Category Archives: The Matrix

May 2, 2012

Generation AFC

By Rollo Tomassi

I have gone on in several different threads about “men” I’ve know who’ve become married AFCs and older guys involved in LTRs where they allow themselves to become the passive/submissive partner in the relationship. From experience I can relate the stories of guys who laugh when they tell us how fortunate they are to have a gal who ‘allows’ them to watch Hockey or Football or men who make their own rationalizations for ‘obeying’ their Women’s insecure natures. Just recently I was reviewing the Qualities that make an AFC  when I came to realize that the condition we include that characterize what we term as AFC, change and evolve as we age.

The Beta mindset or AFCism (for lack of a better term) and all of its inherent frustrations are a disease, and like any disease, if left untreated, it will mutate into different forms as it progresses until it kills or debilitates the host. Most ‘advice’ threads online approach dating, love, personal relationships from a very short-sighted, dare I say, juevenile point of view. We’re fortunate in the manosphere community to have a broad spectrum of insight including the perspectives and related experiences of older gentlemen. This is a gift in that it helps to lend credence to the philosophies that seem counterintuitive to the newly unplugged and Game-aware. Most others see things in short term behavioral patterns and only very rarely from a truly mature life-long perspective.

Mature Advice

Needless to say, making short term decisions with long term consequences is hardly a way to live. I know far too many 40-60 y.o. men and women who internalize and put into practice the advices of 20-30 y.o.s who have entirely too immature realtional/social skills to be giving advice. When I read a 22 y.o. girl going into explicit detail about dating advice for a 45 y.o. divorcee “getting back into the game” I can only cringe. So desperate for help is this person that they’ll disregard the maturity of the source.

This all brings me to the idea that mature AFCism, if left unchecked, will evolve into behaviors that will have lasting consequences not only for the AFC, but also for the people who’s livelihoods depend on him. This degree of AFCism filters down into many aspects of his own life and the lives of others either directly or indirectly. Bear with me while I illustrate this with some personal experiences.

One of the men I presently work with is a 66 y.o. AFC. He is a very successful, millionaire with many financial endeavours and a credit to his sense of business. That said, every success he has achieved was prompted by his need for feminine approval, women (and one in particular) have always been the PRIZE to him. He has built a small financial empire based on this AFCism that many other people are dependent upon. He constantly drops what he thinks are pithy comments about how “women are the power behind the throne” or how men will “never understand women”, all completely oblivious to his own personal status. I constantly see his business decisions colored by this very AFCism and I think about how people are dependent on this man for a paycheck.

When I lived in Nevada I had a 63 y.o. man I counseled who had spent the better part of his life trying to find the ‘key’ that would make his wife of almost 30 years be intimate with him. Both in their 60’s, she had gradually become indifferent to him and only held him as a concern when he was between jobs. When times were good he would buy “them” toys they couldn’t afford – boats, ATVs, vacations – and in thin times it was nothing but constant bickering. This situation didn’t develop because she was materialistic, but rather because he perceived this as a method to buy her affections and she became conditioned to it. At 63 the guy is bawling his eyes out since he’d reach the end of his rope. He’d run out of AFCideas that would appease her. It was when I suggested he “Man-Up” and start implimenting some positive-masculine behaviors and developing this mindset he said, “I could never do that, it’s just not me. She’d leave me for sure if I got tough.”

AFCism isn’t just for kids. The fallout and long term consequences carry over into middle and old age. One element to this is the notion that the last few generations of men have been brought up in a greater concentration by single mothers, absent fathers and negatively masculine/AFC fathers who themselves were brought up similarly. This is an easy mark, but observing and sorting out AFC behaviors of mature men and the complex dependencies they bear on others around them is tougher. I wish I could say that AFCism was an indication of failure and would be gradually weeded out of the mental schema gene-pool so to speak, but I can’t. There are many successful men who still cling to AFC mentalities and in some cases are more driven than positively masculine Men.

Beta by Design

I think in most men’s beginnings, adopting an AFC schema is viewed not so much as a path of least resistance as it is a path of least risk. Children are the sum of what both parents contribute to their development and an understanding of gender roles is crucial in this learning. A personality is the result of seeing examples set for them. If a father is an abusive alcoholic and a mother’s a meek, submissive victim, the model for masculinity and femininity is shaped by this. Likewise if a mother is an domineering bitch and a father a soft-spoken cuckold this also colors perspectives on gender. Taking this a step further, if one parent is absent this creates a gender role vacuum and the child either has to seek it from outside sources or from the existing parent, and this is where it gets real dicey.

When that parent is required to provide their interpretation of the opposite gender, all of their misinterpretations and misgiving become imprinted on that child. This works for both sexes. The pensive, brooding & resentful mother teaches her son “how to be a man” by insisting he pee sitting down (to leave the lid down) and to be passive/submissive. The other side is she expects him to be an overbearing parody of masculinity since this was the example set for her. Either situation is unhealthy.

The Path of Least Risk

Since we’re discussing the development of an AFC schema, this example of masculinity had to be set for a man. It had to have been reinforced often enough (by both men and women) that it becomes an ego-investment in his own personality. This investment gets to the point where anything counter to it becomes foreign. He has to defend it with rationalizations and usually ridicule of positive masculinity because anything opposite to his understanding is an attack on his personality. This is why it is soooo difficult to break a guy with a heavily invested sense of beta-self out of the Matrix.

