Category Archives: The Feminine Imperative

Balancing Act

balancing-life

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

From Donal Graeme’s Removing the Mask:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Game Adversarial?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tricks and Traps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s the trap.

 


Controlling Interests

controlling

I realize I dropped this quote last week, but it provides us with a unique illustration of the prevailing feminine psychology that’s been evolving since the sexual revolution.

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

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

In last week’s post I made note that Sheryl Sandberg was blissfully ignorant of her blatant admission of feminine hypergamy, but I felt her ‘advice’ to women here represented so much more than just a display of her solipsistic ignorance.

For as long as I’ve butted heads with many obstinate deniers of hypergamy’s influences, on women personally and society on whole, I’m not sure I’ve read a more damning indictment of hypergamy from a more influential woman. Sandberg’s advice to the next generation of women essentially puts the lie to, and exposes the uncomfortable truth about, women’s efforts deny the fundamental dynamic of female sexual strategy – Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.

Even if you want to argue the evolutionary (psychology) and biological origins of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, the fact is now socially evident; women have come to a point where they’re comfortable in openly admitting the truth that Red Pill awareness has been drawing attention to for over a decade now.

Courtesy of Sheryl Sandberg, the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks basis of women’s sexual pluralism is now publicly recognized. It’s kind of ironic considering that what the manosphere has been trying to make men aware of for years is now being co-opted, embraced and owned as if women had always practiced an open sexual pluralism – incredulous to any man’s shock over it.

However, the truth is that a feminine-centric social order can no longer hide the increasingly obvious fallout and consequences of a society restructured to accommodate women as the predominant sexual interest.

Last week I speculated that Sandberg was ignorant of the feminine-primary implications that her statements draw attention to – and I’m still of the opinion that an innate feminine solipsism motivates more and more women to this admission – but it’s impossible to ignore the new degree of comfort in which women feel in laying bare their dualistic sexual strategy.

To some significant extent the Feminine Imperative no longer needs to keep the ‘Good Genes’ / ‘Good Dad’ dichotomy ugliness a secret from men.

In last week’s post I mentioned that a new ambient sense of an assured long-term security in the feminine mind was predisposing women to prioritize the ‘Best Genes’ (Alpha Fucks) side of feminine hypergamy. Sandberg’s ‘advice’ is a vital confirmation of this, however, she tacitly acknowledges a window of  opportunity during which women possess a better capacity to pursue this side of hypergamy:

The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner.

In these two sentences Sheryl (and by extensions the Feminine Imperative) essentially confirms women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, my (now infamous) sexual market value graph depicting women’s peak SMV and decay, and the first half of the time line of women’s phases of maturity I laid forth in the first two installments of the Preventative Medicine series.

Selling the Beta

With regards to men, I believe the most salient part of Sandberg’s admission is found at the end:

These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.

For the better half of the time since the sexual revolution it was necessary for the Feminine Imperative to convince a majority of men that their eventual Beta providership for women was not only their duty, but also a prime aspect of feminine attraction. As I mentioned last week, under the (pre-sexual revolution) old-order attraction model this may have been the case to a large degree. However after the revolution, and as women’s hypergamy prioritized towards ‘Good Genes’ short-term sexual partners, the ‘Good Dad’ (Beta Bucks) men needed an ever increasing ‘sell’ of their own attractiveness by women.

This persistent sell was a necessary element of ensuring a future long-term security for women while pursuing increasingly more short-term breeding opportunities as feminine-primacy expanded into society. The future ‘Good Dads’ would need to be patiently waiting out women’s “indiscretion years” during their SMV peak, so the sell became an ever-evolving definition of what women found attractive in men based on that old-order model of dependability, patience, industriousness, and every other characteristic that defined a good provider.

Quoted from Why Muscularity is Sexy:

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.

Strategic pluralism theory is a pretty good definition of feminine hypergamy, but what this theory hadn’t yet accounted for (at the time it was published) was the necessitousness of women with regards to short-term mating strategies and long-term parental investment opportunities over the course of the various phases of maturity as they aged.

The Beta investment sell was necessary because it ensured male parental investment at a later (usually just-pre-Wall) time in a woman’s life. Thus, Sandberg’s praise of men “who think women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. [Men] who value fairness and expect or, even better, want to do his share in the home” will eventually be sexier than the Alpha “bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys” she encourages women to fuck earlier in life is an excellent example of this sell.

Ironically it’s exactly with this sell that women encourage the very transactional nature of sexual relations with men they’re screeching about recently. It’s the Choreplay fallacy on a meta scale – do more around the house, play into the equalitarian schema women think they need in a provider, support her ambitiousness and opinionatedness and you’ll be considered “sexier” and get her Best Sex she’s been saving just for a guy like this.

Building the Beta

The problem the Feminine Imperative runs into with selling the Beta is that as women’s “independence” expands this sell becomes less necessary and less effective. Less necessary because women’s personal, social and legal long-term security insurances have become almost entirely disconnected from men’s direct (not indirect) provisioning. Less effective because men have become increasingly aware of their disenfranchisement of the old-order provisioning model as being something they might equitably be rewarded for.

As the consequences and repercussions of women’s hypergamous priority shift to Alpha Fucks become more evident and real for men; and as their capacity and comfort with connecting and relating these experiences with other men becomes more widespread, the less effective the sell is for Beta men awaiting their turn to enter into a pre or post Wall monogamy with the women attempting the sell.

Throughout the 70′s, 80′s and most of the 90′s, the sell was effective because men were isolated socially and technologically from each other’s relative experiences. From the late 90′s onward that isolation has diminished while the societal results of feminine-primacy have become more glaringly, and painfully, evident to men.

In its ever-reinventive fluidity, the Feminine Imperative found it necessary to transition from selling men on being later and later life long-term providers for women into building a generation of men who would expect of themselves to fulfill that role when the time came. These men would be raised and conditioned to be the patient Beta providers women would need once they had followed the Sandberg model of hypergamy.

These would be the boys / men who would be taught to “naturally” defer to the authority of women under the auspices of a desire to be an equal partner.

These are the men raised privately and created socially to be ready for women, “when it comes time to settle down, and find someone who wants an equal partner.”

