Category Archives: Psychology

Preventative Medicine – Part III

baby2

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

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

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

Uses

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

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

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

Who cares?

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

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

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

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

 

Print

 

The Security Phase

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

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

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

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

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

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

Settling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Development Phase

From The Curse of Potential:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 7 Year Itch

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

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

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

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

The Path to Spinsterhood

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

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

31 to 34 year olds

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

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

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

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

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


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.


Tales of Hypergamy — Recursive Game

scacchiste - Fotografo: internet

Noheroes from the SoSuave forum relates this for us:

Gentlemen, do as I do and grab yourself a tuck of bourbon and throw some Keith Jarrett on the hi-fi. There’s cold, cold snow on the ground and I’m here to regale you with a story sure to convince you that there are no women immune to game, no exceptions to hypergamy. The final pixel in the matrix has blinked out of existence for me, and I see the truth. Not finally, not complete, but I’m a believer. I’m in the midst of the hypergamy chapters of The Rational Male and the light has dawned.

In late November I met a girl at my business whom I was immediately attracted to. We had a drink, made out, groped a bit, and she went home (3.5 hours away). A month later she came into town, and on Christmas Eve we cooked dinner at a place she was housesitting, spent two hours naked in a hot tub, and made love three times over the next ten hours, including, well, entrances and exits on Christmas morning. We saw each other again a couple days later, made love again, then she left town. In early January I was passing through her town, spent the night, and we again slept together three times in a ten hour span.

This girl (let’s call her Helen) is feminine, nurturing, sexy, and highly intelligent. She’s been through tougher times than any member of this board who wasn’t a combat military member. She’d make a killer mother, she’s kinky as hell, she’s emotionally vulnerable yet demure, and she’s submissive and kind. She’s an HB8 (at least by my reckoning) and has a slamming yoga body. I have tremendous respect for her and we have a great connection. The only downside is she’s 33 and is realizing that the wall is coming up.

Helen and I are constantly flirty by text, but I don’t really do long distance relationships, so my plan of action was to just hook up and hang out whenever we were in each other’s towns. However, this afternoon (this very afternoon!) we had a phone conversation in which she related that she couldn’t be flirty with me anymore and also couldn’t sleep with me should we see each other again. Not exactly LJBF, due to the fact that she sent me an underwear selfie not ten minutes after this conversation ended, but close enough. A last sexy gasp, but a rejection nonetheless. Why, gentle readers, did this kind soul state that our trysts had ended? Hypergamy.

You see, there was a gentleman (we’ll call him Chip) who met Helen last March. He was just out of a five year relationship, but he didn’t tell Helen that. He was a little damaged, but in that kind of way where Helen felt that sometimes they had a connection, and then at other times couldn’t figure out what Chip felt about her. In December, Helen told a dear family member to make sure that Helen never hung out with Chip again. It was unhealthy! She was hooked and couldn’t figure out why, and had to stay away from Chip. As of a couple weeks ago, however, Helen resumed hanging out with Chip. This, dear friends, is why Helen couldn’t be flirty or sexual with me anymore.

I talked to Helen about this man in depth. There certainly was a part of me that wanted to negotiate desire, to convince her to stay away from Chip, to continue our prior arrangement. But I knew this was a fool’s errand. So I took a deep breath and asked myself – “Self, do you really want to see the end of the Matrix? Do you want to dispel your belief in a ‘quality’ woman? If there ever was a quality woman, it is Helen. Let’s see if truly hypergamy is inescapable.”

I asked Helen various questions about her feelings towards Chip, revealing my knowledge of hypergamy and explaining each step of her own behavior to Helen as I did so. “See there, Helen? That’s push-pull. Tension. He doesn’t realize he’s doing it, but he’s driving you crazy and making you feel attracted towards him. One minute he’s accessible, the next he isn’t. He doesn’t return your texts on time, if at all. This creates the hook!” She agreed, but I could tell there was no changing her mind. For the sake of science, I pressed onward. “See how you’re basing all of this conversation on the potential of the relationship, Helen? You think you can save him from his damage! There’s nothing actual there, you’re just backwards rationalizing it to suit the hook he’s set in you.” Again, she agreed intellectually. “He’s demonstrating to you his evolutionary suitability by being unavailable, utilizing tension, and being completely non-needy. His life is the same whether you’re in or out of it, and it drives you crazy and creates attraction simultaneously!” Mental assent but hindbrain denial continued.

At the end of the conversation, she stopped me in her feminine adorable voice and said “We need to not talk about this anymore, it just seems so hopeless. I don’t want the world to be that way!” I told her that it was that way, but I do believe it’s possible for good men to harness those powers and create deeply satisfying, honest relationships. However, hypergamy is always the driving force, and to leave it unacknowledged is to invite disrespectful beta disaster or alpha cad heartbreak.

