Category Archives: The Matrix

Too Hot

too_hot

Over the Christmas break I had Dalrock and several SoSuave members alert me to a recent story about the firing of a dental assistant for “being too attractive”. I’d thought it was pretty laughable at first glance, but there’s a lot more going on in this situation than just what’s on the surface here. Naturally the fem-centric media starting point is the egregiousness of the all-male Iowa high court unanimously agreeing that a woman could be fired for something other than her job performance. It’s always interesting to observe the legal twistings when when the feminine imperative smacks into a law it hasn’t yet distorted to its own purposes (like right-to-work laws). I’m sure the case will be taken up the chain to even higher courts, but the operative will be the same – women don’t want to be beholden to general laws that conflict with the feminine imperative. Give it time and new definitions of what constitutes sexual discrimination, and you’ll see how fluidly the imperative achieves its ends.

Beyond the indignation prompting social fallout, there’s an interesting illustration in Game theory here. Melissa Nelson, a semi-attractive 32 year old dental assistant has her 10 year employment stint terminated by 53 year old Dentist, James Knight for representing too tempting a  potential lover and too potential a threat to his marriage. This is where it gets interesting:

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.

Well, considering all she wore were standard issue medical scrubs it would appear that it didn’t take much to arouse the good dentist.

While her former boss claimed her clothes were so tight he couldn’t look at her without being aroused, Nelson said the only outfit she wore to work was standard scrubs worn by many nurses and assistants in dental offices.

Think about this for a moment, when Knight hired her 10 years ago she would’ve been 22 and he would’ve been 43. Looking at the more recent pictures of Nelson, I can see she’s followed the standard SMV curve, and while I wouldn’t rate her higher than maybe a cleaned up HB7, no doubt Knight was privy to watching her progress from her SMV peak at 22, to the inevitable two child, postpartum “chop it short” mommy-do at 32. After watching this and enduring the slow-burn, sexual pangs for a decade I suspect that Knight probably spent in inordinate amount of masturbatory energy on her mental image.

He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, “that’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”

No doubt about, we’ve got a beta here. Blatant and obviously telegraphed sexual interest ham-fisttedly delivered  as a compliment not only belies the beta, but no woman in human history has ever responded positively to it. In all my time counseling in the manosphere I’ve heard some derivative of this line constantly used by beta orbiters hoping that their ONEitis will get the message that she’s not being treated as well as she should be, and he’s uniquely qualified to appreciate her for her rarity. What chumps like Knight don’t get is that genuine desire and sexual impulse cannot be negotiated.

All a long-married beta like Knight is doing is falling back on his adolescent social skill set. This is the hallmark of a chump who’s never developed his Game beyond what it took to convince his wife to marry him.

Knight and Nelson — both married with children — started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.

Once you see the pictures of Mrs. Knight all of this crystalizes for us.

mrs_knight

Now we add in the element of Mrs. Knights suspicion and a healthy dose of parochial shame from their pastor (most likely at Mrs. Knights behest) and we see the good dentist moved to terminate “just an ordinary mom”.  Here we see an all too common theme of the feminine imperative; using men to settle a score between women. My guess would be that had Mrs. Knight not discovered said texts, Nelson in all her ‘hotness’ would still be employed.

Knight is a very religious and moral individual, and he sincerely believed that firing Nelson would be best for all parties, he said.

I generally reserve my interpretations of the religious ramifications of Game to blogs like Dalrock’s, but at the risk of encouraging the moralist commenters on my blog, I have to draw attention to how the feminine imperative influences religious perceptions. This very religious and moral individual in all likelihood had been devising scenarios in his head about how he might engage in some kind of sexual tryst with Nelson through out her peak SMV years. He watched her progress through a relationship, watched her get married, gave her maternity leave when she had two kids, and still he pined. That pining only ended when Mrs. Knight demanded Nelson’s termination. Once again, biology trumps conviction, and did so for a decade, but once his back is to the wall he makes necessity a virtue.

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month’s severance. He later told Nelson’s husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

When you compare James Knight to David Petreaus’ situation you can’t help but notice some surface level similarities. Both married to well-past the Wall wives and open (at least ideally) to getting with younger, better looking women. Their stories are an all too common theme in today’s SMP. Just based on what I see from the pictures, Knight strikes me as that archetypal mature guy who married young (well before fully realizing his true SMV), played by the rules, and probably only woke up to his SMV when a hot 22 year old made him realize his past potential. When a guys like this make sexual allusions comparing undriven Lamborghinis to the objects of their sexual desire, the real message is their own sexual dissatisfaction with their wives. Harboring that angst for 10 years while your ‘too hot to work with’ ONEitis is only infrequently getting banged is a special kind of beta hell.

When I wrote about the redefining of men’s mid-life awareness, Knight’s circumstance is the uglier side of that.

The truth about men’s mid-life crises isn’t about recapturing youth, it’s about finally understanding the trappings they’ve been sold into through their 20′s and 30′s and coming to terms with that often horrible truth. Some men do in fact buy the sports car, get the new hottie wife or act in some fashion that appears reckless and irresponsible. This isn’t due to infantilism, but rather new understanding of their own position as men. They’ve “lived responsibly” for so long and for so little appreciation that when that true realization is made they feel the need to move. They’ve become respected, put in the hours, the sacrifice, the censoring of their own views. They realize now that they’ve sold off true passions in favor of maintaining what others have told him was his responsibility – whether it was his choice or not. And all for what? A fat wife? A shrew? Maybe even a fantastic marriage and a wonderful family life, but also a nagging doubt about not seeing enough of the world by 40 because of it.

Now, before it gets said, I’m not suggesting that Knight have gone ahead and got after it with Nelson (if that was ever a consideration), but I do understand his predicament and the motivators behind it. If anything Knight serves as yet one more warning for men in realizing their SMV too late. The real tragedy here is that for a brief moment Knight was becoming aware of his (waning) SMV only to reinsert himself back into the Matrix with the aid of his wife and pastor. The real damage will be dealt in his new need for constant repression of this knowledge every time he bangs his wife, every time she nags, every time she gives him that doe-like thousand yard stare; he’ll understand the oldest manosphere proverb – once you know about the Matrix there is no going back.