The AFC mentality is comfortable because it involves the least chance of risk of rejection. One of the hardest obstacles a recovering AFC has to get over is approaching and initiating, because for more than half his life he’s avoided doing this for fear of rejection. This is what led to his AFC status and now he’s got to confront it. I should also add this is why serial monogamists chosse this option – there’s safety from random rejection in monogamy, regardless of how miserable their monogamy is. Miserable monogamy is perceived as preferable to risking random rejection, and over time a personality is welded to this subconscious understanding. “I’m just a shy guy”, “I’ve never been ‘lucky’ with the ladies”, and “I guess us men will never figure women out” are the catchphrases of this mentality.

As the AFC ages, gets married to a woman that’ll settle for him, or marries the single Mom who needs a provider, he lays on even more cement to this ego-investment. It’s not enough that he can’t figure out why he’s miserable, he needs affirmation from other guys that they’re just as lost as he is. And when the Man comes around who is even peripherally critical of his lot he falls back on his learned rationalizations and ridicule, while his wife’s eyes dialate, her cheeks get flushed and she gets wet listening to the Man give her husband some masculine advice.

32 Comments | posted in Idealizations, Positive Masculinity, The Matrix

April 30, 2012

Roosh vs. Brazil

By Rollo Tomassi

I presume most of my readers are also RooshV readers, but if you’re not, today’s post might open your eyes a bit to the magnitude of the Matrix’s influence. It appears that the rapidly feminizing nation of Brazil has deemed Roosh’s musings on the state of Brazilian women to merit a significant threat:

To the website Administrator and Server
Ref: Association of image of Brazil

Dear Responsible Officer,

The Brazilian Federal Government, through the MINISTRY OF TOURISM, has found that the website, hosted in the network of server ThePlanet, promotes pornographic content in the internet. Such content relates striking and characteristic features of the Brazilian Identity, such as the colors of the flag, culture pictures and images of Brazilian cities, to prostitution or sex.

Considering the institution of the Brazilian National Policy on Tourism, created by the MINISTRY OF TOURISM, Article 5th of Federal Law n. 11.771/2008: “The Brazilian National Policy on Tourism aims at, among other things, preventing and fighting touristic activities related to abuse of sexual nature and others that affect human dignity” – the Ministry is taking steps to dissociate the image of the country with internet content of sexual and/or pornographic nature, which stimulate internet users to seek Brazil as a tourist destination for such activities.

Given that, the MINISTRY OF TOURISM OF BRAZIL kindly requests the removal of such materials from the website located in the URLs listed attached, or the dissociation of such pornographic content with Brazilian identity or Brazil, as well as the removal of pay-per-click ads and subsequent redirection of such website, since these associations are in disagreement with the image of the country and are harmful to the actual aim of the Brazilian Government: the increase of sustainable tourism in Brazil.

Brazil is signatory to several International Conventions, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which suppresses the trafficking in women and exploitation of prostitution, and the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, which determines the prevention, suppression and punishment of trafficking in persons, mainly women and children, activities which are often sustained by means of sex tourism.

Thus, we reiterate our request for the removal and disabling of access to pornographic material identified in this document in order to collaborate with the policies sought by the Brazilian Government to Brazil.

Should you have any questions, we are available via e-mail given in the signature of this message.

Sincerely,

MINISTRY OF TOURISM OF BRAZIL
enforcement@turismo.gov.br

Attachment:

http://www.bangguides.com/travel/brazil-compendium/

I had planned to simply drop a comment on Roosh’s thread here, but I felt the situation deserved a little more analysis than a quick hit response.

It’s interesting to note that a an entire country’s governmental system would feel so threatened by the idea of exposing the truths about women’s innate impulses and how a man might use them to his advantage that they would feel compeled to write an official statement to the author of one book that describes their country-women.

What kind of an indictment is it of a claim to power’s legitimacy that it would even consider publicly asking Roosh to censor his works? The comment thread will draw the typical Spearhead anti-feminist outrage, but I think that the forest which gets lost in the trees here is the gravity of why Roosh’s writings would be highlighted. What’s changed about the institution of a country the size of Brazil that would make Roosh’s writing significant enough to warrant this kind of notice?

Granted it is the Ministry of Tourism, but it would appear that the newly feminized government of Brazil (as well as Iceland) has yet to learn the concept of the 36 Law of Power:

Law 36: Disdain Things You Cannot Have: Ignoring Them is the Best Revenge
By acknowledging a petty problem you give it existence and credibility. The more attention you pay an enemy, the stronger you make him; and a small mistake is often made worse and more visible when you try to fix it. It is sometimes best to leave things alone. If there is something you want but cannot have, show contempt for it. The less interest you reveal, the more superior you seem.

A lot of manosphere critics believe that the community is paranoid and conspiratorial; that we imagine feminism and its doctrine to be more insaturated into society than is evident. Brazil’s tourism board is but one small constituent part of the government, and not really even legislative body, however the message can only be one of an overall doctrine permeating the message of the country and disseminated through what amounts to its PR department.

This is the macro-scale of the Feminine Imperative. This is the message when an entire country allows fem-centrism to dictate how it will relate with the rest of the world. And it is still the same message from the micro-scale – obfuscate, distract, demonize the men who would expose the Achilles heels of the Feminine Imperative. The reaction of the Ministry of Tourism is precisely the tact that I would expect a petulant woman to use when confronted with the realities of hypergamy, or the associated discomfort that comes from being confronted with her own duplicitous behavior, “Just shut the fuck up OK? You’re a misogynist!”

Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women. 

