Category Archives: Operative Social Conventions

Ovulation & Dread

ovulation_dread

I had an interesting study brought to my attention recently (ht/ Robert Burriss) and I thought I’d get back to a nuts and bolts post with something useful I found in it.

Women Selectively Guard Their Desirable Mates From Ovulating Women.

As you might expect, much of the findings in this study reinforce many Red Pill principles founded in evo-psych, but there are a few new angles to consider here. Before I start to riff on this study, bear in mind that the concept of female mate guarding behavior centers on what the researchers define as ‘desirable mates’ to women. This subjective assessment of desirability will play into all this analysis.

For women, forming close, cooperative relationships with other women at once poses important opportunities and possible threats-including mate retention. To maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of same-sex social relationships, we propose that women’s mate guarding is functionally flexible and that women are sensitive to both interpersonal and contextual cues indicating whether other women might be likely and effective mate poachers. Here, we assess one such cue: other women’s fertility. Because ovulating (i.e., high-fertility) women are both more attractive to men and also more attracted to (desirable) men, ovulating women may be perceived to pose heightened threats to other women’s romantic relationships. Across 4 experiments, partnered women were exposed to photographs of other women taken during either their ovulatory or nonovulatory menstrual-cycle phases, and consistently reported intentions to socially avoid ovulating (but not nonovulating) women-but only when their own partners were highly desirable. Exposure to ovulating women also increased women’s sexual desires for their (highly desirable) partners. These findings suggest that women can be sensitive to subtle cues of other women’s fertility and respond (e.g., via social exclusion, enhanced sexual attention to own mate) in ways that may facilitate their mate retention goals while not thwarting their affiliative goals.

Right from the start here we have two Red Pill foundations confirmed; the influence that perceptual SMV plays in women’s sense of passive Dread and the fundamental influence that menstruation dictates to sexual arousal and concurrent motivations for sex appeal during women’s ovulation phase.

I’ve previously gone into the dynamics that play out between men and women with regard to perceived SMV of a partner versus the other partner’s self-perception of their own SMV and how this determines secure vs. insecure attachment. This post was more of an outline of results of SMV imbalance rather that the motivations for the characteristics of those personal attachments. This study illustrates these underlying motivators very well.

Anyone who’s heard my Man in Demand talk on Hypergamy understands the (menstrual cycle) biological root for women’s personal and sociological behavior, and this study provides yet another confirmation of it. I’ve also written in the past about men’s propensity for mate guarding and the behavioral cues women, both subtly and not so subtly, display that prompts them to mate guarding. However, I’ve yet to explore women’s mate guarding behaviors.

I’m bringing up the SMV ratios and Mate Guarding posts here because it’s important to bear in mind the subjectivity that perceived SMV plays in regard to motivating mate guarding. Depending on that balance (or imbalance) one partner will be more motivated to mate guard than the other. Which of course then brings us back to the Cardinal Rule of Relationships. Mate guarding impulse is contextual to the comparative value of both individuals and the value of others in their social environment (potential sexual competitors).

Thus, it is a significant challenge for women when other women attempt to poach their partners. For instance, over 50% of women admit to attempting to poach another woman’s partner, and over 80% of men admit to having been the object of another woman’s poaching—with about half of men admitting to “going along” with the poaching attempt (e.g., Schmitt et al., 2004; Schmitt & Buss, 2001). Women have good reason, then, to mate guard.

I’m going to encourage readers to take the time to, at the very least, read the introduction, premise and results of this comprehensive study. Naturally there will be incredulous women who will insist that men tend to overestimate the displayed sexual interests of women towards them. This is a common social convention that serves a very specific purpose for women; plausible deniability.

If the common group-think is that men are egotistical, think they’re “all that” and stupidly believe they’re seeing sexual cues from women because “that’s just how men are”, then we have a pre-established condition in which women can believably deny interest. Thus, should a man not find a woman attractive, or opt for another, this then serves as a rejection buffer as well as a precondition for her own rejection of a man should he make an approach and not be found attractive.

The Schmitt & Buss studies account for this, but even if they didn’t there would still need to be a functional reason for women’s mate guarding behavior. That reason puts the lie to the social convention of women presuming men aren’t as perceptive of their sexual cues as they’d like to believe.

[…] whereas men have at times physically isolated and sequestered their female

partners to restrict other men’s access to them (e.g., in harems), women may analogously socially isolate their partners from potential poachers—keeping them apart so as to preclude potentially costly competition for their romantic partners.

The usefulness of this strategy depends on women being able to identify those who might be likely and effective mate poachers, and then excluding them (but not others) from their social circles. If a woman indiscriminately distances herself and her partner from potential poachers (i.e., all other women), she is assured of his fidelity but at the cost of eliminating her access to the numerous benefits of female–female friendships.

Spoiler alert: The study confirms that women will covertly exclude themselves and their lover’s company from women who A.) outclass them in comparative SMV (hotter women than they perceive themselves to be) and B.) happen to be in the proliferative phase of ovulation.

This indicates that not only are women subconsciously (if not consciously) aware of intrasexual rivals ovulatory states – as evidenced by dress, ornamentation, vocal intonation, scent, sexual proceptivity, etc. – but they are aware enough to orchestrate covert methods to protect their sexual investments in a ‘high value’ male while ensuring future intrasexual friendships.

That may seem like an overly scientific way of saying women watch out for other women slutting it up, but the subcommunications of ovulation are so subtle that women’s subconscious, peripheral awareness of those cues evolved for a sensitivity that goes beyond the obvious slut. That’s how important retaining a better-than-self SMV optimal mating choice is to women in an evolutionary scope. That sensitivity is part of women’s psychological firmware.

[…]In addition, if a woman were to consistently and indiscriminately exclude other women from her own and, by extension, her partner’s social circle, she might gain a reputation for being non-communal and non-nurturing, and thus, for being an undesirable friend. This might not only thwart her ability to form future friendships with other women, but might also lead her partner to perceive her as highly difficult, uncooperative, controlling, and non-trusting.

Thus, on one hand, the costs of indiscriminately avoiding other women are high because women reap important benefits from making new same-sex friends, On the other hand, women can and do mate poach with frequency, and those women deeply embedded in one’s social circle may have increased access, motivation, and ability to poach successfully.

There’s a few things to unpack here before we can make this information Red Pill / Game applicable. The most important metric that female mate guarding indicates is her genuine assessment of a man’s SMV and how valuable his participation and investment in their LTR (or even STR sexual value) is to her.

I’ve seen this mate guarding play out in my own relationships before, both as a Red Pill husband who happens to work with beautiful women in the liquor industry and prior to my Red Pill awareness of it in my libertine 20s. Back then it was easy to pass off as ‘bitches be crazy’ when a girlfriend or a short term sex partner “just got jealous”. But in hindsight the timing of those fits of jealousy seemed a bit to regular.

I’m going to suggest that developing an awareness of a woman’s bouts of jealousy or her subtle timing in wanting to spend time alone with you, or her being more sexually proceptive (she wants to fuck more) with you at times you may think odd. These are Alpha or Beta TellsA woman’s preoccupation with guarding you from other women is a prime indicator of your SMV worth to her. It stands to reason that only ‘desirable’ men deserve the effort of her mate guarding.

This is an important Red Pill sensitivity to have as it also allows you to determine a woman’s unspoken understanding of where she and you stand in relative SMV comparison. As I was saying in the introduction here, that ‘desirability’, that SMV ratio, that Alpha impression that makes you worth mate guarding is subjective to what a woman’s self-perceived SMV is in respect to your own. When we interact with women in the long term it’s very easy for men to lose sight of this balance and think that their frumpy wife is the best they can do. There is a definitive psychological game that women of low SMV will play with men they know are of higher value – they will continually devalue that man as a form of mate guarding.

That devaluation may take the form of browbeating, nagging or accusing him of being attracted to other women in an effort to get her higher value LTR man to self-limit his being poached by endlessly qualifying himself to his low SMV wife/girlfriend. It’s far easier, and far lower an investment of resources if a low SMV woman can convince her higher SMV man to mate guard himself.

Just as an aside here, there may be a few readers who’ll think women will rationally consider that their long term provisioning is virtually assured in a feminine-primary social order. Alimony, child support or pro-female government will assure her and her offspring a baseline of security, so why mate guard any man?

The answer of course is that women’s psychological firm ware didn’t evolve to acknowledge these considerations. Once again T-Rex doesn’t want to be fed, he wants to hunt. So even with the logical consideration that provisioning is assured women’s limbic (particularly on an Alpha Fucks short term breeding assurance) still wants those environmental and behavioral cues that indicate they have that security.

Passive Dread

So with all of this to digest how do we put this knowledge of women’s limbic desire for ensuring a mate’s exclusive sex and provisioning to use for us?

The obvious answer is in the title of this post – developing that awareness of your SMV worth to a woman is a good starting point from which you can subtly employ a passive form of Dread.

I’ve gotten a lot of grief for just my acknowledging Dread, much less using it beneficially for both a man and whatever woman he chooses (long or short term). It’s always about how horribly manipulative it is, or it’s just an unsustainable game of brinksmanship between a couple that destroys trust. But what these (usually female) critics never recognize is that Dread is already an integral part of every relationship by order of degree.

The fact that both male and female mate guarding behaviors are evidential facts of both sex’s hindbrain function should be proof enough that Dread, the concern of loss of investment, and the subconscious, comparative evaluation of SMV is something that’s always an operative. It’s inherent to our conditions as evolved human beings.

My advice in this instance is for men to become sensitive to the indicators of that ovulatory mate guarding dread and use that insecurity to promote a better, genuine desire in that woman. Suggesting this will seem counterintuitive to a Blue Pill mindset. The conditioned response will be to allay that woman’s fears (the ones she’s subconsciously aware of but will hate you for making her acknowledge) and provide her with comfort and familiarity.

But comfort and familiarity are anti-seductive and kill the genuine desire, the genuine need to fuck you in order to keep you and show her appreciation for your higher SMV. Why does a woman compete for what she is constantly comfortably assured she already has?

The trick to employing soft or passive dread is making yourself sensitive to the opportunities to use it and then gently provoke it in as covert and indirect a way as possible. One of the better ideas the early PUAs had was mastering the art of the Neg, or the backhanded compliment. The idea was to casually knock a woman’s self-image down to a manageable degree in order to get her to qualify herself the the PUA. Passive dread operates on a similar principle.

You need to see the opportunities for its use, and women’s propensity for mate guarding men they find ‘desirable’ is a reasonably predictable opportunity. See those chances for other women’s casual flirtations with you, look for those unsolicited opportunities for easy social proof, and don’t dissuade your woman’s initial mate guarding response. Casually push back on the mate guarding impulse, don’t jump to the reassurances of your undying love and interest.