First Man Awake

As most readers know I rarely engage in political discourse unless it has relevance to intergender dynamics. This video is an exception. If you need a clear example of a feminist controlled state, this is it.

I actually went through Women’s/Gender Studies course when I was in college. The main reason I took the class was because there were only 2 classes being offered on campus that completed a Capstone, Humanities and Diversity requirement in a single class – Holocaust Studies and Women’s Studies. That’s basically the estimation most women want you to think their ‘sufferage’ is on par with; the Holocaust. I chose Women’s Studies because I basically wanted to put my money where my mouth has always been (literally and figuratively ) and also get inside what popular media, and the feminization that it’s gone through for the last 40+ years, has been selling both men and women. I enjoyed debating these ladies as I was one of 2 guys in the Women’s Literature class.

I didn’t know it at the time, but one of the beacons of positive masculine hope I had back in the days before the internet, before understanding Game and even the term ‘red pill’ was reading Why Men are the Way They Are by Dr. Warren Farrell. It opened my understanding of intergender relations in a way I’d never understood. If I had a red pill moment in my past reading this books was it. It was published in 1986 so the specifics might be a little dated for a modern reader, but for an overall perspective of how our gender landscape has evolved it will always be on my ‘must read’ list for guy just now taking the red pill.

My phone-it-in feminist stepmother and beta-confused father had picked up the book in order to eviscerate it in some proto-SWPL home book club they belonged to at the time. Oddly enough it ended up on their bookshelf after that (replete with my stepmother’s penciled in margin notes), and I remember picking it up in the hope that it would give me some self-effacing insight into how I could be a more accommodating beta schlub for my BPD girlfriend who was slowly eroding the last vestiges of my former Alpha self.

What it did was enlighten me.

Farrell is anything but a rape apologist, I would compare him with the first man to wake up in the Matrix. Most of his insight, research and writing were prompted by his involvement in the early 70’s feminist movement. He even self-identified as a male feminist back then, but it was this experience that brought him to a fuller understanding of the feminine imperative.

Intellectual Lethargy

What offends me about this protest isn’t the actual protesting, but the sheer ignorance behind it. If it were the easily digestible blatherings of Rush Limbaugh they were protesting I could understand it, but Dr. Farrell isn’t even in the same universe. All this is is an example of intellectual lethargy, which is really a shame because I would expect that the young men and women involved in the protest, all students at U of T, would be acquainted with research and critical thinking skills necessary before formulating such strong opinions and visceral reactions.

To be educated takes a constant effort. Most people in modern society simply do not have the time, inclination or motivation to be in any way knowledgeable about more than a peripheral understanding of the world around them. The ridiculously ironic part is that we live in an era when communication of information has never been more easily accessible to us.

Now add to this that we’re expected to be at least somewhat well informed due to this access. Our ego-investments with regards to politics, religion, social dynamics, gender relations etc. all depend upon a belief that we’re actually well informed enough know what we’re talking about and draw our own conclusions. We would have to be, right? It’s expected of us as intelligent human beings.

The truth of the matter is that unless we are immediately benefitted by educating ourselves about a particular subject (i.e. as short term a profit as easily manageable), for the vast majority of modern society, educating oneself is a hobby at best. We live in a fast-food, fast-information society. We can’t be bothered to, or in some cases really afford to, develop critical thinking skills – particularly when they might challenge our own ego-investments. This is why the feminine Matrix flourishes today, it’s easier not to think about things that are counter to our social conditioning.

But we want to be right, and to be right we have to believe that we have these critical thinking skills. In fact our personalities and well being depend upon being correct in our beliefs. This is an age of ego-investment. Ego investments are beliefs we associate with, and internalize, so strongly that they literally become elements of our personalities. So to challenge that belief is to literally attack the personality of the person with that ego-investment. It would make no difference how empirical your evidence to the contrary of that belief might be; you attack the belief and you attack the person. Religion, racism, political affiliation, gender dynamics, social dynamics, world view, all find their roots in individual ego-investments in those beliefs.

Needless to say this has an extremely polarizing effect upon lazy people who’d rather not put forth any effort to objectively educate themselves in ways that would ever challenge their core ego-investments. So we see a factionalizing of people into camps where those ego-investments are reinforced in spite of any controverting evidence. Thus a team mentality evolves; our red team is better than your blue team irrespective of any factor that might be contrary. So long as my team wins and your team loses my ego-investments remain validated. It becomes a clash of who’s ego-investments get validated and any value the “other’s” might have had are never acknowledged.

This is a shame because Dr. Warren Farrell has dedicated his life –most of it spent in the feminized cultural wastelands of the late 80’s and 90’s – to researching, understanding and revealing the uncomfortable truths of intergender dynamics. He’s the godfather of the manosphere that most red pill men aren’t even aware of.


Boys will be Boys

There is an interesting subset of men that has evolved in our feminized social environment over the past 60+ years. I can’t quite refer to them as Betas since that seems too broad, and though Roissy’s initial coining of the term “Herb” (as in ‘herbivorous’) seems useful, these ‘men’ are something belonging to that set, but actively embracing and advocating for the feminine imperative. “Vichy Males” is probably a good starting point; men who are so invested in the conditioning of the feminine imperative that, unaware of how it affects their own interests as men, actively collaborate with and promote the feminine imperative’s social reengineering of masculinity.

These ‘men’ are not the oblivious blue-pill guys that the manosphere takes efforts to unplug from the feminine Matrix. They are the advocates of gender realignment, the male feminists, the men whose perspective it is that a more “equal” society is one in which masculinity is redefined to better convenience the feminine imperative. These are the ‘men’ who emphatically define “healthy masculinity” in a feminine framework where the results of testosterone and all of the innate traits that make one male are character flaws that disturb a feminine defined ‘equality’.

For the better part, Vichy Males are more or less oblivious to the feminine imperative that’s conditioned them. Whether this is a willful denial or simple indifferent ignorance is debatable, but in either case these men take the identification schema of Beta Game to the logical extreme. In some instances I’m certain the most successful amongst them make a livable wage from their dependent feminist evangelism (the feminine imperative rewards only the most Alpha-like crusaders who tow the feminist line), but for most, their advocacy is really an extreme form of identification-for-intimacy Game. In a world of White Knights, to seem unique requires a greater devotion to the feminine imperative.

