Category Archives: Positive Masculinity

The Myth of the ‘Good’ Guy

Janus

For as often as I’ve made my best attempts to define what I believe constitutes feminine Hypergamy on this blog, it seems that critics of the red pill, and even newer, well-meaning  red pill advocates, are beginning to think of Hypergamy as some convenient trope that manosphereans refer to when they want to explain away some annoyingly female trait.

Is she shit testing you? Must be Hypergamy. She broke a nail? Must be Hypergamy.

There is a very real want for understanding things in as simplistic a solution as possible, but feminine Hypergamy isn’t a dynamic that lends itself to a simple definitions. One of the reasons the early proponents of PUA ran into issues with legitimizing their ideas was due to so many of their ‘students’ seeking out easily digestible answers to solve their ‘girl problems’. As I laid out in Dream Girls and Children with Dynamite, these guys wanted the tl;dr (too long; didn’t read) footnote version of what to do in order to get to the silver bullet, magic formula part of the lesson to either get with their dream girl or “start fucking hot bitches”.

It is exactly this mentality that’s now causing such frustration in understanding Hypergamy and seeing how it works, not just in individual women’s personal decisions, but as a societally influencing force of the Feminine Imperative. Hypergamy is not a “math is hard” dynamic, but because it requires a comprehensive (and evolving) understanding it seems like the go-to throwaway answer to women’s behaviors and mental schemas to men (usually new to the red pill) without the patience to really invest themselves into grasping it.

I’ve defined Hypergamy so often on this blog that if you search the term “hypergamy” in Google, the Rational Male blog is the number two return below the wikipedia definition. As I write my way through the second volume of the Rational Male book I’ve found that a concise understanding of feminine Hypergamy is vital to grasping so much of the social and psychological dynamics that are a result of it. Every PUA technique, every common frustration MGTOW experience, and every gender-biased social injustice MRAs set themselves against, all find their roots in feminine Hypergamy, women’s pluralistic sexual strategy and the social and legal manifestation employed to ensure maximal feminine social primacy in optimizing Hypergamy.

Looks vs Character (Game)

Over the course of the past five or so posts, the topic of discussion in the comment threads has eventually found its way back to the basics of Looks versus Character (or Game, depending on your perspective of how learning affects character). Only discussions over what constitutes ‘Alpha’ in a man are so contentious as the importance women prioritize physical arousal in men.

I’ve already covered this debate and what I believe influences women’s arousal priorities in the Looks Count and Have A Look posts. My intent with today’s post isn’t to reheat these old debates, but rather to investigate a bit further into the connection between Hypergamy and this arousal prioritization.

First and foremost it’s important to understand the part that women’s biologies play in influencing Hypergamy and how women’s biology is more or less the point of origin for how they conduct their sexual strategy. To review, I’ll ask that readers refer to my post Your Friend Menstruation, but the basis of women’s sexual pluralism is found in the natural attraction predispositions that women experience as a result of (healthy) ovulation.

In her up cycle (proliferative) phase of ovulation, women are psychologically and behaviorally motivated to prioritize physical arousal above all other breeding considerations. In her down cycle (post-ovulation, luteal phase) women a similarly motivated to prioritize comfort, rapport, and long term security to ensure parental investment and benefit survival.

What I’ve described here, in as brief a fashion, is the foundation of Ovulatory Shift. There exists over a decade’s worth of experimental psychological and biological evidence supporting this theory. Due to biological and psychological influence, women become subliminally predisposed to behaviors which maximize fertility odds with the best available breeding opportunity, and maximize the best potential for long term provisioning and parental investment.

Whether this behavior is manifested in a preference for more masculinized male faces and body type, greater ornamentation and lower vocal intonation for women during ovulation, or a predisposition for more comforting, nurturing and supportive male characteristics during her luteal phase, the end result is optimizing Hypergamy, and ultimately reproduction.

For further reading on Ovulatory Shift, see the research of Martie Hasselton.

Arousal vs. Attraction

From last week’s post, in one of his less long-winded comments, commenter Siirtyrion inserted this bit of evolutionary truth:

Females only receive two quantities of evolutionary value from males – direct benefits (observed in long-term mating, with implications for the survival of offspring), and genetic benefits (observed through indications of physical attractiveness in her mate). And since females can receive genetic benefits outside of marriage (i.e. through casual sexual encounters), and no longer need rely upon mates for the survival of their offspring, there is no pressure for them to compromise on holding out for an unlikely (long-term) fantasy partner.

This current social pattern increases highly male variance in mating success, because female sexual choices always tend towards small male breeding populations (narrow range of male phenotypes), while male ‘preferences’ are inclusive of a broad range in female variance.

I believe one of the main contentions Siirtyrion kind of needles with this is that, as described, modern conveniences of female social empowerment (actual or imagined) discounts the need for hypergamic assurances of long term security. I’m not so willing to accept an overall disregard for the provisioning aspect (Beta Bucks) – you’re not going to reprogram millennia of psychologically evolved firmware overnight – but in discounting this need, the characteristics for which women would seek out a male exemplifying the best long-term security are deemphasized if not considered entirely.

If you read through any woman’s online dating profile you undoubtedly come across some variation of what Roissy has described as the “483 bullet point checklist” of stated prerequisites a man must possess in order for her to consider him a viable candidate for her intimacy. While I don’t think there are quite that many items on the checklist, you’ll find a host of common-theme personal qualities a guy has to have in order to be her boyfriend – confident (above all), humorous, kind, intelligent, creative, decisive, sensitive, respectful, spiritual, patient,..I could go on or you could just read this old joke.

The point is that all of these characteristics that women list as being ‘attractive’ have absolutely no bearing on how sexually, physically, ‘arousing’ a woman finds a man. As I’ve described in the past, while Game and personality can certainly accentuate arousal, all of these esoteric personal qualities have no intrinsic  “‘gina tingle” value if a man isn’t an arousal prospect to begin with.

The confusion that most Beta men make is presuming that what women list as being necessarily ‘attractive’ IS what makes him ‘arousing’. So when he models himself (often over the course of a lifetime) to personally identify with this checklist of attractive prerequisites he’s often frustrated and angered when all of that personal development makes for little difference when a woman opts to regularly fuck men of a better physical standard.

It’s duplicity of a sort, but it is also a strategy of deliberate confusion.

It may not be a woman’s conscious plan, but this deliberate confusion makes the best pragmatic sense to effect an optimized Hypergamy. Remember that Hypergamy is not just Alpha Fucks, it’s also Beta Bucks … if a bit delayed in her life in order to maximize Alpha Fucks. So when a woman describes what she finds “attractive” in a man this list will include all of the above bullet point characteristics because they “sound right” – because they shine her in the best light, yes, but also because in being so concerned she imputes the idea that she’s following the ‘right’ plan of looking for a good man to have a future with, and raise kids with.

