Category Archives: Social Conventions

Nice Like Me

NGOKC

Lib Arts Major:

“Generation AFC” has done a great job of producing Brevik, Cho, Laughner, Sodini, Holmes, and now recently Lanza among scores of others who never got a bodycount high enough to make the news.

Here’s to a new generation of defects.

Or should I say products working as intended?

Furious Ferret:

This is just standard way of tearing down beta males. Most of the guys that are nice are geniuely nice guys but being guys they still want to fuck. They were taught by women that being nice and respectful lead to being attractive so they were brought up to behave this way. It’s no uniqueness or virtue for a woman to call ‘nice guys’ as really horrible digusting perverts while rewarding the bad boy.

Mumtaz elaborates in response to a female commenter:

‘ From my own personal experiences, I’ve found that being nice does not equate to attraction from men. ‘
Actually, it’s being nice man that doesn’t equate to attraction from women. Nice woman means sweet and pleasant , that is attractive.

‘ Nice is boring. ‘
That’s exactly what women think.

‘ And the average person appears to NEED drama or kaybe just more vivacity. ‘
No , it’s average WOMAN who seeks drama . For a man , coming home after day of hard work , drama is the LAST thing he wants…

‘ It seems that a lot of men look to women for something akin to entertainment ‘
Again, swap sexes and it rings true.
Also notice anecdotal evidence…

When I wrote Play Nice I elaborated upon the recent fem-centric trend of ridiculing self-professed Nice Guys. The notion of Nice Guys only using the monicker as a ruse for an assholish reality has been a staple response for Alpha-burned women for decades now. However, an interesting threshold is being crossed when a globalized internet society begins a campaign of mass ridicule of Nice Guys.

Nice Guys of OK Cupid is one such effort.

While I’ve come to expect women’s rationalizations about Nice Guys as foils for their attention needs, what NGOKC illustrates is an escalation in beta male in-fighting. Some have called this ridicule cyber-bullying on a global scale, but there’s more to this than that. The progression from rebuking forum white knight to online attack blogger is evidence of a new comfort level the femosphere has in sowing discord amongst the beta orbiters they rely on for fem-centric male affirmation.

NGOKC is really a clever new twist on Dalrock’s proposition of “lets you and him fight.” In viscerally exposing OKC Nice Guy profile pictures and pairing them up with subjectively contradicting statements about being ‘nice guys’, NGOKC is (perhaps unwittingly) attempting to define what makes a guy genuinely “nice” based on the terms that indicate feminine supremacy.

If you peruse the sampling of ‘nice guy’ case subjects on the blog you’ll begin to see a pattern form. A, most likely out of context, declaration of ‘Nice Guy-ness’ paired with some horribly incongruent statement about expectations of women’s legs being shaved or men being the head of the household. The social experiment that NGOKC is involved in starts with its efforts in qualifying ‘Nice’ as being compliant with what best serves the feminine imperative. Do you like the feel of a woman’s smooth legs that she painstakingly shaves 7 times a week? You’re not a Nice Guy. Do you believe that men should be confident, decisive, heads of the household? You’re not a Nice Guy either. In fact if you indicate on your profile any belief that is inconsistent with absolute, equalitarian gender neutrality, you’re not a nice guy.

For all the semantics debates the manosphere gets into over the proper usage of “Nice” for men, the binary nature of the femosphere is definitive; if a belief is contradictory to the feminine imperative, it is decidedly “not nice”.

Beta Fights

Being that beta men constitute the vast majority of men in modern society, one of the larger problems of being an abject beta is the sheer volume of sexual competition they experience from other betas. When a beta chumps is AMOG’d by an Alpha there’s an almost tacit understanding by the beta that the Alpha held an advantage over him. The Alpha had the physical, Game and status tools the beta does not. However, put two (or more) betas in contention with each other and they will resort to ever escalating feats of greater beta qualification amongst each other. When all you know is Beta Game, only more intense applications of that game is the natural response to competition within Beta Game.

NGOKC is one such escalation in the Beta Game arms race. From Enter White Knight:

Every random chump within earshot of your conversation about Game, about your ‘changed’ way of seeing inter-gender relations, about your most objective critical observations of how women ‘are’, etc. – understand, that chump waits everyday for an opportunity to “correct” you in as public a way as he’s able to muster. That AFC who’s been fed on a steady diet of noble intent, with ambitions of endearing a woman’s intimacy through his unique form of chivalry; that guy, he’s aching for an opportunity to prove his quality by publicly redressing a “villain” like you for your chauvinism.

By essentially doxxing the Nice Guys on OKC, NGOKC is a blog dedicated to beta white knights attempting AMOG other betas while the women of the femosphere egg them on. The social impetus behind the blog is one of beta men jockeying for feminine approval by ever increasing declarations of being more suitable, more feminine identifying betas, than the so-called fraudulent Nice Guys they hope to expose. They’ve made a game of qualifying for the approval of the femosphere by looking for chinks in their competitor’s beta armor:

“I’m a nice guy,..”

“Charlatan! You want to oppress women by expecting to be the head of the household! I’m the real nice guy,..”

“STFU rape apologist, says here you’re open to first date sex, and what type of guy has tats and piercings like that? Rapists, that’s who! I’m the real nice guy,..”

“Misogynist, looks like you expect women to shave their legs,…FOR YOU!,..only fucking patriarchs think women should make themselves ‘acceptable’ for men,..I’m the real nice guy,..”

The feminine influence naturally loves the beta dystopia between guys they’d never want to fuck otherwise because it primes their need for indignation while simultaneously satisfying a woman’s need for attention and affirmation of her own imperative.

Obligation

One of the things that solidified this beta in-fighting for me was reading Hugo Schwyzer’s Jezebel endorsement of NGOKC.

Hugo Schwyzer has a rightly earned reputation in the manosphere for being a manboobed captain amongst the vichy males feminization has made so common through its selective breeding efforts . The lengths to which he’s ego-invested his life, career and personality into a feminine identification schema is truly grandiose. Hugo’s gender self-loathing is a monument to the dictates of the feminine imperative – he is what feminized men would ultimately become in a society defined by the feminine imperative.