Social Engineering

I had originally intended to use The Frisky’s most recent ‘feminizing boys’ article as my example for today’s post. It certainly raised the hackles of a few commenters from yesterday’s Chauvinism post, but unfortunately it’s too easy a target – it’s an incomplete beginning that doesn’t show the inevitable result of the feminization of boys. Women are encouraged to teach boys to be more like girls, teach them to pee sitting down, embrace their emotionality, cry on demand, and basically act less like little boys have an innate knack for, etc., but this is only half the picture. Those boys grow up into the gender-confused feminized men women later despise.

For the other half of the picture I present to you the most recent gender-fare from (once again) The Atlantic – The End of Violent, Simplistic, Macho Masculinity. Kudos to The Atlantic for its gender neutrality in allowing a Vichy Male like Thomas Page McBee to join the ranks of Kate Bollick, Hannah Rosin and Sandra Tsing Loh for their monthly serving of feminist triumphalism. McBee and his male-apologist sympathizers are the end result of “teaching boys to be feminists.”

While McBee is barking up the Hugo Schwyzer tree, this article reads like an exposé into the mental reasoning of a fully feminized Vichy Male. It’s more or less what I’ve come to expect from masculine apologists but I thought I would highlight the parts of it that give us an insight into the conditioning of the feminine imperative.

From the opening sentence we get an overview of how the Vichy Male’s perspective aligns with his feminine assimilation.

Boys aren’t supposed to do a lot of things: show fear or pain, compassion or tenderness; but of course men feel a full range of emotions, whether we’re “supposed to” or not.

There’s never a question about the dynamic of boy’s / men’s expectations of restraining their emotionality. The main presumption that the feminine imperative indoctrinates in its adherents is that gender is a social construct, and as such the “supposed to” aspect of this assertion is really a presumed societal expectation. Not even an afterthought is given to the idea that perhaps men aren’t wired for emotions in the same way as women. This of course might give pause to the idea of a blank-slate people-are-people equalism so the imperative conditions those questions away from any critical analysis.

However, even if this were the case, and gender was a social construct, might there have been a good reason that boys were  taught in the past to suppress their emotionality and rely more on rationalism and determination to endure pain? Perhaps it led to better, more pragmatic decision making? Again, these are question the imperative can’t afford to have concrete answers for.

The other is more personal. I know that if you are a man, you’re reading this with awareness or resistance, that how you interpret these men says a lot about the type of man you are. It’s easy to pretend to be objective, to describe a movement as if I’m not invested in its outcome, but as I researched this story I realized that I couldn’t tell the truth without exposing all of it: healthy masculinity as a sea-change, and why I want my own counter-narrative to be part of the turning tide.

Here we have a man parroting the standard male-shaming the feminine imperative conditions into women. The circular argument goes like this; if you’re a Man with a different interpretation of masculinity and this redefinition offends you it’s because you are insecure in your masculinity. This is a standard trope feminism has bred into the past 4 generation of men and women – “if you don’t agree with the feminized interpretation of masculinity it’s due to your insecurity in your own masculinity.”  Ergo, you’re less of a man for disavowing the interpretation. And this interpretation of ‘healthy masculinity’ is one which more perfectly aligns with, and doesn’t inconvenience, the feminine imperative.

He points to data: Generation Y men do more housework and are more involved fathers than any generation in American history. They also have more cross-sex friendships, which Kimmel suggests means that young men see women increasingly as true peers—equals—in life and work.

Again, more feminine-centric presumptions about male intent. Nowhere is there a consideration given towards motive or the socio-economic variables that may have led to these data.

He lists some of the words the men at the summit used to describe healthy masculinity: nurturing, kind, positive, good, caring, courage, confident, inclusive, courageous, honest, accountability, and respect. Not your father’s Marlboro man—but maybe closer to the reality of your father. Which is the point. “We have an exercise we do where we ask men and boys to name the strongest man in their life and then talk about what it is that makes him strong,” McGann says. “Most of the time, it’s their father or a counselor or a minister, and the ways in which they care for them. Or it might be about integrity, or it might be about their willingness to stand up for what they believe in, their compassion, all those kind of qualities—which are much more qualities of character. Those are always the things that we’ve associated with healthy masculinity.”

Here we see the feminine imperative evident in the qualities that should make for a “healthy masculinity.” Dropping a few of the more subjective qualities on this list, you could easily describe women having a “healthy femininity” with these characteristics. The aspersion of the ‘Marlboro Man’ is simply one more caricature of masculinity that’s been a go-to derision of the feminine imperative for decades.

The main problem with the Vichy Male characterization of a new “healthy masculinity” is that their comparative definition of ‘traditional masculinity’ has been so distorted by the feminine imperative over the past 60 years that it’s become a straw man parody that’s easily knocked down. The former “masculinity” they oppose is the ridiculous, beer swilling, fart joke, boob mesmerized, borderline abusive masculinity that’s been reinforced in pop-culture courtesy of feminization. A masculinity that requires a uniquely feminine correction is the mental image these men cling to while establishing themselves as the perfected, new and feminized version of masculinity. In other words, masculinity can only be positive in a feminine defined social framework.

The toxic narratives of unhealthy masculinity are often unquestioned, and they start very young. “There are no four more depressing words in educational policy circles then ‘boys will be boys,’ ” Kimmel says. “Because when do we say that? We say that when we throw up our hands in resignation that we can’t do anything. Why don’t we say ‘boys will be boys’ when a man wins the Noble Peace Prize?

Because doing so would give unique credit to masculinity as being the source of a man’s ability to achieve a Nobel Peace Prize through sheer determination – and that’s a credit the ‘equalist’ agenda can’t afford to have men think about. Boys will be boys and truly, despite the feminized bleating, women wouldn’t want it any other way. Boys will take risks, boys will injure themselves, boys will leave the security of the safe side of the sidewalk their mothers forbid them to leave, because that’s what boys do.

