Intersexual Hierarchies –Part II

Hierarchy2

Don’t wait for the good woman. She doesn’t exist. There are women who can make you feel more with their bodies and their souls but these are the exact women who will turn the knife into you right in front of the crowd. Of course, I expect this, but the knife still cuts. The female loves to play man against man, and if she is in a position to do it there is not one who will resist. The male, for all his bravado and exploration, is the loyal one, the one who generally feels love. The female is skilled at betrayal and torture and damnation. Never envy a man his lady. Behind it all lies a living hell. – Charles Bukowski

For my more optimistic readers, you’ll be happy to know I don’t entirely agree with Mr. Bukowski’s sentiment here, however Charles gives us a great introduction to the next progressions of intersexual hierarchies. While I’m not sure every woman is as skilled as the next in betrayal, torture and damnation as Charles’ waxes poetic about, I do believe that his understanding of the male nature is not only accurate, but that male nature is actually the source of his equating women with betrayal, torture and damnation. It’s not that women are inherently evil, it’s that men’s idealism make them so available to being betrayed, tortured and damned.

If you’re at all familiar with Charles Bukowski, you’ll know he was one of the last true son’s of bitches – the unapologetic epitome of gloriously arrogant self-concern and masculine independence. For what he lacked in polish he made up for in talent and a brutal honesty that could never be acknowledged in the fem-centrism of today. In the mid 60’s he was a feral, instinctually red pill Man.

Charles, for all his musing on women, knew that it was the male nature that facilitated women’s damaging of men. The feminists of his generation and today simply dismiss him as a relic of a misogynist era, but his real insight was about men’s inner workings.

“The male, for all his bravado and exploration, is the loyal one, the one who generally feels love.” I’d like to believe that Bukowski was ahead of his time with this, however I think it’s more accurate to presume that, due to a constant feminine-primary socialization, men have been conditioned to interpret love under feminine pretexts, rather than acknowledging men and women approach love from different concepts.

In light of these differing, often conflicting, concepts of male-idealistic and female-opportunistic love, it’s easy to see how a man might find women duplicitous, torturous and damnable – particularly when his feminine ‘sensitivity training’ predisposes him to believe women share the same love idealism he’s been encouraged to believe.

Hierarchy2

The Feminine Primary Model

The Feminine Primary model of love is the idealistic fantasy the vast majority of men have been conditioned to presume is a universal model of love. In this fantasy a woman reciprocates that same idealism he has about how she should feel about him based on his concept of love. That love eventually has to (potentially) include children, but the fantasy begins for him with a woman’s concept of love agreeing with his own love-for-love’s-sake approach, rather than the performance-based, opportunistic approach women require of men in order to love them.

The best illustration I can apply to this model is found in the very tough lessons taught in the movie Blue Valentine. You can read the synopsis, but the plot of this film graphically outlines the conflict that occurs when a man conflates his idealism of the feminine primary model of love with women’s opportunistic model of love. That idealism is exacerbated by a feminine-primary conditioning since early childhood which prepares him to expect girls and women will share in it.

When you look at this model objectively you can’t help but see the Disney-esque, blue pill promise of a mutually reciprocated love. Men being the true romantics predispose themselves to wanting to believe this model is really the only acceptable model. The dispelling of the fantasy this model represents is one of the most difficult aspects of coming to terms with red pill awareness – in fact one of the primary reasons men become hostile to the red pill is an inability to imagine any other possible model.

Most men’s dispelling of this fantasy comes after he’s reached the ‘happily ever after’ part of this schema and he realizes the conditionality his wife places on her terms for loving him. He comes to the realization that women’s love model is based upon what he is before who he is.

While there is a definitive conditionality placed on her love, men don’t necessarily expect an unconditional love. It’s usually at this stage that men are conveniently expected (or expect themselves) to ‘Man Up’ and earn a woman’s mutually reciprocated love by adopting the male responsibility aspects of the first, conventional model. As Gustavo describes, “a man provides” and for all of his previous equalist conditioning that made him believe a woman would “love him as he loves her” he blames his inability to achieve that idealistic love on himself for not living up to being a “man” deserving of the feminine primary model of ideal love.

What he’s really done is convinced himself into accepting a woman’s opportunistic model while retaining the idealism he’s been conditioned never to reject – thereby leaving her blameless in her own concept of love.

It’s hard to consider this model without presuming a woman’s manipulative intent of a man, but let me state emphatically that, for the better part, I believe most women simply aren’t specifically aware of the mechanics behind this intersexual hierarchy model. Through any number of ways women are socialized to presume that their feminine-primary position implies that men should necessarily take the life and maturity steps needed to fulfill women’s opportunistic approach over the course of their lifetime.