Then and Now

This is going to sound like I’m glossing myself, but bear with me – I can remember how effortless sex used to be for me when I was in my 20’s. I had sex outdoors, in cars, hotel rooms, in hot tubs, in the steam room of an all women’s gym (after hours), I even got after it with a girlfriend in the balcony of a church in L.A. once (again after hours, no one around, only for convenience I assure you). Mostly I didn’t have a dime to my name, but I still had one of two fuck-buddies who would literally come to the bedroom window of my apartment to fuck me in the morning once or twice a week before I went off to the community college I was going to.

The point is there was no pretense of ‘attraction’ being anything other than a girl and I enjoying ourselves then. There was no ‘checklist’ of acceptable pre-qualifications for intimacy. The providership necessity that dictates a need for long-term consideration wasn’t even an afterthought; in other words, the Beta Bucks / Character / Integrity aspect of Hypergamy that women publicly claim is a dealbreaker for real intimacy was prioritized far below Alpha Fucks sexual urgency.

You can say these were just the types of girls I was getting with at the time, but courtesy of social media, I assure you, you would think these women would never have had that capacity now. They were all “sooo different when they were in college.”

It’s not until after a woman’s Epiphany Phase at around the time she becomes aware of her SMV decline that she begins to consider making that Beta Bucks checklist any kind of prerequisite for sex and intimate partnering. However, this epiphany isn’t the sudden revelation women would like men to believe it is.

For the life of me I can’t remember where I read the link, but I was reading a ‘Dear Abby’ sort of advice seeking article from a young girl (early 20’s) who was exasperated over finding the “perfect guy” only she couldn’t ‘get with him now‘. Her words were something like “He’s so great, awesome personality, funny, in love with me, supportive, etc., but I wish I could freeze him in time so he’d be the same guy and waiting for me when I turn 29 or 30.”

On some level of consciousness, like most women, she knows the dictates of what her own Hypergamy is predisposing her to. She knows she’ll eventually need that ‘perfect’ supportive, in-love guy to live out the long-term aspect of her Hypergamy with,…after she’s exhausted her short term breeding potential with men who better embody the Alpha Fucks dictates of her Hypergamy.

Arousal Preparation vs. Provisioning Preparation

For all of Siirtyrion’s vernacular, I will have to agree (to a point) that the balance between women’s short term breeding impulse and the long term provisioning needs Hypergamy predisposes them to now strongly favors the Alpha sex side of that optimization.

In Open Hypergamy I made a case for the aspect of an ‘old order’ of Beta Provisioning being a previously ‘attractive’ element for women’s determining long term suitability with a man, and that this old order was being replaced with other, extrinsic means of ensuring a woman’s security needs. Whether by social funding, or by indenturing men to provide for women’s wellbeing through other social conventions the effect is an imbalance between the dual nature of women’s sexual strategy.

However, I also feel it goes beyond just the social element now. Men are still confused by a feminine conditioning which wants to ‘freeze’ him in time in order to be the dutiful ‘perfect’ guy, ready to be thawed out and ready to serve the Feminine Imperative at a woman’s convenience.

While still convenient, men must be conditioned to confuse him that ‘attraction’ qualities are ‘arousal’ qualities in order to have him ready to be ‘perfect’ at his appointed time – and it is women who need to believe for themselves that this is what they think should be true.

The Myth of the ‘Good’ Guy

In the beginning of one of my earliest posts, Schedules of Mating, I briefly refer to the ideally balanced guy who would satisfy the optimization purpose of women’s Hypergamy:

There are methods and social contrivances women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male’s genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she’s capable of attracting. Ideally the best Man should exemplify both, but rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by an innate need for security, the feminine as a whole had to develop social conventions and methodologies (which change as her environment and personal conditions do) to effect this.

There is a dichotomy that exists for men in this respect, which really has no parallel for women.

I am aware of certain (formerly red pill) bloggers who promote the archetype of a ‘Good’ guy as some role for men to ideally aspire to. The ‘Alpha Cad’ archetype must necessarily become the ‘douchebag’ caricature of an overtly distasteful masculinity (for men less able to embody it) and yet, the opposite caricature of the doormat, supplicating ‘Beta Dad’ is equally distasteful and certainly untenable when we consider that ‘attractive’ qualities are never ‘arousing’ qualities.

So the archetype of the ‘Good’ guy is offered up as some sort of livable, compromised ideal. If men could aspire to embody the best of the Alpha and temper that with what they define themselves as the best of the Beta, well then he’d be the ‘perfect’ catch for any woman of course.

The problem with this ‘Good Guy’ myth is not because men can’t or wouldn’t want to try to balance women’s Hypergamy for them, but simply because women neither want nor expect that balance in the same man to begin with.

It comes back to the Just Get It principle for women – any guy who needs to make a concerned effort to become what he expects women will want from him to be ‘the perfect guy’ doesn’t get it. They want Mr. Perfect because that is who he already is.

I mentioned above that there really is no parallel for this in women and I’m sure the Madonna / Whore dichotomy will be mentioned in the comments later, but allow me to point out that there is no concerted parallel social effort on the part of women in which women prompt each other to become a ‘Good Girl’ in order to satisfy the ideals of men. If anything a hostile opposite resistance to this is most true.

Women neither expect nor want a ‘Good Guy’ because he’s not believable, and his genuineness is always doubtable. That may sound jaded, but throw away any idea of being a ‘Good Guy’ balance of Alpha and Beta, because the Beta side of ‘good’ is so reinforced and common in men that it’s become the default template for women’s perception of you.

There is no Alpha with a side of Beta, there is only the man who’s genuine concern is first for himself, the man who prepares and provisions for himself, the man who maintains Frame to the point of arrogance because that’s who he is and what he genuinely merits. There is only the Man who improves his circumstance for his own benefit, and then, by association and merit, the benefit of those whom he loves and befriends.

That’s the Man who Just Gets It.


Back to Basics

basics

 

In last week’s post my intent was to shed some light on how an idealized state of egalitarian equalism and gender parity is always at odds with our ‘feral’ natures which evolved not due to co-equal partnership between the sexes, but from a complementarity between the sexes that fostered the then mutually beneficial imperatives of both.

Any time I suggest the ‘nature’ of how human beings’ evolved psyches influence our personal and social interaction in the now, I’m always going to get resistance from the “rise above our natures” faction of humanistic (and moralistic) hopefuls that insist the instinctual natures which made us such a successful species can (or should) be sublimated by our higher rational (or spiritual) selves.

I can fully relate with those who see the red pill as cynical or pessimistic.

When egalitarian equalism has been the model you’ve been conditioned to believe from birth is the only viable model to base a society and personal relation on, anything different, especially brutal observable realities, is going to smack of cynicism and defeatism.

One reason I believe most guys, either reject the concept of Alpha or want Alpha to fit into a super-heroic ‘leader-of-men’ archetypal definition is because it agrees better with an egalitarian mindset. Most women like to cast Alpha in this way because it serves the public relations aspect of their hypergamy better – Beta men make better, more dedicated resource providers when the only message they hear is what they’re doing is ‘the real Alpha’.