Helen, despite the truth being presented to her in the most obvious way possible, and mirrored in her every behavior towards Chip, couldn’t accept the reality of hypergamy. If she can’t resist or change her behavior based on reason and knowledge of the truth, no woman can. The lesson, kind readers, is not that you must be evil to get the girl. It’s that hypergamy is the deciding factor in attraction for EVERY SINGLE WOMAN. There are no exceptions, no “quality” girls. They all succumb. It’s our job to make them succumb to us.

After all this, she still sent me the dirty pic.

While it is of course vital for a man to internalize the various fundamental truths about the nature of women (hypergamy, solipsism, Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks, love based on opportunism, etc.), these fundaments need to become an ambient condition for you in your dealings. This understanding needs to become an internal – under the surface – part of your interactions with women.

Too many guys think that all of this requires some endless capacity to psychologically micromanage every aspect of their interactions, not just with the women they become (or potentially become) intimate with, but also women they work with (or for), their mothers, sisters or daughters. A common reason men initially reject the practice (not necessarily the concept) of Game is due to some imagined expectation that they’ll need to cognitively account for every variable a woman may or may not be subjecting him or herself to.

When you think of Game as some act you put on or some cognitive fencing match between you and a woman it’s easy to believe it’s just too exhausting. That’s when one of two things usually happen; Game-awareness either sinks in and becomes part of his personality, or he relaxes and/or abandons what he’s learned of Game.

As you think so shall you become.

Neo: “What’re you trying to say, that I can dodge bullets?”

Morpheus: “No Neo, what I’m saying is that when you’re ready you wont have to.”

There comes a point of internalization when your Game-awareness becomes part of who you are. There is no longer a need to mentally sort out what may or may not be going on with the women you’re interacting with. One of the first resistances I usually read from men when they first pick up on Plate Theory is that they could never manage more than a single woman’s interest at one time. Usually this is due to a fear of being caught by one or more women or thought of as a Player, but the premise is one of not having some imagined resources, time and energy to keep more than a single plate spinning at once.

Do you see where this is going?

It’s all about his effort, and his time management, and his capacity or talent for juggling all the responsibilities necessary to convince and qualify for a woman’s effort towards him. He and his concerns are not his mental point of origin and so don’t factor into his concept of what Game could be for him. It’s always energy and resources flowing out, rather than even having the temerity of thought to think that a woman’s effort should come to him.

When Game is internalized for a Man, he is his mental point of origin. Game critics like to frame this self-concern as sociopathy or Dark Triad, but these distractions from putting himself as his mental point of origin have the latent purpose of keeping him extending himself outward. For as much as it’s rewarded, no one wants to be thought of as an asshole, but Game-awareness doesn’t necessitate being a selfish prick, just putting oneself as their mental point of origin.

Noheroes’ story is a lesson in the various  ways of coming to this internalized Game-awareness. I believe that Noheroes is making this transition through a lot of self-critical education. He had the foresight to keep Helen at a figurative arm’s distance. My guess is he knew her situation, being 33 and well on her SMV decline, and that single women during this phase are looking to lock down long-term commitment.

If I fault him for anything it was in his appeal to Helen’s reason when he pulled the cover off of the psychological and sociological underpinnings of what Chip actually meant to her and was (deliberate or not) doing with her. In doing so he laid all of his Game-aware cards on the table, and as has been discussed many times on RM, women may think they want the truth, but they never want full disclosure.

But perhaps (in the interests of science) this is what Noheroes intended. He essentially exposed Helen’s hypergamous (2nd chance Alpha Widow) behaviors and reasonings with the predictable results – women only want to play the game, they don’t want to know how it’s played.

For all of this, it’s actually Chip’s part that completes the Game circle. While Noheroes understands Game (and probably plays it well), and can explain it well enough, it’s Chip who’s effectively AMOG’d him without ever meeting him. I can’t say for certain that Chip isn’t self-aware of what he does, but my guess is he’s internalized Game to the point that it’s part of who he is. My guess is he’s a natural who’s had himself as his mental point of origin for so long that it’s just part of who he is – and being rewarded for it by the likes of Helen for so long that it’s naturally reinforced. Maybe he’s a natural sociopath as well, but this is immaterial to the internalizing of Game.

What were seeing here is a story of recursive Game – Noheroes even explains the process to Helen only to have her confirm her awareness of it, but still having a desire to participate in it.