See that opportunity for what it is – a chance to restate whose Frame she’s chosen to be a part of. She wants to merit your value. Take that effort away from her and you become valueless to her.


Ladders & Snakes

Br-gYXWIgAA6Xec

All men are created equal. What you do from there is up to you.

Law 7: Get Others to Do the Work for You, but always take the credit

Use the wisdom, knowledge, and legwork of other people to further your own cause. Not only will such assistance save you valuable time and energy, it will give you an aura of efficiency and speed. In the end your helpers will be forgotten and you will be remembered. Never do yourself what others can do for you.

When I was first introduced the the 48 Laws of Power the seventh was the one I had the most trouble accepting. I should really say I have trouble ’employing’ this law, because I’ve spent my entire life as an artist in some capacity and I’m very particular about the integrity and character of what it is I create. Obviously we have rights management and plagiarism laws to ensure against the more blatant ‘stealing’ of ideas, but a lot of what accounts for taking unwarranted credit occurs in more nuanced social situations.

It’s usually in these social circumstances that the average person makes use of Law 7. It’s hardly a law at all considering how naturally humans will use it. In a purely ethical sense it’s kind of a no-brainer; don’t assume credit that you’re undeserving of, but bending the perceptions of what we base our estimates on is where the real art comes in.

On a personal level, my investment in what I create and how that creation is received is what matters most to me. I understand the want for a quick reward, but I’m more concerned with a cheap imitation of what I’ve created debasing the quality and effort it took to create it. For instance, I’ve spent the better part of my career creating products and brands for people with a lot of money who really had no real investment in what it was I was making for them. All they wanted was a “product” that they could promote and sell.

Naturally the quality and integrity of that brand or product had to be something they could get behind (the horse must at least look like it could win), but not be held too personally accountable should that product end up being less than ideal. That’s a nice way of saying most salesmen I’ve known love a widget if it’s something that sells, but they’re never really on the hook for if it sucks – that accountability rests with the creator.

While we were dining after the Man in Demand conference we had discussion about exactly this dynamic. I make an effort to keep my business endeavors as businesslike as possible, but there are brands and things I create that I will personally invest myself into. I have to be very careful of this because it took me a long time (and more than a few failed attempts) to develop the discernment to know what’s worth putting myself into. However, it is especially satisfying for me to travel to another country and see one of my bottles in the duty-free stores at the airport and then be at a bar & grill somewhere on vacation and see one on the backbar.

I explained to the guys that what I create (and own) are not “products” to me. I dislike that term in that sense. I understand the utility of that word to salesmen; product is an easy unit of measure, but to the person creating that thing it’s a measure of the quality of their idea. To refer to that creation as a product impersonalizes that creation and allows the seller to remain at arms distance should the creation be wildly popular or a horrible failure.

That pride of ownership or the abandoning of it is a convenience for someone only invested in promoting that thing, but on some level it is never really theirs with the same responsibility as the one who created it. So ultimately the noncommittal position of selling, promoting, endorsing, etc. becomes an arrangement of convenience since the creator’s idea is where the ‘product’s’ strengths lie – and also where the real accreditation should too.

I’ve occasionally been accused by the ignorant on Twitter of being dependent on The Rational Male for my revenue. Most of my regular readers know what I do for a living and understand why that’s silly, but I don’t think it’s any real secret that what I write here and in the books is something very personal to me. The Rational Male has always been something I’ve invested myself in for obvious reasons, but I’ve always resisted turning it into a brand per se. There wont be any TRM T-Shirts coming in the foreseeable future.

I’m proud to be responsible for what I do here and I will never be beholden to making what I create into a ‘product’ for others to sell. One of the best things about being in the position I am is being anti-fragile enough to write what I believe is important while still keeping myself solvent on what I do apart from it. This allows me a much greater freedom than needing to write something to stay solvent.

Bargain Debasement

You’ll have to forgive my intro here, but it got me to thinking about a larger point I had in mind about how and why a man invests himself in various endeavors in life. I’ve worked hard to get to a point in life where I can say my personal successes (and failures) are my own and not the result of others’ funding or some fortunate dispensation, but rather based on the strength of ideas and responsibly owning them as the creator. Yet another reason I have a problem with Law 7; for as much as you may gain by employing it you rarely develop the insights that failing of your own accord teaches you. Experience teaches harsh, but it teaches best.

I think one of the reasons men find the popularized, feminist, social convention of ‘male privilege‘ so disingenuous is because we want to be appreciated for the sacrifices and perseverance needed to even have what looks like a meager, hand-out, kind of privilege. An atmosphere of default privilege debases what men have honestly invested themselves in. I’ve always held that women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices men make to facilitate their feminine-primary reality, but that’s not to discount men’s want to still be appreciated for them.

Whether that’s manifested in financial wealth, personal freedom, status or earned wisdom there’s a fundamental want for an appreciation that is rarely ever forthcoming. One reason I believe many men have a self-fulfilling definition of what it is to be Alpha is because they feel they’ve earned that identification through hard work and playing by a set of rules everyone else should, but get frustrated when their efforts go unappreciated, if not outright exploited. Again, Law 7. It’s galling to see others rewarded for exploiting what you think should be appreciated.

There’s a subset of MGTOW reader/writers who question every man’s motive for doing what it is he does thinking that appeasing women is at the root of every effort. Nothing is a genuinely inspired passion if the end result is women’s affectations. I covered this in Crisis of Motive, but what exactly is a genuine motive in that sense? If the byproduct result of my genuine interests is having sex with gorgeous women and/or a beautiful wife and a couple of well adjusted kids should that then discredit my unique talents and interests in what I do?

What if, after all a man does, he seeks an appreciation that will only rarely be unsolicited on his part? It’s one thing to command respect; it’s quite another to demand it.

Institutionalized Success

In this sense I think what is most egregious about the present state of marriage is that, for the greater part, all of the personal equity a man invests in himself over the course of his lifetime is only a divorce settlement away from being halved for him (if not more so). A man’s personal equity (not to be confused with relational equity) is only one false rape allegation away from ruin. This is the institutionalization of Law 7: that a woman can largely and legally get a man to do all the work and then take (at least half) the credit from his own success – or at least that’s the social expectation.

Granted, a woman can also be on the hook for her lack of character judgement should she pair with a man who becomes a burden to her. There are rare instances when a woman may find herself financially beholden to a bad choice in marriage, but then it’s a situation of that man’s genuine achievements in life and usually an inability to take his burden of performance and make the most of it. For the most part, the role of support falls to the man in societal expectations; women and feminized men are the ones supported.

In fact, it’s a point of shame for men to be supported in such a fashion. Whether that’s warranted of not, it is men who are expected to make more of themselves than what they started with. A needed provisioning from women only puts his achievements’ validity in question. Like it or not, men should avoid the perception of themselves not pulling their own weight.

Doing More

A while back I was asked why the Burden of Performance should be called a “burden” at all. Should it not be a “challenge” or a “opportunity”? All optimist semantics aside, it is uniquely men whose character is judged on what he started with and what he made of himself.

I’m sure equalist critics will want to cast women into the same performance role, but in a uniquely male sense, it is men who are expected to make more of themselves. To be a ‘man’ is to produce in excess of what you consume – thus having the potential to support a family, an extended family, ensure security, give back to his community and/or reinvest that excess in greater endeavors or passions. While it may be part of the Feminine Imperative’s media campaign to popularize the character of the Strong Independent Woman® there is still room for women to expect the best out of a man while being provided for herself. In other words women have both the option to strive for independence while also retaining the option to be provided for by her husband or an LTR. And failing either of these, they retain an institutional right to Law 7.

Men must be independent resource providers, they must make more of themselves than what they began with, independent of dispensations or special privilege. There is no safety net, no other socially acceptable option to be provided for and still retain his being definitively a ‘man’. One of the hesitations I have with endorsing the Red Pill idea of going ‘Monk Mode’ is less about the isolation and more about the motivation men need to find within themselves to better themselves.

We look down on men who are dependent on women. Whether that’s financially, emotionally or physically, there is no option for dependence. One of the primary complaints professional, educated, independent women bemoan is their inability to pair off with a man of ‘like’ (or above) status. They’ll make euphemisms to characterize the men who would be their ‘equals’ who wont date them, but what they fail to acknowledge is the fundamental, root level truth of men’s burden of performance. For all the high-minded hopes of equalism, women’s Hypergamy still wants to filter for both sexual and provider acceptability in men.

Back in 2012 I based a post on Creative Intelligence from a study about how improvisational skills and creativity factored into a woman’s Hypergamous considerations. I wont quote it in length here, but suffice it to say that there is a measurable difference in how women perceive men with a trained or innate ability to improvise in, and overcome, times of adversity. As might be expected a man with a proven capacity to produce more than he consumes – especially when he’s had to come back from failure or misfortune – tends to be a more attractive mate choice that the man who chances into his own affluence.

Bear in mind that attraction and arousal are different sides of the Hypergamy coin (AF/BB), but many cross-cultural studies suggest that a capacity for creative, innovative, adaptive intelligence has been an evolutionarily selected-for socio-sexual trait in men – much less so in women. That’s important for the MGTOW critic to remember, it’s not as simple as a feminine-primary social order dictating men being slaves to their burden of performance. Just as gender is primarily biological, and not a social construct, neither is women’s evolved, Hypergamous sexual filtering.

Filters

Now, with the evolutionary basis of attraction in mind, it’s also important to consider that in our evolutionary past women evolved to take calculated risks in optimizing their Hypergamous sexual selectivity. The utility such Red Pill concepts as social proof, dread, Game, amused mastery, etc. are evidenced because they work with (or sometimes against) this Filter.

From The Curse of Potential:

Hypergamy wants a pre-made Man. If you look at my now infamous comparative SMP curve, one thing you’ll notice is the peak SMV span between the sexes.

Good looking, professionally accomplished, socially matured, has Game, confidence, status, decisive and Just Gets It when it comes to women. Look at any of the commonalities of terms you see in any ‘would like to meet’ portion of a woman’s online dating profile and you’ll begin to understand that hypergamy wants optimization and it wants it now. Because a woman’s capacity to attract her hypergamous ideal decays with every passing year, her urgency demands 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. As I outlined above, 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.

As I’ve mentioned in many prior posts, Hypergamy demands assurances. In fact so paramount is that need for Hypergamous certainty that women have evolved peripheral awareness to be sensitive to psychological and socio-sexual cues that confirm a man’s Hypergamous acceptability to her. Furthermore, so important is this need of assurance that in a society founded on feminine social primacy, the Feminine Imperative will legislate legal institutions to prevent men from misrepresenting themselves as a more optimal Hypergamous choice – as well as legislate penalties that insure women against both Hypergamous fraud and less than optimal mating choices.