It’s not until men are confronted with the cruel realities in real time that they have an opportunity to learn from experience that, for as much as they want to cling to the ‘open communication / rise above our programming’ memes of egalitarianism, the observable (often painful) reality is one where women’s instinctual natures dictate their behaviors. And, as might be expected of an equalist mindset, those behaviors are then excused and rationalized as forgivable “human vulnerabilities” – and if you don’t forgive them, you risk being judgmental and further fail to live up to the egalitarian equalist/humanist ideal.

The Feral Woman

As loathe as I am to give the HuffPo any link love, I read with interest Why Great Husbands Are Being Abandoned. I’m going to quote some of it here, but I do so because it seems to me that even the bastions of equalist thought are finally, begrudgingly, coming to terms with the inherent failings of reconciling equalism with evolved, conventional, complementarity among the sexes.

In the last few decades women have slowly driven their point home. The millennial men, who are their current counterparts, are freer thinkers and they have responded in kind in their relationships as well. These men like their women strong and feisty, and have willingly accepted the responsibility to connect in a more vulnerable way. They get it that it’s sexy to help make a meal or take the kids away on a Sunday morning so their wives can sleep in. They are the androgynous guys that their women have asked them to become.

You would think that the women in these new relationships would be ecstatic. They’ve got a guy who wants to work out together, share parenting, support their parallel dreams, and make their family collective central to both of their lives. They’ve established an equal relationship of coordinated teamwork, and the guys don’t seem to miss their old need to posture for power over intimate connections.

Well, guess again. Fifty percent of marriages are still ending in divorce, and women continue to be the gender that initiates those endings. In the past, their reasons for leaving most often had to do with infidelity, neglect, or abuse. Now they’re dumping men who are faithful, attentive, and respectful, the very men they said they have always wanted. Why would women who have accomplished the female dream suddenly not be satisfied with it? Why are they leaving these ideal guys, and for what reasons?

I am currently dealing with several of these great husbands. They are, across the board, respectful, quality, caring, devoted, cherishing, authentic, and supportive guys whose wives have left them for a different kind of man. These once-beloved men make a living, love their kids, help with chores, support aging parents, and support their mate’s desires and interests. They believe they’ve done everything right. They are devastated, confused, disoriented, and heartsick. In a tragic way, they startlingly resemble the disheartened women of the past who were left behind by men who “just wanted something new.”

You may think that these women are ruthless and inconsiderate. Those I know are far from that. More often, they still love their husbands as much as they ever did, but in a different way. They tell me how wonderful their men are and how much they respect them. They just don’t want to be married to them anymore.

I read this article after I’d read the plea for Traditional Masculinity in the Jezebel groupthink article I linked in last week’s post and it struck me that along with the societal emphasis on a more overt and open hypergamy comes a need to reconcile it with equalism. This is proving to be a tall order as articles of this nature illustrate.

It’s important to understand that this internal conflict isn’t coming from men trying to square their sexual impulses with their higher-self aspiration of honor, duty and integrity. This conflict is coming from women who’ve been raised with expectations of gender parity, equalism and ‘open communication’ to resolve differences.

These women are now observing their own behavior and trying to reconcile the base feral motivators (hypergamy) with “how things ought to be” in an idealized state of egalitarian equalism.

These women cannot help but see the very observable consequences of open hypergamy now. I don’t necessarily disagree with the conclusions Randi Gunther comes to at the end of this article, I just disagree with how he comes to them.

Then things started to go awry. Perhaps these androgynous couples over-valued adopting the same behaviors in their relationship. Maybe the men got too nice and the women a little too challenging. Oddly, the androgynous men seemed to like their new-found emotional availability, while the women began to feel more unfulfilled. Her “perfect” partner, in the process of reclaiming his full emotional expressiveness, somehow ended up paying an unfair price; he was no longer able to command the hierarchical respect from her that was once his inalienable right.

What Randi doesn’t consider is the natural complementary states men and women’s psychological firmware descended from since our hunter-gatherer tribal beginnings. He can’t consider it because it disagrees with the ‘higher-selves overcoming our natural state’ aspect of egalitarian humanism.

But the observable truth is right there in front of him, with his head in his hands, so he can’t ignore it. Naturally the first recourse is to force fit this truth into a more palatable egalitarian framework, but even this falls flat (as evidenced by the predictably dismissive comments). What he and the commenters can’t reconcile is the truth of the androgynous men directly created by egalitarian equalism and the natural and instinctual predisposition of feminine hypergamy.

Red pill aware men see this for what it is because we’re accepting of the truth of women’s feral natures and what it prompts them to, but this is an excellent illustration of the primary differences between a red and blue pill mindset.

There is a primal need women have for natural masculine dominance. Whether this dominance is physical (looks and sexual prowess), psychological (Game) or provisional, women are seeking a dominance that an androgynous man is incapable of providing. As I’ve stated in prior posts, androgyny is homogeny, and nature stagnates (and often dies out) in conditions of homogeny. Androgynous men, by definition aren’t men – they are neither masculine or feminine – so is it any surprise that women’s innate, heteronormative, subliminal and tingle inducing need for a traditionally masculine man is frustrated by the same egalitarian mindset they’ve fostered in compliant men for so long?

Primal femininity is confused and frustrated by blank-slate equalism.

The Blue Pill Painted Red

As open hypergamy and the conflict between equalism and complementarity becomes more evident the advocates for that ‘touchy-feely’ “men need to be more balanced with Beta” sentimentalism will find it increasingly more difficult to sell that brand of equalism.

I’m aware of many a former (nominally) red pill blogger who’s dropped their previous advocacy for masculine (Alpha) attributes being arousing/attractive in favor of a diluted blue pill ‘new age sensitive guy’ message that better resonates with his increasingly female readership. While spinning just enough red pill into what accounts for a blue pill ideology might make for better, temporary, revenue, it only aggravates the same conflict between equalism and complementarity that Gunther here is exposing.

The DeadBedrooms subreddit is an excellent example of this conflict. I’ll warn you now, this forum will depress you, but virtually every personal admission here is a testament to what men were conditioned to believe women would want in a man, in a relationship, and the empirical results of the imbalance between a blue pill mindset and a red pill reality.

The popular message, the socially acceptable one, is that what makes a man an ideal long term partner will necessarily make him a tingle inducing sexual prospect. It sounds right, and it lifts women on whole up to a more idealized, humanist, higher-self.

Prior to the push for a more open hypergamy, what woman wanted to cop to love fucking the bad boys and “best sex ever” short term partners? No dutiful Beta wants to hear that truth, so the praises of the “respectful, quality, caring, devoted, cherishing, authentic, and supportive” guys are sung.

It may sell books and increase click-thru traffic, but ultimately hypergamy doesn’t care about higher-self aspirations or the conditioned delusions of men who believe that what makes men an attractive prospect for Beta Bucks will necessarily turn women on for Alpha Fucks. Your proof is in the DeadBedrooms subred.