Suck It Up

suck-it-up

Recently Marellus from Just Four Guys brought this to my attention:

Did you see how the womyn tore apart a commenter, by the name of Redlum, on Jezebel ?

Just because he said this :

Why does feminism have to antagonize and mock men all the time? Men are expected to have no vulnerabilities, this is an oppressive gender role. When men’s vulnerabilities are exposed, such as feeling emasculated or being insecure about women making them “obsolete”, that is a human emotion and gloating over it and mocking it is not only terrible, but also one of the big things giving feminism a bad name.

The top reply was this :

If being in a relationship with a woman who makes more money than you and/or has a higher position than you makes you feel that you are becoming obsolete, maybe you should be mocked for being silly, immature, and sexist. So now, on top of everything else that women have to deal with, we have to comfort men for freaking out whenever a woman surpasses them at something? I’m sorry – if you are in a group that has been privileged over/oppressive of other groups, you don’t get an apology and a reassuring hug every time we get a millimeter closer to some semblance of fairness and equality. Men need to suck it up and deal with life on more equitable terms like adults, without those who do just that expecting a medal for it.

Write a post on what this guy did wrong, if possible.

Redlum’s mistake was twofold. His first error was to ever overtly look for sympathy from a woman (women). We already know women lack the capacity for empathizing with the male experience, but sympathy is another side of the equation. One grave error most blue pill plug-ins make in this respect is a presumption that women owe them sympathy or that women are predisposed to sympathizing with them.

This is usually due to having been conditioned by the feminine for so long to believe that “Open Communication®”, sharing his feelings and being vulnerable will make him the ideal man. This is an unfortunate outcome of the ‘get in touch with your feminine side’ curse of Jung: in a similar respect to the myth of Relational Equity where a man expects his sacrifices and investment in a relationship will be a buffer against women’s Hypergamy, the expectation is that women will appreciate his openness and vulnerabilities. He believes the feminine identity lie that “vulnerability is strength.”

It’s a very seductive fallacy for a dyed-in-the-wool plug-in to make. I’ve read Redlum’s comments before and he doesn’t impress me as a chump, so I believe his comment on Jezebel was really more of a symbolic appeal to feminine reason. What he illustrates here is a common misgiving most Beta blue pill men subscribe to – that they will be perceived as unique, “not like other guys” in his embracing feminine vulnerability. And as you can see from the top Jezebel reply he was met with the same hostility women have for “vulnerable” men.

Hypergamy psychologically predisposes women to hold either contempt or pity for male vulnerability on a limbic level. Even in the most ‘emotionally evolved’ women, by order of degree, Hypergamy is always testing for male fitness in order to assess whom she will pair with either in short term breeding availability or long term provisioning availability. When a man overtly expresses an openness to vulnerability, on a subconscious level it telegraphs his insecurity to her Hypergamous nature. Thus, she filters him out, or if she’s paired with him prior to this expression she initiates the mental protocol to leave him for a better match.

The contempt expressed by the Jezebel authoress is a good example of this.

So now, on top of everything else that women have to deal with, we have to comfort men for freaking out whenever a woman surpasses them at something?

You’re a man, suck it up, you shouldn’t be vulnerable by virtue of your maleness. It’s a conflicting message in light of the touchy-feely feminine conditioning men endure in their upbringing, but it is an honest reaction, and one that men need to understand when sorting out the reality of women and their need to unplug.

I’m not gonna write you a love song, cause you asked for one,..

The second (symbolic?) mistake Redlum makes is making an appeal for sympathy. In Empathy I outlined women’s gut-level, evolutionarily selected-for, lack of empathizing with the male experience. I defined the difference between empathy and sympathy, and while women might lack the means for that empathy, they have a very strong sense of sympathy. However that sympathy comes with conditions.

Women involved with high SMV Alpha Men can be some of the most genuinely, organically sympathetic women you’ll ever encounter. Granted, that sympathy may facilitate her own Hypergamous interests, but more so because that Alpha never petitions her for her sympathy.

Women give their sympathies of their own accord, never as the result of a man petitioning it from her. A woman must be inspired to sympathy for a man, asking for it is negotiating for her desire to be sympathetic.

A man who is intentionally vulnerable smacks of a guy who is so in an effort to qualify for her intimacy. It’s similar to the dynamic found in Play Nice, that niceness, that vulnerability that’s supposed to be strength, is perceived as a ruse to better identify with the feminine and thus be more acceptable to it. If feminine Hypergamy is fine tuned for anything it’s genuineness. That’s not to say women wont turn it to their social and biological advantages, but Hypergamy is always testing for certainty and authenticity. I’ve stated before that there is nothing more satisfying for a woman than to believe she’s figured a guy out using her mythical feminine intuition, this is a direct satisfaction of Hypergamy’s need for certainty, but I should also add that there is nothing more mortifying, rage inducing and produces more bitter tears than a woman who’s had her Hypergamy fooled by an imposter. Not only does this deception involve a loss of investment and resources to her, but it’s also an insult to her ego that her capacity to filter for authenticity isn’t as effective as she believes her ‘intuition’ actually is.