These would be the men ready to expect and accept a woman’s proactive cuckoldry of him in the name of being a pro-feminine equal.

These are the men raised to accept an open form of hypergamy in place of the selling to an old-order Beta provisioning model.

The Hypergamy Schism

The problem this creates for women becomes one of dealing with the men they need to sell a secretive hypergamy to and the men they build to accept an open form of hypergamy to. The increasing comfort with an open admission of hypergamy is relative to a woman’s capacity to get away with it.

A woman like Sheryl Sandberg has the means to decisively ensure her future independence and long-term security (at least in the financial sense) whether she’s married or not. She could very well return to the Bad Boys she found so arousing and advises women ‘date’ and never rely on a man’s direct provisioning. As such she’s very comfortable in publicly revealing the ins and outs of post-sexual revolution hypergamy without so much as an afterthought.

While she publicly affirms the build model of Beta provisioning (under the guise of equalism) and expects “those guys will be awaiting you” this doesn’t hold true for a majority of women. Women with affluence enough, or a physical attractiveness sufficient to virtually ensure their future provisioning are much more comfortable with the build a better Beta model than women who find themselves more lacking in this assurance.

The more necessitous a woman finds herself in the sexual marketplace, the more likely she is to deny the mechanics of her own hypergamy.

A woman less confident in consolidating on her future long-term security (and / or cooperative parental investment) has a much more personal investment in keeping the truths of hypergamy a secret from men. As such, these women will be more predisposed to misdirecting the men becoming more aware of this truth and relying more on the selling model of Beta provisioning.

Needless to say this split between women comfortable in open hypergamy and women reliant upon secretive hypergamy is a point of conflict between the have’s and have not women in the sexual marketplace. The more men become aware of women’s hypergamy and strategic sexual pluralism, through women’s open embrace of it or the manosphere, the more pressure the ‘have not’ women will feel to also embrace that openness.


Owed Sex

ron-hermione

In the aftermath of the Eliot Rodger’s tragedy there was one resounding go-to mantra from mainstream media, blue pill plugins and the femintariat alike…

“Men are not owed sex for anything.”

Last week I left a couple of comments on Dalrock’s blog outlining my expectations of having this be the first easily consumable public meme.

In its entirety:

This is the first binary retort I expect from feminists unwilling to dig any deeper into the transactional nature of human sexuality. God bless Roosh, but he didn’t do the manosphere any favors by simply stating that incidents like Eliot Rodger’s wouldn’t occur if men had more socially acceptable alternatives for sexual release or female intimacy, and then just leave the interpretation up to a media founded on feminism and feminine-primacy.

I get what his intent was, and probably most of the manosphere did too, but it was just too oversimplified not to be snapped up in the most binary (black or white) terms by feminist, like Linker, and the MSM as an easy mark to line up against. So of course “men” and fem-centrists throw out stupid bromides like “what, do we need ‘sex vending machines’ to keep men’s urges in tact so they wont shoot the pretty blondes they wanna fuck?”

The premise that a man would ever be ‘owed’ sex for anything is offensive to the feminine imperative because it offends women’s self-entitlement to being filters of their own hypergamy, plain and simple. Women’s hypergamy dictates whom they will and will not fuck according to their sexual strategy’s most urgent needs.

To presume a man is ‘owed’ sex for services rendered, or due to his own self-perceived prequalifications for a woman’s intimacy, is to remove women’s control of the decision making / filtering process of their hypergamy.

The offensiveness doesn’t come from the notion that men would need to perform in order to get sex, but rather that a man might forcibly assume control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.

This first comment was in response to the Damon Linker article Dalrock was picking apart. I won’t steal Dal’s thunder, so if you’re interested in that full article go have a read of it in its entirety. Later Dal asked me to clarify what I meant about men “forcibly assuming control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.”

I’m not clear on what you mean here, and fear that others will take this as a justification of rape. What do you mean by “forcibly”? Are you talking about Game?

To which my comment was, again, in its entirety:

Game, rape, guilt, shame, prearranged marriage, obligation, moral enforcement, really anything that removes or limits a woman’s hypergamous filtering and puts that control into the decision making process of men.

In the case of Rodger, although his killings don’t bear it out, his intent, at least as interpreted by a feminized MSM, was a presumed obligation on the part of women (and top shelf women no less) to recognize his self-perceived superior qualifications for their intimacy and reward him with sex, love, adoration, affection, etc.

Granted, the kid was a sperg with a list of very real psychological disorders, but the only thing a fem-centric society focuses on is the audacity he had in presuming he, and by association Any Man®, could assume control of a woman’s hypergamous filtering – in this case via an implied obligation.

The Two Sides of Hypergamy

Anyone who’s read the first part of my Preventative Medicine series understands the dual nature of feminine hypergamy. From a biological level to a social level, feminine hypergamy demands the optimization of two disparate elements: securing the best genetic (breeding) option a woman can attract, and the best long-term provisioning (security) option she can attract in a male. From biologically prompted mating behaviors to contemporary social entitlements, women seek a balance between breeding optimization and security optimization – preferably in the same man, but failing this, optimally in different men.

I’ve written about women’s security needs in various posts, but it’s important to understand that optimizing a woman’s best available options for hypergamy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) prompts a deep, evolved, psychological need for certainty. Feminine Hypergamy is defined by a profound, often life-long, uncertainty and doubt over the choices she makes in breeding and / or bonding with a given pool of men in her lifetime.

The Need for Certainty

Women’s sexual filtering, vetting, nagging, shit testing, as well as many other evolved habits are all subconsciously inspired by a need for hypergamic certainty.

In a pre-sexual revolution social order, a woman’s capacity to optimize her hypergamy (and pacify the uncertainty) had a variety of extrinsic limitations.

Some of these I listed in my comment to Dalrock; guilt, cultural stigma, shame, moral and religious conviction, obligations to family, arranged marriages, polygamy, and yes, rape, were all a means to limiting a woman’s decision making capacity to optimize her innate hypergamy.

Before I continue, let me state in no unclear terms, rape, in its most visceral definition, is bad. I don’t believe the general population of men need a lesson in yet more feminine shaming efforts to understand this simple idea. As most readers know, it’s generally my practice to describe things – not to prescribe things – and allow readers to make their own moral conclusions, but I’ll break form in this case.