Before I end here, I feel I have to address that I do in fact believe that men and women can, and regularly do, rise above our innate instinctual natures. Obviously civilization didn’t reach the point we have by not controlling our base natures. The problem I see now is the social order established to effect that control is failing to account for the conflict between equalism and complementarity.

If there’s a take away lesson to be learned from Gunther’s article it’s not that men are lacking in Beta attributes or sensitivity training to balance their asshole Alpha egos. If anything the vast majority of men have too much invested in that Beta equalism and sentimentality.

Whether it’s openly or covert, the message we get from those men’s consequences is that women are overwhelmingly conveying the want for traditional masculine dominance, prowess, control and even a bit of the cocky ego that legitimately comes along with it.

It’s been mentioned in many a manosphere comment thread that, the medium is the message, and women’s medium has been proving that their interests lean much more openly towards Alpha Fucks, even after marriage, even after consolidation on Beta Bucks provisioning.


Equalism and Masculinity

masculinity

What a lot of feminists hate about red pill theory is that it simply does a better job of predicting social behavior than feminism ever has. I’d like to think that red pill awareness has fundamentally altered (or enlightened if you’d like) intergender interpretations and understanding in a relatively short time, but that would be a mistake.

There’s a distinct group of self-evincing red pill guys who like to remind us in various comment threads that it hasn’t always been thus. Their story is our forbearers “knew better” with regard to how men and women ought to interact with one another, and essentially spelled this out for future generations in the religious and philosophical texts of antiquity.

While I can’t deny the merit of this, I also know that the men of those bygone eras didn’t have anything approaching the mass of information and the connectivity men possess today. It’s easy to get caught up in the romanticism of the idea that back in some Golden Age of manhood, men knew about the dangers of allowing women’s hypergamous natures to run amok. I’m sure those men knew of the consequences of allowing women to control their fates. I’m sure there were Beta men and cuckolded men as well, but even the most wise Alpha among them could never, for instance, understand the impact that a unilaterally feminine-controlled form of birth control would effect upon a globalized society.

The sages of manhood-past may still have many relevant lessons for the men of today, but they simply lack the compounded experiences and understanding men possess now. Though they undoubtedly were keen observers of human behavior, the greatest thinkers of antiquity simply didn’t have an inkling as to the evolved, biological motivators of the sexual strategies our psyches developed in our hunter-gatherer human past.

What frustrates the advocates of this bygone manhood wisdom is that for all of our collective experience and knowledge, for the past sixty or so years, men struggle to come to terms with what that masculinity should mean to them. For all of the accumulated male experience and relation of it that’s led to red pill awareness, men still grapple with ‘what being a man means to them’.

Undoing of a Man

When I do consults with men of all ages I have to begin from a presumption that what these men’s concept of masculinity is usually is the result of a deliberate attempt by the Feminine Imperative to confuse men about what being a man should be for him.

Even the men who tell me they were raised by the most dominant, positively masculine fathers still suffer the internalized effects from this feminized effort to cast doubt on men’s masculinity.

Recently NPR began a series of articles attempting to suss out what it means to be a man in the 21st century. I do listen to NPR, and while I know bias will always be an inevitable part of news stories, I couldn’t help but assess what a morass attempting to define masculinity has become for contemporary men. Each story, each attempt to redefine masculinity, relied on the same tired tropes the Feminine Imperative has been using for men since the start of the sexual revolution.

Weakness, vulnerability, is sold as strength. Submissiveness and compromise to the feminine is sold as “support” and deserving of praise and a reciprocal appreciation (which never manifests in women). Beta is Alpha and Alpha is insecurity, bluster and compensation.

Those are the main premises, and, to a large degree, most red pill aware men realize that behavior is the only true determinant of motivation, and reject the feminized, egalitarian equalist messaging. However, what still surprises me is that this same, deliberate effort to cast doubt on what masculinity should be for a man hasn’t changed its message or methods of conditioning men to accept this masculine confusion for almost 40 years now.

Through the late 80’s and up to now, the idea of anything positively masculine is either ridiculed, cast as misogynistic, or implies a man might be gay if he’s too celebratory of his maleness. Since the start of the sexual revolution, any definition of what masculinity truly should mean has been subject to the approval of the Feminine Imperative.

In the absence of a clear definition of what masculinity is for men, the Feminine Imperative is free to create as grotesque a straw man of ugly masculinity, or as beatific a feminized model of masculinity as it needs to serve its purpose. With the aid of the Male Catch 22, blurring and distorting masculinity, raising and conditioning men to accept ambiguity and doubt about the security of a ‘manhood’ they’re encouraged not to define for themselves, are all the methodologies employed to ensure a feminine-primary social order.

Equalism vs. Complementarity

Agreeableness and humility in men has been associated with a negative predictor of sex partners.

The problem inherent in applying reciprocal solutions to gender relations is the belief that those relations are in any way improved by an equilibrium between both sexes interests.

The Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

The mistake is applying a humanistic, egalitarian equalist ideal to human sexual strategies that evolved over millennia to be complementary to each other, not an equitable exchange of resources to be negotiated over. This is one reason genuine desire cannot be negotiated – this fundamental is rooted in our most primal, complemetary understanding of sex.

The point at which egalitarian equalism (the religion of feminism) fundamentally fails is presuming that intergender relations should ideally exist in a goal-state of egalitarian equalism and / or a reciprocally equal state of mutually supportive interests.

Hypergamy doesn’t care about equalism and reciprocity.

The sexes evolved to be complementary to each other for the betterment of the species. Why do you think women form the most secure emotional attachments to men 1-2 SMV steps above themselves? Why is masculine dominance such an attractive male aspect for even the most feminist of women who’d otherwise plead for equality among the sexes?

I have a bit of a weird relationship with “traditional masculinity”. I’ve looked critically at it enough to know how much damage it does as a paradigm. I’ve seen the harm it can do to both men and women on an individual level. I’ve been subject to the violence it encourages. But despite all that, holy shit does it ever turn me on.

[…]

There’s just something about assertiveness (let’s be real, sometimes flat out arrogance) that does it for me. No matter how much I can be attracted to someone emotionally and intellectually, my swoons only happen when confronted by a powerful, competent man.

This has lead to some issues in my personal life. Who knew being attracted almost exclusively to men that inherently make bad partners wouldn’t work out well for me?

What we’re observing here is a rudimentary conflict between an internalized humanist idealism (the way equalism teaches thing’s should be) versus evolved, impulsive realism (the way things are).

The doctrine of equalism presumes a socialized expectation of being turned-on or attracted to men exemplifying a ‘gender equitable’, equalist-correct, mindset and the evolved, visceral arousal / attraction to a man exhibiting the dominant characteristic traits of masculine complementarity.

Another example of this conflict can be found in my essay on Choreplay.

In 2008 the transactional nature of sex-for-equitable-services was an over blown meme. The message then was that men needed to do more feminine-typical chores around the house, and the equitable exchange would be his wife reciprocating with more frequent and more intense sex as a result of his “equitable” participation in that negotiation.