15 Comments | posted in The Feminine Imperative, The Matrix, Uncategorized

April 10, 2012

The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill

By Rollo Tomassi

A lot gets made of the Dark Triad or the Dark Side of Game where a skillful player can sadistically use his newly learned red-pill super powers for evil instead of for the greater good of mankind. Game-aware women – the ones who have been forcibly exhausted of all pretense of maintaing the illusion that Game is a lie – feel as though it’s owed to them, in their concession of Game’s reality, that Men should use Game to women’s benefit. Even to the last effort women still cling to the tools of a feminized acculturation;

“Yeah, OK, you got us, Game is really what women want, hypergamy is the law of womankind, but now it’s your responsibility that you use it for the better benefit of society by molding a new breed of improved Betas to accommodate fem-centric monogamy. You owe us our security for having admitted to the grand illusion that’s kept you in thrall for so long.”

It’s an indictment of Game-aware women, and sympathizing men, that they should feel a need to delineate some aspects of Game into good camps (pro woman, pro feminized monogamy) and bad camps (manipulative, polygynous, male-centered). Even in the admission of the truth that Game has enlightened Men of, the feminine imperative still seeks to categorize the application of Game to its own end. That Men might have some means of access to their own sexual strategy is too terrible a Threat; Game must be colored good or bad as it concerns the imperatives of women and a fem-centric societal norm.

As the default, socially correct and virtuous concern, women have an easier time of this. As Game becomes increasingly more difficult to deny or misdirect for the feminine, the natural next step in accepting it becomes qualifying its acceptable uses. While hypergamy is an ugly truth, the characterization of it becomes “just how women are” –an unfortunate legacy of their evolution. However for Men, the characterizations of the harsher aspects of Game in its rawest form  (contingencies for hypergamy) are dubbed “the dark arts”.

Myth of the Dark Arts

According to common definition, the Dark Triad is a group of three personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy, all of which are interpersonally aversive. Depending upon context, that may be a convenient assessment of a sociopathic personality, but it is hardly an accurate assessment of Game as a whole. In its desperation to come to terms with a more widespread acceptance of Game, the feminine imperative had to make some effort to disuade the common man (see Beta) from embracing the means to his release from the feminine Matrix. Associating Game with Dark Triad personality traits makes this qualification process much easier, since the feminine imperative owns the definition authority of what is social and what is anti-social.

The problem then becomes one of defining what acceptable use of Game is social and anti-social. Predictably Game-accepting women will want to cast Game into terms that suit them individually and accommodating for their own personal conditions as well as the priorities of their particular phase of life. However, because of such diverse conditions, consequently there is a lot of disagreement amongst Game-accepting women about what contextually constitutes appropriate use, thus a pick-and-pull form of rationalization about aspects of Game gets thrown about in their internal debates.

For feminized men this is a very confusing debate. It’s difficult enough for them to accept that women love Jerks (despite being told the contrary for half their lives by women), but for the Game-accepting women they still think are ‘quality’ it’s a bitter pill to swallow when these women debate the aspects of acceptable, lovable Jerk-like qualities and the evil, user, manipulative, ‘dark art’ Jerk that only contextually misaligns with their present conditions and priorities. For both the plugged-in and the freshly unplugged this is an incongruency that they have a tough time reconciling against the ideals of moralism that a fem-centric society has unwittingly convinced them of.

While a broader understanding of hypergamy and Game make for useful tools for enlightened single men, the Game-accepting Beta plug-in will still see it strictly as a means to satisfying the female imperative – long-term provisional monogamy. Any deviation from this narrative, any guy using Game for personal gain, personal pleasure or to enact his own sexual strategy is guilty of crimes against (feminized) society. Since the societal Greater Good has been defined by the feminine imperative, anything counter to it is definitively evil, counterproductive, anti-social and manipulative sociopathy.

The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill

The truth will set you free, but it doesn’t make truth hurt any less, nor does it make truth any prettier, and it certainly doesn’t absolve you of the responsibilities that truth requires. One of the biggest obstacles guys face in unplugging is accepting the hard truths that Game forces upon them. Among these is bearing the burden of realizing what you’ve been conditioned to believe for so long were comfortable ideals and loving expectations are really liabilities. Call them lies if you want, but there’s a certain hopeless nihilism that accompanies categorizing what really amounts to a system that you are now cut away from. It is not that you’re hopeless, it’s that you lack the insight at this point to see that you can create hope in a new system – one in which you have more direct control over.

There are no “Dark Arts”, this is simply one last desperate effort of the feminine imperative to drag you back into the Matrix. There is only Game and the degree to which you accept it and are comfortable in using it in the context that YOU define. If that context is under the auspices of a mutually beneficial, mutually loving, mutually respecting LTR monogamy of YOUR choosing, know that it’s the fundaments of Game that are at the root of its success or failure. If that context is in terms of spinning multiple plates, liberating the affections of women from other men, and enjoying a love life based on your personal satisfactions, also understand that it lives and dies based on your understanding the fundaments of Game.

Just as Alpha is not inherently nobel or deplorable, Game is neither inherently good nor evil – the Devil is in the details and whomever’s defined context in which you use it. In the introduction section of the 48 Laws of Power, author Robert Greene explains the same about power. Power is neither good nor evil, it simply is, and your capacity to use power, your comfort in using it, doesn’t invalidate the principles of power. Likewise, your discomfort or inability to accept those principles does not excuse you from the consequence of having that power used upon you.

The unwritten, 49th Law of Power, is denying the utility of power itself, or demonizing its use both moralistically and socially. With the wide dispersion of Game theory this has been the reactionary tact of the feminine imperative; appeal to the deeply conditioned moral, ethical, honorable, virtuous ideals engrammatically planted in men by a fem-centric society, while redefining the acceptable use of the same Game the imperative demonizes for its own purposes.