Any given reader may see a positive or a negative argument for limiting feminine hypergamy via cultural or religious doctrines, but I am not now, nor will I ever, endorse forced sexual penetration on women (or men) as anything but a negative. However, in light of its undeniable limiting of feminine hypergamous choice, throughout human history, rape is the most direct way men have most decisively removed a woman’s hypergamic decision making capacity. To ignore this truth, or to be cowed by even the thought of considering it, is to deny the obvious.

In a post-sexual revolution social order, women’s control over their hypergamy is only limited by their capacity to attract the best prospective mate their sexuality, personality and physicality will afford them. Whether provided for by the state, personal independence or other means women in a post-sexual revolution era, to a larger degree than any other time in western history, have the security side of their hypergamic optimization virtually guaranteed.

Even with women for whom this security isn’t fully realized, the greater social undercurrent for the past 60 years has been one which presents women with a social responsibility to break away from provisional dependency on men, thus granting women unilateral control over their hypergamous decision making.

Whether this security-side assurance comes from legal institutions, abortion laws, paternity laws, the advent of no fault divorce, child custody and support distribution, or, the security guarantee comes in the form of social conventions which foster the expectation of men to be bound to a one-sided provisioning contract, the modern message is clear for women; Independence from the necessity of men’s provisioning largely reduces or eliminates the uncertainty of  long-term security.

Or in other words, unilateral control of a woman’s hypergamy means Beta Bucks now takes a backseat to Alpha Fucks.

The Old-Order

The provisioning and personal investment in character, masculine virtue and ambition that made the, pre-sexual revolution, old order man an attractive prospect for a woman’s security-side hypergamy no longer carry the necessary appeal they did to ensure he would attract a marriageable woman. For women, the old order of attraction was based primarily on the security side of her hypergamous need because this was the most uncertain aspect she could secure in a social climate where her hypergamous decision making was more constrained.

Not unsurprisingly, women’s prioritizing long-term security inspired men to accommodate it by cultivating provider characteristics in themselves in order to be attractive. This isn’t to say the same Alpha side arousal we see in women’s sexual prioritization today wasn’t important, or tingle generating. Rather, the old social order prioritized women’s security needs since the Alpha Fucks side of her hypergamy was buffered by women’s general dependence on a man’s long-term provisioning.

The problem now is that, since the sexual revolution, the majority of (Beta) men are still raised and conditioned in this old-order context, based on an outmoded social contract that they were taught to ego-invest themselves into in order to best effect their own sexual strategy.

Although it’s the easiest dismissal fem-centric society would have anyone believe, only the most ignorant and self-important of men would ever come to the conclusion that they were owed (in the most transactional sense) the sexual and intimate affections of a woman in exchange for his personal investment, resources, dedication and acts of kindness. Certainly not men raised and conditioned to defer to a woman’s honor and respect, by default, above his own.

However, due to the old order social conditioning that taught them that a man in the unquestioning service of a woman’s security-side hypergamy should be the pinnacle of attraction, their conflict comes not in being denied an owed reward, but rather that rewards of sex, love, adoration, affection, respect, etc. the old-order convinced them they can and should earn is observably being offered to men who embody the exact opposite of his old order conditioning.

Relational Equity vs. Alpha Fucks

Deti picked up on this conflict in the comments of last week’s post:

We as human beings need to eliminate the words “deserve” and “entitled” from our vocabularies. Women are not entitled to anything from men; just as men are not entitled to anything from women. This entire “male sexual entitlement” strawman that our opponents have erected is just bull, plain and simple. Men do not go around claiming “entitlement” to sex; only psychopaths and mental defectives do that.

For anyone unacquainted with the fallacy of Relational Equity, I’d suggest reading that post to get some familiarity. Relational Equity is the idea that the more a man invests himself into his relationship, all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. equity he accrues for that dedication and commitment should be rationally appreciated by a woman and thus a buffer against the Alpha Fucks side of feminine hypergamy.

In essence this fallacy is the is rooted in the old order, security-side dependence of women’s hypergamy – the trust is that Beta Bucks will trump Alpha Fucks.

A man’s ego-investment into this fallacy is often the cause of his want to define Alpha in his own image, rather than remove his ego from the process and observe how women react and behave around men they actually have an Alpha arousal for. An example of this old order Beta disconnect is embodied in the person of Corey Worthington (a.k.a. the Alpha Buddah):

Guy’s like Corey infuriate men who have invested their self-worth in the accomplishments of what they think ought to be universally appreciated and rewarded. So when they’re confronted with a natural Alpha being undeservedly rewarded for brazenly acting out of accord with what they think the rules ought to be, they seethe with resentment. The natural response in the face of such an inconsistency is to redefine the term ‘Alpha’ to cater to themselves and their accomplishments as “real men” and exclude the perpetrator. The conflict then comes from seeing his new definition of Alpha not being rewarded or even appreciated as well as a natural Alpha attitude and the cycle continues. Your respect (or anyone else’s) for an Alpha has nothing to do with whether or not he possess an Alpha mindset. 3 failed marriages and 100+ lays has nothing to do with his having or not having an Alpha mindset. There are many well respected betas who’ve never had a passing thought of infidelity, or may have 300 lays either with prostitutes or because they possess fame or stunning good looks and women come to him by matter of course.

I wrote this almost three years ago, but the parallels of this ‘Alpha in his own image’ dynamic that Eliot Rodger shared with men conditioned in the old order of earning or meriting women’s intimacy are undeniable. Despite Arthur Chu’s male-apologetic mewling, it’s not that men like this feel ‘entitled to or ‘owed‘ sex with their idealized women, but they do feel their investments in a relational equity, and what they’ve been conditioned to believe should qualify them for women’s attentions have been betrayed to men who gratify the Alpha Fucks side of women’s hypergamous natures.