Compassion might be a place to start, for yourself and others. “Trying to hold men accountable connects to unhealthy masculinity,” McGann says. “I’ve said for years that one of the things about unhealthy masculinity, or dominant stories of masculinity, is that men are socialized to push past pain, ignore pain, like it doesn’t harm you in any kind of way, you’re not vulnerable. If you can’t really recognize and experience your own pain, then how can you do it with anybody else?”

Men push past pain for good reason – it is the key to growth into a healthy maturity. Men push past pain, not just a social expectation from other men, but because of the same expectations from women. It’s by necessity, not social pressure.Very few men fail to recognize their own pain, but a feminine mindset determined to vilify masculinity would rather we believe that not expressing that pain is always a net negative. The irony this mindset is oblivious of is that at the first mention of a man’s pain, at the first expression of his own self-concern he is accused of bitterness. “You must’ve been really burned to think what you think.” This is the root of the Male Catch 22.

Like a lot of guys, I had a shitty dad. He was uneasy in himself, abusive, shut down. Being a guy to me seemed located in his hamstrung emotions, his uncomfortable displays of drunken vulnerability. I remember him singing Frank Sinatra in this mournful voice, how I pitied and hated him, how I never wanted to become him.

“No Luke, I am your Father.”

“That’s not true!,….THAT”S IMPOSSIBLE!!”

I suppose I should mention here that virtually all Vichy Males are Promise Keeper.

Whether or not men know the phrase “healthy masculinity,” signs of changes are blooming everywhere. I think about Kimmel, who says the roots of the shifting gender roles are a movement away from rigidity. Feminism allowed women to unlock the parts of themselves society kept from them, and now men are doing the same. He posits that a cure for what ails us that sounds familiar to me, the work I’ve done to become my own man embodied: “I don’t see us as becoming a more masculine culture or a more feminine culture, I see us becoming a more balanced culture,” he says. Look at the last election: men helped vote women into power all over the country, including a transgender woman in New Hampshire.

Mark Minter, paging Mark Minter, please report to the comments section, thank you. One element I find interesting in feminist men is a desire to experience the same so-called liberation from a masculine gender role assignment that feminist women claim to have. It’s as if the feminine identification isn’t complete unless they can tap into that same gender straightjacket indignation release women do – they can’t be ‘equals’ unless they suffer a similar (albeit self-constructed) gender role release. This is the level of conviction Vichy Males strive for.

One part I do agree with though, “Feminism allowed women to unlock the parts of themselves society kept from them, and now men are doing the same.” The tragic irony of women’s innate Hypergamy’s unfettered release on men is entirely lost on McBee. And yes, Men, Alpha Men, are now released from the same previous constrictions.

Men are embracing a more nurturing fatherhood with zeal, from Michael Chabon to the super-engaged, former stay-at-home dad Chris on Up All Night. And Modern Family‘s dinosaur patriarch, Jay, is as old-school as they come, especially next to his touchy-feely son-in-law, Phil. In a reversal of past tropes, however, Jay’s blundering inability to connect to his feelings makes him the joke to be tolerated and Phil’s the man of the moment. More techy than macho, he’s thoroughly nonplussed when he realizes he’s on a gay date just as he’s being kissed.

As I stated above, the only model for masculinity these ‘new men’ have for comparative purposes are the distorted archetypes of masculinity that a feminized pop-culture and media has characterized for them, and here we have the perfect example of this. When all you’ve ever had representative of a masculine archetype has been ridiculous cartoon characters of men, it’s not such a daunting task to “be a better man” than them. In fact, the episode McBee describes here not only props up a “dinosaur patriarch” archetype, but also knocks him down with a character he identifies with in being the ‘new’ definition of masculinity. Yay, for team ‘new man’!

You can read the article in its entirety if you have the stomach, but it essentially ends on the same note as my last highlight here.

Positive Masculinity

Our popular conscious perspective of masculinity has been remolded by the feminine imperative and fed back to the likes of Vichy Males like McBee here. I wish I could say he was an outlier, but he’s not. He’s one more crab in the barrel pulling frustrated, confused and conflicted men back down into feminization. Maybe unwittingly, maybe as a form of Beta Game, but men endorsing and evangelizing the feminine imperative are the most effective ambassadors of the imperative. It’s men, and particularly ones other men respect, who make the best tools for feminization – in fact men’s participation is an integral part of the imperative’s effectiveness in social engineering.

One aspect of McBee’s misgivings I do agree with is the need for a Positive Masculinity. A masculinity not predicated on the social interests of the feminine imperative. One defined by uniquely male standards that embrace our natural capacities for focused agression, that accepts rather than derides the effects of testosterone as a constructive (and yes, destructive) part of our natures. We need a masculinity that recognizes women’s innate arousal and attraction to it as something that sets men apart by its difference from women, not one that attempts to homogenize and androgynize it to be more palatable to women. A masculinity that is respected for being the predominant driving force in what our species has become as a result of it. A masculinity that is unapologetically dominant and beneficent.

We don’t need men to get in touch with their feminine sides, feminization has reinforced this for far too long. Masculinity isn’t about ‘men behaving badly’ in a feminine context, nor is it about parodies of men rediscovering “manly pursuits” pre-manufactured by what the feminine imperative laughs at men for.

Masculinity is about Boys being Boys, and Men being Men.


Mid-Life Crisis

After watching last Friday’s video a few times I thought about how ironic it is that a man should be made to feel infantile, or “less than responsible” for indulging in his own wants. For certain a surprise sports car purchase may be an extreme example, but sometimes over-exaggeration is necessary to illustrate a larger point. That larger point is the nature of defacto personal and social control women exercise over men. It’s part of the feminine Matrix to think that ‘responsibility’ should be uniquely framed in what best serves the feminine. We literally don’t know any other way to interpret it most of the time.

When a man begins to ‘go rogue’ the feminine imperative has many pre-established social conventions to mediate this. Obviously designating ‘responsibility’ to serve the feminine frame is the social control, but there are other powerful conventions that the imperative uses. One of these is the Myth of the Mid-Life Crisis.