Suck It Up

The bigger picture in this Jezebel exchange is really about one of the most basic and useful social conventions ever devised by the Feminine Imperative – The Male Catch 22:

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

This dualistic, conveniently conflicting, social convention is what defines a condition of ‘equality’ for today’s New Woman:

 Men need to suck it up and deal with life on more equitable terms like adults, without those who do just that expecting a medal for it.

In other words suck it up when convenient and sack up when necessary. In a sense she’s not wrong– an intrinsic part of the male experience is not to complain about adversity, not to complain about pain and not to complain about suffering – in other words, Man Up, be strong and don’t let on to any vulnerability. If that sounds contradictory to a lifetime of feminine sensitivity training for men it should, but only because it’s half of the usefulness of the Male Catch 22. Where our Jezebeler drops the ball is the other half of the con – Man up and be useful, to women, to the Feminine Imperative. The problem is that equality only applies to what benefits the feminine, anything else that constitutes a man, constitutes masculinity, is a liability.

If being in a relationship with a woman who makes more money than you and/or has a higher position than you makes you feel that you are becoming obsolete, maybe you should be mocked for being silly, immature, and sexist.

There is also the option that Men may simply opt out of involving themselves in a relationship with said woman. In this case the Male Catch 22 is used to shame him for his insecurities not only by women for not participating in their potential provisioning, but also by a chorus of plugged in men ready to mock him for his lack of manhood (also in order to convince the feminine of their unique dedication to the imperative and hopefully get laid as a result of it). It’s at this point he’s derided for his ‘fragile ego’ and his ‘being threatened by strong independent women®.”

By virtue of his maleness, he literally cannot win, and any expression of this condition, even the questioning of this situation is then perceived as his complaining about it – and overt confession of vulnerability. What I’m describing here is the core issue blue pill, plugged in men have with Game and the red pill – just asking a question or making a critical observation about the feminine with regard to the male condition is always conflated with men complaining – something men aren’t allowed to do. It comes off as “poor men”, just as our Jezebeler recounts, but it distracts and discourages real discourse about those conditions.

That is how effective the Male Catch 22 is, it kills all critical inquiry before the questions can even be asked.


Possession

possession

In my essay Casualties I described the situation of my sister-in-law and her first husband committing suicide.

The first guy I knew to commit suicide over a woman was my brother-in-law. I don’t like to go into too much detail about it as critics may think it’s my casus belli for getting involved in the manosphere, but suffice to say it was after a 20 year marriage and 2 children. My sister-in-law promptly married the millionaire she was seeing less than a year after he was in the ground. This is a real point of contention her family and I have with her, but it was his terminal  beta-ness / ONEitis conditioning that greatly contributed to his hanging himself. The psychologist in me knows there are plenty of imbalances that dispose a person to suicide, but I also know there are plenty of external prompts that make taking action more probable.

My brother-in-law hung himself as a response to having the unthinkable happen to him; his ONE, his soulmate, a woman he was very posessive of, was leaving him after 20 years of marriage (for a millionaire we discovered later). She was the ONLY woman he’d ever had sex with and had been (to the best of my knowledge) a faithful and dependable husband and father since they married at 18 and 19. He did the ‘right thing’ and married her when he’d gotten her pregnant at 17 and stuck by her, sacrificed any ambition he had and worked his ass off to send both his kids to college – an advantage he’d never achieve. He wasn’t a saint by any means, and I’m not going to argue my sister-in-law’s motivations, since those aren’t my point; my point is that he was an AFC who never came to terms with it and believed his life was only completed with his ONE. He literally couldn’t go on without her.

He couldn’t kill the beta (if he was even aware of it), so he killed himself.

This was back in 2003 and I’ll admit the trauma of this experience and the behavior and consequent mindset of my wife’s sister was a catalyst in waking me up to a much broader definition of feminine hypergamy. No longer was this curious term just about “the tendency of women to ‘marry up’ in status with men”, it was about an entire psycho-social dynamic written into women’s psychological firmware since birth. It was this experience that made me aware that hypergamy was an overriding psychological imperative based on a constant condition of doubt and uncertainty about how well she might optimize this hypergamy in measure with her capacity to attract men of equal or greater SMV than her own.