Feminine-Primary Assortive Mating

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

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

Ironically the best spokeswoman to illustrate the dichotomy between both sides of women’s hypergamy should be Sheryl Sandberg – the voice and embodiment of several generations of women raised on the Feminine Imperative and unilaterally unrestrained hypergamy. So oblivious is Sandberg to her feminine-primary, solipsistic confirmation of hypergamy that it never occurs to her that men would be anything but accommodating of her life-plan advice for younger generations of women. It never occurs to her that a “man who values fairness” would ever reject her (much less despise her) for the duplicity that women’s dualistic sexual strategy disenfranchises men of.

So you see, it’s not a red pill awakening that predisposes men to believing they’re ‘owed’, ‘entitled to’ or ‘deserving’ of sex, love, adoration, affection or anything else from women – it’s the generations of women like Sandberg who unabashedly exploit the old order conditioning of Beta Bucks men, while expecting them to dutifully accept their open or discrete cuckoldry with Alpha Fucks men – and then tell them that “nothing’s sexier” than their complacency in it with a wriggle of their nose.

 


Male Space

female-boss-motorboat-elite-daily

There’s an interesting discussion that’s been belabored in the manosphere for a while now, that of traditionally “male spaces” being infiltrated by women and / or being redefined by feminized restructuring. The modern, western, workplace is the easiest example of this, but whether it’s the recent inclusion of women in the formerly all-male membership of Augusta Golf Club, or the lifting of the ban on women (and accommodating their prevalent physical deficits) being in combat roles in the military, the message ought to be clearer to red pill men; the feminine imperative has a vested interest in inserting itself into every condition of male exclusivity.

Whether this condition is an all male club or cohort (gender segregated team sports for example) or a personal state that is typically attributed only to the masculine – characteristic strength, rationality, decisiveness, risk taking, even brashness or vulgarity – the Feminine Imperative encourages women to insert themselves, and by association the Feminine Imperative itself, into masculine exclusivity. Scout Willis’ (Bruce Willis’ daughter) most recent ‘activism’ to encourage female equality by going topless in public is an example of this female-to-male parity (google it) – in an equalist utopia, if men can do it, women should be able to as well.

The First Woman

This push into male space is rarely due to a true desire to belong to a traditionally all-male institution or condition, but women are encouraged to believe they’ll make some dent in the universe simply by being the first to push past a “gender barrier.” It’s not about making a true contribution to that male institution or endeavor, but rather a goal of being ‘the first woman to do it too’.

For all of the misdirections of a hoped for equalism, it’s not about becoming an astronaut for a woman, but rather becoming the first woman-astronaut – then moving on to being the first woman assigned to a combat role in the military, then the first woman to play at Augusta. If equalism were the real intent, we could expect the desire of the endeavor itself would supersede this, but  the Feminine Imperative motivates women (and socially demotivates men’s resistance) to the first woman goal, not the actual accomplishment or excellence in that accomplishment or endeavor. The trail being blazed is less important than being the first woman trailblazer – in fact it can simply be the same trail men blazed centuries before and still be recognized as a significant accomplishment.

The goal is to be a woman in male space.

The cover story is the same trope the Feminine Imperative (and its social arm, feminism) always finds useful; the never ending push towards gender equalism. The practice however reveals the push into male space serves two purposes – social control and male oversight.

Social control is the easier of the two to grasp. Even when changing the rules of an all-male game to accommodate a lack of genuine female interest in a male endeavor, it fundamentally alters the nature of that game. The first woman allowed participation in that game is novelty enough to extend the Feminine Imperative’s social control into that male space (i.e. “nowadays women do it too”).

An easy example of this would be NASCAR’s embracing a driver like Danica Patrick. It’s not that she’s an exceptional driver, and I can’t vouch for her genuine passion for NASCAR, but the social control she represents is that she is the first woman to (dubiously) be taken seriously in the nominally all-male space of NASCAR drivers. The goal has been achieved, all that’s left now is female oversight of this male space.

Overseers in the Locker Room

The second purpose in the goal of female inclusion into male space is really a policing of the thought dynamics and attitudes of the men in that space. When women are allowed access to the locker room the dynamic of the locker room changes. The locker room can take many different shapes: the workplace environment, the sports team, the group of all-male coders, the primarily male scientific community, the ‘boys club’, the group of gamer nerds at the local game store, even strip clubs and the sanctuary you think your ‘man cave’ is – the context is one of women inserting themselves into male space in order to enforce the dictates of feminine social primacy.

When the influence of feminine-primacy is introduced into social settings made up mainly by men and male-interests, the dynamics and purpose of that group changes. The purpose becomes less about the endeavor itself and more about adherence to the feminine-inclusionary aspect of that endeavor. It starts to become less about being the best or most passionate at what they do, and more about being acceptable to the influence of the Feminine Imperative while attempting maintaining the former level of interest in the endeavor.

Men unaccustomed to having women in their midst generally react in two ways; According to their proper feminized conditioning, they embrace the opportunity to impress these ‘trailblazing’ women (hoping to be found worthy of intimacy) with their enthusiastic acceptance of, and identification with, their feminine overseer(s), or they become easy foils of an “out moded” way of thinking that the new ‘in-group’ happily labels them with.

Once the feminine-primary in-group dynamic is established a ‘feminine correct’ social frame follows. This feminine correction restructures the priorities of goals, and validates any accomplishments, in terms of how they reflect upon the feminine as a whole. Thus any in-group success is perceived as a feminine success in male space, while in-group failures or simple mediocrity is either dismissed entirely or blamed on out-group men’s failure to comply with, or the rejection of, the Feminine Imperative’s ‘correcting’ influence on the in-group.

‘Bro Culture’

When I was writing The Apologists I briefly delved into the topic of Bro Culture. It seems that a constantly self-reinventing feminism loves to attach “culture” to the end of anything it sees as threatening – Rape Culture, Male culture of privilege, and of course Bro Culture. Make no mistake, the concept of Bro Culture is an operative feminine social convention. It may be convenient to think of the stereotype of Bro Culture as a male creation, but this convention is the direct result of the Feminine Imperative’s controlling need to insert itself into male spaces.

There are other feminine social conventions with the same latent purpose, but the ‘Bro Culture’ meme is really a dual purpose shaming tactic intended to restrict and control traditional male bonding while also fostering infighting amongst in-group and out-group men once feminine influence has been established in a formerly all-male space.