A lot of hokey comedies have been produced covering mid-life crises. Usually the main characters are cast as overweight schlubs trying to recapture their by-gone days. In real life men are ridiculed, usually around age 40, for losing their mojo and acting ‘irresponsibly’ or ‘erratically’ in some silly gesture of reclaiming his independence. However, this masculine shaming hides a more desperate latent purpose for the feminine.

The SMV Crossover

The most stereotypical mid-life crisis occurs for a man around age 40. It’s important to remember that a man’s SMV really begins to peak between 38-42. It’s at this point that men have the best chance to truly unplug from the Matrix; and it is also at this point that the Threat of a man becoming self-aware of his now fully developed SMV has it’s greatest urgency for women to repress him from realizing it. Even life-long blue pill men generally come to an understanding that their wive’s SMV has dropped and their own SMV is greater. For the first time in his relationship history, he faces the Cardinal Rule of Relationships from his own perspective – women need him more than he needs women.

The feminine imperative has come to expect this awakening. In decades past, before there was a formalized Game, before there was the connectivity we have today, the feminine imperative relied upon social controls that limited a man’s becoming aware of his SMV. Through pop-culture and mass media men were taught to expect this ‘crisis’, even enlisting men to promote the idea. However, the imperative cast the ‘crisis’ as irresponsible and juvenile. It relied upon the time-tested shaming of masculinity in the hopes men would self-regulate when the time came that his SMV outclassed that of the women in his life. So we got hokey movies, and ridicule of men wanting to trade-up their wives for ‘trophy wives’.

Mid-Life Awareness

Probably the most common story I experienced when I did peer counseling back in Nevada was the disillusioned married guy. Most of these guys were professionals, mid to late 30’s and all their stories were the same; “I feel like I’ve done everything anyone ever expected of me for the past 10-15 years and I get no appreciation for it.” These guys “did the right thing” and either their wive’s were unresponsive to them or they still viewed these men as a “fixer upper” project that they were constantly working on.

This experience is what helped me to better understand the myth of the Mid-Life Crisis. Men, in most western culture’s do in fact experience a mid-life crisis, but this isn’t due to the trivialized and oft ridiculed by pop culture reasoning. Women, and feminization, would have us believe that men experiencing a mid-life crisis need to buy a sports car or divorce their wives in favor of a ‘trophy wife’ due to some repressed need to recapture their lost youth. This of course fits into the feminized myth that men are egoisitic, simple creatures and masculinity is infantile in nature, but this only serves to reassure women that they “still got it” at 40.

The truth about men’s mid-life crises isn’t about recapturing youth, it’s about finally understanding the trappings they’ve been sold into through their 20’s and 30’s and coming to terms with that often horrible truth. Some men do in fact buy the sports car, get the new hottie wife or act in some fashion that appears reckless and irresponsible. This isn’t due to infantilism, but rather new understanding of their own position as men. They’ve “lived responsibly” for so long and for so little appreciation that when that true realization is made they feel the need to move. They’ve become respected, put in the hours, the sacrifice, the censoring of their own views. They realize now that they’ve sold off true passions in favor of maintaining what others have told him was his responsibility – whether it was his choice or not. And all for what? A fat wife? A shrew? Maybe even a fantastic marriage and a wonderful family life, but also a nagging doubt about not seeing enough of the world by 40 because of it.

I worry about men who don’t come to this crisis, these are the men who are truly lost. These are the guys who remain life long AFCs, happy in their ignorance.


Glitches in the Matrix

Every so often there’s a visible glitch in the feminine Matrix. Usually these come in the form of some notable men making an obvious push back against the fem-centric social undercurrent. When these ‘glitches’ are brought to the notice of femcentrism the predictable social response is to resort to the standard shaming schemas and brandings of ‘misogyny’ of the offenders and moving on.

I was going to use super bowl commercials as a convenient illustration, but in the recent decade even these have been sanitized and reformatted to serve the feminine imperative. But this commercial is something else. Naturally it’s a european TV spot; the thought of doing a spot like this would never enter the minds of fem-centric American ad agency creatives.

A few years back Harley Davidson brushed the surface of the dynamic this commercial taps into. They had a campaign with the tag lines of “Go ahead, we’ll wait ’till you ask your wife.” and “Your wife called, she said it was OK.” all referring to men purchasing a new motorcycle. In Harley Davidson’s instance the sales motivation was male shaming with the intent of questioning the men’s “manhood” in who really makes the decisions for them. Women get a knowing snigger from it, and men are pressured to buy with the reminder of how truly controlled they are by the women in their lives.

Where the Harley campaign had an element that women could positively relate to, this commercial pushes past this dynamic and exposes in no uncertain terms the ugliness of fem-centrism. I can’t be sure, but my guess is that most of the reactions these men’s wives had were genuine. With the exception of the woman at the end smashing the windshield (dramatization) it looks as if most reactions were shot unbeknownst to the women. The producers wanted a visceral effect and they got far more than they probably bargained for. The commercial has since been excoriated by women, the advertising community, and was of course pulled by Toyota. Women didn’t like what the mirror reflected back at them.

The dichotomy here is that hypergamy propels women toward the most dominant, decisive, Alpha their capacity to arouse can afford them, but their need for long term security conflicts with entrusting a man with decisions that directly affect her. The solution then is to socially limit or eliminate a man’s ability to make decisions based on his (a masculine primary) frame. When one woman in the clip screams, “You are so selfish!!” you’re seeing the visceral reflex of the feminine imperative clashing with the masculine imperative.

If and when a new masculine-primary social paradigm evolves, expect the feminine social reaction to be equally as hostile.


The Soul Mate Myth

With apologies to Dalrock for thread-jacking his “The one” vs “my one and only” post. After reading Dal’s take on the fallacy of the ONE and picking back through the comments on Casualties I thought I might clarify a few things about the concept of the ONE.

There is no ONE.

There is no ONE. This is the soulmate myth. There are some good Ones and some bad Ones, but there is no ONE. Anyone telling you anything else is selling you something. There are LOTS of ‘special someones’ out there for you, just ask the divorced/widowed person who’s remarried after their “soulmate” has died or moved on.