I’ll also admit this episode in my life was personally jarring for me when I considered that my own wife would necessarily be prone to the same predispositions. Her sister, a God-fearing evangelical ‘good girl’, had gone feral on the husband who’d done the right thing after knocking her up at 17 and married her and set about working his ass off for the next 20 years. She was already in the process of divorcing him when he decided a noose and a tree were a better option than living in a world where he had to see his still gorgeous ex-wife with the millionaire she’d met (and later married). So why not Mrs. Tomassi too, right?

I can list any number of reasons as to why I trust Mrs. Tomassi, all of which I’ve read from every blue pill married chump in my time in the manosphere, but I’m not so naive as to think that certain circumstances and conditions ‘could’ change and she could also go feral. This is what my brother-in-law never could grasp. His world literally revolved around his wife.

He was by no means a saint, and for all of his dedication to his family and wife, his main fault was his possessiveness. My brother-in-law controlled the frame of his marriage, but this frame control was rooted in an insecure possessiveness bordering on the obsessive. On some level of consciousness he knew, by happenstance, an unplanned pregnancy and an early marriage, that he’d married well above what his realized SMV would’ve normally merited.

Possessiveness

I’ve seen this type of possessiveness in other men as well, but the common thread among them is usually an underlying, subconscious sense that the guy doesn’t deserve the woman he’s locked down in one way or another. A lot of them would be counted amongst the same Betas who subscribe to the Leagues mentality, only much more pronounced – it’s as if through luck or circumstance, or maybe due to a natural Alpha dominance that they don’t really understand they manifest, they get into an LTR with a woman they would otherwise consider “out of their league.”

Just this possessiveness might seem bad enough, but when it’s combined with ONEitis (the soul-mate myth), a Scarcity Mentality, a subscribing to the myth of Relational Equity or especially a self-righteous dedication to his feminine conditioning and White Knighting, then you’ve got a volatile mix of psychoses and a recipe for suicide or murder-suicide. When possessiveness is a man’s ego-investment and his worst fears of losing the “best thing he’ll ever have”, the relationship he subconsciously believes he didn’t deserve, comes to actuality, he may cease to exist because that former reality ceases to exist. What’s worth living for when you’ve already experienced the best you never merited to begin with?

A lot of my readers got irate with me when I suggested that if their girlfriends or wives wanted to head out with the girls for a GNO they should, as indifferently as possible, let them go. Granted, I attached more than a few caveats as to how to go about it, but the operative behind this indifference is really a test of your own possessiveness.

I’m sure many guys reading this are experiencing the twangs of possessive insecurity even in my suggesting this course of action. The reflexive response most guys will have in a situation like this will be one of mate protection; the fear being that if they don’t express their disapproval they’ll run the risk of their woman thinking they don’t care enough about them to be jealous. This is a trope most guys sell themselves, because it’s more about suspicion than jealousy. As intuitive as this sounds it really masks the insecurity that their girl will meet another guy and hook up with him. On an instinctual level we’re well aware of women’s pluralistic sexual strategies, thus an evolutionarily honed suspicion was hardwired into our psyches to protect men from becoming the beta cuckold provisioning for another male’s offspring. However, as counterintuitive as this sounds, a GNO is an excellent opportunity to display confidence behaviors.

There is always going to be a naturalistic side to male possessiveness. For very good reason evolution selected-for men with a honed sense of suspicion – men want a certainty that their parental investment (or potential for it) will be worth the exchange of resources with a woman who will facilitate it. In other words evolution selected-for men with an internalized, hardwired understanding of women’s biological directive for optimized hypergamy. When a man’s sexual strategy and sexual optimization has to be sacrificed for women’s optimized hypergamous and pluralistic (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) sexual strategy in order to breed, monogamy becomes a one-sided risk for him.

Sunshine Mary had a recent post with more than a few loose premises about the nature of women. The first of which was this:

1. Women were not designed by either God / evolution to be traded around among men.  There are few (or no?) societies in human history in which human females were heavily sexually promiscuous, and marriage has existed in some form in nearly every culture.

I’m not drawing attention to SSM to run her up the flagpole for this assumption, but it does illustrate a very visceral point about the possessiveness dynamic we’re exploring today. I responded to Mary with this:

In human male sperm there are 3 heteromorphic types: Killers, Defenders and Runners (fertilizers).

Killers destroy opposing sperm, Defenders encircle the ovum and provide a barrier against opposing sperm’s runners, and Runners specialize in ovum penetration and fertilization.

The only logical purpose for the evolution (or intelligent design if you prefer) of these type-specific sperm adaptations would be to optimize a competitive advantage in female fertilization of promiscuous human females possessing secretive ovulation.