One of the most threatening aspects of conventional masculinity for the Feminine Imperative is the cooperative potential of male bonding. When only men comprise an in-group, team building, common purpose and a masculine-primary environment tend to define that group. I would argue that the modern insertion of feminine influence into all male spaces is a concerted effort to limit this bonding and unity in favor of a feminine-primary ‘correctness’.

This limitation may not be directly influenced by a present female; often all that’s needed to foster feminine-primary correctness is a feminine-identifying male in the in-group (anonymous White Knight), or even just a prevailing attitude of not wanting to offend the suspicions that other in-group men may subscribe to this feminine-identifying influence for fear it may get back to a woman they perceive may have authority.

Infighting

From The Apologists:

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

This discomfort with ‘being a guy’ is the root disposition of many high-functioning Betas, and particularly those seeking to better identify with the feminine in the hopes it will pay off in sexual dividends. These are the guys who never ‘got it’ that shit talking and locker room jabs (the same male space invaded by the feminine) are intended not just to determine masculine fitness, but to foster living, building and measuring up to a better masculine standard that benefits both the individual man and the collective of humanity.

The fact that ‘Bro Culture’ is even a term, or the go-to archetypal examples of it begins with stereotypical jocks, “douchebags” and team sport locker rooms, illustrates the threat to which male-exclusive forms of communication poses to the Feminine Imperative. If male space can be co-opted in the name of gender equalism, it’s far easier to restrict that male communication and influence it to encourage a sense of responsibility towards  feminine-primary security needs. In other words, it’s a much easier task to create future Beta providers if a feminine influence can pervade all male spaces – this is facilitated all the better when it is men themselves who hold other men accountable to the dictates of the Feminine Imperative and feminine sexual strategies.

I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight of the way men communicate, test each other, hone each other, give each other shit, etc. being primarily defined in the context of Bro Culture, douchebaggery, team sports, etc. That intra-male dynamic crosses so many social, racial and cultural strata it becomes an overarching threat to the Feminine Imperative.

It’s an easy task to set men against each other when they perceive sexual rivals to be part of an out-group, and feminine influence in male space fosters this passive (sometimes active) infighting amongst men. Disrupting male bonding, or even the potential for it, limits men’s potential to unify in their own interests and their own imperatives. There are many in-group examples of all male space where this infighting and resentment plays out – it’s important to understand that male-exclusive forms of communication, testing, encouragement and shit talking, are in no way limited to just the locker room. Even guys in the chess club will give each other shit – at least until the Feminine Imperative inserts itself there.

Resisting the Influence

I can’t end this post without drawing attention to the all male meta-space that has become the gestalt of the manosphere. The manosphere is male space writ large and a testament to what men can do when they come together, share experience and put their minds to a common purpose. The methods may vary, but the desire to collectivize male experience for the benefit of other men is a meta-scale form of male bonding.

And as should be expected, there will be resistance to that communication and bonding on a comparatively meta-scale by the Feminine Imperative and the men and women who subscribe to it. I should also add that a very obvious attempt on women’s inclusion into red pill ideology, theory and practice is also a move by the feminine into a male space with much of the same purpose I’ve outlined here – social control and female oversight of it.

Even the most well meaning of women involved (however peripherally) in the manosphere are still motivated by their innate security needs – and those hypergamous security needs imply a want for certainty and control. As such the psychological influence of the Feminine Imperative will always be a predominant motivator in their participation in this all male space. This leads women to a want to sanitize Game to fit the purposes of the imperative, as well as oversee the thought processes of the men who come to participate in it.

Just like any other male space, the manosphere is subject to all the sanitization efforts of the Feminine Imperative I’ve outlined in this post – by both women and men who still ascribe to feminine-primacy.


Preventative Medicine – Part IV

prevent_4

From The Myth of the Quality Woman:

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

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

Print

The Schism

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

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

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

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

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

Deal with It

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

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

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

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

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

Redevelopment / Reinsurance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Late Phase Security

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

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

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

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

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

Once menopause ensues that retrospective need becomes more urgent.

Conclusion

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

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

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

Thanks for sticking with this.

RT


Preventative Medicine – Part III

baby2

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

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

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

Uses

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

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

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

Who cares?

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

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

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

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

 

Print

 

The Security Phase

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

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

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

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

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

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

Settling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Development Phase

From The Curse of Potential:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 7 Year Itch

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

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

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

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

The Path to Spinsterhood

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

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

31 to 34 year olds

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

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

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

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

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


Preventative Medicine – Part II

Cougar-Cub-Curve

Navigating the SMV continues to be one of my most prolific posts. I can remember originally writing that post and plotting the graph as a one-off response to a comment (by Deti I think) made requesting a graphic representation of how both men and women’s SMV waxes and wanes as they progress through life. At the time I had no idea how influential and accurate the graph would be, but it seems that not every three or so months someone links or emails me an outside study with a graph that is so similar to my initial perception of sexual market valuation and devaluation that it kind of creeps me out a little bit.

This most recent graph comes to us courtesy of the Red Pill subreddit, linked to the Cougar and Cub Dating Study on Whatsyourprice.com.

From the chart above, we see that the perceived value of an attractive woman peaks when she reaches 25 years old, and gradually diminishes as she ages.  The perceived value of an attractive man however, starts at a much lower price when he is young, peaking only when he reaches the age of 34.  It appears from the value curve above that at least some stereotypes we often hear do hold some truth.  For example, that female models earn the most before they turn 30.  Or that men become more attractive as they age.

But no matter what some of you may read from the value curves above, it has proved a useful tool for predicting when Cougar-Cub couples get together, and when they are likely to break up.  The value curves also provide clues of what types of Cougar-Cub relationships stand the best chance of surviving in the long run.