As you might guess, the development and evolution of Game is one such psycho-social contingency men refine and use to workaround this Hypergamous filtering; and one that the imperative is still making efforts to restrict. However this doesn’t discount the way men have, in the past, built themselves up based on both social expectations, but also genuine interests and passions. Naturally, if a man is the genuine article and as a byproduct attracts women as a result of it, that might be preferable to ‘faking it till you’re making it’ – but if that’s the route you go be sure that you do in fact ‘make it’ because it’s what you feel passionate about.

Warnings

The primary reason I wrote Preventive Medicine was to help men avoid having women’s institutionalization of Law 7 ruin their long term personal efforts and achievements. Many critics want to lock horns with me as to when a man’s Peak SMV generally occurs in life. That’s fine, but whether or not you agree with my accuracy in this regard the fact remains that it takes much more concentrated, long term effort to reach that peak than women’s fast-burn peak SMV. I don’t just mean this in terms of his professional status, but also his maturity, his acquired wisdom, his judgement of others’ character, the lessons learn from the bruises of his failures and near misses.

All of this requires an investment in oneself that simply the having of resources handed to you will never satisfy. That personal investment in oneself, as it should, amounts to a lot of internalized equity – an equity that will never be appreciated by women whose Hypergamy is looking for a pre-made man. Hypergamy doesn’t care about the effort and perseverance required to achieve the status you (should) enjoy at your SMV peak.

I’ll be the first to admit that when it comes to short term sexual selection, the most wanton sex I had was at the time in my life when I was the poorest. As an underemployed semi-rockstar I used hit it with the best of them, and from a purely sexual perspective, it’s true, criminal and Alpha cads will still fuck 80% of women. But there’s more to the worth of a man than just his notch count. Sexual experience constitutes a very important measure of that, but a man should want more for himself as a man, as a father, as leader, as a creator, even as a cad.

Life experience and the benefits that a man should draw from it are personally valuable. In fact, men feel the equity of these efforts are so valuable that men will commit suicide at 5 times the rate of women; and in particular between the ages of 45-49. Why do you suppose that is? What assurances of long term security does the common man have for himself? What is he faced with when the plan he sets forth for himself in his life is destroyed in one precarious instance?

Once again, using the male deductive logic, it may seem a better option for him to hit the reset button than to be faced with having his life’s equity, his largest investment, his creation, stolen from him. This is a graphic illustration of men’s Burden of Performance, a burden women simply don’t face.


Open Cuckoldry

forever

During the Q&A section of the Man in Demand talk I gave back in September I was asked about where I believed the social dynamic of Open Hypergamy would lead. In specific the idea was proposed, and I agree, that the logical next step for a social order founded on feminine Hypergamy and one that prioritizes the female sexual strategy as preeminent would lead to a state of openly accepted cuckoldry.

Although I can’t say it’s an accepted social dynamic as yet, there are many social indicators that are revealing this push towards a normalized cuckoldry. I’ll explore these for a bit in this essay, but for now these indicators are about a move away from conventional monogamy in the hopes that a ‘soft cuckoldry’ might be a precursor to instituting a more accepted open cuckoldry.

I think it’s also important to keep in mind a couple of primary principles about this shift. First is the fact that, initially, an openly accepted state of feminine-controlled cuckoldry will never be called ‘cuckoldry’ proper. If we use the example of a socially accepted (if not celebrated) open Hypergamy as a model, open cuckoldry will be sold as a more logical, more humane sexual strategy for men and women in light of divorce statistics, romantic boredom and other sexual studies that indicate men and women weren’t evolved for monogamous commitment.

The second is that open cuckoldry is the extension of a unilaterally feminine controlled Hypergamy. That is to say that as Hypergamy becomes more normalized as a social imperative that sexual strategy will extend to optimizing Hypergamy across genders. If that optimization is taken to its logical end it will require men not just to adopt cuckoldry as a norm, but to socially reward them for advocating it among their own sex.

Cuckoldry By Any Other Name

As I said, it wont be called ‘cuckoldry’; the connotations are negative, so a redefining will be made in order to make the practice more socially palatable. The Feminine Imperative wont recruit the very men it needs to perpetuate cuckoldry as their own sexual strategy if the term is derogatory. Thus we’ll get euphemisms for alternative lifestyles, ‘open marriages’ or a “Designer Relationship“:

We live in an era when everything is customizable. Relationships are no exception. Some people will continue to practice their grandparents’ form of monogamy, and others, probably the majority, will be serially exclusive and pair-bonded. Still others will explore some form of non-monogamous expression that encompasses one or more of the facets we’ve discussed or may flow in and out of being exclusive based on what the relationship requires. (We’ve done this ourselves.) Having the ability to customize a relationship means having the freedom to respond to life’s vicissitudes.

The first time I came across the concept of ‘soft polygamy’ I was in a behavioral psychology class exploring the practices of modern marriage and contrasting them with the long term sexual behaviors of men and women. As you might imagine the context of the study focused entirely on the ‘bad behaviors’ of men who essentially transitioned from serial monogamy to serial marriage. The idea was that in the process of moving from one LTR to another men were establishing a soft form of polygamy.

In a social respect, men have far more to lose from serial marriages than do women. The financial liabilities of divorce are well known to the manosphere, but so are the emotional and familial accountabilities. So from a strictly male perspective, serial LTRs are a dicey prospect, but from a female perspective, in a feminine-primary social order, institutionalized Hypergamy and the soft polygamy that results from the Sandbergian sexual strategy, soft cuckoldry becomes pragmatic in optimizing Hypergamy for women.

At this point we should consider the Heartiste maxim about feminism again:

The feminist goal is removing all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality

Institutionalized cuckoldry is the logical means to restricting male sexuality, but we have to consider what function that restriction serves for women. From an Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks perspective the plan is simple; restrict that sexuality as women find need for a particular man’s service.

Diamonds and Rust

While I’m reluctant to prognosticate, my guess is that future generations of men will be conditioned to accept their role in this cuckoldry as part of their socialization. The above Forevermark diamond advertisement is one illustration of this. Open Hypergamy and its acceptance has already made its popular debut in mainstream media and advertising, and likewise open cuckoldry is just now finding a social foothold.

It takes the Red Pill Lens to appreciate the efforts as they’re being made by a large society. The Forevermark ad is intended to be funny or cute, but it belies a deeper, more poignant truth about Alpha Widows, Hypergamy and the long term sexual strategy Plan and roles women expect men to play in it.

I was made aware of this ad being circulated from a reader on Twitter and at first thought it was a reworked joke. It is however legit and billboards with this campaign are up in major cities. Without the benefit of a Red Pill Lens I can see how most men would laugh it off or women might giggle sardonically about it, but the the fact remains that a clever copywriter is aware of the sexual dynamics that make it funny.

I pulled the following quote from Deti on one of Dalrock’s more recent post:

“I think what we will continue to see is growing disengagement.”

Yeah, this has been discussed here and elsewhere in the almost 5 years I’ve been around here.

I think that what will happen is that things will continue sliding in the same direction they’re going now, until a critical mass is reached. I don’t know what that critical mass is, what will trigger it, or when it will be reached.

We live in a mostly free society with a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. We have maximum freedom and autonomy right now, with both sexes being free to pursue pretty much whatever they want, however they want to. That is the prime characteristic driving the current circumstance — that, and up to now, there’s been enough money taxed, borrowed and stolen to pay for it.

A growing number of men are not getting as much sex as they want. A growing number of women aren’t getting commitments in the form they want — when they want or from the men they want.

So things are going to keep sliding that way. More and more men will walk away and direct what energies they have left elsewhere — into work, or beer/bros/Xbox/porn, or travel/leisure. (Oddly enough, this might make many of them more attractive to women, since they’re spending less time directing their attentions to women.) More and more men will earn just enough to support themselves, since they don’t plan on marriage, and fatherhood is out of the question. They will lack the skills to improve their lives. They will not get nearly as much sex as they want, but they will learn to live with it — mostly through porn, the occasional hookup, and the even more occasional prostitute. The price of prostitutes will skyrocket as demand increases; and a few more women will go into high-end call girl work to earn side money.

More and more women will direct their attentions into their work, travel/leisure, and having children without men. (This will definitely make more of them less attractive to men except as on again, off again sex partners.) They will not get the commitments from men they want, but they will learn to live with it. They will complain about it with increasing volume and shrillness, but they’ll learn to live with it.

Until something happens to cause the tides to turn. Again – don’t know what, or when, or how. But something will happen to cause a hard reset. And it will be exquisitely painful for everyone. I don’t want it to happen, nor do I relish it. It’s not something to desire or look forward to because of the pain it will bring. But I do think it will happen. I don’t think it will happen in my lifetime or my kids’ lifetimes. We could easily slide like this for another 50 to 100 years.

I think one consequence of this separation of the genders will include a socially normalized institution of cuckoldry. To take hold it will need to be termed something different, but in effect the process of women conceiving with one man and then expecting another man to parentally invest himself in that child will be a casual expectation of women. With so many men effectively (if not intentionally) going their own way, the idea that any man wouldn’t be expected to serve as a surrogate parent will become commonplace.

Genders divided by feminism or feminine social primacy will need a ‘customized’ form of cuckoldry that allows for the Alpha Fucks side of Hypergamy to be reconciled with the Beta Bucks side by enlisting different men for either purpose.

The Pink Pill

I want to end here with an essay I read recently on the fallout of the new female form of Viagra:

In an infamous cartoon in The New Yorker in 2001, one woman confides to a friend over drinks: ‘I was on hormone replacement for two years before I realized what I really needed was Steve replacement.’ Medicine has been reluctant to engage the question of just how much monogamy and long-term togetherness affect sexual function and desire, and the ‘Steve’ problem remains an issue that is tacitly acknowledged and yet under-discussed. To return to Julie’s growing pile of self-help titles, the books all promise to return, revive, restore without really getting down to the brass tacks of why desire extinguished in the first place. As Julie notes, the honeymoon grinds to an end, but the issues leading there are complex. In short supply is attention to the way mind and body react to social structures such as popular media, faith and marriage.

To develop drugs to boost libido is like ‘giving antibiotics to pigs because of the shit they’re standing in’

The American psychologist Christopher Ryan argues that the institution of modern marriage – meaning an exclusive couple bound by romantic love – is antithetical to long-term excitement. Ryan is best known for Sex at Dawn (2010), a book authored with his wife Cacilda Jethá, that makes the case that sexual monogamy is deeply at odds with human nature. He is among a growing number of researchers suggesting that the rift between women’s purportedly limitless sexual potential and their dulled actuality might owe to the circumstances of intimacy. Accordingly, the conjugal bed is not only the scene of dwindling desire, but its fundamental cause. The elements that strengthen love – reciprocity, closeness, emotional security – can be the very things that smother lust. While love angles toward intimacy, desire flourishes across a distance.