Even the shape of a male penis is “designed” to maximize insertion depth to the uterus and simultaneously shovel out competing sperm from the vagina.

If women weren’t promiscuous, if women’s biological imperative wasn’t dictated by hypergamy, would these biological phenomenon have been a necessary evolution for human males? The predominant state of sexual competition, rooted in the dualistic, cuckolding, sexual strategies of human females, necessitated not only an evolved, male, psychological predilection for sexual fidelity suspicion, but an evolution of three types of purpose-specific sperm cells to maximize passing a man’s genetic legacy under conditions of uncertainty.

The Possessive Difference

Back in his earlier work Roissy had an interesting post about the behavioral manifestations displayed between Alpha men and Beta men. Really he likened the behaviors to more animalistic tendencies, but whether or not you acknowledge similar behaviors in people, the reasoning behind these actions make a lot of sense. Alpha men are slow to respond to sudden stimuli (such as loud noises or boisterous taunts) because they are so unused to any significant challenge – in other words, they’re not jumpy Betas used to opting for flight instead of fight. Their posture and body language convey confidence, but only because this Alpha posture is behaviorally associated with what Alphas do.

This is an important dynamic to understand when we consider possessiveness. A man with an Alpha disposition would be less possessive, and therefore display an indifference to possessing any particular woman due to his condition of (relative) sexual abundance. Possessiveness, or certainly an overly pronounced manifestation of possessiveness is the behavior of a Beta unused to sexual abundance and more likely accustomed sexual rejection.

It’s important to bear in mind that possessiveness is conveyed in a set of behaviors, attitudes and beliefs communicated in many ways. It’s not that possessiveness necessarily makes a man unattractive to a woman; on the contrary, it’s almost a universal female fantasy to be possessed by a so deserving and desirably dominant Alpha Man. It’s a visceral endorsement of the status of a woman’s superior desirability among her peers to be the object of such an Alpha Man’s possession; but likewise this is so common a (romance novel) feminine fantasy because of Alpha Men’s general indifference to possessiveness that makes it so tempting for women.

When self-deprecating, undeserving Beta men overtly display possessiveness, women read the behavior for what it is. Beta possessiveness is almost universally a death sentence (often literally) for an LTR. Nothing demonstrates lower value and confirms a lack of hypergamous suitability for a woman than a Beta preoccupied to the brink of obsession with controlling her behaviors. This isn’t to discount the very real reasons an Alpha or a Beta might have concern for a woman’s behaviors, it’s that his own possessiveness conveys a lack of confidence in himself.


Secret of the Red Pill

B3FXCT conspiracy

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

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

Synergy1 adds the most common response:

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

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

Joker79:

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

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

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

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

Women want a guy who Just Gets It.

She want’s you to ‘get it’ on your own, without having to be told how. That initiative and the experience needed to have had developed it makes you a Man worth competing for. Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ‘the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be. Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shït test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.

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

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

Play with her, and play with her.

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

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


Madonnas and Whores

Madonna-Whore

It appears that for whatever reason the manosphere topic du jour of last week has turned some fresh light on the debate regarding the validity of the concept of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks. In between reposting HuffPo articles and any pop-psychology pablum that agrees with her ego-investments, Aunt Giggles seems to have decided to reject reality and replace it with her own (you expected something else?), more comforting, fantasies she finds catharsis in. If readers want to sift through the pop-up ads and fem.mgid links to get the gist of her ‘reasons’ why she believes AFBB is some viral manosphere myth, feel free to head over to her Hooking Up Betas echo chamber and brush up on it.

If you want the short version it’s basically this; in her 5 years of blogging all of the 7 or 8 unmoderated commenters she consistently allows to reinforce her own perspectives have told her that Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks is bunk. So there you have it, myth busted! This is kind of surprising since the concept of Hypergamy she so reluctantly conceded to essentially  contradicts this, but as with all things Giggles, she was against it before she was for it before she was against it again….or, whatever the sponsors want her to be for.

All digs aside the epic comment thread from last week’s post went in all manner of direction, but it was fairly enlightening with regard to the level of vitriol women have for Alphas. You see when it comes down to it, Alpha Men are the ones women love to hate. Poor Betas only deserve a passing mention; just enough “we love ya nice guys” so as not to raise suspicions that they might be getting a raw deal for their provisioning and good behavior right at the last moment when women need it the most.

It’s the Alpha that the widows pine for. It’s the Alpha who’s the culprit for all the feminine imperative’s woes. It’s that damn Alpha who gives her the tingles, but so frustratingly won’t submit commit to her imperatives – why can’t they just play nice, like a good Beta will? It’s the Alpha that women write songs for.