Granted, my own parameters were slightly broader in scope (female SMV peaked at 22-23, men’s 36-38) but the base premise is astonishingly similar. As you might expect the comments are rife with “well-not-in-my-case”, “people are individuals” personal anecdotes, but the grouping of the graph plot is too similar not to recognize a consistency of form with my original SMV graph:

SMV_Curve

 

There are other studies and graphs that reflect this basic model. Some are more forgiving and project the feminine SMV decay a bit less or starting later – rarely is men’s SMV any less rigorous – and each study has differing objectives, but the form of the curves are so alike that it’s impossible not to notice the general similarities. I’ve done several followup posts in order to address the most common (deliberate) misunderstandings, as well as the most pressing questions about my SMV graph, so while we move on to the next section of the SMV timeline this week please be sure you reference the side bar category I have set up that exclusively covers the topic if you have questions. I’m prefacing this week’s continuation of Preventative Medicine with this graph because it will be an integral element to understanding the progression through the Epiphany and Transitionary phases.

 

Print

 

The Late Party Years

Although not a subsection itself, the latter third of a woman’s Party Years deserves some mention in that the end of this phase is often a prelude for the rationales women develop leading into the Epiphany Phase. As I mentioned here, some third party SMV studies will place a woman’s peak SMV as late as 25-26 years old. I’d argue that this is far too late in a woman’s life progression.

Statistically, most women express a desire to settle down, be married and start a family at or around the age of 27 to 30, and most marriages do happen between 26 and 30 for western women. The popularized, feminized ideal of a woman enjoying her prime – often excused as fulfilling her nebulous professional potential – is a primary contributor to this marriage postponement, but it’s important to point out to men dating women in this phase that the last two years of the party phase will be the stage at which a woman will begin to feel an urgency for long term commitment.

I summed this phase up in Cashing Out, however, it’s here that women, with the foresight to see it, will make their best attempts to consolidate on marriage with the man who best embodies, or has the potential to embody, the Alpha sexual-genetics with the providership parental investment that an optimized hypergamy seeks to balance in the same man. At no other time will a woman feel more urgency in capitalizing on her still prime attractiveness and sexual agency with a man she believes will fulfill the dual dictates of her sexual strategy.

“Where is this going?”

This is the most common phase in which a man will hear the words “where is this going?” from a woman, or is delivered ultimatums of withdrawal of intimacy (no more sex, or threats of break up) if no proposal is forthcoming in the foreseeable future.

Although women’s preferred method of communication rests in the covert, as she matures towards a condition of a lessened capacity to intra-sexually compete with her younger peers (competition anxiety) most men discover that women in this demographic, by necessity, lean more on overt communication. The coquetry, indirectness and blasé indifference that she used to hold and enjoy male attentions during her SMV peak years is progressively traded for more direct certainties of promised, committed assurances of future security.

Side note: Bear in mind that security for women isn’t always manifested as financial provisioning, but can be emotional investment, parental investment, physical security and most importantly fulfilling a masculine role of stability and dominance in her life.

Of primary importance is the consideration that women seek the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks (AFBB) balance of their hypergamous interests in the same man at this stage. That’s not to say this isn’t always the operative for feminine hypergamy, but it’s during the late party years phase that a woman (on some level of consciousness) begins to realize this time is her best opportunity to use her quick-burn SMV to consolidate on an optimized hypergamy. This isn’t due to premonitions of the Wall per se, but it is the first recognition of her diminishing capacity to sexually compete for male attention with young women experiencing their own SMV peak years.

During this period women will often make their first earnest attempts to find ways – sometimes by coercion – to ‘fix’ an Alpha into satisfying the Beta Bucks side of her hypergamy equation, or, to seriously evaluate an already committed Beta’s potential to ‘man up’ and be more Alpha, more ambitious and assesses (what she believes will be) his future SMV potential.

Lastly, bear in mind that women in this phase experience this urgency in direct proportion to what their looks, sexuality and command of male attention will afford them. It’s simple reasoning to figure that women who maintain their physical attractiveness / sexual agency and are consistently rewarded for it with male attention will prolong that state as long as possible. Thus, some attractive women may perpetuate their party years until such time as that attention abruptly ends.

The Epiphany and Transitory Phase

I’ve written extensively on these phases so please have a read of my prior posts The Epiphany Phase, Time’s Up and Cashing Out for a more in-depth understanding of what to expect from women during this stage of life.

Between the ages of 28 to about 30 (sometimes later for attractive women perpetuating their party years) women often enter into a more cognitive awareness of their personal conditions with regard to their declining SMV. This phase I call The Epiphany Phase; it is the point at which the subconscious awareness a woman has of her sexual market value in relation to her eventual date with the Wall can no longer be subconsciously repressed and ignored.

It is of primary importance to men to fully understand the significance this phase has for women. The epiphany isn’t about women hitting their SMV Wall  during this phase (though it’s possible) it’s about a woman conscientiously coming to terms with a markedly lessened capacity to sexually compete with her SMV-peak peers for the same male attention she enjoyed during her party years.

The abstract exaggeration is to think a woman necessarily hits the Wall at 30, her physical attractiveness shrivels and she magically transforms into a spinster cat lady overnight. Women absolutely (with effort) can and often do retain their looks and sexual agency past this phase; some into their late 30′s and 40′s.  However, what defines this phase is the conscious realization that their looks are no longer what they were in their prime. Combined with this is the awareness that they can no longer sexually compete at the same level as young women in their SMV peak for the attentions of men they now hope to consolidate their hypergamy on in long term commitment and provisioning security.

The Epiphany phase isn’t about women hitting the Wall so much as it is about an urgency to consolidate upon a man’s commitment of long term security with the competition anxiety that comes from realizing it’s now she who must to put forth the effort to secure it rather than having it offered to her as it was by the men in her SMV-peak years.

From The Epiphany Phase:

This is a precarious time for women where she makes attempts to reassess the last decade of her life. Women’s psychological rationalization engine (a.k.a. the Hamster) begins a furious effort to account for, and explain her reasonings for not having successfully secured a long term monogamous commitment from as Alpha a man as her attractiveness could attain for her. Even women married prior to this phase will go through some variation of self-doubt, or self-pity in dealing with the hypergamic uncertainty of her choice (“Is he really the best I could do?”).

A woman’s late party years are often the stage during which she entertains the hope that she can ‘civilize’ the Alpha Bad Boys who satisfy the visceral side of her hypergamy into assuming the providership role the other side of her hypergamy demands and is increasingly becoming more urgent for her – most Alpha Widows are made during this period. However, it’s during the Epiphany phase women (conveniently) make the rationalizations necessary for justifying this ‘fixing’ effort.