While I have patience for the likes of Manboobz and even the information deficient members of the PUA Hate forums, Hugo is a step beyond their simple mockery.

What’s on offer isn’t just an opportunity to snort derisively at the socially awkward; it’s a chance to talk about the very real problem of male sexual entitlement. The great unifying theme of the curated profiles is indignation. These are young men who were told that if they were nice, then, as Laurie Penny puts it, they feel that women “must be obliged to have sex with them.” The subtext of virtually all of their profiles, the mournful and the bilious alike, is that these young men feel cheated. Raised to believe in a perverse social/sexual contract that promised access to women’s bodies in exchange for rote expressions of kindness, these boys have at least begun to learn that there is no Magic Sex Fairy. And while they’re still hopeful enough to put up a dating profile in the first place, the Nice Guys sabotage their chances of ever getting laid with their inability to conceal their own aggrieved self-righteousness.

Nice Guys of OkCupid provides an excellent opportunity to reiterate a basic truth: there is no right to have sex.

This represents the basic disconnect that a feminine conditioned male like Schwyzer can’t grasp. He’s very concerned that self-avowed Nice Guys harbor this endemic, deep expectation of obligatory sex in lieu of ‘being nice’, yet remains willfully ignorant of the nature of exchange inherent in the sexual marketplace. Of the hundreds of self-professed nice guys I’ve known or counseled, not one of them expressed an expectation of reciprocal sex. In fact the genuine ‘nice guys’ are so self-sacrificing that the idea of a social contract of reciprocal sex is alien to them.

The new popularity of Nice Guy demonization that Hugo and the predictable, gender trend vultures piling on at The Atlantic isn’t about expectations or entitlements it’s about the underlying and unspoken reciprocal nature of the sexual marketplace being exposed. When a ‘nice guy’ does express some angst over his sexless and solitary life, or does bring his Savior Schema to the surface in a public fashion it becomes an ugly reminder for the feminine that the SMP is actually that, a marketplace. A fem-centric society doesn’t like the idea of a visceral resource exchange, because it ruins its humanist/equalist social pretense. Solution? Ridicule and marginalize the one doing the exposing.

Besides the near-universal sense that they’ve been unjustly defrauded, the great commonality among these Nice Guys is their contempt for women’s non-sexual friendship. They rage about being “friendzoned,” and complain about the hours spent listening to women without being given so much as a hand job in return for their investment.

Because Hugo has been so well conditioned by his feminization he lacks any frame of reference to understand the reflexive rage these “false-flag nice guys” experience. This rage response isn’t the disappointment of some societal masculine influence convincing these guys of a sex-debt obligation, it was the entirely feminized influence which convince them of myth of Relational Equity:

…I’ve repeatedly read men relate to me when they say how unbelievable their breakups were. As if all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. would be rationally appreciated as a buffer against hypergamy. The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male. There is a prevailing belief that all of their merits, if sufficient, should be proof against her hypergamous considerations.

For men, this is a logically sound idea. All of that investment adds up to their concept of relationship equity. So it’s particularly jarring for men to consider that all of that equity becomes effectively worthless to a woman presented with a sufficiently better prospect as per the dictates of her hypergamy.

Hugo’s preoccupation with the sex-debt obligations for being ‘nice’ is a convenience for his inability to address the concept of relational equity. In a sense he’s correct, men should never presume that anything they do, any personal sacrifice, any emotional investment they make for a woman will EVER be appreciated, much less reciprocated, because hypergamy doesn’t care about any of it.

If these ‘nice guys’ are guilty of anything, it’s in their ego-investment in the lie that any woman might have the capacity to appreciate his investments in them. That rage isn’t about the disappointment of not getting an expected lay, it’s the self-rage associated with the disillusionment of a belief in a relational equity that women (often times the same women they want to become intimate with) continue to convince them of. It’s a rage that comes from the loss of investment and being ridiculed for ever having invested by the same women who convinced them to invest.

So thank you Hugo, you’ve unwittingly made the manosphere, Game and red pill wisdom all the more attractive for ‘nice guys’ with your exposé. The obvious moral to this story is to drop the pretense of being a ‘nice guy’ and embrace a self-concerned Game perspective. In other words, unplug. Drop any expectations of a mutual respect, shared purpose or infantile visions of an idealistic love – because you have no ‘right’ to something women fundamentally lack the capacity to reciprocate. Your idealized relationship doesn’t exist in a feminine frame, it only exists in a positive masculine frame of your making. The only thing ‘nice guys’ have to lament is not embracing these truths before they posted their profile pic on OK Cupid.


Generalizations

As expected, Monday’s Casualties post drew a lot of criticism. As I began with in that post, I had been contemplating whether or not to publish it for a while. I’d kept that article in the can for some time because I have discussed the topic more than once on the SoSuave forums in the past with pretty much the expected responses I got both publicly and privately.

When you link a social dynamic to the death of another individual you’re bound to get input from people who are passionate supporters, and passionate opposers of your assessments of that dynamic. My hesitation in posting this (and other) articles was due to that expectation and how it might convolute my message and intent. That intent  was to draw awareness to the (albeit extreme) dangers of perpetuating a beta-AFC mindset, and the feminine-primary social framework that reinforces, conditions and predisposes men to internalize that mindset.

It’s very hard not to sensationalize life-or-death propositions like this, because readers of either persuasion will have a tendency to emphasize what closest aligns with their beliefs. Granted, I used two personal experiences of my own in that essay, but when I break my rule about using anecdotes, as always it’s to better illustrate the dynamic, not to define a universal truth based on my personal experiences. Be that as it may, the inherent risk in doing so does not come without critic’s speculations about my reasons for doing so.

As I’ve come to expect from past discussions, the first thing critics will do is doubt the veracity of my experience with my sister-in-law’s history. Either I’m lying or embellishing that experience for gratuitousness sake, or the other perspective is to focus exclusively on her duplicitousness and sometimes accusations of outright malice and evil. Both of these are based on offense of personal investments, but these binary responses only serve to convolute the focus I want on the general, not the specific, premise.