This was one of my earliest posts back on the SoSuave forums from around 2003-04. I was finishing my degree then and had the Fallacy of the ONE graphically illustrated for me in a psych class one day. I was in class, surrounded by (mostly) much younger students than myself, all very astute and as intellectual as they come for mid twenty-somethings. At one point the discussion had come around to religion and much of the class expressed being agnostic or atheist, or “spiritual, but not religious”. The rationale was of course that religion and belief could be explained as psychological (fear of mortality) constructs that were expanded to sociological dynamics.

Later in that discussion the idea of a ‘soul mate’ came up. The professor didn’t actually use the word ‘soul’, but rather couched the idea by asking for a show of hands as to how many of the class believed “there was a special someone out there for them?” or if they feared “the ONE that got away.” Damn near the entire class raised their hands. For all of their rational empiricism and claims to realism in regards to spirituality, they (almost) unanimously expressed a quasi-Karmic belief in connecting with another idealized person on an intimate level for a lifetime.

Religion of the Soul-Mate

Even the Frat guys and hook-up girls who I knew weren’t expressly looking for anything long term in their dating habits still raised their hands in assent to a belief in a ONE. Some later explained what that ONE meant to them, and most had differing definitions of that idealization – some even admitted to it being an idealization as the discussion progressed – yet almost all of them still had what would otherwise be termed an irrational belief in ‘destiny’ or, even amongst the least spiritual, that it’s just part of life to pair off with someone significant and there was “someone for everyone”.

This discussion was the catalyst for one of my red pill realizations – despite all odds, people largely feel entitled to, or deserving of, an important love of their life. Statistically and pragmatically this is ridiculous, but there it is. The feminized Disney-fication of this core concept has been romanticized and commercialized to the point of it becoming a religion, even for the expressly non-religious. The shakespearean longing for the ONE, the search for another soul (mate) who was destined to be our match has been systematically distorted beyond all reason. And as I elaborated in Casualties men will take their own lives in the delusion of having lost their soul-mate.

Soul-Mate Men

This perversion of the soul-mate myth is attributable to a large part of the feminized social conventions we deal with today. The fear of isolation from our imagined soul-mate, or the fear of having irrecoverably lost that ‘perfect ONE’ for us fuels so much of the personal and social neuroses we find in the Matrix. For example, much of the fear inherent in the Myth of the Lonely Old Man loses its teeth without a core belief in the Soul-Mate Myth. The fear of loss and the delusions of Relational Equity only really matter when the person men believe that equity should influence is their predestined ONE.

The feminine imperative recognized the overwhelming power the Soul-Mate Myth had over men (and women) from the beginnings of its rise to ascendency as the primary gender social imperative. Virtually all of the distortions of the core soul-mate dynamic evolved as a controlling schema for men. When it is soul-mate women who are the primary reward for a soul-mate necessitous man, there are a lot of opportunities to consolidate that power upon. To be clear, don’t think this is some fiendish plot of a fem-centric cabal socially engineering that soul-mate fear into men. Generations of men, raised to be oblivious to it, willingly and actively help perpetuate the Soul-Mate Myth.

Soul-Mate Women

Although Hypergamy plays a large role in determining what makes for an idealized soul-mate for women, they aren’t immune to the exploitations of that core fear. Though it’s more an unfortunate byproduct than an outright manipulation, I’d argue that in some ways hypergamy intensifies that neurosis. Alpha Widows know all too well the languishing associated with pining for the Alpha that got away – particularly when she’s paired off long-term with the dutiful, Beta provider after her SMV decline.

For women, the soul-mate represents that nigh unattainable combination of arousing Alpha dominance matched with a loyal providership for her long term security that only she can tame out of him.

Hypergamy hates the soul-mate principle, because the soul-mate is an absolute definition, whereas hypergamy must alway test for perfection. Hypergamy asks, “Is he the ONE? Is he the ONE?” and the Soul-Mate Myth replies, “He HAS to be the the ONE, he’s your soul-mate, and there’s ONLY one of those.”

Building the Mystery

Due to this core concept and soul-mate mythology, both sexes will seek to perfect that idealization for themselves – even under the least ideal of conditions and expressions. We want to build our intimate relations into that soul-mate idealism in order to relieve the fear and solve the problem, and most times so badly that we’ll deftly ignore the warnings, abuses and consequences of having done so. For women the impact of the most significant Alpha is what initially defines that soul-mate idealization. For men it may be the first woman to become sexual with him or the one who best exemplifies a woman he (mistakenly) believes can love him in a male-defined orientation of love.

However, these are the points of origin for building that soul-mate ideal upon. This ideal is then compounded upon with layers of investments in the hopes that this person “might actually be the one fate has prescribed for them.” Emotional investment, personal, financial, even life-potential investments and sacrifices then follow in an effort to create a soul-mate.

This process is why I say the Soul-Mate Myth is ridiculous – it’s psychologically much more pragmatic to construct another person to fit that ideal than it ever will be to “wait for fate to take its course.” People subscribing to the myth would rather build a soul-mate, consequences be damned. So women will attempt to Build a better Beta, or tame down an Alpha, while men will attempt to turn a whore into a housewife, or vice versa.

One of the most bitter aftertastes of having taken the red pill is abandoning old paradigms for new. I’ve described this before as akin to killing an old friend, and one friend that needs killing is exactly this mythology. Disabusing yourself of this core fear is vital to fully unplugging, because so much of fem-centric social conditioning is dependent upon it.

Dropping the Soul-Mate Myth isn’t the nihilism a lot of people might have you believe it is. If anything it will free you to have a better, healthier future relationship with someone who is genuinely important to you – a relationship based on genuine desire, mutual respect, complementary understanding of each other and love, rather than on a fear of losing your one and only representation of contentment in this life.


Casualties

I’ve been meaning to write this post for some time now. I’d thought about it again in August when the James Holmes Colorado theater shooting incident occurred. There were plenty of other incidents I’ve had over the years to contemplate this premise, and unfortunately I’m sure there’ll be more in the future.