We like to bemoan this as feminine entitlement, and yes it can get, and is getting abusively out of hand, but this entitlement and expectation originates in women’s opportunistic approach towards love.

Men are the “romantics pretending to be realists” and women; vice versa.

Hierarchy3

The Subdominant Model

Lastly we come to male subdominant model wherein a man, by conditioning and circumstance, expects love from a woman as he would from a mothering dynamic. Often this situation seems to result from an overly enthusiastic belief in absolute gender equality and parallelism, but the underlying motivation is really an abdication of masculinity and, by association, abdication of conventional masculine responsibility. There simply is no presumption of masculine ‘headship’ prior to, or into a long term relationship.

I outline the origins of this hierarchy model in Pre-Whipped:

These are the men I call pre-whipped; men so thoroughly conditioned, men who’ve so internalized that conditioning, that they mentally prepare themselves for total surrender to the Feminine Imperative, that they already make the perfect Beta provider before they even meet the woman for whom they’ll make their sacrifice.

The social undercurrent of an ideal gender equalism plays an active role in creating these men, and specifically this hierarchical model. Unfortunately the social and / or personal illusion of control this model is idealistically based on is usually overshadowed by the male-dominant / female-submissive expectations of the more naturally fluid conventional love model.

These are the ‘house husband’ arrangements, and the ‘gender is a social construct’ relationships. While the hope is one of a realized egalitarian equalism within the relationship, the psychological struggle eventually becomes one of dominant and submissive gender expectations in the pairing.

From Master and Servant:

In an era when Hypergamy has been given free reign, it is no longer men’s provisioning that dictates her predisposition to want to be a submissive partner in their relationships. To an increasingly larger degree women no longer depend upon men for the provisioning, security and emotional support that used to insure against their innate Hypergamous impulses. What’s left is a society of women using the satisfaction of Hypergamy as their only benchmark for relational gratification.

Men with the (Alpha) capacity to meet the raw, feral, demands of women’s Hypergamy are increasingly rare, and thanks to the incessant progress of feminization are being further pushed to marginalization. The demand for Men who meet women’s increasingly over-estimated sense of Hypergamic worth makes the men women could submit to a precious commodity, and increases further stress the modern sexual market place.

For all of the mental and social awareness necessitated by this equalist fantasy, men subscribing to this model inevitably fall into a submissive (conventionally feminine) role. As the red pill gods would have it Heartiste had a timely post outlining all of the logistical failing of this arrangement today, but underneath all of the trappings that make this model seem imbalanced is the reversal of conventional roles which place women into the love flow state men are better suited for since their approach to love originates from idealism (and not a small amount of martyr-like sacrifice for that idealism).

Essentially this model forces a woman not only to mother her children, but also her husband.

In the beginning of this series I stated that men and women’s approach to love was ultimately complementary to one another and in this last model we can really see how the two dovetail together. That may seem a bit strange at this point, but when social influences imbalance this conventional complement we see how well the two come together.

When a woman’s opportunistic approach to love is cast into the primary, dominant love paradigm for a couple, and a family, that pairing and family is now at the mercy of an opportunism necessitated by that woman’s hypergamy and the drive to optimize it. Conversely, when a man’s idealistic approach to love is in the dominant frame (as in the conventional model) it acts as a buffer to women’s loving opportunism that would otherwise imbalance and threaten the endurance of that family and relationship.

From Heartiste’s post:

7. Arguments about chores, money, sex life, and romance were highest in couples where the woman made all or most of the decisions. Female decision-making status was an even stronger determinant of relationship dissatisfaction than female breadwinner status. Women can handle making more money in a relationship, but they despise being the leader in a relationship.

8. Argument frequency decreased among female breadwinners if they were not the primary decision-makers. Lesson for men: You can have a happy relationship with a woman who makes more than you as long as you remain the dominant force in her non-work life. Or: GAME SAVES MARRIAGES.

When a woman’s love concept is the dominant one, that relationship will be governed by her opportunism and the quest for her hypergamic optimization. The ultimate desired end of that optimization is a conventional love hierarchy where a dominant Man is the driving, decisive member of that sexual pairing.


Intersexual Hierarchies – Part I

One of the withdrawal symptoms of unplugging from the Matrix is usually an overwhelming nihilism that results from being torn away from the previous blue pill preconceptions a man has been conditioned to for most of his life. It’s my hope that in the future red pill men will make the necessary interventions and apply what they’ve learned from their unplugging and red pill truths in general towards their sons (and daughters) as well as other men they know or are related to. Until then, the process of breaking away from that conditioning is usually going to begin as the result of a traumatic breakup, a divorce, or having had the relational equity he thought he’d built a long term relationship on proved worthless in the face of hypergamy.