92 Comments   |  tags: , , , | posted in Foundations, Game, Hypergamy, Inter-gender Communication, The Feminine Imperative, The Matrix, Unplugging

March 20, 2012

Rationalism in the Matrix

By Rollo Tomassi

It would appear that I mixed up the proverbial shit pot with last week’s The Gift of Anxiety post, which was itself a response to another post on another blog’s response to yet another post made by your humble author here. If it sounds like a tangled mess, just know that it’s happened before. For my readers, I feel apologies are due, because I think this blog’s purpose deserves more than to be dragged down by the petty machinations of fem-centric Matrix-speak; and particularly the variety that censors any rational challenges to its venerable vulnerable ideologies.

If you find fault in my having even entertained a response to this, well, I can’t say as I blame you. If I’m guilty of anything it was in attempting to logically reddress what amounts to a brick wall of socially reinforced fem-centric ideology that by definition has no margin for any critical analysis of it.

Reader BJ’s comment:

RT, you’re engaging with an emotionally charged being in an analytical argument, a battle whose W.O.M.D are the very tools which make you a man, logic and reasoning, for which there are no comparable counter measures.

However it was reader Höllenhund who really brought this home for me:

By the way, older, experienced MRAs have stated that it’s completely pointless to try to have a rational debate with women about these issues. They’ll always get angry or react in some other irrational way, and you can bet white knights will immediately come to their defense. It’s a waste of time. As Alte said, “if you have a rational argument, take it to the men”.

Guilty as charged, but if there was any benefit to this clusterfuck of idealism vs. censorship it brought to light the necessity to protect the social system that is the feminine Matrix.

Censoring for Affirmation

Reader Umslopogaas wrote an interesting post in reference to just this dynamic that inspired an awareness in me. The feminine social Matrix is a system that was built upon, and depended upon an older social paradigm that never accounted for a globalized connectivity. If men becoming aware of their true SMV was a primary Threat to that system, then the rise of social media and global connectivity was its facilitator. For men, the Meta Game and true unplugging began as a result of meta-connectivity and the free exchange of observations and ideas that followed.

Although I think it’s a bit of a dramatic stretch to compare Aunt Giggles’ censorship with the Gestapo, I do think there’s another, more apt comparison – that of religious figures’ censorship.

The rise of social media has inspired a more open means of discourse in previously closed social arenas. Nowhere is that more obvious than in religious / theological debate. Where in previous times a religious leader’s ‘inspired insight’ was closed to interpretation or discussion, now they must be prepared to defend their position online to the global consortium of the internet.

This globalized marketplace of ideas doesn’t make for a comfortable environment for people with an absolutist mindset used to receiving constant praise, if not acquiescent silence. Now, courtesy of blogs, social media, and the general connectivity of the internet people can voice their criticisms of ideas that, in a ‘real time’ social setting, they would never dream of initiating out of repressed courtesy or fear of ostracization.

For those unaccustomed to a contrary position in their ego-invested beliefs, this proves a to be a challenge. To remain effective in their message they must stay contemporary and use the ‘voice of the age’ – in this case social media – however they also must entertain the risk that some dissenting voice will call them to the carpet on their perspectives. The inherent problem with this is that it necessitates a critical insight that may conflict with that ego-invested belief.

For religious leaders this is a very tough trade off: Posting your sermon on your blog to reach the massess is simply good marketing, and implies certainty in the relevance of that message and/or idea. However the strength of that message must stand up to public scrutiny for it to be considered a strong theory, assertion or  perspective. The same holds true for the religion of the fem-centric society.

Since the apex of feminization in the 90’s, fem-centrism has taken its social positions as articles of faith. It just is because it always has been, and no one questions its purpose or validity. Old ideologies die hard, but are the ones most tenaciously clung to by those whose livelihoods depend on the old paradigms to endure. To preserve this system in the face of a building volume of social critique, a degree of dissociation has to be instituted. Thus we have the professors and pastors of previously unchallenged ideologies selectively filter out conflicting ideas, thus recreating the echo chambers they were accustomed to under the old paradigm, or take the lazy way out and simply brook no audience for any feedback by turning off anyone’s ability to comment on their ideas.

People who have questions don’t frighten me. People who have no questions scare the shit out of me.

40 Comments   |  tags: , , , | posted in Idealizations, The Feminine Imperative, The Matrix, Unplugging

March 19, 2012

Letters from the Pedestal

By Rollo Tomassi

Background

The following is an instant message transcript detailing the soon-to-be break up of an 8 month live-in relationship. Our heroine in this classic tale of dutiful Beta vs. memorable Alpha had recently moved in with the Beta subject after a tumultuous two year Alpha relationship with “Chris” (names changed). From almost the moment she agreed to living with our Beta she began pining for her former Alpha lover. Chris was a musician who’d moved to a large metropolitan area to “make it big”. He was the perfect brooding, inflective, creative archetype, but suffered from the usual maladies, alcohol, drug abuse, overly self important – basically the perfect recipe for the artistic Alpha. Needless to say this was what led to the first breakup.

For the want of a more stable relationship, and a place to stay, she takes up with our Beta. They’d been ‘friends’ for so long, and he’d been so supportive in her time with Chris it seemed the natural fit for her. No more chaos, just the down-to-earth comfort of a relationship with a “familiar friend.” Needless to say thing don’t go as planned, and the secret phone calls to and trips to vist the former Alpha lover commence.

Before you read this analysis, I want to express that my focus in this is the Beta guy and to detail some of the more common misconceptions men have whilst plugged-in to the Matrix. Yes, our heroine’s behaviors are cruel, but only serve to illustrate the machinations of the Beta mind in this study. Is she blameless? Absolutely not. Is she following her hypergamic imperative? Absolutely so.

From the top, Beta’s commentary is in blue:

They say absence makes the heart grow fonder, you have proved that with getting back with chris.
I never stopped loving you less or caring for you less when we were together. You say, I gave up, stopped trying, after I won you.