As a few of you know I live in Central Florida and we’ve recently had a shooting at an area salon. More recently over the weekend there was this incident in Milwaukee as well. As a writer and thinker immersed as I am in red pill awareness, and an observer of the Matrix in general, the first question that comes to my mind when confronting stories like these is to wonder about the perpetrator’s personal life. There are a lot more notorious killers than these to speculate about – James Holmes, George Sodini, Seung-Hui Cho(VT shooter), Anders Brevik, etc. come to mind, but there are far more inconspicuous killers and incidents that go unreported.

When I read about killings, and often suicides, of this nature I find myself wondering about how the shooter’s Matrix conditioning contributed to his mental state. These are uncomfortable questions for me, especially considering the direct loss of life, when I take into account that what I propose here, the observations I make about the feminine imperative and the correlations I come to in part or in whole may influence the decision for a man to kill his wife, his children, his girlfriend or himself.

Average Frustrated Suicide

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

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

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

He never displayed any sign of mental illness, he wasn’t an aspie-geek, never saw a therapist, never had issues with depression even up to the day of his suicide and generally had his shit together for the most part. We can call crazy “crazy”, but when I read reports of 16 y.o. boys gunning down the parents of their 14 y.o. girlfriends so they can “be together as they were meant to be” there’s more than just mental consideration to account for.

The Illness

AFCness (for lack of a better term) I see as a form of conditioning. If a man internalizes for the majority of his life that he “can’t live without” a woman and he has even mild self-esteem issues or personality disorders it may be that he literally can’t live without a girlfriend or wife.

The second person I’ve known to take his own life was a radio DJ named Nick. Nick decided swallowing a bullet was preferable to life without his ONE girl. I’m not faulting the girl with his suicide for breaking up wiith him, quite the opposite actually. It’s this proclivity for which men have been socialized into AFCness that makes for fatal actions like this. As part of my coursework in college I once counseled a 17 year old girl who’s former boyfriend stabbed to death (30 times) the guy she broke up with him for. He’s doing life in prison now because “She was his soul-mate.” I had to shake my head when I read The Game and about how Mystery got (gets?) suicidal because, although he’s a master PUA, he’s never addressed the AFC that he still is inside.

Now let me be clear, in no way do I mean to infer that these women had anything directly to do with these guy’s suicides. They only did what women will do as hypergamy and their conditions dictate. These men were both 100% responsible for their own deaths. And that’s just it, it was their ego-investment in their Beta-ness (for lack of a better term) and in their ONEitis that killed them. It was their inner AFC that drove them to suicide.

This is why I argue that ONEitis is a mental disorder, and in extreme cases, has the potential to be terminal. As I stated, if a man internalizes for the majority of his life that he “can’t live without” a woman and he has even mild self-esteem issues or personality disorders it may be that he literally can’t live without a girlfriend or wife. I wont blame women out of hand – put simply, women will do what women will do according to their conditions. So when paired up with an AFC and then quite understandably she wants to leave him either for her own good or a better option, this AFC extremisim comes into play. Honestly, I think this degree of an AFC mentality is comparable to Borderline Personality Disorder in neurotic women.

The reason I’ve followed and written in the community at all is because I believe the effort I put out in order to free Men’s (and women’s) heads of damaging ideologies is worth it if it saves a life. I mean that literally. Whether it means preventing an immediate suicide or a slow death in an AFC marriage, so be it.

The fundamental delusion that all suicidal AFCs entertain is the Fallacy of the ONE. They are predisposed (and pre-whipped) to ONEitis even when they are still dateless virgins. I realize this runs contrary to the popular belief that ONEitis is an all-consuming concern to identify with one solitary woman. This presumes the AFC is in an LTR of some kind with an actual subject to base his ONEitis on, however it’s really only one half of the equation. Most men are predisposed to ONEitis before they stumble into an LTR. Essentially they prepare themselves to identify wholesale with what feminized society tells them is their responsibility as a man to do. Once that purpose is removed from them, once they can no longer measure up to even a marginalized hypergamy, this is when men conditioned by the feminine imperative consider suicide as an option.


Sex Debt

While the manosphere and the femosphere endlessly debate the personal merits or collective atrocities of ‘casual sex’, the so called hook-up culture (newsflash, people were hooking-up long before the last decade), and/or the sex-positive feminist definition of it, I’m starting to think that neither are really seeing the overall context within which both sides have agreed to debate – the context of the feminine primary, feminine imperative social norm.

The declared feminists, their uncommitted proxies and their sympathizers can all understandably be acquitted of this blame since they thrive in discussions that ignore the dominant feminine social context they help to create. You can hardly fault pigs in shit for their love of discussing the finer points of shit with non-pigs in the same shit. However, an integral part of a Man’s red pill maturation should include a broader understanding of the feminine primary social normative we live in today. And with that understanding it should also follow that, given time and red pill enlightened observation, a Man will begin to see the code in the Matrix and know that, win or lose, such arguments only serve the feminine imperative.

Soaking In the Matrix

I wish I could credit the quote, but I once read that “Feminism is the mistaken idea that a society can create gender equalism by focusing exclusively on the benefit of only one sex.”

As Mark Minter’s now sphere-famous comment illustrates, any debate Men have, without considering the social context of the feminine imperative, ultimately, only serves to reinforce the ends of that imperative. For example, if we engage in discussions about how best to personally or socially conduct our sexual lives (exploits or noble pursuits) and all we consider of this proposition is how best to ensure a feminine-optimal reality, it doesn’t account for a true male-primary perspective. For over 60 years, men have been so conditioned to believe that there is no context other than that which benefits the feminine that they internalize the correctness of the feminine imperative as their own.

This is the scope of the feminine Matrix; you’re literally born into it, and as Mark Minter discovered, usually only experience and/or trauma can jar a man into an awareness of this social condition. So as you can see, debating whether casual sex or ‘meaningful sex’ is more significant in the Matrix is akin to discussing which style of clothing best accentuated a particular woman. The feminine end is the same and men are never a consideration under such auspices.

Letting Go

Letting go of his prior contexts is often the most difficult thing for newly Game-aware Men to release. Letting go of the Fallacy of the ONE, letting go of an expectation of a mutually idealized love with women, letting go of prior concepts of how women are in most respects, are all very difficult transitions for men whose best understandings about women and how society operates have been conditioned for him from a feminine-primary origin.