The entire article is very insightful if not a bit depressing, but with the Red Pill Lens we can begin to understand the latent purpose behind the message. I’ve gone on record about the pushback against clearing the pink pill for use as being a direct threat to women’s control of their own Hypergamy. The concern, ostensibly, is that a libido stimulating drug might be used to induce a woman into having sex that her otherwise sober sense would prevent; effectively it could be a ‘rape’ drug.

What’s finally being addressed in this article however is what I’ve been saying since I was aware of the drug’s trials – a chemical that induces libido in women removes an element of their control in sexual selection and compromises Hypergamy. I’m not entirely sure the author was aware of the points she was revealing in this, but she succinctly makes the case for both institutionalized cuckoldry (or certainly a ‘customized’ soft polygamy for women) and advocates for women maintaining control of their Hypergamy unclouded by a drug that would remove that control by chemically inducing them into sex that isn’t of their own choosing.

The ‘cure’ to women’s low libido is holistic, not biological. Women’s sexual deficiencies are presumed not to be the result of a ‘broken’ biology, but rather a lack of proper motivation. I should point out that all of this validates all the points I was making about Dread in marriage last month on Biblical Gender Roles – maintaining a condition of proper motivation (i.e. Dread), the holistic cure, is exactly what even femosphere authors are tacitly advocating.

The elements that strengthen love – reciprocity, closeness, emotional security – can be the very things that smother lust.

Yet now, even when a pharmaceutical solution to the lust problem is made available the ‘cure’ is rejected. Why? Because on a root, limbic level women’s hindbrains know that Hypergamy cannot be optimized with a drug that removes Hypergamous choice. The real solution has never changed and women are now put into a position of having to openly acknowledge that for all of the pretense of “mismatched libidos” or “sex just declines after marriage” social conventions, men’s cuckoldry is the real plan for Hypergamy.

When presented with a pill that will make them sexual, when given a cure to their low sex drives with the men who’ve made lifetime commitments to them, women will still refuse to take it. Hypergamous doubt can’t be quelled with a pill.


The Purple Pill

review

Four years ago I wrote a post titled Could a Man Have Written This? I opened that post with a short, I thought positive, critique of an article by Mona Charen in which she in turn took a then relatively unknown Kate Bolick to task over her All the Single Ladies article. You can read the whole post; it was one of my earliest essays on this blog and, as I’ve come to realize, one of my more prophetic ones too.

My intent in that essay wasn’t to call Charen to the carpet, but rather to illustrate the point that only women are allowed to write an article that criticizes issues specific to women. It is an indictment of, and evidence of, the feminine centric social order we find ourselves in today that any man brazen enough to write verbatim the same offering would be dismissed and passed over as a misogynists at best – lose his long career and personal life at worst.

No man could write this critique and be taken seriously, and therein lies the danger in women co-opting the message the manosphere has been compiling for 12 years now. The environment is such that anything remotely critical a man might offer is instantly suspect of misogyny or personal (‘he’s bitter”) bias, however, couch that message in a female perspective, play Mrs. Doubtfire, and you’ll at least reach the audience beginning with something like validity.

Not surprisingly this element of message delivery is lost on most women. Adopting the male perspective seems novel, something that might set a woman apart in a sea of common fem-speak, but it’s important for Men to understand that anything positive a ‘pro-man’ female author has to offer is still rooted in her female reality. In girl-world, what directly benefits women necessarily is presumed to benefit men, so what we’ll see is a new wave of female bloggers bastardizing the world-worn ideas that the manosphere has put together and repackaging it in a female context. It’s Man Up 2.0; make a token push to “re-empower” men just enough for them to idealize the romanticism of the responsibilities required for living up to women’s expectations.

I daresay this last part is exactly what the manosphere is seeing now. Like any other Male Space the Feminine Imperative makes it its business to ensure that ‘overseers in the locker room’ – in this case the social awareness of the Red Pill –  are emplaced to control a narrative and a condition to suit its purposes. That may sound conspiratorial, but there is no need for a concerted effort when women’s natural, fluid interest in attention and indignation will motivate them to co-opt the narrative of Red Pill awareness.

From 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 to maintain 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.

It’s very important for Red Pill aware men, manospherean men, to keep this dynamic in mind when they are assessing and evaluating the various messages and intents of the men from whom they’re considering taking advice from.

The Purple Pill

In the community, The Purple Pill is a euphemism for men who’ve become Red Pill aware, but for a variety of insecurities have decided to temper the uncomfortable truths of that awareness with their previous Blue Pill hopes. The harsh, ugly truths that the nature of women, the nature of Hypergamy and the natural selection process of intersexual dynamics presents to these guys becomes too much to bear. It’s all encompassing; when a man begins to see his surroundings with a Red Pill lens the difficult truth needs for an optimistic solution to counter what would otherwise be nihilism.

As I detailed in A New Hope, there’s a want for some sort of Red Pill solution in achieving Blue Pill fantasized goals.

Learn this now, you will never achieve contentment or emotional fulfillment in a blue pill context with red pill awareness.

I’ve included as my blog picture the first and last book covers published by former Frat Boy PUA Tucker Max. I could just as easily have used Neil Strauss’ most recent book, or Athol Kay and Married Man Sex Life as an example, but I think Tucker’s covers tell the story better than a thousand words. When women, women’s interests and women’s sexual strategies become an endemic part of that man’s previous message or a male-specific social movement, the fundamental, underlying impetus becomes compromised. It becomes a tool of the Feminine Imperative.

The present condition of the Mens Human Rights movement is a glaring example of this insaturation of feminine influence. At some stage along the evolution of this otherwise laudable movement its leaders recognized that their best messengers – really their only options – for their grievances were women. Our feminine-primary social order only allows women to be critical of other women, thus the only avenue became investing their message in the women who would voice it for them.

Although I’m cautiously optimistic about the production and release of The Red Pill movie in the coming year I have to temper that with the knowledge that a documentary about the MRM will, once again, owe its credibility to a self-identifying feminist, Cassie Jaye, to tell the story for them. For all of the reassurances and promises of objectivity on her part, the subplot of the documentary prominently features her self-doubt and questioning of her own feminist beliefs during the process of her making the documentary.

On the surface this female self-discovery probably seems like a confirmation of purpose to the men of the MRM, but from a Red Pill perspective – the true Red Pill awareness neither she nor the notables of the MRM are willing to acknowledge – this is yet one more example of the innate feminine solipsism we’ve dissected for a decade now. From Eat, Pray Love to Gone Girl, the female self-discovery script is almost cliché now, but I expect that the bulk of the publicity and interviews of Jaye that follow this film will be less about the MRM and more focused on her very predictable “personal growth journey”.

As I stated in Male Space, the purpose becomes less about the endeavor itself and more about adherence to the feminine-inclusionary aspect of that endeavor. This has been a constant bugbear for the Mens Rights Movement, and is the primary reason they must maintain an inclusionary egalitarian / equalist aspect to their message.

The present state of the MRM is just one of the more apparent examples of men’s groups inviting this feminine influence to ostensibly validate their message. There are others. Tucker Max’s most recent venture appears to be selling himself as a reformed cad who followed the romantic comedy script and is now appeasing his wife’s influence by helping men better understand how to better accommodate Hypergamy.

From The Script:

For women, the only thing better than experiencing this script vicariously through movies and stories is to see it happen live. David D’Angelo, Tucker Max are a few manosphere notable who’ve played the come-full-circle surrender to the script. There are far more guys who play it in a more visual sense (the repentant ‘Womanizer’ episodes on the Tyra Banks show comes to mind), but no one really remembers them, and certainly not in the ‘sphere. While there’s a sense of vindication for women to have a guy surrender his anti-social (i.e. anti-feminine primary) lifestyle and beliefs in favor of a feminine paradigm, and “settle down” into a feminine framed, normalized monogamy, surrender is still surrender. Essentially the strong vibrant man who posed such a challenge to her, the one who’s steadfast determination and conviction made him a man she was hot for as well as one she could respect, loses his status.

He’ll say, hey, you don’t know where I’m at in life, you don’t know the experiences I’ve had, life has taught me the value of compromise. Women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices a man must make to facilitate a feminine reality, but if there’s one thing women outright despise, one thing men foolishly believe women should be able to appreciate, it’s a man willing to compromise the beliefs he’s established his reputation and integrity upon in order to facilitate her feminine reality. That’s the definition of a sell-out.

As I said there are many other examples; Athol Kay and the revenue dependence he now has on his pandering to a female audience (and the inclusion of his wife and other women in his message). Evan Mark Katz’s pandering almost exclusively to upper middle class women bemoaning the same tired tropes of  “no good men” that led them to their spinsterhood in the first place. There are more, but in all these cases these men’s financial livelihood depends on their capacity to include a feminine-primary influence into their dubious male space.

This Purple Pill dynamic has also found its way into mainstream religion for much of the same reasoning these ‘Dating Coaches’ find it necessary to cater their message to a feminine-primary audience. Most will season-to-taste just a bit of whatever they’re peripherally aware of about Red Pill truth, but only enough to appear in touch with the burden of men’s performance owed to the women that make up their audiences. Like the Dating Coaches, the Purple Pill Pastor understands that his revenue depends on hold women’s attention and usually this comes in the form of playing to women’s inherent need for indignation.

And finally, there are the apologist,…

This is an old video, but it’s brought to you by the same faction that’s now fronting conferences like the Conscious Men Summit. It pains me to see Dr. Warren Farrell speaking/endorsing this new age masculine apologist movement, especially since he’s a featured interview in The Red Pill movie for the MRM. Farrell has always been an adherent of the same gender-equal fantasy he learned from 70’s feminism, but I do credit him with aiding in my own unplugging when I read Why Men Are The Way They Are.

I suppose I shouldn’t be too shocked, but the masculine apologists of this century also have a need to mix in just enough Red Pill awareness to appeal to, what they hope are the more dominant sensibilities of men. New age (really reheated 70s) masculine apologist still cling to the fallacies inherent in gender equalism, but they transition this into a restitution script they believe women will appreciate in an age where women despise their pathetic acquiescence to the Feminine Imperative they’re oblivious of.

If these guys’ message makes your stomach turn, well, I share in your disgust, but it’s important to remember that in the coming years men like this will attempt to co-opt into their message just enough of what the Red Pill as a collective has developed for the past 13-14 years.

After Roosh decided to set fire to the Red Pill community in an effort to create his own brand in neomasculinity he put out a video in which he laid claim to having ‘fathered’ the Red Pill. Now we have the MRM making similar claims of ownership to this collective with their upcoming documentary. The cover story is of course “only in name, because no one can really ‘own’ the Red Pill”, but their notables understand the conflation all too well. Furthermore we have the influences of the ‘overseers in the locker room’ effect with the likes of Tucker Max and other half-measure Purple Pill fence riders.