And also as expected, the solipsistic nature of women cannot afford frank discussions about a sensitive topic like this.

“What? So now women are evil bitches contenting themselves with the suicides of their husbands and boyfriends?!! NOT ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT! Why are you so bent on making women look evil?”

Besides the go-to NAWALT® boilerplate, I can understand this response (from a reader who will remain nameless). A man so prompted to suicide due to his inability to relate to, or understand the nature of women, reflects badly upon women as a whole – and particularly so in a society defined by the feminine imperative. Isn’t it ironic that the general solipsism and reliance upon individualized, personal experience that define larger, social meta-dynamics for women should be denied to men even for illustrative purposes? In girl-world, only women’s experiences have any bearing on universal truths.

For all of my efforts in taking care to avoid the associations of women’s specific actions leading to men’s suicides, the binary mentality is inescapable.

If you were to discourage a friend from smoking by showing him graphic illustrations of blackened lungs or videos of people having their tongues surgically removed to cut out cancerous lesions, and later it saves his life from lung cancer or worse, you’re a hero.

If you help a friend in rehab off of heroin or meth and you have to do so via graphic, ugly illustrations of the end result of their addiction, you’re a saint, but if you advise him against marrying a woman you know will destroy his life in the long term or maybe due to suicide, you’re a meddling busy-body with nothing better to do than stick your nose where it doesn’t belong. “You’re a misogynist who hates women and casts them all in the worst case scenario through sweeping generalizations.

Generalizations

generalization

n 1: the process of formulating general concepts by abstracting common properties of instances [syn: abstraction, generalisation] 2: reasoning from detailed facts to general principles [syn: generalisation, induction, inductive reasoning] 3: an idea having general application; “he spoke in broad generalities” [syn: generalisation, generality] 4: (psychology) transfer of a response learned to one stimulus to a similar stimulus [syn: generalisation, stimulus generalization, stimulus generalisation]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

In the same vein as NAWALT® one of the most common fallbacks of women and feminized men is the presumption of generalization. Generalization gets a bum rap. The term really ougt to be used in the way it was actually intended – drawing hypothesis and conclusions from a greater, general whole of observed behavior. Pay close attention to #2 in the above definition,

“reasoning from detailed facts to general principles [syn: generalisation, induction, inductive reasoning].”

I am sorry if this process offends women, but I’m interested in the general rule, since it, – and not the exceptions to it – help to better predict an outcome.

Like it or not generalizations are useful and we use them all the time to see the forest for the trees. It’s not isolated abnormalities in a system that we use to describe the circumstances of that system, it’s the whole. We study majorities to assess overall condition, not isolations. That’s the scientific definition of generalities, but when they refer to things that are close to us we tend to put ourselves into the generalization and cop the “not-in-my-case” menality. We’d like to think that our experiences are unique and special (and they are, to us), but in the generality we’re simply statistics. So the word ‘Generalize’ gets a negative connotation and the person using it is vilified, because it’s an afront to our “special” conditions.

The concept of generalization is the antithesis to women’s innate solipsistic, individualist perspective. That’s not to argue that women cannot be analytical or scientific in various areas, but it is to say that in regards to personal and larger social contexts, thinking in generalities is not their native cognitive process. So when the social implications of a particular dynamic (in this case male suicide) become amplified to life-or-death propositions so too does the urgency for wholesale absolution of the gender become amplified. Collective generalities of this lethal nature become associative personal affronts; in fact so much so that women’s ego-investment in a feminine-primary social framework, and their personal association with it, link themselves personally to the responsibility of these generalized men’s suicides.

Play us out Rhianna:

Story of my life / Searching for the right
But it keeps avoiding me / Sorrow in my soul
‘Cause it seems like one / Really loves my company

He’s more than a man / And this is more than love
The reason that the sky is blue / The clouds are rollin’ in
Because I’m gone again / And to him I just can’t be true

And I know that he knows I’m unfaithful / And it kills him inside
To know that I am happy / With some other guy
I can see him dyin’

I don’t wanna do this anymore / I don’t wanna be the reason why
Everytime I walk out the door / I see him die a little more inside
I don’t wanna hurt him anymore / I don’t wanna take away his life
I don’t wanna be…A murderer

I feel it in the air / As I’m doin’ my hair
Preparing for another date / A kiss upon my cheek
As he reluctantly / Asks if im gonna be out late
I say I won’t be long / Just hangin’ with the girls
A lie I didn’t have to tell / Because we both know
Where I’m about to go / And we know it very well

‘Cause I know that he knows I’m unfaithful / And it kills him inside
To know that I am happy / With some other guy
I can see him dyin’

I don’t wanna do this anymore / I don’t wanna be the reason why
Everytime I walk out the door / I see him die a little more inside
I don’t wanna hurt him anymore / I don’t wanna take away his life
I don’t wanna be…A murderer

Our love / His trust
I might as well take a gun and put it to his head
Get it over with
I don’t wanna do this
Anymore, ooh ohh, anymore

I don’t wanna do this anymore / I don’t wanna be the reason why
And everytime I walk out the door / I see him die a little more inside
I don’t wanna hurt him anymore / I don’t wanna take away his life
I don’t wanna be…A murderer


50 Shades of Emma

Sorry, but this was too good not to post today.

Back in February Aunt Giggles felt compeled to call me to the carpet for allegedly attacking poor little Emma Watson over this FaceBook, fem-popularized, meme.

In all honesty my intent with that post was to draw attention to a larger social convention, and Watson’s public declarations of ‘bringing sexy back’ that made androgynous, pixie-cut asexual women feel good about themselves was really just a convenient illustration. I mean, we all know what a horrible Man I am for revealing that it is in fact men who define what’s sexy about women, and questioning Emma’s sexiness and her commitment to “The Less you reveal the more people can wonder.”