During the Epiphany Phase a woman’s inner and outer dialog is self-excusing, virtuously self-educational and self-congratulatory.

“I used to be so different in college, but I’ve grown personally” or “I’ve learned my lesson about pursuing the ‘wrong kind’ of men, I’m done with Bad Boys now” and “What happened to all the Nice Men?” are the standard clichés women will tell themselves and vocally (overtly) broadcast, directly or indirectly, to all the men with a providership potential in the hopes of signaling to them that she will now entertain their feminine-preconditioned offers of love, loyalty and dependability she had no interest in during her party years.

It’s during this stage that women will make radical shifts in their prioritization of what prerequisite traits qualify as ‘attractive’ in a man and attempt to turn over a new leaf by changing up their behaviors to align with this new persona they create for themselves. Since the physicality, sexual prowess and Alpha dominance that made up her former arousal cues in a Man aren’t as forthcoming from men as when she was in her sexual prime, she reprioritizes them with (presumed) preferences for more intrinsic male attributes that stress dependability, provisioning capacity, humor, intellect, and esoteric definitions of compatibility and intimacy.

For the spiritually inclined woman (which is to say most women) this may manifest in a convenient return to religious convictions she’d disregarded since her adolescence. For other’s it may be some kind of forced celibacy; a refusal to have sex under the hypergamic auspices of her ‘party years’ in the hopes that a well provisioning male (the ones not realizing their own potential SMV as yet) will appreciate her for her prudence – so unlike herself and all of the other girls who rejected him over the last decade.

The self-affirming psychological schema is one where she’s “finally doing the right thing”, when in fact she’s simply making the necessity of her long term provisioning and security a virtue she hopes men will appreciate. And if they don’t, then there’s always shaming them to think they’re ‘less-than-men’ for not living up to her eating her cake once she’s had it

While looks and masculine physical triggers in men are still an important attraction factor, her desire for a personal association with a man’s status and affluence begin to sublimate her physical priorities for attraction as she increasingly realizes the necessity of these attributes for her (and any offspring’s) long term provisioning. It should be noted that the appeal of a man’s potential for provisioning is proportional to her actual (or perceived) need for that provisioning.

As a woman moves into the Transitory phase (29-31) this re-prioritization also coincides with the adjusted self-perception of her own SMV. As a woman becomes more cognizant of her lessened ability to sexually compete for men who (she believes) would meet her best hypergamic balance, she’s forced to reassess her self-image. There are many feminine social conventions already pre-established to help her deny or buffer this reassessment. However, her hindbrain still acknowledges the competition anxiety that (unless, by effort or genetics, she’s a notable physical exception) she simply cannot command the kind of male attention women in their SMV-peak years do.

Note that the reality of this assessment, or realistic expectations of it, aren’t the source of this anxiety, but rather it’s what she believes them to be. An exceptionally attractive 30 year old woman may still be able to sexually select men above what most women her age can expect, but it’s what she believes about herself,  her internalized expectations for her age and party years experience has taught her. And as you may guess this self-assessment is also subject to the influences of social media and social conventions that pander to this same Transition period anxiety.

The Transition

I believe it was Roosh who stated that the only women who complain about men needing to Man Up or how men have somehow shirked the masculine responsibilities the Feminine Imperative society expects of them are always 30 years of age or older. Younger women simply have no motive to complain about what they believe they are entitled to in a man beyond his being ‘hawt’.

What I term as the Transition phase is the culmination of the Epiphany phase’s influence on a woman who’s thus far been unable to consolidate on monogamy with a male who fulfills the role of provider (Beta provider most often) that her hypergamy now holds in much higher priority order. When women in this phase complain of men’s “adequacy issues” what they’re really bemoaning is their chronic inability to find (or merit) a man who can balance the dual influences of her hypergamy.

The urgency for this consolidation is further compounded by the misconceptions most women hold about the Myth of the Biological clock, but in biological terms she’s well past the years of her prime fertility window and conceiving and bearing children becomes progressively more difficult for women with each passing year.

In the Transition phase the competition anxiety that prompted the Epiphany phase is exchanged for an anxiety that results from confronting the possibility a woman may never consolidate on a long term security. However, as always, feminine social conventions are already in place to absolve her of any real personal accountability for this incapacity.

Thus, begins the ‘Men are threatened by powerful women’, ‘Men have fragile egos’, ‘Men are shallow and only want young chippys they can manipulate instead of vibrant, women who are their intellectual equals’ and various other canards intended to simultaneously shame men into compliance with their hypergamous imperative and relieve women of any personal accountability for the anxiety the Transition phase forces them to experience.

In closing todays post, I think it’s important to consider other outcomes of personal decisions women often do make during these periods. As I mentioned in Part I, it’s not uncommon for women to already have consolidated on monogamy (LTR or marriage) well before either of these phase take place. While the experiences may differ, the underlying influences that prompt these phases remain more or less the same. I’ll elaborate more on this in Part III as it primarily relates to the later phases of women’s maturation process.


Secret of the Sperm Bank

Sperm Sample

Over on Dalrock’s blog Anonymous Reader had an interesting insight about the Alpha Fucks – Beta Bucks dichotomy:

Turning to the Missouri sperm donor case, I got to thinking about the whole notion of a sperm bank. Without bothering to search, they seem to be an invention of the 1960′s. I recall reading about the concept in high school biology, and the original justification was to provide infertile married couples with the chance for the wife to bear a child into the marriage. A couple of the matriarchs of my family were absolutely shocked when sperm banks started serving, or perhaps servicing, unmarried women. That was immoral, in their eyes. Looking backwards it should be no surprise that in some progressive, coastal venues men began providing turkey-baster filling for lesbian couples in the 1990′s – it’s not that big a step from “woman goes to specialized OB/GYN for syringe of semen” to “woman and her partner get together with male friend and turkey baster”. Bonus points in some quarters if the man is gay…but I digress.

Let’s look at this abstractly. Man and woman marry, find that she isn’t getting pregnant, determine from medical testing that his swimmers aren’t winning the race. So they pay for another man to impregnate her, although via a medical go-between. The original sperm banks screened donors and pretty much limited them to med students and other college men.