Fast forward to 2013 and now (by the same author mind you):

Hey, fellas, put down those vacuum cleaners and pull out the lawn mowers.

Married men may think helping around the house may up their hotness quotient in the bedroom, but what really matters is the type of chore. Heterosexual married men who spend their time doing yard work, paying bills and changing the oil have more sex than husbands who spend their time cooking, cleaning and shopping, according to a new study on the subject of housework and sex.

“Households with a more traditional gender division of labor report higher sexual frequency than households with less traditional gender divisions of labor,”…

So what you see illustrated here, in just the space of 5 years, is the frustration and conflict between an equalist idealized model vs. the evolved complementary model of gender relations. It’s not about the equitability of like for like exchanges or like for like reward/benefit, but rather the way that equitability is expressed and how it grates against instinctually human expectations of behavior.

Sex differences, biologically and psychologically, didn’t evolve for hundreds of thousands of years to be co-equal partnerships based on humanistic (or moralistic) idealism. They evolved into a complementary form of support where the aspects of one sex’s strengths compensated for the other’s weaknesses and vice versa.

For every behavioral manifestation of one sex’s sexual strategy (hypergamy in females), the other sex evolves psychological, sociological and behavioral contingencies to counter it (mate guarding in males). The ideal state of gender parity isn’t a negotiation of acceptable terms for some Pollyanna ideal of gender equilibrium, it’s a state of complementarity between the sexes that accepts our evolved differences – and by each individual gender’s conditions, sometimes that’s going to mean accepting unequal circumstances.

Feminists (and anti-feminist women), humanists, moral absolutists, and even red pill men still obliviously clinging to the vestiges of their egalitarian blue pill conditioning, will all end up having their ideologies challenged, frustrated and confounded by the root presumption that egalitarian equalism can ever, or should ever, trump an innate and evolved operative state of gender complementarity.

And thus we come full circle, back to a new model of masculinity that is found upon the evolved complementary order and aided by red pill awareness. I have no doubt that it will be an arduous process of acceptance for blue pill, masculine-confused men vainly attempting to define their own masculinity under the deliberately ambiguous contexts laid out for them by the Feminine Imperative, but I do (hopefully) believe that red pill awareness is already making a positive impact on countering a presumption of equalism that only truly serves feminine primacy.

It’ll take time, but with every aware man utilizing red pill awareness to realign his masculine identity and benefit from it, other men will begin to come to the same awareness or else fall off into their own ambiguity.


Game Changers

game-changer

Whenever I consult teenage guys or young adult men I’m always reminded about how my ‘Game’ has changed over the course of my lifetime. The 17 year old Rollo Tomassi would be be appalled at the mindset of the 46 year old Rollo Tomassi.

Granted, much of that shock would probably be attributed to the lack of experience my younger self had with regards to female nature, human nature and, if I’m honest, I suffered from the same naiveté most young men do when it comes to judging people’s character. In fact, at the time, my belief was that I shouldn’t ever judge anyone’s character, nor did I, nor should anyone really, have the right to.

Part of that assumption was from an undeveloped religious learning, but more so it was due to a youthful idealism I held – I’d been conditioned to believe not only that you “can’t judge a book by its cover”, but also that you shouldn’t do so, and ought to be ashamed for considering it.

I’m flattered that people might think I’m some phenomenal interpreter of psychology, the nature of women, intergender relations and a model upon which men should aspire to in order to get laid and still have a great (now 18 year) marriage. It has not always been so.

If I have any credibility now it’s not due to my getting everything miraculously right, but because I had everything so horribly wrong more often than not.

One of the most valuable lessons I learned in my time studying psychology and personality studies is that personality is alway in flux. Who you are today is not who you will be in another few years. Hopefully that’s for the better after learning something and applying it towards your own personal progress, but it could equally be a traumatic experience that changes you for the worse.

For better or worse, personality shifts – sometimes slowly, sometimes suddenly – and while you may retain aspects of your personality, mannerisms, talents, past experiences and beliefs into the next iteration of yourself in a new phase of your life, rest assured, you will not be who you are now at any other time.

Game Changes

I’m sorry if this sounds all fortune cookie to you at the moment, but it’s a necessary preface to understanding how Game changes for men as their life situations and circumstances change during different phases of their lives and the shifts in their own personalities and learned perceptions change as they age.

It’s an easy step for me to assume that, were I to find myself single tomorrow, I wouldn’t approach Game in any degree as I would were I the 26 year old version of myself. Indeed, the primary reason I’ve involved myself in expanding the Preventative Medicine series into the next volume of The Rational Male is to help men at different phases of their own development understand what to expect from women (and themselves) during these periods of their life.

About two weeks ago I broached the subject of how Game should be a universal knowledge-tool for the everyman. My intent in Game and Circumstance was to shine some light on how Game and red pill awareness is (should be) a benefit for men regardless of their circumstance.

As I expected, the comparisons of Looks vs. Game was the inevitable discussion in the comment thread, because the presumption is that a man’s most evident condition is how he looks and how women are or are not aroused / attracted to their perception of him. I’ve written more about this Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks arousal dynamic than I care to review at the moment, but suffice it to say I do place a high importance on a man’s physical bearing.

However, my intent wasn’t to engage in a debate over the importance of looks, but rather that Game and red pill awareness is applicable for men of every social or personal condition – even the short, pudgy guy who empties the trash in your office. He may not have the potential to enjoy sex with a swimsuit model, but the tenets of Game can help him improve his life within his own circumstances.

Game Beyond PUA

When I was writing The Rational Male I specifically wrote and published a post on the Evolution of Game to be included in the book in order to demystify an impression of Game which I still think people (particularly the blue pill uninitiated), sometimes intentionally, misconstrue as some magical panacea to their ‘girl problems’. My definition was thus:

For the unfamiliar, just the word ‘Game’ seems to infer deception or manipulation. You’re not being real if you’re playing a Game, so from the outset we’re starting off from a disadvantage of perception. This is further compounded when attempting to explain Game concepts to a guy who’s only ever been conditioned to ‘just be himself‘ with women and how women allegedly hate guys “who play games” with them. As bad as that sounds, it’s really in the explanation of how Game is more than the common perception that prompts the discussion for the new reader to have it explained for them.

At its root level Game is a series of behavioral modifications to life skills based on psychological and sociological principles to facilitate intersexual relations between genders.

Game has more applications than just in the realm of intergender relations, but this is my best estimation of Game for the uninitiated. Game is the practical application of a new knowledge and increasingly broader awareness of intergender relations – often referred to, for convenience, as Red Pill awareness, by myself and others in the broader manosphere. Game begins with red pill awareness and using that awareness to develop Game.

The body of infield evidence collected by 15 years of PUA is far more reliable and valid than anything social science has produced on seduction – Nick Krauser

As I’ve written in the past, everyone has Game. Every guy you know right now has some idea, methodology or system of belief by which he thinks he can best put himself into a position of relating to, and becoming intimate with, a woman.