Well, as curious as I am to report this, it appears that Emma has had a change of heart about her commitment to ‘revealing less’. You see Emma is actually more than comfortable with full frontal nudity now, so long as it’s in portraying Anastasia in the upcoming movie adaptation of 50 Shades of Grey.

“I’ve been saying since I was 16 that if it’s the right role and important for character development and the story, then of course I’ll do it,” the 22-year-old actress told Hello!

Ah! Such dedication to her craft, and she decided at 16 that she’d do it under the right circumstances. Run hamster, run! The celeb nude aficionados on 4 Chan are ready to welcome your craft with open arms. To think we’d live to see the day that it might no longer be necessary to clone Emmas face over the girls in bondage porn.

“It’s very exciting that people are starting to see me in a different way. It means that they’re allowing me the space to grow and develop and reincarnate myself.”

I wonder if that reincarnation will include growing out her hair to look sexier for the role? We can only hope. Then again, Emma’s not the only one with “dedication to her craft”, there are a lot of other starlets who’ve got more ‘sexy experience’ and are far readier to claw her eyes out to be sexually dominated:

Emma could also have some stiff competition when it comes to winning the honor of playing Anastasia Steele since many of the other fan favorites for the part have shown that they’re comfortable filming nude scenes. Kristen Stewart went topless in On the Road, and Emilia Clarke’s dragon queen character gets naked in almost every episode of Game of Thrones.

Emma Watson’s competition for the 50 Shades of Grey movie could also include Emmy Rossum, who has stripped down in Shameless. But perhaps Emily Browning should be the biggest favorite for the role of Anastasia Steele. The alluring actress was Stephenie Meyer’s top pick to play Bella in Twilight, but Emily never auditioned for the part. Instead the star of the family film Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events went on to shock her fans by starring in the 2011 movieSleeping Beauty, which is nothing like the Disney fairytale. The film actually feels a lot like 50 Shades since it’s about a bizarre sexual fetish, but instead of being tied up before having sex, Emily’s character is drugged so that she passes out. Needless to say, she was required to shoot a lot of nude scenes for her risqué role

,…and the God of Biomechanics laughed atop his throne of genitalia,…


Your Friend Menstruation

From Schedules of Mating:

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.

Years ago, when I was writing this post, my emphasis was on how an evolved dynamic (female pluralistic sexual strategy) translated into evolved social dynamics (feminine primary social conventions). My focus then was on how the feminine creates and normalizes social conditions that favor hypergamy by covertly manipulating social expectations – not only of the men who would facilitate that hypergamy, but also for women themselves in how their own self-rationalizations (hindbrain, hamsters) can be socially justified (i.e the myth of  the feminine mystique).

I wrote Schedules of Mating in 2005 (on SoSuave) in an effort to explain the rudiments of hypergamy in a more accessible way for guys who were still struggling with understanding why women would say they wanted “a Nice guy with a good heart” yet would behaviorally opt for Bad Boy-Jerks as their sexual partners of choice. I still think it’s a pretty good essay, which is why I revised and included it in the earliest posts at Rational Male. However, even at the time I was writing, I knew that the concept of an evolved hypergamy and its social implication still had a lot more under the hood to explore.

Biological Hypergamy

My point of departure for today’s post is this study on hormones and brain activity from the Kinsey Institute. I’ll be quoting the 2008 study, but do read it, it’s fairly brief.

“One area of the brain in which we observed a difference in activation in response to masculinized versus feminized faces — specifically during the follicular phase — was the anterior cingulate cortex, which is a region involved in decision-making and the evaluation of potential reward and risk,” said neuroscientist Heather Rupp, research fellow at the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction. “Activation in this region has been previously reported to correlate with ‘high risk’ nonsocial choices, specifically monetary risk, so it is interesting that it is observed to be more active in response to masculinized male faces, who may be both riskier but more rewarding to women.”

Previous studies have shown that women’s sexual preference for facial characteristics vary depending on their menstrual phase. These fluctuating preferences are thought to reflect evolutionarily founded changes in women’s reproductive priorities. Around the time of ovulation women prefer more masculinized faces — faces with features that indicate high levels of testosterone. These facial cues predict high genetic quality in the male because only such males can afford the immune-compromising effects of testosterone. Testosterone may be costly for the males’ mates as well because high testosterone levels also are associated with high rates of offspring abandonment.

Around the time of ovulation, a female’s preference apparently shifts from avoiding negligent parenting to acquiring the best genes for her offspring. At other points during the cycle, women will prefer more feminized male faces, as they might signal a higher willingness of the males to invest in offspring.

Alpha fucks and beta bucks is a biologically hard-wired feature of the female mind. Studies like this aren’t unknown to the manosphere, and even the early PUA teachers had an almost instinctual(?) understanding of how a woman’s ovulatory cycle could affect a guy’s odds of a successful hookup without ever having read them. There’s a plethora of practical applications a man might use with a firm knowledge of how a woman’s cycle affects her mood, her susceptibility to his influence and how her rationalization will be altered as a result of the particular phase she happens to be in.

In his blue pill years, I think a lot of what accounts for a guy’s sporadic successes with women can be attributed to the woman’s ovulatory phase and favorable circumstance. Right phase, right place, right time and a guy who gave off just enough subconscious Alpha cues to get the lay – or the brief girlfriend status until her subsequent follicular phase peaked and he wasn’t the Alpha she thought he was 3 weeks prior.

Alpha Phase

From a Game perspective, using the this illustration as a guide, the latter half of the folicular (proliferative) phase – the period between day 7 to about day 14 – might be called the Alpha Phase for Men. The Kinsey study (and many similar ones) would indicate that this 7 (maybe 10) day window predisposes women to (Alpha) sexual influence and would be the optimal period for a man to make a lasting Alpha impression. ‘Gina tingles are most commonly born in the proliferative phase.