Back in 2011 I anticipated women writers co-opting the Red Pill and acknowledging what of it that serves their sexual strategy (Open Hypergamy) and in claiming authorship of the Red Pill they also claim the authority to define it in the ways that most fluidly serve the Feminine Imperative. The Purple Pill pushers will use what ever conveniently complements and reinforces their Blue Pill insecurities while sweeping the ugly, harsh, unflattering truth of the Red Pill aside or disqualifying them as the negativity of misogynistic complainers.

While I am humbled to be accounted as one of the Red Pill’s prominent writers I will never lay claim to having created it. The Red Pill in its truest sense belongs to the collective that has contributed to it as a whole. It belongs to the men who’ve fostered it, who’ve risked their livelihoods and families apart from it to make other men aware; it belongs to those who understand that its objectivity is what’s kept it open and honest, discussable and debatable.

At the Man In Demand conference in Vegas I opened my talk by asking those seated what they believed the Red Pill was. I did so because I believe that in the coming years there will be a concerted effort to claim authorship and definition rights to the “Red Pill”, and it’s important for anyone identifying as being Red Pill aware to acknowledge that what we’re a part of is a collective experience. We are, we become, the developments of a totality of men’s experiences across the world.

Beware of any man or woman attempting to lay claims of ownership of the Red Pill. Beware of anyone defining this awareness, distorting these truths, to accommodate their narratives.


Neofemininity

Left: A child shows off his favorite nightgown. Right: Throughout the weekend make-up is applied, removed and reapplied and wardrobe change is constant.

I’ll admit my reluctance to address anything written by Kevin Powell, but as his most recent CNN pandering to the Feminine Imperative was the Twitter topic du jour in the manosphere this week I thought I’d make a perfunctory stab at it. I’m reluctant to do so because in doing a take-down article I’ll only be preaching to the choir and revisiting many well established topics I’ve covered on The Rational Male for years now.

What convinced me was a conversation I had with Mrs. Tomassi while walking my greyhounds this week. She asked me, “What the hell is wrong with boys these days? The all have no balls. It’s like they want to be girls or something.” We’ve had this discussion before. It usually gets brought up after she’s heard some story about the boys at my daughter’s high school or she sees it first-hand at a football game or some other event.

“Pretty soon, everyone is going to be a woman. Look at Bruce Jenner, “Woman of the Year”?! In the next ten years everyone will be a woman.”

I told her I think ten years might be too long.

When I read male-apologetics like Kevin Powell’s tribute to his own feminine ‘transitioning’ and his efforts at identifying and qualifying to be considered a more ‘perfected man’ in the terms set for him by a feminine-primary social order, it’s not hard to believe that social switch is right around the corner.

A Crisis of Manhood

Masculinity in “crisis” is a hot seller for click-bait articles these days. Women embrace the meme because it offers the tacit prospect of wrangling men into a more definitive control by the Feminine Imperative. Like all popular characterization of conventional masculinity, men have a problem and the cure is to become more like women.

Average men, the ones who make it their sexual strategy to better identify with the feminine, get behind the meme because it offers an easy opportunity to present themselves as the ‘evolved’, not-like-other-guys men they’ve been conditioned to believe women will sexually respond to favorably. Embracing this men-as-problem meme also offers them the opportunity to passively compete intrasexually with the conventionally masculine men then would otherwise never engage.

Before I dig into Powell’s article here I think it’s important to revisit my essay about Vulnerability. Powell’s ego is invested in the ‘strength in weakness’ theme his feminine conditioning has taught him is ennobling and as you read through his pleas for a more feminine-perfected social order he’ll return to it often.

From Vulnerability:

For the greater part of men’s upbringing and socialization they are taught that a conventional masculine identity is in fact a fundamentally male weakness that only women have a unique ‘cure’ for. It’s a widely accepted manosphere fact that over the past 60 or so years, conventional masculinity has become a point of ridicule, an anachronism, and every media form from then to now has made a concerted effort to parody and disqualify that masculinity. Men are portrayed as buffoons for attempting to accomplish female-specific roles, but also as “ridiculous men” for playing the conventional ‘macho’ role of masculinity. In both instances, the problems their inadequate maleness creates are only solved by the application of uniquely female talents and intuition.

Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing.

Women who lack any living experience of the male condition have the calculated temerity to define for men what they should consider manhood – from a feminine-primary context. This is why men’s preconception of vulnerability being a sign of strength is fundamentally flawed. Their concept of vulnerability stems from a feminine pretext.

Masculinity and vulnerability are defined by a female-correct concept of what should best serve the Feminine Imperative. That feminine defined masculinity (tough-guy ridiculousness) feeds the need for defining vulnerability as a strength – roll over, show your belly and capitulate to that feminine definition of masculinity – and the cycle perpetuates itself.

[…]Men are ridiculous posers. Men are socialized to wear masks to hide what the Feminine Imperative has decided is their true natures (they’re really girls wearing boy masks). Men’s problems extend from their inability to properly emote like women, and once they are raised better (by women and men who comply with the Feminine Imperative) they can cease being “tough” and get along better with women. That’s the real strength that comes from men’s feminized concept of vulnerability – compliance with the Feminine Imperative.

[…]It’s indictment of the definers of what masculinity ought to be that they still characterize modern masculinity (based on the ‘feels’) as being problematic when for generations our feminine-primary social order has conditioned men to associate that masculinity in as feminine-beneficial a context as women would want.

They still rely on an outdated formula which presumes the male experience is inferior, a sham, in comparison to the female experience, and then presumes to know what the male experience really is and offers feminine-primary solutions for it.

It’s important to understand the machinations in which the Feminine Imperative will define masculinity for men. In order to maintain social preeminence the Feminine Imperative must keep men perpetually confused about what masculinity really is. This is precisely why the “crisis” of masculinity will, deliberately, never be solved to the satisfaction of the imperative. To solve the ‘crisis’ would be to deny the Feminine Imperative a method of ever changing, fluid control over men.

Tail Chasing

Thus we get inquisitive articles or mandatory gatherings to discuss “what is manhood?” In a state of feminine social primacy men discussing new definitions of masculinity is always a proposition of men chasing their own tails, but the ambiguity of that question is a calculated one.

Men are encouraged to continually attempt to answer “what is manhood?”, but the touchy-feely equalist appropriate answer is never one defined by the men asking it; the answer is always provided to them and this is always “whatever serves women the best”. Their confused state is a deliberate perpetual one.

As I stated in Vulnerability the narrative of the Feminine Imperative about masculinity is one that’s based falsehoods. If men define masculinity for themselves, and that definition serves men’s exclusive interests it is equated with posing or a front men falsely wear to mask the real masculinity that feminine primacy has ordained as legitimate.

So even when men collectively compare notes and prioritize their needs and their sexual strategy in the context of a legitimate definition of masculinity, the social narrative of feminism and feminine primacy readily disqualifies it as a being a macho bravado worn by men to cover their real vulnerable sensitive feminine-corrected egos provided for them by the imperative.

One of the ways of determining whether the propaganda you’ve dropped from the planes is sinking into the general populace is that your language, your narrative and your public relations material is willfully being professed by the people you hope to conquer. To say Powell is a Vichy Male wouldn’t do his obliviousness to being so credit. Powell is a testament to the degree to which feminine-primary, feminine-correct thought has saturated into men confused about their own masculinity, and the feminine correct definitions of it he’s ready to evangelize.

Neofemininity

Powell’s ego-investment in his feminine-defined masculinity is glaringly apparent.  To attack his belief is to attack his personality, but it’s important to note that his evangelizing reveals his obliviousness to his Blue Pill conditioning. Powell isn’t making a case for a ‘healthier masculinity’; he’s advocating for men adopting a neo-femininity in place of conventional masculinity. Powell is essentially advocating men become more perfected women and renaming that state “masculinity”.

I knew the guys were not comfortable with these mandatory gatherings, so I started each with a simple question:
What is a man?

Sighs of relief and phrases such as “leader,” “protector,” “caretaker,” “responsible,” “head of the house” fell from their mouths. Each session, I told them that they had just described my single mother and most women I’ve encountered in my life. These young men would grow quiet.

Powell kicks things off here with the blank-slate “men and women are functional equals” I described in Hypergamy Knows Best. This is the same “women are just as good at fathering as any man could be” rationale that reinforces men’s superfluousness with women. However, in doing so he sets the stage for defining masculinity in neo-feminine terms.

I grew up as most heterosexual boys did: I played every sport possible. I learned early on the rite-of-passage of seeing girls as sexual objects, as playthings, as anything except my equal. I fought because boys were taught to fight, be rough, antagonistic, to never show weakness, not even to cry, at least not in public. I digested every kind of pop cultural icon one could name, on television, in movies, in books, in my beloved hip-hop culture, who represented the mighty male figure that armies of us were instructed we must become.

This behavior led to catastrophic results for me. I had no clue how to express a balance of emotions for many years: It was either thunderous silence or raw explosions of rage. I did not know how to give love to myself or women and girls, and by the time I got to college, I merely did what other young males on my campus did: I had sex as casually as I slipped on my jeans and sneakers, and often did not give much thought to the woman on the receiving end. And I eventually pushed a girlfriend, post-college, into a bathroom door as we were arguing, the culmination of years of backward and very warped definitions of manhood imprisoned in pain and trauma.

Powell attempts to frame his case for a neo-feminine definition of masculinity in what are now very clichéd, very expected personal vignettes. It follows the Script.

We have the ostensibly ‘tough’ boy who grew up to be so thanks to a comically stereotypically male acculturation that taught him how to adapt and survive in his environment, but all of which stunted his capacity to balance his emotions. Emotional expression and an overemphasis on understanding emotion (in favor of reason) in men is the hallmark of a social narrative that prioritizes the feminine as the correct social context.

The story continues as expected. The kid who had no positive model of masculinity presented to him has an epiphany, renounces his unhealthy masculinity and adopts a non-toxic feminine-defined ‘healthy masculinity’ that prioritizes women under the auspices of “equality”. Most of his corrupted upbringing of course being the fallout from not having his superfluous father around to instruct him. My guess is Mom wasn’t quite the ‘equal’ of being the man he hoped to equate her with earlier.

Just as the feminist movement in America has challenged male domination in every form, a men’s movement is needed now more than ever before. The movement must be inclusive of males of all ages and backgrounds, rooted in peace, love and healthy definitions of manhood that include viewing women and girls as our equals. It should be a movement that is not in opposition to women, not trying to return to the days of “the rugged man,” but one that makes room for every kind of man possible (including men on the LGBTQ spectrum), where we can be vulnerable, emotionally available, truly free.

This is the crux of Powell’s misinformation. The ideal ‘masculinity’ in Powell’s estimate isn’t one of rugged individualism, but rather one that is more feminine-corrected; one in which a believes that society has progressed to a point where his personal vulnerabilities and emotionalism will not only be appreciated, but a source of intersexual attraction. His ideal simply amounts to a common plea for men to identify with women so thoroughly that they answer the question “what is a man?” with “a better woman.”