This statement here is a textbook illustration of what I call a “scarcity mentality.” As if the initial cliché weren’t bad enough, he refers to getting together with her as “winning you.” This puts her attention/desire into a reward status – classic AFC preconditioning. SHE is the PRIZE to be won rather than making himself the PRIZE who is to be sought after. This mentality is an instant confirmation of a lack of confidence. It’s she who should be appreciative of his own self-worth and identity, and desire to be associated with it, but from the outset he puts her on the pedestal and confirms for her that he is of lesser value. Off to a very bad start. Also, his hammy referencing of an old cliché is only one more glaring illustration of his lack of depth in experience; this just screams “I’m a beta.”

Thats not true in the least. I never stopped trying, it was the first time I had ever been in a relationship with you and the first time we had lived together, and over the first 4 months we were together we had only been in each other’s company like 12 days. I was trying to get comfortable with us. It was still kinda weird at first since I hadn’t talked to you in so long and we were together. So awesome and so sudden but that made it interesting. I never stopped doing for you, I never stopped being spontaneous with us.

Here, and in the previous comment, he interprets her telling him that “he gave up” as an accusation that he gave up on the relationship – not the real message, which is, he gave up on himself and his own identity to better identify with and accomodate her in order to secure and maintain her intimacy. As I’ve discussed before, he’ll “do anything” to make her happy and this is precisely why she has no respect for the guy. I think this is where the main point of conflict is rooted. He has a fundamental misunderstanding of what she meant by saying “he’d given up.” He thinks he didn’t identify enough or didn’t figure out the secret combination of sappy romantic gestures that would make her desire him because it’s been so mentally ingrained into him that a woman should always be considered a prize to be ‘won’. This is the root of his own frustration because her words and behaviors contradict his ego-invested expectations of himself and how relationships ought to be. So consequently he falls back on victimhood as a defense – according to his mental schema he’s done everything by the book and it’s she who’s been disingenuous.

“Yep, I won her heart finally, its time to sit back and relax.”

Again with the ‘Sleepless in Seattle’ romantic comedy banter; but also, again, he restates his position of supplication by making her ‘heart’ a PRIZE to be won.

Never would I think that. Nothing was set in stone, you could leave me at any point and for any reason. I knew you were still an independent person.

I was just trying to get on a comfortable grounds with us. God, we only lived together 5 months, in that 5 months, from June to Oct, is when you formed your opinion, cause it was all over in November when you decided you loved Chris more than me.

More melodrama, but rather than find fault in his own actions for even considering the fallout from living with a woman he’s involved with (much less, one in need of a home and fresh out of an intense relationship) he’d rather apply for victimhood again and make a plea for circumstance. In all likelihood her opinion of both he and Chris were already set, but he finds fault with her because it more easily fits his romanticized (and feminized) ideals. I swear, the guy should get into daytime dramas when he gets out of college, he’d be brilliant at it. But I can’t let her off the hook entirely here – she knew your own set of conditions and this guy WAS a convenient out for her. It’s just now she’s paying for that misjudgment.

Before you decided that everything you had done was a mistake and that you regretted coming here, and dating me.

You even said that. You did say that to me, so whats that say about you and our whole relationship. You think I quit trying and just wished you’d never have come here and/or dated me.

See my other comments, I think I addressed this fairly well. He misunderstands that ‘trying’ has nothing to do with the relationship, but rather establishing himself as his own person. He then finds it easier to accommodate his own idealized fantasy relationships against her indiscretions. She’s the flawed one now (and rightfully), whereas before she was his ideal, because it conflicts with his romantic mental narrative.

So which one is more fucked up, I think yours was much worse. Regretting me, having feelings in your heart for Chris that started pushing me out 5 months after getting here and for good 7 months later. So yeah, when you think and say to yourself  I wasnt a good boyfriend, cause his faults were just too great. He cared too much, would do too much for me and quit trying after I gave him a couple of months before I totally pushed him out of my heart and decided that Chris wass my main objective.

Our hapless Beta is in the right, but for the wrong reasons.

Restating the obvious here, but it does show that he enjoys the time he spends concocting ways to confront her on the righteousness of his efforts in order to change her mind. He falls into the same binary thinking trap that most AFCs do – “If I can just plead my case well enough and logically enough while applying a good amount of indignation, guilt and conviction she’ll see I’m the perfect boyfriend and desire me again.” This logic is great when you’re an attorney or arguing on a debate team, but he hasn’t come to the realization yet that desire and attraction cannot be negotiated. He only consolidates her estimate of his Beta status by lamely employing shame in an effort to engender the guilt he thinks will make her come to her sense and love him.

This is a very important lesson that beta chumps MUST transition past; shame will NEVER make a woman hot for you. You can be 100% justified in your judging of a woman’s behaviors and character, but in jarring her into self-awareness you will only generate her resentment of you – and especially when you’re unquestionably correct in your estimations.

You were much worse in the relationship than I was. Your total basis is pretty much irrelevant. Cause givin just a bit of time and you voicing any concerns it would have been different. Relationships are about change for both parties involved. You never came to me with the problems you had. You didnt care enough about me to do that, like you were looking for an excuse.

It’s important to remember here that this was the first “real relationship” this guy had ever engaged in. Would he know that “Relationships are about change” due to his many past, successful relationships? No, but his life long Matrix conditioning has taught him that this is ‘what’s expected of people in a relationship’. Here, he is qualifying her against his own preconceptions and trying to make himself the martyr rather than realizing that he’s just as culpable as her for even allowing the ‘relationship’ (such as it was) to happen. When women’s real-world behaviors conflict with beta men’s fem-centric life conditioning, worlds collide.