I’ve caught a lot of grief in the past from angry women for suggesting that all women have an ‘inner slut’ and that all a guy need do is be the right man at the right time to bring this out in them. I think understanding a woman’s cycle kind of puts a punctuation on this. The hot coed on spring break in Cancun who fucks the hot guy in the foam cannon party is probably in her proliferative phase. Add alcohol and you’ve got the chemical formula for sexual urgency – even from the ‘good girl‘. When she thinks or says “I don’t know what came over me, I’m not usually like that.” she’s observing her behavior from luteal phase perspective. She really isn’t “like that” the other 21 days of her cycle.

As the Kinsey study reports, it’s during this part of a woman’s cycle that she become subconsciously attuned to masculinized traits and makes subliminal efforts to capitalize on her concurrent ovulation. In other words, this is the period in which hypergamy doesn’t care the most. It’s “fuck me now, I’ll rationalize it out later.”

About now you’re probably wondering, “That’s all well and good Rollo, but how the fuck do I determine what cycle phase a woman is in?” If all a guy were doing was cold approaches I could understand the confusion. There are countless ‘tells’ women will display when they are in their proliferative phase. Dr. Martie Hasselton has done some excellent studies on female ornamentation coinciding with ovulation and also how women’s vocal pitch shifts lower (sultry voice) during this phase, but if you’re still unconvinced, listen to your gut – men instinctually know when women are in the pro phase of ovulation. If you have the patience to learn, pay better attention to the behaviors of the women in your immediate social circle, or to the behaviors of the girl you think you may want to target at some point. Since women living in close proximity tend to synchronize their menstrual cycles, more likely than not they’ll covertly infer when it’s ‘rag week’.

Beta Phase

If the proliferate phase is the Alpha Phase for Men, then the luteal phase could be considered the Beta Phase. Again using the Kinsey study as our guide we can infer that women become drawn to more feminine features in men during the 14 day down side of their cycle. The attributes of attraction (not arousal) that define this stage are associated with comfort, familiarity, empathy, etc. meant to reinforce the perception that a man is a good choice for parental investment.

Again, this is nothing novel in the manosphere. Even Roissy has written posts regarding the applied use of beta-side Game – in context. Far too many men believe the WYSIWYG myth about women and their advertised attraction requisites as being predominantly beta-associative. As I illustrated in Wait for It?, the girl who spontaneously banged the hot guy in the foam cannon party is the same girl who’ll tell you you need to earn her trust because she needs to be comfortable with you before you have sex. Betas believe this at face value and don’t strike while the iron’s hot (the proliferate phase), wait her out and wonder why they get LJBF’d at the end of her luteal phase.

I think where most beta men lose the trail is in the belief that Beta attraction is (or should be) synonymous with Alpha arousal. Each of these concepts is representative of a different facet of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy – Alpha seed, Beta need. Women’s sexual imperatives can be defined by the degree to which her short term mating strategy can be justified, or offset, by her long term mating strategy.

Nowhere is this disparity more obviously manifested than in the biological reality of a woman’s menstrual cycle which creates it.

The Hypergamy Link

One aspect of hypergamy that I’m not certain most men really understand is that hypergamy is a biological phenomenon in origin. I sometimes wonder if Game-aware men confuse hypergamy with being a social construct. Women almost certainly do, but more from a need to protect the rationalizations that result from confronting the uncomfortable internal conflict that hypergamy causes for them – “why am I not hot for the sweet beta who’d give me the world, but am tingly all over for the hot guy who’s casually indifferent to me?”

The base truth of hypergamy as a dynamic is that it is the logical result of women’s innate, hormonal and neural condition. This root-level disparity of a plural sexual strategy led to the evolution of the feminine psyche – to be covert, to be excusably duplicitous, to be better communicators on more varied levels, but also to be the nurturers and empathizers.

Since the sexual revolution began, the biological rationale for social feminization has been men’s biological proclivity for violence and aggression. We were told that we’re poisoned by our testosterone; we’re controlled from youth to repress that in school to the point where teachers expect boys to ‘act out‘, so we drug them. Yet, the biological rationale for hypergamy could also be said to lie in women’s biological (menstrual) impetus that motivates their sexual pluralism.


The Origin of Alpha

“Safe sex, safe clothing, safe hairspray, safe ozone layer,…too late! Everything that’s been achieved in the history of mankind has been achieved by not being safe.”
– Lemmy Kilmister, Mötorhead

In the Think Like a Woman post comments Rational Reader Jeremiah presented me with a well worn question:

My question is, Tomassi, do you think alpha traits are usually learned or genetically inherited? What percentage of modern men “get it” and of the men who “get it” how many of them have always “gotten it” and how many of them learned to adapt? It is hard to believe there are still naturals out there when feminism is being rammed up the anus of every man before he sprouts his first tooth.

As I’ve illuminated in past posts, I don’t think distilling the essence of Alpha ‘presence’ in a Man is as subjective as most people feel compelled to qualify, enumerate or otherwise yammer on about in as personally identifying a manner as they can muster. In this humble blogger’s estimation Alpha is a state of mind, not a demographic. The manosphere will endlessly debate the qualifications of what is Alpha, but I think for the most part, the influence of an Alpha mindset (whatever the qualifiers) is more or less agreed upon.

However, with this in mind, I think it’s a perfectly valid question to ask whether an Alpha is born that way or molded into his Alpha mindset. This is actually the classic debate psychology has always always put to its various schools of thought; Nature vs. Nurture – is a dynamic influenced by inherent, biological, environmental prompts or is that dynamic a learned, socialized and acculturated phenomenon? And of course the equally classic conflict comes from people attempting to define various dynamics in terms of absolutes, when to greater or lesser degrees a dynamic is influenced by both nature and nurturing elements.

While the Tomassi school of psychology is firmly planted in the nuts and bolts of behaviorism, it’s also important to take into account that external influences can and too often do modify innate, inborn predilections – even inborn self-preservation instincts.

So with this in mind, my perspective on the origin of Alpha is that biology determines the starting point for Alpha, what happens to it from there is modified by a man’s environmental conditions. Alpha ‘energy’, for lack of a better term, is to varying degrees, part of a male human’s biologically determined “starting package”; from there, through social feedback, it’s either refined and developed by his upbringing, acculturation and social affirming, or it’s repressed, constrained and mitigated by his social environment.