That Powell subscribes to egalitarian equalism is a given here, but what he needs to truly grasp is that men and women are not, and never have been functional equals. It’s ironic that he should describe his single mother ‘as a man’ and then go on to tell the story of his misspent masculine youth – he makes the case for necessary complentarianism without even realizing it. While I do agree about the necessity of understanding individuals other than ourselves, Powell never makes the connection that it is men upon whom the onus of understanding women always falls. You will never read deep soul searching testimonials like this from women who look to redefine femininity in ways that better accommodate the emotional health of men.

Caricatures of Masculinity

I undertook this post today because of a story I heard on NPR recently. It was about a tribe of Native Americans (I believe in Montana) who were struggling to preserve their indigenous language. The problem was that most of its native speakers were dying out and there were less than six tribe members who still used the language.

During the late 1800s there was a program instituted by the government that made great, often cruel, efforts to assimilate these Indian children into western society. That meant forbidding them from speaking their native tongue and adopting an American social identity. Being young, the kids had little choice and not the same sense of ethnic belonging to really understand why their parents would resist this assimilation.

I think a similar dynamic has been in effect in western culture with regard to masculinity for over sixty years. It’s come full circle now to the point where ‘men’ like Powell only know the caricatured, ridiculous portrayals of conventional masculinity when they need a convenient straw man to blow down. It’s like Indian children seeing the grotesque cartoon parodies of people of their ethnicity in the movies or media; after the laughter and denigration they come to a point of self-loathing where they gladly embrace the new racial identity that’s prepared for them.

The point of Powell’s article was a plea to more thoroughly assimilate young men into a neo-feminine definition of masculinity. He believes that a re-education of boys would help avert more mass shootings by these same young men.  So invested is he in this narrative that the question of whether doubling-down on the re-education in feminine primacy already in place might in fact be the associative cause of these shootings, men’s 4-times higher rate of suicide or PTSD. This isn’t even an afterthought for him.

To Powell the only cure resides with women. To become more like women is masculinity to him. We will denigrate and admonish the overt sexualization of young girls, but when young boys wish to ‘transition’ into being girls themselves we praise them for it, we celebrate it. Feminine primacy consolidates power by replicating itself in men.

The primary reason I went to the effort of writing the Red Pill Parenting series was to help men stave off the total, ethnocidal-like destruction of any semblance of conventional masculinity by men like Powell bent on replacing it with ‘perfected’, male-embodied femininity. The problem isn’t one of boys adopting toxic masculinity, it’s the institutionalized gender-loathing re-education that Powell so desperately endorses. Neofemininity will be the realm of boys and men in tomorrow’s idealism.


The Vetting Process

vetting

I apologize for interrupting the flow of this series’ posts, but I felt this question from reader Andy deserved a full stop:

I could care less who I’m talking to. IMO if you’re looking to disqualify a woman based on her sexual history you’re doing yourself a disservice because you better believe that the high quality chicks have been fucked in every way imaginable. If not you it’s somebody else… Might as well be you!

Have a look at this guy’s story in Saving the Best:

“I married a slut who fucks like a prude.”

Andy, I do agree with you in part. Too much overt concern (i.e. asking) about a woman’s sexual past is indeed demonstrating lower value. Men whom women consider Alpha, the men that women already have a mental impression of, don’t overly concern themselves with women’s sexual pasts because those men have multiple options going.

On some level of consciousness women know that if what he can glean from interacting with her about her sexual past is off-putting to an Alpha he’ll simply eject and move on to a better prospect. An Alpha mindset is often very minimalist, blunt and direct, but there are aspects of interacting with women that come as a default for a man who is his own Mental Point of Origin. One of those unspoken aspects is a self-understanding that he has options (or can generate more) and this is manifested in his indifference to a woman’s long term sexual suitability. If she doesn’t enter his Frame, to his satisfaction, he moves on to the next prospect with very little communication.

However, we weren’t discussing non-exclusive dating/fucking; we’re discussing making an investment in a woman we’re vetting for our own parental investment. When you consider the all-downside risks a man must wager on that investment it behooves him to be his most particular about that woman’s sexual past and the consequences that YOU will be burdened with if you don’t vet wisely.

Most men (myself included at the time) have very sparse prerequisites when it comes to their considering a woman for marriage or even an LTR. This lack of insight is the result of a constant battery of shame and preconditioning by the Feminine Imperative that tells men any requisites they would have of a woman for marriage are ‘passing judgement’ on her character. He should consider himself “lucky” that any woman would have him for a husband (or “put up with him”) and his concerns about her are shameful, typically male character flaws on his part.

Consequentially men rarely permit themselves the luxury of putting their own considerations above that of a potential mate.

Vetting

If you asked a woman whether she would be wary of marrying a man who was a recovering alcoholic or a cleaned up heroin addict she’d probably disqualify him as a marriage prospect from the outset. And were she to go ahead and marry him anyway with full disclosure of his past addictions, would we be sympathetic with her if he were to relapse and she to bear the brunt of his past indiscretions?

Now suppose that woman married this former addict, but due to his being offended about her prying into his past, she was ignorant of his old addictions. She has her suspicions, but society tells her it’s not her purview to hold him accountable for anything that happened in his past.

He’s moved on and so should she, right? Any lingering consequences from his addictions (such as a DUI, criminal record or his unemployability) shouldn’t be held against him, nor should she judge him, nor should she consider those consequences whatsoever when she’s assessing his suitability for marriage now.

In fact, she should feel ashamed to even consider his past with regard to her feelings about who he is. Her judgementalism only points to her own character flaws.

Now, would we praise that woman for “following her heart” and marrying him? Would we hold her accountable for the decision to marry him if he relapses?

Reverse the genders and this scenario is precisely why women become so hostile when men even hint at ‘judging’ women’s past sexual decisions. There is a very well established operative social convention that the sisterhood will all unanimously get behind; and that is the ruthless shaming of men who would ask any questions about any woman’s sexual past. This is the degree of desperation that women feel during the Epiphany Phase when they acknowledge men becoming aware of their long term sexual strategy.

They understand that, in their Epiphany Phase, the clock is ticking down to zero. That’s the cause of a lot of anxiety. They are just beginning to understand that their marriageability (Beta Bucks) now conflicts with their previous short-term mating strategy (Alpha Fucks). As I detailed in Betas in Waiting, women of this age cannot afford to have their short term sexual strategy count against them at a time when they are at their most necessitous of what that Beta can provide towards her long term security.

Again, on some level of consciousness, women understand that were the ignorant Beta she’s decided to marry (start a family with or help her raise her illegitimate children with) becomes aware of what she did in her sexual past he too might expect that same degree of sexual performance. The performance she reserved for the men she perceived as Alpha and freely gave to them.

Women must keep the details of that past secret and obscured. So grave is this anxiety that men must be punished for having the temerity to be curious about it. It is vitally important because a woman’s capacity to bond with a man is reduced with every new sexual partner. Every new sexual partner is a potential Alpha to be widowed by, but the man who marries her must be kept ignorant of those men if she is to secure his resources and his parental investment.

This social convention operates on absolving women’s past indiscretions by redefining them as a period of learning who she would become. It was her “journey of self-discovery” and she’s “not that person” any more. Cleverly enough this is exactly the same convention and same rationale of women who divorce their husbands later in life to “take the journey of self-discovery” of Eat, Prey, Love she passed up when she was younger.

Knowing this, it is also vitally important for men to keep women’s dualistic sexual strategy in mind at every age of her maturity.

Lets not forget the advice of Sheryl Sandberg here:

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

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

Open Hypergamy is triumphantly crowed about when women are at their SMV peaks, and sometimes again once that woman has secured her long-term provider or divorced him, but when a woman is in her Epiphany Phase, when she’s anxious and frustrated in securing her own long term provisioning, that is when she will fall back on the social convention that shames men for their own awareness of the same Open Hypergamy they would otherwise flaunt for him.

So, now that we understand the latent purpose of this social convention, let me explain to every gentleman reading – vetting a woman’s sexual past is not just your prerogative, but an absolute imperative to the health of any future relationship you hope to have with her. When you consider the dire risks you are essentially setting yourself up for – risk no woman will EVER acknowledge or appreciate – the single most important thing you can do is vet that woman’s sexual past.

That doesn’t mean you make weak, DLV, overt inquiries about her past. It means you subtly, covertly and discretely pick up on the many cues and tells she will reveal that past with. Most men would rather use a direct approach to this, and while there’s merit to that, it’s far better to do your vetting by drawing out freely offered information. It’s much more honest and reliable. Once you go the direct route the jig is up and she will play the role she thinks you expect from her, not the honest one you need to make your determinations.

Sex is the glue that holds relationships together. It’s the height of irony that a woman would place so high a priority on her own sexual experiences while in her SMV peak yet completely disqualify that importance when she gets to the phase where it becomes a liability to her. As a man it is vitally important for you to know whether you’ll be her apex Alpha lover or if your burden of performance will be measured against the ghosts of Alpha men from her sexual past – all while you endure the stresses and joys of raising children with her.


27 Shades of The Modern Man

ModernManbrk-news

We interrupt your regular Rational Male blog reading for an important news bulletin. TRM sources confirm that a comprehensive list of aspects of the “Modern Man” has at last been identified by Brianna Brian Lombardi for the New York Times. Yes, you read that correctly, click-bait reliable sources have indeed confirmed the recognizable traits of the Modern Herb Man.

After a preschool upbringing replete with Cailou, heavily steeped in feminized gender self-loathing during his tween years, and topped off with a healthy dash of transgender reassignment therapy, a list of traits has finally been compiled to aid in women’s identifying an adult ‘Modern Man’.

I know, I know ladies, it’s a very difficult task to identify an acceptable guy for your Epiphany Phase necessities. What with ‘dating’ ALL “the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys“, it can be a daunting challenge to remember the characteristics that made all of the Nice Guys you blew off in your youth such a great catch,…timing is such a bitch, but now you’re ready to do things “the right way this time”, right?

The good news is they’ve all been waiting for you, like you asked them to way back when; and while their feminine conditioning has finally made them desirable for your just-pre-Wall long-term security necessity, they have gotten older and a bit more peculiar. No worries, Brittany Brian Lombardi has compiled a list for you so you can better discern he and his fellow ‘Modern Men’ today from the guys you proposed “lets just be friends” to ten years ago.

Lets have a look shall we?

1. When the modern man buys shoes for his spouse, he doesn’t have to ask her sister for the size. And he knows which brands run big or small.

Yes ladies, you’ll no longer be troubled with that hot club guy being callously indifferent to remembering your shoe size. The Modern Man is so identifying with the feminine, so in touch with it, he’s made a hobby of picking up women’s shoes and memorizing the sizes and brands in your ever growing collection. In fact, you’ll no longer be troubled with the joy hassle of shopping for cute shoes, the Modern Man will do it for you. Now you can get back all the ‘rewarding’ work of advancing your career.