You came to Chris, you told him what needed to be changed, gave him an ultimatum basicly. You gave him lots of chances over the 2 years. For the last 8 months when you were getting any dick from him you told him.

You loved him enough to do that, you wanted him in your life enough to do that.

2nd, 3rd and 4th (and more) chances are for Alphas. Betas must be bulletproof from the start until they attain, perceptively, Alpha status in a woman’s estimation. Alpha can fail far more shit tests than any Beta would ever be given leniency for.

Our Beta can’t see past his own drama to ask why she allowed Chris more leeway and how this applies to himself. Even when she left, Chris was still his own person, he was the PRIZE, not her. In standard Beta fashion, he will interpret Chris as indifferent or uncaring towards her and try to play this as a card in his favor, but the subtext of it is she had respect and tingles for the Chris well after she broke it off (5 Minutes of Alpha) and his sense of identity is what planted the seed of doubt in her head. Betas will never come to accept this until they re-evaluate their own preconditioning. In the meantime he’ll conveniently use her returning to Chris to reinforce his own estimation of her, use Chris’ indifference as leverage in pleading his case (shame) for being a logically better boyfriend choice, and affirm his own Beta-Game beliefs. It might be interesting to compare how she feels about leaving the Beta to how she felt when she left Chris.

You didnt do that for me, not at all. You made your decision within 6 months of being down here together. Chris was in your heart the entire time. I never had you.

I was in love with you and you only thought you were in love with me. So dont ever think that you had it bad and that I was the one at fault. My faults were nothing, and you know that in your heart, they were nothing that couldnt have been easily changed with a little time. They werent deal breakers.

Im not saying I feel this way, im saying this is what I think and i believe it is absolutely true. at least most of it.

Here, he’s looking for absolution of his efforts at this point and using the only psychological skillset he’s ever developed – an adolescent one. He’s feeding his emotionality by concocting rhetorical scenarios about her that he’d like to be true in order to reaffirm his self-righteous, AFC idealisms, when in fact this whole experience is essentially a challenge to his ego-investment in moon-eyed romanticism. When something attacks this investment it also attacks his personality because he’s internalized it so fully. So in order to protect it (and because it’s easier than self-analysis) he transfers the blame to her for not playing the role of his fantasy girlfriend. She becomes the flawed one for not affirming his idealism. ‘Quality Woman’ becomes ‘Damaged Goods’.

Epilogue

It was not long after this that our heroine left our subject and temporarily got back with her former Alpha lover. It didn’t last long. For all his brooding and pensive Alpha-ness he was still the same loser she left. Not long after she eventually married another Alpha with the same self-confidence, but much better long term prospects. Her now-husband was, and still is, the prize for her, and that’s what she wanted, a prize.

25 Comments   |  tags: , | posted in Alpha, Hypergamy, Idealizations, Psychology, The Matrix

February 13, 2012

V-Day

By Rollo Tomassi

Nothing says “I love you” like saturated fat and slutty lingerie.

In the U.S. businesses expect men to spend on average $186 for Valentine’s day – over three times the average a woman spends on a man. Explain to me why women own V-Day? If it’s a “celebration of romantic love” why should it be an annual shit test?

Lets clarify a few things about Vagintines Day since it’s become probably the most irksome manifestation of westernized/commercialized romanticism. V-Day is far and away the most vulgar display of female entitlement. On no occasion – even a woman’s birhtday or her wedding anniversary – is this sense of entitlement more pronounced and our refined commercialization of this entitlement/expectation simply twists the knife in further for men to live up to this with ZERO expectation or entitlment to any reciprocation. He gets ‘lucky‘ if his romantic offerings are sufficient to appease her (social) media fueled expectations of ‘good enough’ to reward him with sex.

And exploit the media does. I can’t get away from it; Every radio station, every TV show, every newspaper and magazine article. Go to askmen.com right now, I guarantee there’s a “how not to fuck up this year’s V-Day for her” article there.

I listened to a talk radio show that I regularly tune into on my commute home on Friday; it was about what not buy this year. “Don’t buy lingerie, she knows it’s really a gift for you” or “Don’t pick up flowers at the gas station, women know they’re cheap”, and “God forbid you pick up some cheap jewlery or stop at one of those roadside urchins selling prepared flower baskets or arrangements – women know you didn’t think about it until you were on the way home.” On my way to work this morning, different show, same list. [Side Note: Never buy a woman lingerie, she will never be happy with it. A woman has to do this on her own to “feel sexy”, make sure it fits her right, and it’s HER IDEA. When you buy it for her it’s contrived and it is overt and overt is often the kiss of death for a try-hard guy.]

Why wouldn’t women have these expectiations? They’re relentlessly marketed to as the primary consumers in western culture. V-Day isn’t a celebration of romantic love, it’s a machine that drives a wedge of expectation and entitlement in between otherwise happy, relatively contented couples.

I’m not down on the idea of a special occasion to celebrate love (I actually proposed to Mrs. Tomassi on V-Day 15 years ago), I am down on the twisted expectations that have been perverted into it that puts a woman on some pedestal of entitlement by commercialized popularization of this feminized ideal. Why isn’t there an official “fuck your boyfriend like a wild animal” holiday or a list of criteria to meet that’ll make his day special? “Show him how appreciative you are of all his dependability and hard work this year – buy some lingerie ON YOUR OWN and pretend that you like him cuming in your mouth on his special day!” If women are so liberated and interested in equality, one would think this would be the first thing to occur to them. We need a special day to make us apprecitae each other?