When I was in art school one of my most influential teachers told me, “There are two types of artists; those who were born with a natural, innate gift for art, and those who lack that gift, but possess such a passion for art that it drives them to be good at it. The true masters are the artists that combine both natural talent and the drive that comes from a passion for it.” I’ve always referred back to this model in my creative efforts, but I believe this model can be extended beyond just the artistic sense.

The Learned Alpha

Roosh has an excellent breakdown of The Myth of the Natural that perfectly encapsulates the learning theory of Alpha. The premise behind this is that Alpha behavior, and consequently facility with women, comes as a set of modeled behaviors based upon trial and error.

If I were forced to agree on what a natural is, it would be a man who’s a prodigy of sex—someone who gets laid way above other men with no formal instruction in game. This means he was not exposed to any 12 DVD “Cocky Humor” sets or seminars in a hotel room with three dozen other guys. You look at him and think, “Wow, he gets laid automatically. He was born to get laid!”

But he wasn’t. Just because he didn’t read a book doesn’t mean he didn’t learn through trial and error like you did, practicing his game on a large number of women. It doesn’t mean that he wasn’t conscious and deliberate with his behavior, incrementally improving his moves and tactics over a long period of time. He has experimented like you have experimented, and he has also connected his attempts with results to figure out what works and what doesn’t.

He may not be obsessive about it enough to log his data into a spreadsheet, but he’s mindful and aware of what he’s doing. He understands the mechanism behind charm and can often turn it on or off depending on what he wants. He has learned the type of humor and story-telling that gets a positive response in women. The last thing you can say about him was that he was born into the world with the “automatic” ability to fuck a lot of girls.

Essentially what Roosh explores here is a very basic behavioral psychology premise – macro-psychological dynamics to micro-psychological schema are developed, deliberately or unconsciously, through a process of deductive trial and error management. Whether you’re aware of it or not, everyone has Game to varying degrees. Every man you know has some concept of behaviors and mental attitudes he believes will best help him arrive at sexual intimacy with a woman. Even the worst Blue Pill Beta believes he has some idea of how best to get with a girl.

All of this proto-Game has been in a constant state of trial and error management since you were five years old and had your first interaction with the opposite sex on the kindergarten playground, right up to the point when you discovered the Red Pill. And you will continue to modify your old behavior and mental sets based upon the new information available to you after you adopt formalized Game. In fact, in its rawest sense, the PUA community, the manosphere and all its permutations are really a meta-effort in behavioral modification by way of experimentation and information feedback.

For some this learning process comes easier than it does for others. Again Roosh:

The reason he blows you away isn’t because of his genetics, but because of how early he started. A unique set of circumstances threw him into the sex game years before you, during a time he was lucky enough to be surrounded by giggly schoolgirls. By the time you did your first approach, he had already practiced his game on hundreds of women.

While I do agree with this from a behavioral standpoint, this is where I have to depart from accepting Roosh’s theory entirely. There are far too many biological and environmental determinants involved in developing an Alpha male to ascribe an Alpha status based solely on learned behavior. The simple, observable, fact is that a genetically better looking, more physically arousing male is going to statistically have more opportunities to experiment and develop his Alpha Game prowess than a less physically impressive male. In theory, a man with a more advantageous physical presence will “start earlier” in his process of deductively evaluating behaviors since his efforts will be more frequently encouraged by the women who are naturally attracted to his physique.

Unfortunately all of that assumes developing a behavioral set in a vacuum. There’s literally a world of environmental conditions and variables that would predispose a man towards behavioral development of Alpha status or (more often) limit him from it. Roosh touches on this:

At this point you may be thinking, “Well, there have to be guys who were born with it. Look at Mozart!”

Nobody questions that Mozart’s achievements were extraordinary compared with those of his contemporaries. What’s often forgotten, however, is that his development was equally exceptional for his time. His musical tutelage started before he was four years old, and his father, also a skilled composer, was a famous music teacher and had written one of the first books on violin instruction. Like other world-class performers, Mozart was not born an expert—he became one.

I don’t think this example excludes for a natural, innate talent, but it does help to illustrate the environment’s role in molding a person by limiting or encouraging his behavioral development and ultimately his personality. In the Mozart example we see the success story (the story of a master artist) of a natural talent encouraged and developed to potential by favorable external conditions. Mozart was the perfect storm of natural talent and an ideal environment for nurturing it, thus giving him the advantage of an “early start” in his behavioral trial and error efforts.

Jeremiah laments, “It is hard to believe there are still naturals out there when feminism is being rammed up the anus of every man before he sprouts his first tooth” and of course this is a negative example of an environment (deliberately) averse to nurturing an Alpha mindset. There’s no shortage of examples, but feminization from a behavioral psychology perspective, is nothing less than a socialized effort in deliberate behavioral modification of men’s natural drives and predilections to better fit the feminine imperative. As men socialized in an all-encompassing, pervasive, fem-centric reality, we tend to see “Natural Alphas” as outliers because somehow, through some combination of innate gift and external development, these Men have developed themselves into an Alpha state despite the meta-environment we find ourselves in.

The Natural Alpha

A lot of people call my credibility into question when they read my holding Corey Worthington up as an example of an apex Alpha. Guys who believe that Alpha should necessarily mean “virtuous leaders of men” are understandably insulted by Corey’s indifferent Alpha swagger. As I started in this post, the ‘Qualities of Alpha’ debates aren’t going away, but I think there’s an overall consensus among the manosphere and legitimate psychologists alike that there is an innate (probably testosterone fueled) Alpha drive that manifests itself in human males.

No one has to teach the average, healthy, five-year-old boy how to be Alpha – he gets it on his own. In various contexts that ‘lil’ Alpha’ wants to explore his surroundings, take risks, see what works and see what doesn’t, even when the consequences may be endangering himself or destroying the thing he took apart to see how it worked. It may manifest as a boy attempting to ride wheelies on his bike or a kid tinkering with his dad’s computer, but that unrefined, irrationally confident, Alpha swagger, is by order of degrees, an innate element unique to the male condition.