From even the most rank Beta plug-in to the 14 year old high school freshmen boy has some notion about what he, and by extension all men, should do in order to become intimate with a girl. I described this a bit in Beta Game where I outlined the Beta plan of identifying with women’s “needs” and adopting a feminine-primary mental point of origin in order to become more like the target(s) of his affection.

What ‘formalzed’ Game comes down to is what genuinely works for the betterment of his life. Men don’t seek out the manosphere because their Beta Game works so well for them.

 

I’ll admit, this was my own Game when I was in my late teens. Like most properly conditioned young men,I subscribed to the idea that men needed to be more empathetic and sensitive to women’s experience (rather than putting priority on his own) as the most deductive means to getting a girlfriend who’d appreciate my uniqueness for being so ‘in tune’ with the feminine.

If you’d have asked me at the time (the mid 80’s), my belief was that the best way to ‘get the girl’ was to take women at their word, use their “advice“, be their friend, make her comfortable, sacrifice your own (chauvinist) self-importance and support her importance, and mold your incorrect male self into a more perfect feminine ideal. The idea was that the lesser you made yourself, the more you made of her, and the more likely she was to reciprocate intimacy in appreciation.

That was my Game up until I learned through trial and painful error that women loath a man who needs to be instructed on how to actually be more attractive to women. I didn’t understand that by my subscribing to this spoon-fed feminization Game and overtly advocating for it I was only advertising to the very girls I wanted that I Just Didn’t Get It.

This was simply the first stage of Game changing for me, and I’m fairly certain that you’d read a similar story from most of the manosphere’s heaviest hitters. I’m peripherally familiar with the early histories of the likes of Roosh, Nick Krauser and even Mystery, so I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that the Game they practice today would be foreign to their younger selves.

When I moved into my rock star 20’s I began practicing a new form of Game, one based on social proof and demonstrating higher value (DHV).

Of course I had no idea I was practicing any Game at the time. I had reinvented myself and my identity shifted into that of a guy who was Spinning Plates, being more self-concerned and enjoying the benefits of that social proof and DHV; but if you’d asked me what I’d done to effect that change, or how my Game was affected by it, I wouldn’t have been able to give you an answer then – Game was just instinctual for me.

Now in my married years, as a husband and the father of a teenage daughter, and my professional life in the liquor and casino world where I interact with beautiful women on a weekly basis, I still employ Game when I don’t realize I am.

However, that Game is the compounded, internalized result of what I’ve learned and used since the days I believed in the “be nice for girls to like you” teenage Game. Amused Mastery, Command Presence and a few other principles became much easier to employ as a mature man, but also a new grasp of how women’s lives have a more or less predictable pattern to them.

Thanks to my time studying behavioral psychology I understand the methods women use to prompt and provoke men (shit tests). Thanks to my red pill awareness and simple understand of how women’s biology influences hypergamy I now understand why they do so – and more importantly, how to avoid the traps of falling into the worst aspects of women’s dualistic sexual strategy.

All of this influences my ‘Game’ in the now. As before, I don’t play a constant, conscious game of mental chess in my dealings with women (and even the men in my social and professional life), I just live it.

So, in closing, it’s important to consider that the concept of Game you might be struggling with now was probably some other man’s experience before you encountered it. What is Game for me at 46, will most likely not have the exact same utility for me at 56, but if I stay sharp and learn along the way I’ll develop a new Game for that phase of life.

In Roosh’s most recent book, he has a quote in it that struck me (I paraphrase): There are a lot of men who tell me they wish they knew back then what they know now, but in all likelihood that knowledge wouldn’t serve them as well as they believe it would. They’d simply make new mistakes (and hopefully learn from them) based on the things they never had any experience of in the now.

There is always additional knowledge a man can know even when he possess the highest level of knowledge.

 

 


Game and Circumstance

circumstance

“Don’t be mad E. It’s not our fault you were born without the sport fucking gene, come on.”

 

At the start of July, 2011 (a month before I began this blog in earnest) I took a backpacking trip through the Great Smokey Mountains in Tennessee and North Carolina. This was due to my desire to unplug, go off the grid and get back into the real face-to-face world. It was only for 10 days but well worth burning 10 days of PTO for.

It was an educational experience meeting people, most of whom have very little online presence beyond using Twitter or FaceBook occasionally. I didn’t have cell service for most of the hike. The people I met along the way, and I’ll put this politely, were “salt of the earth” people. Some were other hikers, others were people who lived and worked in the few surrounding communities. It was good to reaffirm my ability to survive on my own and realize that there is a whole world of Men out there who live well, far beyond the influence of “men” who’ve never mowed their own lawns, much less lived by their own wit in the country. Guys who build muscle by working outdoors, not in a gym. I met beautiful women who worked in small diners you’ll never hear of. I fished rivers and streams, for dinner some nights, and I saw fireflies for the first time (I grew up in southern California, it’s a novelty).

At some point I think Men need to get back to their primal natures, they need to embrace it fearlessly and without shame. We’re far too insulated by the Buffers of technology. Even the more belligerent rednecks I encountered still preferred to text their girlfriends and came off as pussified for doing so.

I guess what I’ve come to realize is that we tend to view what we ‘know’ about men and women from the experiences we have reported to us from all over the world on blogs, forums, the manosphere  – and I still endorse the purpose of it’s unwritten mission – however, this trip reaffirmed for me that there is no substitute for real interaction. Game will work equally well with the cute blonde serving coffee in a rural diner as it would with the club girl in NYC. Both are equally given to the same feminine fundamentals we’ve untangled about women in the ‘sphere for over a decade, but the one we tend to use as a female archetype is the typical club girl for our examples. Daisy Duke is still subject to hypergamy, she just applies it differently.

I’m not turning into Roosh, but I’m considering burning a couple months doing the entire Appalachian trail all the way to Maine.

In my day to day life I deal with a lot of rich men. Every patron or boss, every general manager I’ve dealt with for the past 15 years has been a millionaire. The primary owner of one of my liquor brand is that many times over. None of the “business friends” I shoot golf with have weeded their own lawns or installed a radiator in 20+ years. When I was on the trail I thought about how ridiculous it would be to see a guy like that or some PUA guru having to dig his own toilet and take a dump in the woods, or hoist his pack in a tree so the damn bears don’t eat the only food he’s got for the next 3 days. These guys are insulated.

I want to run, and fight, and fuck, as well as I deal with the ‘civilized’ things I do. Imagine a guy like Mystery wringing out the sweat and filth of his clothes in a stream somewhere. Now, that’s some funny shit.

Game and Circumstance

I start off with this today because this experience wasn’t just humbling, but it also taught me that what I experience day to day isn’t at all what a majority of men experience. My past, my N count, my 18 year marriage, and what I do professionally sets me apart in a way that I sometimes don’t appreciate or take into consideration when I’m advising men.