Gentlemen, beware of falling into the trap of negotiating desire for Valentine’s Day performance. Don’t be lulled into thinking Game is any less necessary on V-Day. In fact, I can’t think of a more direct illustration of how the feminine encourages the transaction of men’s goods and services in exchange for a woman’s sexuality than reserving a ‘special day’ just for it. Remember, you cannot negotiate genuine desire; and with the right art, a bag of Skittles can be a more romantic gesture than all the sonnets, flowers and jewelry your inner romantic soul will ever be appreciated for by her.

Note to PUAs

Valentine’s Day is ripe with opportunity for an enterprising Man with the ability to see it. Go hit the clubs tomorrow night, particularly the ones that cater to a 25-40 y.o. affluent crowd. There’s a million different venues you can hit, all with promotions to help single ladies feel better about not having a date – usually with genderist drink specials to help your approach too. You’ll notice impromptu GNOs (girl’s night out) set up just for this occasion to prove to themselves “they don’t need men to have a good time.” A good PUA couldn’t arrange a better opportunity to hook up in multiple sets.

Don’t go play ‘pity friend’ with any girl on V-Day, don’t be the “you’re such a great friend” consolation date.. Call up your best wing man and sarge on the best night of the year to sarge. Wedding receptions aren’t even as good as V-Day for this.

V-Day in the Matrix

Just in case you weren’t already convinced of the complete totality of media control that the Matrix has, let me offer yet one more Valentine’s Day example:

I was in a grocery store this weekend picking up something to grill and thought it would be a convenient time to pick up a Valentine’s Card for my wife since it’s coming this week. So I meander over to the greeting cards section to sift this years crop of mushy sentiment.  Much to my disgust the only cards available in the “For My Wife” section of the Valentines Cards (and I mean ONLY cards available) come in two types:

A.) The sentimental, “My life was nothing before you and would be nothing without you”, tripe that reduces a man to a simpering, codependent who owes his very existence to the woman who deigned to marry the poor soul.

B.)The “humorous” Valentine that is essentially the greeting card equivalent of Everybody Loves Raymond or Family Guy. These are basically intended to beg for a wife’s forgiveness for all of his uniquely male faults and foibles, that only she can solve by virtue of her infallible feminine wiles. Judging from the ‘humorous’ intent of these cards, no man is capable of feeding himself much less ask for direction or leave a toilet seat down, but on “her special day” this card is meant to prompt an appologetic laugh.

Needless to say I’ll be making my own card this year, but for fuck’s sake, how can we ever get a break from this shit when we’re ankle-bitten at every opportunity? You simply cannot buy a card that doesn’t force a man to be self-depricating.

24 Comments   |  tags: , | posted in Game, Idealizations, Romance, Social Conventions, The Matrix

February 6, 2012

No Preference

By Rollo Tomassi

There’s nothing like a good internet shit-storm to fire up the inspiration for great manosphere bloggery. As most of my readers are aware I cite Roissy/Heartiste often enough, if not for content then certainly for terminology. If I have one complaint about the Chateau it’s Roissy’s habit of posting a fresh topic about a half an hour before I’m ready to log off for the day and   the comment discussion ends up in becoming an epic struggle between the manospheric forces of reason versus the blathering cut-and-paste canards of the militantly Matrix plugged-in. Such was Friday’s post at the Chateau.

I’m not entirely sure, but my guess would be that Roissy wasn’t expecting the landslide of  commentary (685 responses at last count) his post provoked from the more agitated wing of social crusaders poised to defend any critical analysis of the search term: “Sexual Preference”. Oddly enough, the main thrust of his commentary wasn’t about the alleged ‘asexual preference’ of the girl in his chosen article, but rather the Beta of the Month guy who’d endure and encourage an entirely sexless monogamy to accomodate this little Pixie.

As I’ve noted in many a prior thread, Indignation is a basic requirement for the feminine psyche (and extended to the male feminine identifier’s psyches) – directly or vicariously, in the absence of indignation, women will actively create it for themselves. If you feel like sifting through 685 posts of indignation to understand this, you’ll have an easy time of it by attempting to explain ‘sexual preference’ in a rational manner to the legions of Matrix Plugins. Even when that sexual preference is “none of the above.”

Every Plugin in the comment thread had some pet interest in the orgy of ignorance: Feminists, White Knights, Sexual Preference Crusaders, Rape Culturists, etc. yet the spark of the whole debate was a little rainbow haired girl who volunteered to be interviewed by the BBC about her claims of ‘sexlessness’ and the legitimacy of asexuality as a, presumedly biological, sexual orientation (or non-orientation in the stricter sense). Oh, yeah, and some anonymous herb who chose to repress his sexuality to apease said Pixie.

Accusations of rape culture flew out in the first volley Matrix-speak:

“If she’s not into sex there’s nothing wrong with her. She doesn’t ‘owe’ him sex and if she does so against her will then that’s rape.”

Following up were the appeals to sexual preference and gender identity:

“It’s people like you who demonize and bully people who’s sexual orientation conflicts with your own. You’re what’s wrong with society, you’re scum of the earth.”

Next came the predictable White Knight contingent and their “not-like-other-guys” Beta game mantras:

“Thinking the only way to be intimate with another person is through sexual contact is not only ridiculous but incredibly limiting. I’d be perfectly fine being in a sexless relationship.”

And for the finale, a healthy dose of male shame administered by those lacking the insight to add anything novel:

“If this bothers you, I bet you all have really small cocks.”

Ahem.