When a boy is unencumbered with an adult capacity for abstract thinking (ages 3-21 progressively) he is as Alpha as he will ever be. He is unapologetically Alpha and it takes a lifetime, and an entire world of feminized social conditioning to repress and/or crush that Alpha vigor and turn him into the pliable Beta the feminine imperative needs to insure its social primacy. This is precisely why the raw, irresponsible, irrepressible, obliviously un-self-aware Alpha energy of the Alpha Buddah/Corey Worthingtons of the world offend our sensibilities so well.

All of the Game theory, PUA techniques, even feminine-serving appeals to Man-Up! or any other effort designed to help men better mimic or internalize an Alpha behavioral or mind set, all of those efforts’ latent purpose is to return a man back to that primal Alpha energy the five-year-old you had in spades.


Double Standards

In a fem-centric society it should really come as no shock that the feminine controls the meta-messaging in its own interests. As in politics and religion, when you are the controlling interest in the framing of any and all discourse, you preset the terms of any debate. Nowhere is this more evident than in women’s precognitive understanding of the infamous Double Standard.

Ask any woman for an example of a Double Standard and you’ll unfailingly get some iteration of the age old chestnut, “men are heroes for banging a lot of women, but women are sluts for banging a lot of men, agh, how unfair,..” This is always an easy, but ironic, target considering the current gender landscape. However, the reason it’s such a cliché is because it’s representative of the fem-centric standard of messaging. Women own the term Double Standard by default; any mention of a Double Standard and women will gleefully presume the term refers to them. Women’s feminine indignation need requires little prompting to satisfy.

With this in mind, it may come as a shock to most that there are far more applicable Double Standards for men than for women. You see, for any illegitimate cause to progress it must always accuse its rivals of the sins it commits itself. Double Standard? Women own it. Unfair judgement based on physical standards? Women own it. This is called ‘sowing disbelief’ – if your premise is weak, assume victimhood. Female default victimhood is nothing novel, however, feminine primary social engineering goes this one better by presupposing any male even hinting about claims to victim status is automatically disqualified from being a man.

The following comparative list was originally meant to be a humorous exposé of ‘true double standards’, but in its comedy it reveals the code in the Matrix. Enjoy!

 


The Peacekeepers

Whenever I’m asked for examples of ‘successful marriages’ it’s usually in response to a comment or forum thread breaking down the cost-to-benefits ratio of the travesty that’s become Marriage 2.0. To me, the real irony in these evaluative debates is how often they arise. They come up so often it’s as if these men, in their most rational and prescient minds, are seeking permission from more experienced men to enter into marriage in spite of all the overwhelming downsides to what the institution has become. Even when they’re staring down the gun barrel, guys still want to get married. They want it to work like it’s supposed to.

‘Successful’ and ‘Failed’ Marriages

I’ve made prior posts about my own marriage and how I’ve developed it, but I’m always reluctant to hold myself up as some model for other men to follow because I’m painfully and personally aware of the marriage stories of other men. As good as it sounds, don’t use my marriage as your benchmark.

In fact I think the very idea of a “successful marriage” is a very abused, feel-good Oprah-esque term. ‘Successful’ and ‘Failed’ marriages are Matrix-speak. They’re goal oriented terms for a relational condition that’s constantly in flux. You have to stop thinking of a “successful marriage” in terms of years on the clock. There are people married for 50+ years who are absolutely miserable with each other, and there are couples married for 2 or 3 who have a better love and mutual respect for each other than their parents ever realized themselves after 40 years. Perpetuating a life-long state of misery because it became normalized is a much greater ‘failure’ than divorcing a woman who’s poisonous to your well-being, to say nothing of your family’s. Longevity does not equal ‘success’ in marriage.

Whenever I’m asked for examples of ‘successful marriages’, and particularly when asked by guys seeking to turn their Beta-framed marriage around, I always refer to this inspirational post from Dave in Hawaii. This is my go-to model for both the questioning unmarried man and the desperate beta-married man.

Experimentation

The underlying, root problem most men have with regard to women, intimacy, their relationships, etc. is fear. Fear of rejection, fear of isolation, fear of missing out on or fucking up what they’ve been taught should be their legitimate, socially approved desire. So pervasive is this fear that in trying to avoid the consequences of it, it trumps even the fear of death. I personally know Marines who’ve bravely faced real bullets shot at them, who’ll manically avoid any situation they think their wives or girlfriends would even remotely consider leaving them for. Bullets don’t scare them, but the chance of losing a girlfriend’s intimacy paralyzes them with fear. This is the “Yes Dear” fear.

In order to compensate for that fear men will devise all manner of rationales for their relations, but furthest from their mind would ever be ‘experimenting’ or engaging in risk taking situations with their LTR woman. So influential is that fear that they will never attempt changing their own positions no matter how beneficial it would be to both him and his partner. Guys embodying the peak of confidence in other aspects of their lives would still rather “keep the peace” in the face of a bad situation with their wives than risk that loss (of the ONE or otherwise), and be cast back into uncertain conditions where they may actually grow, but again be subject to real rejection.

Dave in Hawaii’s story I linked is an example of a guy who would’ve otherwise divorced his wife and was already in a “nothing left to lose” situation while married, so he overcame the fear and experimented. That led him to a new reframing of his relationship; one where his wife had a renewed respect for him. The possibility existed that she could have taken such offense to his behavior that she would’ve been prompted to leave him, but her leaving was already a foregone conclusion if he hadn’t initiated something new.

There comes a point in a Man’s life where the fear of experimenting with a potentially disastrous outcome is out weighed by the cost involved in not assuming that risk.

Whether it comes (preferably) before he’s committed to a situation (like marriage) or as a result of the conditions created by that commitment, at some point he realizes the truth that he will only get what he has gotten if keeps doing what he has done. This is the internal debate the ‘peacekeeper’ has to confront – is his peacekeeping so debilitating that he wont experiment with risking a new outcome? If you’re still having this internal dialog you haven’t reached that threshold yet.