It’s a sad reality of unplugging that it most often starts as a result of emotional anguish, but to pour salt in those wounds is then having to live with the harsh realities that the red pill makes men aware of – that more or less everything they’d held as an ego-investment up to that point was founded on a feminine-primary conditioning. I summed this up in 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.

Try to keep this last part in mind as you read what I propose in these next two posts. I read a lot of guys in various forums getting despondent after having the red pill make sense to them, but that despondency is really a simple lack of not having a path already preset for them to follow. Instead of the easy answers and prerequisite responsibilities that the blue pill and the Feminine Imperative had ready for him to follow, now in his new awareness he’s tasked with making a new path for himself, and that’s both scary and exciting at the same time.

Love Styles

In almost 3 years of blogging and a book written, my three most popular posts have been the Love seriesWomen in Love, Men in Love and Of Love and War. Though my SMV graph gets the most link backs, these are easily the most viewed posts on Rational Male. Unfortunately they’re often the most misquoted and misunderstood.

One of the toughest revelations of the red pill is coming to terms with the difference in experience and concept that men and women apply to love. The core principle in Women in Love is often misunderstood. For different reasons, deliberate or otherwise, both men and women critically misunderstand the main premise of that post:

Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.

In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.

Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

Most critics of my differing assessment of how either sex interprets and considers love tend to blow past this last part. They oversimplify my meaning and sputter out something to the effect of, “That Tomassi guy thinks that women can’t ever really love men, what preposterous crap!”

Of course that isn’t my assertion, but I understand the want to dismiss this notion, particularly for men and women invested in the ideal of equalitarianism. It’s a threat to the ego-investment that men and women are anything less than fully equal and rational agents who come together for each other’s mutually agreeable benefit. The simple fact of women’s innate hypergamy puts the lie to this presumption, as well as confirms the relevancy of women’s constant, qualitative conditionality for whom (really what) they’ll love. I think it’s ironic that the same people who disparage this concept are among the first to readily embrace the pop-psychology notion of Love Languages.

I get why that premise pisses off women (and feminized men); it’s very unflattering to be accused of loving men from a position of opportunism. However, it’s important to understand that I don’t make this observation to condemn the way women approach love – although I’m sure it will follow, my point isn’t to presume a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way for women to love men or vice versa. There are beneficial and detrimental aspects of both women’s opportunistic approach to love, and men’s idealistic approach to love. That said, I happen to believe that the differing ways men and women love each other evolved to be complementary to the other and for the betterment of our species.

For all the “OMG I can’t believe this red pill asshole thinks women can’t really love men” misdirection, I should point out that well intentioned men, especially the newly red pill, are also guilty of the same oversimplification. Theirs is an attempt to find validation in the (usually recent) trauma of having been cut away from their prior blue pill conditioning. A similar, “Rollo says women can’t really love men, of course, it’s all so clear to me now” satisfies a simplistic need for confirmation of their former condition.

And again, it’s not a right or wrong way of loving, it’s the lack of recognizing the difference and being on the punishing side of that lack. Most men will want to apply their concepts of honor or justice in assessing how ‘right’ men’s idealistic love is, while women will still see the inherent value in loving what a man is as a prerequisite for loving who a man is. Hypergamy doesn’t care about men’s idealistic expectations of love, but neither does men’s rationality make concessions for what facilitates women’s opportunistic approach to love.

Romantic Souls

From The Red Pill subreddit:

My whole life, I’ve had it nailed into me that I would be able to find true love if I was honest and hardworking. As I grew older it was, “If I’m somewhat fit and have a good job making 60k-80k a year, I’ll find that beautiful girl that loves me as I love her“.

As I’ve stated on many occasions, it is men who are the True Romantics. Granted, it’s the unthoughtful result of centuries of evolved ‘courtly love’, but in the realm of what qualifies as a true act of romance, it’s men who are the primary actors; it’s men who ‘make’ (or want to make) romance happen. And of course therein lies the problem, a man cannot ‘make’ romance happen for a woman.

For all a man’s very imaginative, creative, endeavors to manufacture a romance that will endear a woman to him, his ‘trying’ to do so is what disqualifies his intent. For every carefully preplanned ‘date night’ after marriage, there’s a college girl swooning to bang her boyfriend living in a shithole, sheets over the windows, furniture from the dumpster, pounding shitty beer and sleeping on a soiled mattress on the floor. Romance isn’t created, romance just happens, and it’s a tough, but valuable, lesson when men come to realize that a happenstance bag of skittles, or a ring made from a gum wrapper at the right time meant more to a woman than every expensively contrived ‘romantic getaway’ he’d ever thought would satisfy her need for lofty romance.

