harder to meet single 31-34 year old women than it is to meet single younger women. Marriage is still a pussy-limiting force to contend with for the inveterate womanizer, but Chateau apprentices are hard at work battling the scourge of mating market disturbances caused by the grinding and churning of the marriage machine.

But the bigger reason 31-34 year olds are harder to game than any other age group of women has to do with the wicked nexus of entitlement and self-preservation that occurs at this age in women. When you combine a disproportionate sense of entitlement fueled by years of feminism, steady paychecks and promotions, and cheerleading gay boyfriends with suspicions of every man’s motives and a terrible anxiety of being used for a sexual fling sans marriage proposal, you get a venom-spitting malevolent demoness on guard against anything she might perceive as less than total subjugation to her craving for incessant flattery and princess pedestaling.

[...] “I have an easier time bedding and dating 23 year olds than I do 33 year olds.”

This defies all logic until you see it through the eyes of the hamster sweating its fluffy ass off in a woman’s brain. (Poor little creature must be pooped out by the mid-30s.) Sure, a 33 year old is not as hot as the 23 year old version of herself, but her ASD is through the roof, as is her self-conception as a hot marriage-worthy commodity. Many older women will tell themselves that their experience, maturity, accomplishments and financial stability mean they should be way more valuable to men seeking wives than some young babe on the take. Of course, they have to tell themselves this because reality isn’t making it easy to believe.

These are the kind of women who have sexual flings with college guys, because they can psychologically box those men in as “purely for fun” adventures. But the men the 31-34 year old women really want are the older, established men who will give them a marriage proposal and a family. This is why it is counterintuitively harder to game the older woman who still retains a vestige of her youthful attractiveness: she wants and expects so much more than the younger woman.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,281 other followers