In July I’ll have been married for 16 years. Mrs. Tomassi and I have always enjoyed a mature, adult, mutual respect and understanding of each other’s identities and how we relate to each other. I’ve been in LTRs where I was constantly walking on eggshells, nervous that any slight might mean the end of what was really a twisted, adolescent level BPD relationship. You cannot live like that forever; you will break it off, or you will commit suicide. For over 16 years I’ve fearlessly ‘checked out’ other women and ask my wife’s joking opinion about them. And yes, she playfully hits me back by saying some random guy is cute, but my confidence to roll with what we’re both aware is part of the Game only serves to amplify her continued attraction for me. That push-pull is an essential part of my wife’s respect for me. Experimentation and a sense of fearlessness is an intentional foundation of my marriage.


Mr. Mom

Fatherhood 2.0

This article was written in 2007, before the “economic downturn”, before the End of Men. It basically outlines the travails of house husbands and how “fulfilled” they felt they were in just “being there” for their kids.

What I find interesting in this article, and the many more just like it, is the fact that, once again, masculinity is always perceived in the negative. As if there is not a single beneficial quality of masculinity. “Masculinity is bad for you” you’re poisoned by your testosterone. Never is it mentioned that traditional, positive masculinity emphasizes rationality, persevereance, duty, and yes, risk taking behaviors that are necessary elements in daring to be something, or someone more than what your limited expectation might have you believe if all you had taught to you was feminine empathy, security-seeking and self-preservation instincts.

Imagine a world where men are taught not to rush into a burning building to save innocent lives because it’s just too dangerous. A feminine aspect is necessary for empathy, caring and nurturing to be complete, but you cut a person in half when you fail to teach them risk taking, perseverance, rationality, a desire to dominate and win, a positive competitive drive, and yes, a calculated ability to reserve and control one’s emotional reactions – all of these traits serve to make a more complete human being be they male or female.

99% of men in a house-husband capacity are there by economic or personal necessity, not by design. Notice that in every instance the guy is cast in his role due to his wife making more money than he – that was the reality of his situation. Of the guy’s interviewed in this article, you’d be hard pressed to find one who’s life’s ambition was to be a stay-at-home Dad. Most are so because of personal decisions they made and didn’t pan out. Is it any wonder that unemployed or underemployed men would need to find some rationale to give them a sense of pride? They make their necessity a virtue and then pass their failings along to another generation.

How many of these couples would’ve decided to have the father stay home if they both made the same money? How many opt to keep their children in daycare while both work due to economic realities? How many of these men will remain in their role once their children reach a self-sufficient adolscence? How many of these house husbands would still opt for this role (or reverse the role with their spouse) if offered a job that paid half again what their wives were making? You can fluff up the touchy-feely emotionality of it all, but at the end of the day it’s the bottom line that makes the decision, not some self-righteous sense of masculine or feminine purpose.

Paul Haley, 38, a father of two, says women look at him when he walks down the street with his kids. “I think it’s admiration,” he says.

Well I’d guess he’d better hope it is, otherwise it’s just him standing out like an anomally. Something tells me that a 38 y.o., married with 2 kids house husband would necessarily HAVE to interpret it as admiration, even though I’d doubt he has the social skills to recognize admiration from pity considering he’s been socially cut off dealing with diapers, runny noses, cartoons and early childhood development. Once again, necessity is a rationalized virtue.

I think there’s a derivative of Beta Game that men fulfilling a matronly role for their kids like to convince themselves of. They fashion for their egos the idea that since they are more directly involved in their kids upbringing, they share this commonality with women that other men don’t or wont. It’s a more pronounced form of Identification (beta) Game; “The ladies love me (but can’t have me) because I’m already the husbandly ideal they crave – a man who changes diapers, washes dishes, and gets the kids off to school.” As with most identification schemas, Mr. Mom thinks he sets himself apart from “other guys” by being better able to relate with experiences unique to women. By becoming a woman he believes he’s more desirable.

“Masculinity has traditionally been associated with work and work-related success, with competition, power, prestige, dominance over women, restrictive emotionality.”

Oddly enough, this is exactly the world into which women choose to put themselves. By this article’s definition, they are assuming the masculine role, but notice that for women, emmulating masculinity is a positve. If we’re going to go to the absolute and say “masculinity = bad” then professional mothers are the worst offenders of masculinity, because it is also their role to be the examples of feminine virture and nurturing. At the very least, by this logic, we’re expecting women to play both the masculine and feminine equally well. However in this model, we have a woman give birth and then pass off her responsibility of engendering her children with this exclusively positive femininity on her mate (which admittedly he’s unprepared for) while she goes off to engage in the masculine.

My daughter is not at want for anything either positively masculine or positively feminine. When she was younger I combed my daughters hair for her, not because I was “exploring my feminine side”, but because her hair needed combing so she was presentable and we could get out the door and be on time to whatever it was we were doing. I also personally taught my girl to ride a bicycle, even after she’d gone and fell off it numerous times and was scared crazy about it. But she got back on that damn bike, tears and all, and learned how to risk injury for a greater reward. I taught her to swim as well using the same principle. Mrs. Tomassi has a primal fear of deep water and about pees herself when I take my daughter into the waves (and they’re pretty small in Florida) at the beach. But once my girl got over that fear, she learned how fun it is to play in the surf. Both of us do homework with her and teach her along with her schooling, is this a masculine or feminine trait? On occassion, I’ll make her re-do an assignment, even though correct, if she’s done a sloppy job of it. She predictably complains and kvetchs all over, but the “big, mean, evil masculine” Father sticks to this so as to instill a sense of pride in ones work. I’m sure the authors of this article would call me a callous tyrant for being masculine and insensitve, but often enough it takes a masculine man to kick a kids ass because sometimes ‘good enough’ isn’t – not because masculinity is bad, but because I love her and it’s necessary.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,608 other followers