The Process

During last week’s comment thread Dr. J reminded me of the process of breaking down a behavioral dynamic. The distilled version of that process is as follows:

Biological —> Psychological —> Sociological.

This is a valuable progression to remember when it comes to understanding whys  of red pill dynamics. When there’s a breakdown in understanding a particular dynamic, or even a willful refusal to understand it, at some stage there is a failure to make the connection between these realms.

Just for sake of a neutral illustration here lets take the dynamic of hunger. Biologically we get hungry, our bodies need nurishment, and thanks to our evolved genetics, and the scarcity of food in our evolutionary past, we tend to prefer certain types of energy rich food over others. Psychologically we might develop the conviction to train ourselves to eat right and exercise, or we might develop various personal rationalizations for why we’re OK with being fat . Sociologically this dynamic extends into the obesity epidemic society is now facing, and depending upon the predominance of a particular individualized psychology the social manifestation may be a Fat Acceptance movement or a cultural obsession with physical fitness.

Granted, this is a simplistic illustration which becomes more complex as more dynamics are layered upon others – For instance both Fat Acceptance and physical fitness psychology are also rooted in the capacity to optimize hypergamy for women (a biological imperative) as well as having implications and purposes for other social conventions.

If there is a problem in really understanding a red pill truth, if there is a resistance (willful or otherwise) to that understanding, or even if there is a some doubt about a social dynamic that needs testing to explain, there is usually either a denial of, or a lack of connection to, a realm in this progression. With regard to blue pill critics and those with ego-investments in their mindset, denying or downplaying the importance of certain aspects of these realms is necessary to protect those mindsets. Sometimes one realm may be discounted altogether in order to maintain an ego-investment.

So it’s with this progression in mind that we have to really deconstruct the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks dynamic, as well as it’s male-specific counterpart the Madonna / Whore dynamic.

Alpha Fucks & Beta Bucks

From a biologically imperative starting point the AFBB dynamic is easily provable in women’s pluralistic sexual strategy. If Aunt Giggles or any other doubter needs evidence of the biological motivators of AFBB, look no further than the provable behavioral prompts of women’s menstrual cycle. I covered the more Game-tactical aspects of this in Your Friend Menstruation, but study after study prove that women’s behaviors, sexual appetites and mate preference selections coincide with the particular ovulatory phase a woman happens to be in and how best to satisfy it at that stage.

As a feminine social directive, Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks, is the social extension of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy. This strategy is literally encoded into women’s neurological firmware and endocrine systems. This ovulatory influence in mate preference that describes this pluralism is well documented, as are other manifestations such as:

Changes in women’s feelings about their romantic relationships across the ovulatory cycle

Body odor attractiveness as a cue of impending ovulation in women

Ovulatory Shifts in Women’s Attractions to Primary Partners and Other Men

Females Avoiding Fathers When Fertile

Menstrual Cycle Shifts in Women’s Preferences for Masculinity

Vocal cues of ovulation signaling

Changes in Women’s Choice of Dress Across the Ovulatory Cycle

Ovulatory shifts in ornamentation

In a biological realm, there is little doubt that a directive towards a sexually pluralistic sexual strategy would be the most pragmatic reason for these behavioral manifestations. The female biological condition prompts sexual pluralism, which further prompts the social condition of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks (essentially cuckoldry) as the most practical solution to the problem that optimized Hypergamy presents in finding a male who best embodies the ideal of both. Women’s ovulatory cycle motivates for the sexual optimization of the Alpha, as well as the provisioning security / parental investment optimization that (usually, not exclusively) the Beta represents.

Madonnas and Whores

There is a counterpart to this dynamic in Men – the Madonna / Whore dynamic. You might know this dynamic as the Madonna/Whore “Complex” since feminine-primary society likes to repeat the term in an effort to pathologize the male analogy of optimizing his own sexual strategy. This marginalization is of course to be expected if women’s sexual strategy and hypergamic selectivity is to be socially ensured.

Again, Dr. J offers us a good breakdown of the comparison of sexual strategies:

Here is how I conceptualize it… On one hand, there are equivalences:

1) Men prefer “madonnas” for long-term commitments, and “whores” for short-term mating.

2) Women prefer “beta-dads” for long-term commitments, and “alpha-cads” for short-term mating.

3) Both, ideally “want it all” in one person. The male ideal is the “virgin wife who is a slut only for them” – madonna and whore. The female ideal is the alpha stud who settles down and becomes a provider for her – fux and bux.

4) If “both in one” is not an option, then women may get short-term fux from an alpha cad, and long-term commitment bux from a beta dad – alpha fux and beta bux (AFBB). Similarly, men may have a primary, virginal wife to assure paternity, then a “slut on the side” for kicks – virgin validation and slut excitation (VVSE).