This is “Alpha Sperm, Beta Provisioning”, and nothing less. Putting a tech or a doctor in the middle wearing gloves and a lab coat, and injecting semen with a syringe rather than the usual method doesn’t change that. Sperm banks are therefore a clinical version of AF-BB, and as such clearly serve the Female Imperative in the same manner as a married woman having an affair while she’s ovulating – except that the latter is still sorta frowned upon, while the former has been a part of US culture for 40-50 or more years. I wonder what the time line is – did sperm banks show up about the same time as hormonal contraception, for example?

Now turning back to the sucker in Missouri: what’s his real crime? Sperm donor without a license, I guess, his lesbian friends failed to use the medical go-between, and his ignorance left him liable. But in terms of the Female Imperative, perhaps he wasn’t alpha enough – they could find him – or perhaps he was alpha enough for breeding purposes (paging Mary Daly…) but beta enough for provisioning as well? I have to ponder this one more.

But the sperm bank? That’s obvious now that I wear the glasses, but it’s still kind of startling to realize that it just hit me last night that the whole idea of a sperm bank is a clear, medicalized, fully legal example of the Female Imperative of AF-BB and it’s been right out in the open for at least two generations. And it is totally normal. In fact it was apparently not all that controversial even at the start. Certainly today we all accept it because teh wimmenz deserve their own bay-bee if they want one (or more), no matter the cost to anyone else.

Another case of the Female Imperative hiding in plain sight. Someone alert Rollo.

On virtually any post I’ve made about feminism directly or where the topic of the Feminine Imperative gets redirected to one of how feminism (and previously chivalry) are social structure arms of the Feminine Imperative, one or more commenters invariably post the youtube video about how feminism was conceived to destabilize western society (by the Rockefellers?). I’m not going to speculate about some conspiracy to use the “Women’s Movement” as a premeditated social influence (there are better resources than RM for this if you’re really interested), however the fact that sperm banks were an unheard of development prior to the sexual revolution does give me pause to think that they were a need anticipated to better facilitate and perpetuate a future feminine-primary society.

It’s interesting to note that at the time of their institution, a sperm bank was a shocking development for the culture of that era. Now, a repository of men’s (presumably the best of men) genetic material can be had by any woman seeking to have a child is just part of our social scenery. The inherent hypergamic influence in this long since normalized institution can’t be ignored – just from a pragmatic standpoint hypergamy is going to dictate that women will seek out the best genetic potential for their offspring, whether artificially inseminated or by the ‘traditional’ means.

Institutionalized “Alpha” Fucks

The fact that sperm banks’ existence have been practically ubiquitous for well over 60 years now brings up some interesting social and biological dynamics.

The first of course being what Anonymous Reader observes; the fact that a repository of ‘Elite’ men’s genetic material would exist at all is the final indictment of the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks dynamic (case closed). Presumably the bank, uniquely instituted to fulfill only women genetic imperatives, would be interested in superior male specimens. What constitutes ‘superior’ or at least good quality stock is determined by a particular bank’s standards, but one might assume they would filter for overall health and viability of a man’s sperm.

I’m no expert, but I would think screening for a family history of genetic diseases, cancer, mental stability and of course HIV are on the list. I may be mistaken, but I’d also guess that a bank would screen for relatively younger men with more fertilization-viable sperm, since there is evidence that a man’s quality of sperm does in fact decay into his later years.

Beyond the biological aspects I suspect women would want a child with at least an imagined potential for future success in life so a personal background would most likely be a part of that screening process. Granted, that may be subjective depending on the demographic of women seeking (and can afford) fertilization, but I think it’s safe to assume that ethnicity, socio-economic, educational and personal success all factor into this assessment. Long story short, hypergamy, at least in the breeding aspect of it, dictates the selection process for women. As Anonymous points out, the original intent of a sperm bank / fertility clinic was to provide a woman (presumably wife) with the sperm of a viable man when her husband’s sperm was inviable – in essence, in vitro cuckolding.

If all this reads as an institutionalization of the Alpha Fucks side of women sexual pluralism (hypergamy) you’re not too far from the mark. It’s really an institutionalized form of selective breeding, entirely beholden to feminine hypergamous interests. But before I go off the deep end here, let me state that I fully realize that there’s never been some mass influx of women making ‘runs on the sperm bank’ to wantonly get themselves pregnant. Given the option, I’m sure most women would rather go with the holistic approach to impregnation (and long term private support), but the operative here is that the concept and institution of a sperm bank available to facilitate women’s biological imperative (at as optimized hypergamy as reasonable) is a normalized, almost ubiquitous social concept for modern culture.

There is really no parallel to this degree of institutionalized sexual selection for men. While there are fertility clinics for couples who may purchase donor eggs, there are no commercial ‘egg banks’, nor are there commercially available volunteer women eager to gestate and birth children to exclusively facilitate men’s biological imperatives. That isn’t to discount surrogate mothers gestating the fetuses of a sponsor couple (another extension of fulfilling the feminine biological imperative), but a man uniquely looking for a donor egg to inseminate and/or a surrogate mother to birth the child for him is all but unheard of.

And really, even if he was so predisposed to it, why would a man go to the trouble and expense? Suspending disbelief, even if he did father the child, the mother could still have exclusive rights to custody with the child if it were pressing enough for her.

From a social perspective it’s interesting to note the era in which sperm banks became normalized in society; immediately after the sexual revolution. Almost as if in anticipation for the unfettering of women’s hypergamy, the facility of insuring a woman’s best optimized hypergamy was institutionalized and normalized. This may sound like conjecture (since the socially proposed purpose was to facilitate pregnancy for an infertile man), but the utility of sperm banks quickly shifted to facilitating the pregnancy of women who wouldn’t be married or had no intention of marrying to start a family.

This was the first institution, legalized and normalized that laid bare feminism latent purpose – strong independent women® could remove the man from the equation of effecting an optimal hypergamy, while at the same time effecting future legislation and social engineering to enlist men (either publicly or privately) in the provisioning of this new breed of motherhood. And with every guy dutifully jerking off into a petrie dish, they effectually contribute one more element to institutionalized Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,286 other followers