It’s also very humbling and affirming when I receive emails or comments from men living in countries I’ve only seen in pictures who nevertheless share a common male experience that reinforces many of the things I write about – but even within that commonality, I have to remember, my circumstance is not theirs.

I walk through a casino almost every day now and I see the same people. Not the fun glamour you see in commercials or ads about Las Vegas (that’s usually night promos), but the real people, the overweight, housekeeping and table crew, the geriatric spending their savings and social security on a hope they’ll win something significant, the desperate and the people just looking for distraction.

I walk by some of these men and think “how is Game going to help a guy like that?” While I do believe that Game is universally beneficial on many levels (primarily between the sexes, but not exclusively) there’s a point where that improvement is going to be limited by a guy’s circumstance, where he is in life and what he’s made of it so far. It’s a manosphere cliché now, but most men aren’t ready for the red pill. The red pill awareness is simply too much for them to accept within the context of their circumstances.

That circumstance isn’t based on age or a particular demographic, but Game is only going to be as liberating for a man in as far as he’s willing to accept it in terms of his own circumstance.

Not Just Sex

Game gets a lot of misconstrued criticism in that ignorant critics presume Game only ever equals PUA and that “those guys are only interested in fucking as many low self-esteem sluts as humanly possible.” It’s much more difficult for them to confront that Game is far more than this, and applicable within relationships, in the workplace (with women and men) and even in their family dealings.

That’s kind of a scary prospect for men comfortable in living within their own contexts and circumstance. Sport fucking isn’t what most men think it is because they’ve never experienced anything beyond serial monogamy, nor is it what most (80%+ Beta) men even have the capacity to actualize for themselves. But, as Game has evolved, it isn’t just about Spinning Plates, or sport fucking, it’s more encompassing than this.

Game is, or should be, for the everyman.

“He only wants me for sex” or “I need to be sure he’s interested in me and not just sex” are the admonishments of women who really have no introspective interest in how a majority of men really approach becoming intimate with women. Oh it makes for a good rationale when women finally “want to get things right” with a provider, but even the excuse belies a lack of how most men organize their lives to accommodate women’s schedules of mating.

Mostly to their detriment, the vast majority of men follow a deductive,but anti-seductive, Beta Game plan of comfort, identification, familiarity and patience with women in the hopes that what they hear women tell them is the way to their intimacy will eventually pan out for them. Their Beta Game plan is in fact to prove they “aren’t just in it for the sex” in order to get to a point of having sex with a particular woman.

I always find it ironic when men tell me that their deductive plan for getting after it with a woman is to prove he’s not actually trying to get after it with her. However, this is what most men’s Game amounts to; deductively attempting to move into a long term monogamy based on what women, saturated in a presumption of gender equalism, tell him he ought to expect from himself in order to align himself with her intimate interest.

I could use the term “appeasement”, but that’s not what most men want to call it. Most men call it being a better man (for her), better than “other guys” who wont align themselves accordingly. It becomes their point of pride in fact.

Male Long Term Security

Most men, average men – and I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense – want a form of security.

Most men are designed, perhaps bred, to be necessitous. To be sure , men need to be constant performers, constant qualifiers, in order to mitigate hypergamy. In the past, and to an extent now, this performance simply became a part of who he was as a man and didn’t require a constant effort, but increasingly, as male feminization has spread, men have been made to be necessitous of security.

I would say that desire for long term security differs significantly from women’s Beta Bucks side of hypergamy need since the drive to secure provisioning is an innate part of women’s firmware. The security average men need is rooted in a need for certainty in his ability to meet with a woman’s performance standards – and ultimately avoid feminine rejection.

In today’s feminine-centric social order, men are ceaselessly bombarded with masculine ridicule, ceaselessly reminded of their inadequacies, and endlessly conditioned to question and doubt any notion of how masculinity should be defined – in fact ridicule is the first response for any man attempting to objectively define it.

It’s this doubt, this constant consideration of his own adequacy to meet the shifting nature of women’s hypergamic drive, from which stems this need for security. The average man needs the certainty of knowing that he meets and exceeds a woman’s prerequisites in a social circumstance that constantly tells him he never will – and his just asking himself the question if he ever will makes him that much less of a man.

The average man will look for, or create his own rationales to salve this necessitousness. He’ll create his own ego in the image of what he thinks he embodies best as being “Alpha” or he’ll adopt the easy doctrines of equalism which tell him women and men are fundamentally the same rational actors and convince himself he’s not subject to the capricious whims of feminine hypergamy because men and women are more ‘evolved’ than that– but that nagging doubt will manifest when the right circumstances and right opportunities present themselves.

Changing Your Programming

I mention in the book that I am not a motivational speaker, I’m not anyone’s savior and I would rather men be the self-sustaining solutions to becoming the men they want and need to be – not Rollo Tomassi’s success stories, but their own success stories.

That said, let me add that I would not be writing what I do if I thought that biological determinism, circumstance and social conditioning were insurmountable factors in any Man’s life. Men can accomplish great things through acts of will, they can be masters of their circumstances and most importantly masters of themselves.

With a healthy understanding, respect and awareness of what influences his own condition, a Man can overcome and thrive within the context of them – but he must first be aware of, and accepting of, the conditions under which he operates and maneuvers.

You may not be able to control the actions of others, you may not be able to account for women’s hypergamy, but you can be prepared for them, you can protect yourself from the consequences of them and you can be ready to make educated decisions of your own based upon that knowledge.

You can unplug.

You can change your programming, and you can live a better life no matter your demographic, age, past regrets or present circumstances.


The Apologists

apologists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This discomfort with ‘being a guy’ is the root disposition of many high-functioning Betas, and particularly those seeking to better identify with the feminine in the hopes it will pay off in sexual dividends. These are the guys who never ‘got it’ that shit talking and locker room jabs (the same male space invaded by the feminine) are intended not just to determine masculine fitness, but to foster living, building and measuring up to a better masculine standard that benefits both the individual man and the collective of humanity. Risk taking, physical aggression (constructive and destructive) and physicality in general, ambition, team reliance and individualism are all part of this masculinity. That potential for violence scares the shit out of men like Kimmel, but that potential is also precisely what’s need for survival and success of a species.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Women Talk, Men Do

talk

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

Jeremy:

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

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

Yohami:

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

So of course they want that often.

jf12:

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

Stingray:

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

Deti:

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

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

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

Women talk, Men do.

Josey Wales:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Men Like Women

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

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

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

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

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

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


Lessons for my Son

Lessons

As many of my readers know Mrs. Tomassi and I are raising a daughter. We had one child by design, and in all honesty I’m rather relieved it was a girl. Take this however you’d like, but I think raising a girl has allowed me more insight into how women grow and mature into young women, and it’s been through this experience that I’ve based more than a few of my theories on.

I have one younger brother, so the maturation process of growing up female was something I’ve never been familiar with until the past 15 years. I suppose the possibility exists that I may at some point be able to pass on my Red Pill wisdom to a future grandson, certainly my brother’s son, and many older male relatives, however I don’t really have any regrets since I’ve had more private messages and consult requests (I do read all of them) from the sons I never had.