Thus, on this level of analysis madonna = beta (long-term commitment) and whore = alpha (short-term mating).

Because the sexes also complement each other, there is also some mirroring. They are not mutually exclusive.

Thus:

A) Male’s are primarily rated for their provisioning value, women for their sexual value, in long-term commitment.

B) Either are perceived to be low-worth when they give away that primary value too quickly.

C) Thus, “virgins” and “alphas” are often perceived as high value, while “sluts” and “betas” are often perceived as low value.

This creates a conflict with the four points above when:

I) High value virgins and alphas match up together by similar value, only to find that their mating goals may not line up. Sometimes they commit and have sex, which means they both “get it all”. Other times, they just have sex – which is an unfair trade for the virgin. If she is “smart” she requires commitment for sex – but the “blue pill” usually brainwashes her away from that.

II) Low value whores and betas match up based on value too, only to find their mating goals in conflict as well. Sometimes they also commit and have sex, which means they both “get the best they can”. Other times, they just commit – which is an unfair trade for the beta. If he is “smart” he requires sex for commitment – but the “blue pill” usually brainwashes him away from that.

In my post The Threat I wrote:

Women’s shit testing is a psychologically evolved, hard-wired survival mechanism. Women will shit test men as autonomously and subconsciously as a men will stare at a woman’s big boobs. They cannot help it, and often enough, just like men staring at a nice rack or a great ass, even when they’re aware of doing it they’ll still do it. Men want to verify sexual availability to the same degree women want to verify a masculine dominance / confidence.

As with AFFB you have to begin in the biological realm to understand men’s sexual strategy and move through the psychological to get to the social. The Madonna / Whore dynamic isn’t too hard to understand when you consider men’s sexual imperative stimulated by the realities of 12.5 times the amount of testosterone women experience. A while back on Sunshine Mary’s blog the topic was an effort in trying to understand (more like verify the fact) that men sexually evaluate a woman within the first glance of a woman. From an intersocial standpoint this fact (dubiously) offends women in that it smacks of some learned (psychological/sociological) tendency to objectify women. However the biological fact is that all men objectify women because it is how our neural firmware evolved. The parts of men’s brains involved with problem solving and tool use are stimulated when we see sexually available women.

Male Hypergamy

I’m often asked if I think there is a male parallel to feminine Hypergamy. If there is it’s the want to optimize a balance in the ideal monogamous wife, supportive mother for his children, and a woman he (mistakenly) believes has the capacity to love him as he believes a woman could, and the dirty, porn star who represents unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Lets be clear this want for masculine hypergamy doesn’t have anything near the biological impetus that women’s physicality prompts them to – we simply don’t have the same plumbing or firmware – and rather his hypergamy is rooted in a rational frustration of trying to balance sexual availability with his potential for investing himself emotionally in a woman.

It’s maybe not so ironic that the same fem-centric critics who so adamantly want to avoid the inconvenient aspects of the biological realm by focusing exclusively on the psychological or social in order to discredit the feminine AFBB / Sexual Pluralism, are the same critics who’ll gleefully endorse the Madonna / Whore “complex” in men because it agrees with their ego-investments and further reinforces the Feminine Imperative as the socially dominant one.

Before I finish up here I wanted to add my take on the husband of the Whore/Prude wife from last week’s post. A lot of guys (and one convenient feminist) said he should’ve seen it coming, or he never should’ve signed on for marrying a woman who didn’t have a genuine desire to fuck him like the secret porn star she used to be. In a perfect world where we have absolute clarity and foresight is 20/20 that maybe, but if I had to speculate, my guess is that he was trying to do what he thought and had been conditioned to think was right. He married a Madonna, and very likely an attractive one he thought he could do no better by, in the hopes she would “come around” and be at least a satisfactory whore for him alone.

How many guys would you advise marry even a borderline slut in the hopes that she’d “come around” to being a great wife and mother? The majority of men are varying degrees of Betas,pre-whipped by the feminine imperative for half a lifetime to eventually be the de facto cuckold for women’s sexual priorities at just the right time. From a red pill perspective we can say he should’ve seen the signs, but we’re dealing with a blue pill man plugged into the Matrix trying to balance the Madonna / Whore dynamic with blinders on.

Late Edit: For further analysis, linked here is the most recent followup reddit post of the (very real) husband of porn tape wife from last week’s post.


The Brand of Independence

independence

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

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

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

The Branding

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

An Independent Woman was to be independent of men.

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

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

The Case Against Male Self-Esteem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,718 other followers