A good example of becoming aware of this is illustrated in how men’s attitude towards sex has shifted from pleasing himself towards pleasing a woman. There is a silly, but ironic internet meme that states “Nice Guy’s finish last, because their women finish first.” implying of course that Nice Guy’s are more concerned with their women’s sexual pleasures than their own, and it’s just this ‘niceness’ that makes them better and preferred lovers. It’s only after she gets off that he’s allowed to indulge himself in a simple orgasm. Nothing epitomizes the feminine primary social normative than this base consideration. This is the root of feminisms ‘sex-positive’ referendum – she cums first.

Everyone’s Special

It hardly seems fathomable that there could’ve been a time when a woman’s sexual experience wasn’t considered the end-goal of the sex act. The carefully feminine designed Beta-Game idea being (as always) that the more a man identifies with the feminine the more attractive and acceptable he will be to a potential mate. Be sensitive to her needs, find out what she likes, do what she asks, cater yourself to her sexual pleasures and you’ll be the unique man who really understands women and therefore will be a high value man to all women.

“Do what she says and you’ll be a high value man”, became the common sense Beta wisdom. Essentially this was the bedroom doctrine of a larger social whole, only ‘do what she says’ wasn’t enough. Legions of men were all too eager to please their women first, so much so that the woman-pleasers became the norm – When everyone’s special, no one is. I should pause for a moment here, because not only does this axiom destroy the heart of most Beta chump’s concept of how their own Game should operate, but it also illustrates a larger point in that the ‘special’ guys of today are the ones who stand out by not ‘doing what she says’ and placing themselves, and the male imperative above her wants. In a world full of women-pleasers, women will sing “where have all the cowboys gone?”

However, as I stated, it wasn’t enough. As every man became special, the request of “please me” became the expectation of “please me”. The sensitivity to her needs transitioned from making him unique amongst men, to being his liability and a prerequisite of her fidelity to him – get her off or else she’ll find a ‘normal guy’ who can! The courtesy became the expectation which became the demand. This progression can be applied to every social dynamic within the feminine imperative’s purview.

Full Stop

There’s an interesting conflict that arises for men when presented with thinking about sex from a more selfish perspective. Most men begin their sexual maturation with this ‘her first’ mentality preprogrammed for them. I was fortunate enough to have a very sexually experimentative girlfriend (see; slut) when I first got laid at age 17. I learned a lot about women’s pleasure by doing rather than explaining, and while that relationship had its own liabilities, this situation set me up for a very selfish approach to sex that would follow with the consecutive women I banged. I honestly didn’t think about whether a girl got off with me or not, and in fact I discovered it was really immaterial for the women who kept coming back to me.

I’d have guys (serving the feminine imperative) tell me “you gotta fuck her right or you’ll lose her” in my single-man-sex-life, but then, I often didn’t care whether I lost them thanks to my nascent plate spinning of that time. In fact, the only time it ever was a concern was when I became invested enough in one woman to actually be concerned with her pleasure, and even then it was because her pleasure enhanced the sex act for me, not due to some threat of infidelity if she didn’t get off. The girl’s genuine desire for me was present whether or not she got off – sometimes I’d make a point of making that happen, but most times it was simply a byproduct of her own desire. In either respect I didn’t view it as my responsibility, and I found that women still enjoyed coming back for sex with some regularity.

One of the few conflicts I’ve observed with Roissy/Heartiste is in this approach to ‘owing a woman an orgasm’ for her continued fidelity. The 9th commandment of poon states:

XIV. Fuck her good

Fuck her like it’s your last fuck. And hers. Fuck her so good, so hard, so wantonly, so profligately that she is left a quivering, sparking mass of shaking flesh and sex fluids. Drain her of everything, then drain her some more. Kiss her all over, make love to her all night, and hold her close in the morning. Own her body, own her gratitude, own her love. If you don’t know how, learn to give her squirting orgasms.

On the surface of it, Roissy is agreeing with the feminine imperative’s notion of the sex debt – “own her gratitude, own her love,..learn to give her squirting orgasms.” I wouldn’t insult Roissy by inferring for him what I think he means here, but there’s more to it than this. Love, gratitude, a strong emotional bond, are all byproducts of ‘fucking her good’, but it’s the point of origin of why you want to ‘fuck her good’ that is at issue.

Stop Worrying About Giving Women Orgasms

I think the operative word here is worrying. I wish I had the link available (I did search), but Roissy once had an excellent post and third party study outlining the proclivity of women to fake orgasms with high value, Alpha men, more so than lower value Beta Nice Guys. Naturally the “nice guys finish last, because their women finish first” chumps fired off their comments assuming this was some kind of validation of their Beta Game. Because they still subscribe to the ‘her first’ feminine primary doctrine as being the normative, their default presumption is that women would fake orgasms with Alpha Men because they were sexually unsatisfied with them. However, as the study indicated, the harsher truth was that women’s tendency to fake orgasm with high value men was the result of a desire to secure that man for commitment and breeding prospects – not as some feminine courtesy for a bad lover.

Naturally this is the socialized narrative women follow themselves – a bad lover gets a fake orgasm, nyah, nyah, try better next time – but when you look under the hood, why would a woman be bothered to fake an orgasm with a bad lover? You might argue that it’s to end the act, and you’d be right, but a faked orgasm is really an indictment of the Beta mindset, because he’s not worth the courtesy of faking one.

In the end hypergamy doesn’t even care if the woman is sexually satisfied or not – that’s up to her – all that matters is optimizing the best mating that her attractiveness can afford.

*Final Note: Since I know the comments will explode about the importance of a woman’s orgasm from a biological perspective, I’m not saying that a woman getting off isn’t important. I’m fully aware that a woman’s orgasm prompts her cervix to dip and ‘scoop up’ a man’s sperm to facilitate fertility. I’m also aware of the oxytocin and the chemical cocktail release post-orgasm. The point of this post is to outline the social aspect and primacy the feminine imperative has acculturated into men regarding the female orgasm.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,802 other followers