One of the best compliments I get from Red Pill fathers is when they email me about how they’ve bought an extra copy of The Rational Male that they plan to give to their sons or some other male relative. Nothing encourages me to keep writing than the stories I receive like this – this is why I published the book.

So it was with some admitted pride that I came across this post on the Red Pill reddit forum. Testerod brings an  insightful list of points he plans to teach his son(s). I may at some point write a list like this for my daughter, but I thought this was good enough for a standalone post that might inspire some discussion over the weekend.

I came to RP late in life, and looking back on my 45 years, I now see that my path to happiness as an adult could have been much smoother had I known and internalized RP truths as an adolescent… Looking back on my relationships over the years, I can now see as clear as day that when I was successful it was because I was in an alpha frame… When I crashed and burned, it’s because I demonstrated beta behaviors.

My dad never really gave me the sex talk growing up. His abbreviated version of it was “I don’t care who you do, just don’t do it under my roof.” Marginally helpful maybe, but I could have avoided lots of crashing and burning had he given me some version of what I lay out below.

It’s still too early for the sex talk with my own son, but I want to be fully prepped at the right time to share as many RP truths with my son. In fact, I think it’s probably one of the most important things I can do to prepare him for manhood.

So, I wanted to pose the questions: A) What is the appropriate age to have “the talk” with my son? I’m currently thinking around the age when he starts becoming interested in girls (13-14). B) Would love to get your thoughts on some bulleted wisdom to share with him at the right time. Here’s some ideas I’ve been thinking about sharing:

  1. (13 & up) Whatever you do, don’t settle for one girl (oneitis) until much later in life. Play the field, spin plates, date lots of girls. This is the only way you’ll be able to separate the wheat from the chaff and realize what you really want in an LTR relationship down the road if/when you want a family.
  2. (13 & up) Your physical characteristics matter (looks, body type, etc.)… An alpha attitude matters more.
  3. (13 & up) Don’t chase. Be aloof. Let girls come to you. If you do pursue, do it in a carefully calculated way: Pursue and retreat. Push and pull.
  4. (13 & up) Keep her constantly guessing. Always let her know that you have options.
  5. (13 & up) Texting, phone calls, etc… Be disciplined in your response. Use the 1-3 ratio in responding to her texts, phone calls. Give her one short text response/phone conversation for every three she gives you.
  6. (13 & up) Define your mission and pursue it (not girls) passionately. Admittedly, this will be undefined and in flux for an adolescent, but whether it’s sports, studies, extracurricular activities, make those your first priority.
  7. (13 & up)Develop a keen understanding of the psychological/biological nature of women… Understand how girls think. They are ALWAYS looking to upgrade. If you’re not always the “best in show”, they WILL cheat on you find someone else.
  8. (13 & up) Nice guys finish last. There’s a reason all the girls like the boy who (good naturedly) teases them.
  9. (17 & up) Niceness will never get you laid, but will put you forever in the friend zone and give you a terrible case of blue balls.
  10. (17 & up) Be a leader in every relationship. If you’re on a date, make sure you’re doing something that YOU want to do. She can come along for the ride.
  11. (17 & up) Understand shit tests and learn to master them. Girls will always be qualifying you to make sure you’re the alpha male she wants you to be. If you start getting a lot of shit tests, re-evaluate your frame — you’re probably coming across as too needy.
  12. (17 & up) Understand female physiology and how to bring a woman to orgasm.
  13. (17 & up) Girls are the gatekeepers to sex. Men are the gatekeepers to relationships. Never forget this and be stingy as hell with your relationships.
  14. (17 & up) Girls will love you, but only opportunistically. If you demonstrate lower value (DLV), their love for you will evaporate.
  15. (17 & up) Show your beta traits occasionally, but use extreme caution when dong so. Girls will want to see that you are stoic, self-reliant, and confident. If you want a shoulder to cry on, get a dog. Use beta comfort only as a reward for good behavior.
  16. (17 & up)Be dominant in the relationship, in your life, and in the bedroom.
  17. (17 & up)Smile less, smirk more.
  18. (13 & up) Tease relentlessly.
  19. (17 & up) Learn what style of game works best for you: Are you the extroverted “cocky-funny” type? Are you the introverted “aloof-amused mastery type?” Are you the asshole type?
  20. (13 & up) Stay away from online porn.
  21. (13 & up) As an adolescent, you will be consumed with thoughts of sex. Fapping is inevitable. Don’t overdo it though. Control your masculine energy so that it can be harnessed outwardly instead of inwardly in the realm of fantasy.
  22. (17 & up) Realize that the build up of testosterone is what gives you your masculine energy. Don’t fap as a crutch to avoid meaningful interactions with real women. That guy who sits in his basement fapping to online porn all day? Don’t be that guy. Women are repulsed by him because his masculine energy is depleted and he has not learned to focus that energy on real women.
  23. (17 & up) Embrace the fact that men have huge sexual appetites. Never be ashamed of this and fully appreciate your masculine sexuality.
  24. (17 & up) Understand a female menstrual cycle and what it means for them, and more importantly for you (e.g. up the alpha during ovulation, throw in some beta during shark week.)
  25. (17 & up) Understand that for females, sexual arousal typically takes place in the brain and that they are less visually aroused than you are.
  26. (17 & up) Make sure that your sexual market rank is at least 1-2 points above hers at all times. This can be done either with attitude, physical fitness, your life passion or some combination of the above.
  27. (13 & up) Learn not to fear rejection. In game as in life, failure is the best teaching tool there is.
  28. (17 & up) Approach and open often. The more girls you talk to, the more you’ll refine your specific style and what works for you.
  29. (13 & up) Don’t think doing nice things for girls (giving them flowers, valentines, carrying their books, etc.) will make them like you more. It won’t. But they will swoon over you if you’re a fully complete, self-confident, at ease individual in your own right.
  30. (13 & up) Adolescence sucks. You will likely be filled with insecurities, you’ll be self-conscious, you’ll think you look like a goof, you’ll say dumb things to girls and then obsess about it. It’s only temporary… You’re learning and practicing the skills to be a man and there will be failures and mistakes. Always remember that everyone of your peers is going through the exact same thing.
  31. (17 & up) Push boundaries, take risks and be exciting… Even when you’re scared shitless. There’s nothing sexier to a woman than a man who is unafraid to embrace challenges.
  32. (13 & up) Don’t EVER BE A DOORMAT. The minute a girl disrespects you call her on it. And if she continues to disrespect you “next” her immediately no matter how emotionally difficult it is. This is absolutely critical to build your long term self-respect/self-confidence.

Admittedly, the list isn’t exhaustive, but interested in your thoughts and what else I’m leaving out.

If you cannot teach your son positive masculinity, the Feminine Imperative and a fem-centric world will tech him its version of masculinity.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,949 other followers