2. The modern man never lets other people know when his confidence has sunk. He acts as if everything is going swimmingly until it is.

You see gals, the Modern Man knows women are far too burdened by the Patriarchy to ever consider a man’s acknowledgement of his own degree of self-confidence. In fact, his feminine conditioning has taught him well that no one is really concerned with his ‘privileged’ cis-centric concepts of male confidence. He knows the preconceptions of confidence only leads to actualizing his potential for violence. Far better to put a smile on his face and tangle with his inner demons without his concerning you overly much, don’t you think?

3. The modern man is considerate. At the movie theater, he won’t munch down a mouthful of popcorn during a quiet moment. He waits for some ruckus.

Walking on eggshells around women is the hallmark of a Modern Man. Rest assured girls, he knows the personal repercussions women will mete out should he commit a social faux pas. Not to worry though, the Modern Man wouldn’t so much as cough during the chick flick he suggested you both see on opening night.

4. The modern man doesn’t cut the fatty or charred bits off his fillet. Every bite of steak is a privilege, and it all goes down the hatch.

Would you look at that ladies? The Modern Man can still prompt a tingle by getting back to his caveman roots! You’ll just have to forgive him one uncouth vanity. He’s his own man when it comes to animal fat. That steak and the full beard he’s growing to go with his new flannel shirts (in between shoe shopping for his lady) are his privilege of being a man. Wait, did I say “privilege”? Oh, what a scamp he is, but he’s happy to accommodate you if you want to join his male space. Burp.

5. The modern man won’t blow 10 minutes of his life looking for the best parking spot. He finds a reasonable one and puts his car between the lines.

The act of parking a car might seem mundane to you, but au contraire. A Modern Man bucks the trend of spending 10 minutes (?) seeking the most perfect parking spot,…unless his lady is riding with him and then it’s a precious gift of the parking lot gods if he can manage a spot by the front entrance to WalMart. He may even do you the courtesy of dropping you off at the entrance and then forages for just the right spot.

6. Before the modern man heads off to bed, he makes sure his spouse’s phone and his kids’ electronic devices are charging for the night.

Because, God forbid, his wife or kids might be without their mobile device or social media accounts when they awake the next day. My God! How would they find out what occurred on Instagram while they slept? The Modern Man is so evolved, so limbicly in touch with the feminine mind that her unthought of needs become an obsessive compulsion for him.

7. The modern man buys only regular colas, like Coke or Dr Pepper. If you walk into his house looking for a Mountain Dew, he’ll show you the door.

You’ll just have to accept it gals; in addition to his women’s shoes fascination the Modern Man is an aficionado of processed sugar and high fructose corn syrup. So dedicated is he that his palate has become sensitive enough to disparage other men for not appreciating ‘real’ soft drinks. But, heheh, that’s just him “being a guy”, they’re soooo odd aren’t they?

8. The modern man uses the proper names for things. For example, he’ll say “helicopter,” not “chopper” like some gauche simpleton.

The Modern Man has rarely served his country in the military, so you’ll have to pardon his not understanding the distinction between a ‘helicopter’ and a ‘chopper’. However, beside a slight lisp and some feminine ‘vocal fry‘, the Modern Man’s vernacular is carefully chosen. He uses words like “gauche” and “simpleton” in casual conversation. See this link for more spoken examples.

9. Having a daughter makes the modern man more of a complete person. He learns new stuff every day.

Being a Modern Man requires you to identify more with the feminine, thus having a daughter completes him in ways a son would ever have the capacity too. In the back of his head he feels the nagging third-person guilt for China’s selective breeding practices of the past and hopes to “be the difference he wants to see in the world” by fulfilling the false narratives of the Feminine Imperative by personally investing himself in the ’empowerment’ of little girls at the expense of boys. It comes naturally to the Modern Man after being medicated himself for ADHD in his youth.

10. The modern man makes sure the dishes on the rack have dried completely before putting them away.

Lucky for you ladies, your Modern Man believes in the fantasy that is Choreplay so thoroughly he’ll forego using a modern dishwasher to wash the dishes by hand so you’ll notice how evolved he is. Because everyone knows the “unbridled lust” women feel when they see a man washing dishes by hand. Women agree, he’s practically owed sex at that point.

11. The modern man has never “pinned” a tweet, and he never will.

Because while the modern man is self-absorbed enough to use Pinterest, only a real solipsist narcissist pins a tweet.

12. The modern man checks the status of his Irish Spring bar before jumping in for a wash. Too small, it gets swapped out.

Ha! How cavalier! Isn’t it nice to have a Modern Man who’s indiscriminate enough to eat the fat and burnt parts of his steak, but is particular enough to toss out a bar of soap when it’s too small?

13. The modern man listens to Wu-Tang at least once a week.

Because how else would he remain in touch with his roots?

14. The modern man still jots down his grocery list on a piece of scratch paper. The market is no place for his face to be buried in the phone.

Yes ladies, you’ll find the Modern Man so engrossed with stereotypically feminine tasks (in an effort to buck a trend he still thinks earns him points with women), he’ll raise grocery shopping to an art form. He’s rustic enough to still use a pad and paper to scribble out his carefully planned grocery list (which of course implies he’s also become an accomplished cook in order to add some value to his SMV). I’ll bet you can just taste the artisanal lasagne from Whole Foods now.

15. The modern man has hardwood flooring. His children can detect his mood from the stamp of his Kenneth Cole oxfords.

The Modern Man loves the sound of his shoes on locally sourced woods beneath his feet so long as he’s not the one who had to install it. Remember, the Modern Man is defined by his shoes (again).

16. The modern man lies on the side of the bed closer to the door. If an intruder gets in, he will try to fight him off, so that his wife has a chance to get away.

Ladies you can sleep better at night knowing your Modern Man has spent the mental energy to position himself between you and any home intrusion. He’s carefully thought it through and accepts his disposability in the light of the odds he’d be easily incapacitated and left to bleed out while watching you be gang raped as his dying memory.

17. Does the modern man have a melon baller? What do you think? How else would the cantaloupe, watermelon and honeydew he serves be so uniformly shaped?

So in touch with his feminine animus is the Modern Man that he often becomes indistinguishable from Martha Stewart in his zeal to entertain his dinner guests. Perfectly shaped melon balls are just one more social anxiety you’ll be freed from with your Modern Man girls.

18. The modern man has thought seriously about buying a shoehorn.

The Modern Man’s obsession with shoes (for either sex) will not be restricted by size discrepancies.

19. The modern man buys fresh flowers more to surprise his wife than to say he is sorry.

The Modern Man is a virtual florist ladies. His mother and even his female co-workers will never be left out of his boundless consideration. Flowers never come as an apology since there is never a reason for apology with him. Rest assured his niceties come from actually being a Nice Guy and never with the ulterior motive of expectations of intimacy.

20. On occasion, the modern man is the little spoon. Some nights, when he is feeling down or vulnerable, he needs an emotional and physical shield.

Never forget gals, your Modern Man is a sensitive soul, prone to fits of crying when the movie’s sad enough. Should you ever spare an afterthought, remember, that smile on his face is just a placeholder until things are going along swimmingly. Just be sure to remember, when you’re spooning him like a toddler afraid of a thunderstorm, be sure he’s still facing the door side of the bed so he can interpose himself between you and the home intruder.

21. The modern man doesn’t scold his daughter when she sneezes while eating an apple doughnut, even if the pieces fly everywhere.

This should be a no-brainer considering the completedness-of-person he derives from empowering her to the exclusion of boys.

22. The modern man still ambles half-naked down his driveway each morning to scoop up a crisp newspaper.

Yes, gals that rugged individualism is not only expressed in his lack of self-consciousness (unless it’s shoes), but also in his rustic dedication to actually subscribing to a newspaper as it dies a slow media death. That damn paper boy better make sure it arrives ‘crisp’ or no Christmas time tip!

23. The modern man has all of Michael Mann’s films on Blu-ray (or whatever the highest quality thing is at the time).

Because, God knows where the Modern Man would be without the ability to re-watch classics like Hancock and the Miami Vice remake in 4K resolution.

24. The modern man doesn’t get hung up on his phone’s battery percentage. If it needs to run flat, so be it.

Sorry ladies, the Modern Man often becomes so overly conscious about your own mobile devices being charged throughout the night that he cavalierly forgets his own cell phone might run flat. You’ll just have to deal with his forgetfulness, but it is for your benefit. 1st World problems, what can you do?

25. The modern man has no use for a gun. He doesn’t own one, and he never will.

Well, at least you can be confident that he’s dedicated to making sure his inevitable death will give you the time needed to escape that home intruder’s malicious intent when the time comes. Just be sure to give him the proper push towards the bedroom door if he happens to be the ‘little’ spoon and feeling vulnerable that night.

26. The modern man cries. He cries often.

Well, finally ladies, you’ve got a guy who can cry on demand,…or is it by demand? But remember this is the next state in men’s evolutionary progress; a response to women’s crying eliciting sympathy and concern. Men’s facility with crying as a go-to response (he cries often) is just evidence of his closer identification and affinity with the feminine. It’s your dream come true! Now your Modern Man can relate to you as well as your closest girlfriends.

27. People aren’t sure if the modern man is a good dancer or not. That is, until the D.J. plays his jam and he goes out there and puts on a clinic.

And finally, you’ve got a new, modern, evolved man who can turn physical spasms into an art form, and have so little self-awareness that the laughter he hears is affirmation instead of ridicule.

Well, there you have it girls, you’ve finally got the men you deserved, the men you helped create, the men who are so in touch with their femininity that you’ll have little use for your gal-pals any more. But that’s OK, right?

The Modern Man has been patiently waiting for you to get the Bad Boys out of your system and he’s evolved enough to accept his retroactive cuckolding forgive your youthful indiscretion. The Modern Man understands that you were “so crazy back in college” and you want to do things right with him. The Modern Man is so in touch with the feminine, so evolved that he’s ready to look past your previous hesitations with him, look past the ease with which you gave it up to the ‘crazy boys, the commitment-phobic boys’; the greater degree of qualifications and your reluctance to jump into bed with him as quick only proves how much you’re changed and how much better he, the Modern Man, must be in relation to all those ‘other guys’.

Just be sure you’re sleeping on the right side of the bed when you do.


Planned Obsolescence

ex-machina

The mainstream loves a salacious story about the sexual misconducts of men. With the recent Ashley Madison data leak the narrative was one of blaming and shaming the overwhelming majority of men who signed up for an account to cheat in their spouses. This has resulted in more than one suicide. A topic of the Man in Demand Q&A session I fielded was how the Red Pill lens isn’t limited to just scoffing at the Blue Pill in popular media, but that it also gives men a sensitivity and awareness to better understand the motivations for social narratives like this.