What interested me most about this ‘discussion’ wasn’t just the intensity of the responses, but also how quickly and comfortably the Plugins were in their need to set the “troglodytes” straight. You see, in our disconnected lives it’s much more difficult to express our ideology without real-time social repercussions. We can get fired from a job, kicked out of our social circle, excommunicated from church or not be asked back to the lady’s bridge club when we venture a disenting perspective on a great many topics. The Buffer of the internet make that expression much more convenient, but is also fraught with the same risks, albeit more indirectly. This accessibility is also a good indicator of what provokes indignation.

In an era when critical analysis is conflated with political incorrectness it’s interesting to observe what prompts outrage, even if it’s simply token, actionless outrage. As I stated in Enter White Knight:

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

There is such a dearth of critical thought and analysis in society at large that those willing to do so become the immediate targets for the indignation seeking majority of the Matrix. Bloggers such as myself, Roissy, Roosh, Dalrock, Ferd, and a whole host of others, must be exceptionally careful in our anonymity for fear of real-world repercussions for our ideas and our observations. We take on pseudonyms by necessity for fear of an impact to our careers, our families, our personal lives, etc. No feminist blogger need worry about using her real name – their ideas aren’t dangerous, they don’t threaten the feminine imperative’s primacy.

It’s a shock to normalcy when a conflicting idea is expressed, but it’s what the Plugins wait for. It’s their prime opportunity. They perceive it as a test of their ego investments to refute (however lamely) the observations that would challenge their comfortable world view.

28 Comments   |  tags: , , , | posted in Biomechanics, Inter-gender Communication, The Feminine Imperative, The Matrix

February 3, 2012

Man’s Last Stand

By Rollo Tomassi

TV is for women.

It’s that time again gentlemen, all the splendor, the fanfare, the pomp and circumstance that makes the NFL one of the last bastions of American manhood – Super Bowl Sunday! You’ve earned it boys, today is YOUR day, ordained by the divine creator himself (why else would it be on a Sabbath?) to be reserved for beer, brats and belly-bucks. A day dedicated to unapologetic testosterone fueled manhood. We are MEN hear us belch,..pshhhhhhhht,..click,….

Hey, woah! Wait a minute,.. I WEAR PANTS! What the fuck? Who are these neckbeard herbs singing to in the middle of nowhere? These aren’t men they’re,..schlubs,.. Howie, Terry, Shannon, somebody, tell Dockers that the Super Bowl is for MEN,..no more of this crap OK? We need something masculine like a car commercial, yeah hit us with a muscle car,…pshhhhhhht, click,..

Yeaaaah,..nice sound of horsepow,.. Heyyyy,..wait a minute,…what the hell was all that crap about putting the toilet seat down? Clean up the sink after I shave? Carry your lip balm? Hey, I’m starting to get a funny feeling that maybe I’m being pandered to here,…lets see,…how about another car?…pshhhhhhht, click,..

Yep, definitely being pandered to here. It’s almost as if these advertisers know my wife is watching the Super Bowl with me,……pshhhhhhht, click,..

Wow,..I can’t take it anymore,..can someone just get me a beer? Please? A beer? They can’t possibly ruin a good T&A beer commercial,………pshhhhhhht, click,..

The above dramatization, while humorously inspired, was meant to illustrate a point that many in the manosphere will already be sensitive to, but far too few men are even aware of. One, perhaps unavoidable, problem advertisers have faced since the rise of overt feminization is the difficulty in reaching a male-centric audience in a female-centric society. Women are universally known as the primary consumers across virtually all demographics that matter to modern marketing efforts.

Women buy shit, and they buy shit in such volume and with such predictable patterns and frequency that it eclipsed men’s purchasing habits – and specific marketing efforts – over 2 decades ago. There are literally generations of advertisers and marketers who’ve never known a culture that wasn’t solitarily focused on and directed by the feminine imperative.

This has created a unique challenge for advertisers in this century in tapping into that male-centric marketing. Advertisers see untapped dollars in a male market, but how do they reach the male demographic in a media culture that’s ridiculed them for the last 40 years and praised the feminine above all else in that time? The natural answer is not to market to men at all, but rather the women they’re dependent upon to make the purchasing decisions for them.

You will rarely have a more blatant opportunity to experience this female-as-male purchasing dynamic than by watching the multi-million dollar commercial buys during Super Bowl Sunday. I would caution against Men in the manosphere simply attributing these spots to an ignorant misandry rampant in the advertising world. That’s the easy answer. Even your average plugged-in guy can see the male ridicule, but what’s more important is to recognize the method in the misandry. For instance in the Dove For Men commercial, we have a uniquely male, parodied experience coupled with a call to action to purchase Dove body wash – a product few men would buy for themselves. However the target audience for this commercial is the wives and women – the primary purchasers – in men’s lives to buy the product for them. Can’t reach the male demo? Get his Mommy wife to buy him what he needs.

Advertisers are also cleverly making plays to a shame based  Male Catch 22 – Man Up or Shut Up dynamic. As in the Dodge Charger ad, men are uniquely EXPECTED to suffer through a lifetime of servile misery to benefit women, but his reward is her allowing him to drive the car of his choice. Most women aren’t going to directly purchase a car for their husbands, but the inflection in this commercial is that her influence is what makes this car a reward for him.

If you ever had doubts about the veracity of the female-centric social Matrix we live in today, pay attention to the commercials you watch during the game on Sunday. Don’t take the content of the commercials at face value; that’s what women will do. Instead, ask yourself why did the producers choose that particular type of male to play in the spot? What’s the social message behind the commercial? What gender dynamics do the producers assume will resonate with their target audience? You may think this is over-analytical, but trust me, when a company drops $2M on a Super Bowl spot, they’ve put far more analysis into it than I can cover in a blog post.

44 Comments   |  tags: | posted in Communication, Inter-gender Communication, Psychology, The Feminine Imperative, The Matrix

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,282 other followers