Red Pill aware men understand that if there is an opportunity to cast blame or doubt on a man over his sexual impulse, or the consequences for allowing it to lead to behavior that conflicts with a feminine-primary social order, shaming will always be the go-to, socially acceptable strategy. Sex will always be a clichéd thumbscrew to gauge men’s personal resolve, and this is a built-in failsafe of control for the Blue Pill’s conditioning of men.

Red Pill men understand the motivating incentives for this “cheating” and that in a westernizing culture, 50%+ of marriages are clinically and practically sexless, it’s not hard to understand the want for a man to find some temporary sexual release in infidelity, porn or delusions of emotional infidelity. It’s also easy to understand how the paradox of commitment would drive such men to suicide.

This is simply one data point of many in a larger Red Pill awareness that indicates some very uncomfortable truths women need to confront; whether single or married, men will actively seek a practical solution to their sexlessness. And it is just this sexual problem solving that will ultimately challenge women’s unilateral, social and personal power over their own Hypergamy. On a limbic level women and the imperative are aware of this challenge. Thus, it’s controlled for by investing in conditioning men to feel guilt or shaming for ever embracing their masculine sexual nature. It’s a threat.

Keep this fact in mind as I explore today’s topic. Women and feminine-primary culture have done an amazing job at commodifying women’s singular, primary agency with men – their physicality and sexual availability. It’s de rigueur in the manosphere to write articles about women reducing themselves to being next to valueless to men beyond their sexual attributes. I’ve written in the past about women’s commodifying love and sex, however recently women are being forced to face the realities of making their sexuality a commodity.

What women, both prominent and insignificant, are coming to realize is that the ultimate plan of feminism (destroying the evolved, complementary family structure of parenting) is really a planned obsolescence for womankind. As I was coming to this realization I found it rather ironic that only 5 years ago we had the likes of Hannah Rosin profiting from the idea that men were (or were becoming) obsolete. Five years later it appears the fear now is that it’s women who will become obsolete in the most literal, commodified sense. That fear is beginning to show.

In the Future Sexbots will Drink Feminist Tears

If you follow me on twitter or you’re even peripherally aware of MSM gender sensationalism in a Red Pill context you’ll know that the topic du jour this week is the coming, realistic, availability of robotic sex partners and the efforts being made to legislate against their development by ‘concerned’ women. Heartiste and many other manosphere writers naturally picked up on this. I particularly enjoyed Milo Yiannopoulos’ piece Sexbots: Why Women Should Worry.

But male sexual appetites are easily satisfied, despite what women will tell you. Blow jobs really aren’t that difficult, and in any case most blokes are fine with a pizza and a wank. For many men, sex is a nice bonus, but it’s not essential. When you introduce a low-cost alternative to women that comes without all the nagging, insecurity and expense, frankly men are going to leap in headfirst.

One of the primary and evolved differences in men and women’s neural firmware is that men are natural and intrinsic problem solvers. I’ve pointed it out in many an essay; men are wired to solve problems with a rudimentary, deductive logic process. It’s one of the reasons we get ourselves into such horribly misled predicaments with women; we expect a binary, A to B to C level of reason with women (reinforced by equalist ideology) and deductively try to solve a sex and intimacy problem with them.

Improvisation and innovation are what we do to live better; one reason men naturally view women as sex objects is literally due to wiring in our brains that predispose us to using tools. So it’s really not much of a stretch to see how men will use this inventiveness to solve a need for sex. And in an intersexual social environment that’s predicated on the commodification of sex, well, you can see how the advancement of sexual substitutes and virtual sexual experiences would be driven by supply and demand.

It’s science fiction at this stage, but the ball is rolling and this is causing the Feminine Imperative to confront uncomfortable possibilities with just the proposition of having a sexual monopoly disrupted be the innovations of men.

Do Robots Dream of Electric Sin?

As might be expected, Dalrock took a shot at this story from a Christian moralistic angle – would sex with a convincing facsimile of a woman qualify as sinning?

InnocentBystanderBoston had a good comment in that thread:

Aside from the purely moral question, there is another risk regarding sexbots. Our economy is built on the expectation that men will be motivated by marriage to produce in excess of their own needs. As we continue to degrade marriage, sexbots will be there to fill the gaps.

…with unilateral divorce law and the accompanying cash and prizes awarded to the female courtesy of judges immersed in the feminist imperative, I think s-xbots pretty much end marriage. If marriage isn’t completely destroyed forever with version 2.0, the s-xbot will most certainly destroy it. And why? The s-xbot will always give you s-x on demand. It will stay at home, faithful to you. It will not spend your money and ruin your credit rating. It will not get a judge to sign a restraining order against you. It can’t divorce you and take cash and prizes. It will never age maintaining its peak SMV forever (if you believe in Rollo’s charts.) So that will pretty much be it for feminism. Without the surplus wealth created by men to subsidize the parasitic nature of feminist centric Marriage 2.0, there can be no feminism. Women are net wealth consumers. Without husbands, there lives will ONLY be in decline. The feminist imperative can NOT allow these s-xbots to be made.

On a rudimentary level feminism has always recognized that women’s only real agency with men is sex. We can see this in the feminine-centric commodification of sex, and we can see this truth in (third wave) feminism’s embrace of sex positivity – but again, only within the confines of a feminine-centric and unilaterally feminine controlled context for that sex to happen in.

The increasingly more accepted Yes Means Yes legalistic checklist that underwrites sexual relations (for what feminists know will always be defined by ambiguous circumstances) is a glaring example of this litigious overreach in an effort to lock down unilateral control of Hypergamy for women. This is the degree of paranoia that the doubt of Hypergamous insecurity inspires in those women less capable of intrasexual competition with their sisters to secure it.

When granted the social facilities to do so, women will always base their personal choices, their personal ideologies, their social order and their legislative doctrines around relieving themselves of Hypergamous doubt and insecurities. In truth, women’s evolved socio-sexual filtering ensures that there is no practical relief from this. There is no 100% assuredness of Hypergamous choice; Hypergamy doubts optimization even after the best of choices, but if given the power, women will build a social order around an attempt to mutually allay that doubt, allay that sexual competition anxiety, and all at men’s expense and disempowerment.

Becoming Obsolete

If you ever need an example of the duplicity with which the Feminine Imperative really aligns itself with equalism, look no further than how that “equality” is expressed with preferring pro-feminine solutions to social problems.

There is a fundamental fear women experience in just the prospect of not having 100% control over their sexual selection, sexual strategy and ultimately optimization of their Hypergamy. Anything that challenges women’s unilateral control of their Hypergamous power – such as prostitution, male hormonal birth control, female viagra, DNA testing for paternity and now sexbots – must be ruthlessly and preemptively legislated against if feminine social primacy is to be maintained. Even the idea of sexbots destroying women’s monopoly on sex, however fantastical, must be eliminated before it becomes a threat.

Kathleen Richardson, a professor at De Montfort University in England, serves as an excellent example of this axiom:

“Sex robots seem to be a growing focus in the robotics industry and the models that they draw on — how they will look, what roles they would play — are very disturbing indeed,” she told the BBC.

She believes that they reinforce traditional stereotypes of women and the view that a relationship need be nothing more than physical.

“We think that the creation of such robots will contribute to detrimental relationships between men and women, adults and children, men and men and women and women,” she said.

I would agree that it is detrimental in these terms, but the fear of losing feminine primacy is evident in just the prospect of sexbots.

The squid ink here is the concern for reinforcing “traditional stereotypes” of women for the almost unanimously male demographic who’d buy a sexual substitute (notice there is no call for creating morbidly obese variants of sexbots). The real fear is that men prefer that stereotype and it would force women to confront the truth that if they don’t accommodate men’s physical and psychological preferences (conventional femininity) they will progressively devalue women’s sexual agency over them by opting for the sexbot.

And that is a very pressing threat to women’s control over Hypergamy.

What were witnessing here is the acknowledgement that shaming men for their inventiveness in resolving their sexual needs isn’t working. Thus the social and legislative power the Feminine Imperative wields has to be invoked. Naturally there will be “think of the children” appeals and the admonishments of dehumanization on the part of men, but the binary truth is that women’s prime commodity (sex) could be reduced to making women obsolete.

The following is an exchange between Vitriol and YaReally from the last post.

“However, the biggest secret they all want to hide is that using money, whether doing something like you described or paying for pussy outright, is the most efficient way to get laid. If your main goal is to get laid as much as possible, does it matter whether you followed some arbitrary rules that some guy posted on the internet along the way? ”

lol brb taking a helicopter to the top of Mount Everest because it’s more efficient than those dumbasses who actually CLIMB it. It DOES matter to men who’s goal isn’t “to get laid as much as possible” but is “to get laid by girls who are legitimately into me, as much as possible”. To each their own.

If we accept the Pareto Principle as a rough guideline, 80% of men are Betas who simply don’t care to, or accept that they don’t have the capacity to, concern themselves with learning how to “get laid with girls who are genuinely into them.” They’ll create every manner of rationale to convince themselves that the girl who solves his sexual thirst is genuinely into him, or he’ll opt for the most available, most feasible, means to resolve that sexual deprivation. The ubiquitousness of free, easily accessible, streaming hi-def pornography is a testament to this dynamic.

Whether the reality of convincing sexbots is ever achieved isn’t really relevant in this equation, the fear of losing primary control of Hypergamy is what’s at stake. We see this fear manifested in criminalizing prostitution and the shame of men seeking sexual release via pornography and Ashley Madison accounts.

Recently I was asked about my take on the legal pushback on the part of women to regulate or outright ban the FDA approval of the female form of Viagra. From the socially acceptable perspective the fear is that the drug might be used as another (more effective) date rape drug. From a Red Pill perspective the fear is, once again, rooted in women’s fear of men circumventing women’s sexual strategy by chemically influencing their arousal process.

It’s one thing to forcibly rape a woman and thereby take control of her Hypergamous choice, but it quite another to prompt her into engaging in sex she is influenced to by some extrinsic means. As such, women’s sexual selection and Hypergamous optimization is effectively mitigated if not removed from the sexual equation by an invention of men. So once again we see the nervous efforts of the Feminine Imperative to ban any prospective attempts by men to exercise even a marginal control over Hypergamy.

Women have access to safe and legal abortion (a Hypergamous control), but a drug that might influence their libido and thus lead them to sexual choices they might no otherwise control and make, even the idea of that innovation needs regulation. Remove women from the sexual selection and arousal process and you make their only value – the value westernized women have systematically established for themselves – effectively obsolete.

That’s not a judgement call. Women tend to conflate their personal, intrinsic value with their sexual market value. However, in the SMP that is predicated upon women’s only value to men being sexual (not as life mates, mothers, or personal worth), the monopoly of sexual leverage becomes toothless.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 10,358 other followers