An important part of the red pill is learning that the most memorable acts of love a man can commit with a woman are acts of (seeming or genuine) spontaneity and never apparently and overtly planned (and yes, that applies to sex as well). This is a source of real frustration for a man since his blue pill conditioning expects the opposite from him, and his romantic nature – the nature that wants her to love him as he loves her – conspires with his problem solving nature, thus prompting him to ever greater romantic planning for what he hopes will be an appreciated, reciprocated love.

The Hierarchy

The true source of a man’s frustration lies in his misdirected hope that a woman’s concept of love matches his own. His ideal is a beautiful girl that loves him the same way he loves her. The presumption (a romantic one perpetuated by the myth of egalitarian equalism) is that his concept of idealized love is a universal one which women share with men in general and him in particular.

Thanks mostly to men’s blue pill conditioning, what most men fail to ever consider is that women’s hypergamic based love always considers what he is, before who he is. For a more detailed explanation of this I’ll refer you to my post Love StoryThis is the root of the intersexual hierarchy of love.

Hierarchy1

Before the rise of feminine social primacy, the above ‘flow chart’ of love prioritization would hardly have been an afterthought for a man. Through any number of evolutionary and sociological progressions the base understanding of how Men’s love began from a position of protecting, provisioning for and directing of the lives of both his wife and children wasn’t a concern worth too much of his consideration. Neither was a prevailing desire for a reciprocal model of love an overshadowing concern.

To be sure, a baseline requirement of a returned love, sex, respect and fidelity were important elements, but this wasn’t the originating basis of male desire for being loved; there was no expectation of a woman loving him as he loved her (and by extension their children). To be a man was to have the capacity to provide a surplus beyond his own provisioning.

“A man provides, and he does it even when he’s not appreciated, or respected, or even loved. He simply bears up and he does it, because he’s a man.”

Gustavo’s monologue in my opening video may seem like an anachronism, especially in the light of a red pill awareness of the potential for injustice and the veritable certainty of a provisioning arrangement that will almost always be a one-sided proposition for a man – whether he’s loved, respected, appreciated, married or divorced.

Undoubtedly there’ll be men reading this bristling at the idea of a non-equitable model for love, but I’d argue that the idea of an equitable model is the result of the conditioning an egalitarian equalism has predisposed men to believe is even possible.

Before the rise of feminine primacy, a man’s expression of love through his support and guidance simply weren’t things women or children had the capacity to reciprocate. The advent of women’s independence, real or imagined, has served to strip men of this core understanding of the differences between male and female concepts of love. In the effort to feminize men more fully, and position men in a condition of confusion about what constitutes masculinity, this concept of love was replaced by a feminine-primary model for love.

While a woman’s respect, and a degree of love may flow back to her man, her primary love and concern is directed towards her children. One reason we’re still shocked by women who kill their children (pre or post natal) is due to an inherent acknowledgement of this natural dynamic. Women’s brain function and biochemistry largely evolved to predispose them to bonding with their children, and thus ensure the survival of the species. Beyond the rigors of physically gestating a child, raising children to self-sufficiency required a considerable investment of effort and resources – not to mention a constant attention. Nature selected-for women with an innate capacity to nurture and direct love primarily towards children.

The internal psychology women evolved to vet for men who displayed traits for both Alpha physical prowess and parental investment / provisioning potential are a result of children being a priority for a woman’s love. While a degree of maintaining a man’s continued commitment to the family unit requires her attentions in the form of sex and affections, a woman’s primary love focus is directed towards children.

Granted, not all women are capable of having children (or some even desirous of them), but even in these instances substitute love priorities still supersede directing her primary attention towards a man. It may seem like I’m attempting to paint women’s love as callous or indifferent, but this ‘directioning’ isn’t a conscious act, but rather due to the innate understanding that a man is to direction his love towards her as a priority.

 

This should give readers a bit to chew on for a while. In Part II I’ll detail the alternative hierarchy models prevalent for modern, post-feminine primacy relationships.


The Apologists

apologists

Posted this morning, Obsidian at Just Four Guys had an excellent 10 question interview of Professor Michael Kimmel who has been so concerned about the male anger simmering in the manosphere that he was distracted from his professorship of Sociology and Gender Studies and executive directorship for the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook University that he was forced by academic passions to write such titles as Guyland and Angry White Men (not to be confused with Stupid White Men).

The open format interviews of semi-mainstream authors are starting to carve out a missing manosphere niche for J4G, so I don’t want to steal any of that thunder with this post, but since “angry manosphereans” was the topic du jour at Aunt Giggles’ echo-chamber (“Oh my stars and garters! Tindr is really a hook up app populated by men and women who just wanna fuck?”) I thought I’d riff a little on a few of his answers and what I think are the esteemed Professors’ most glaring problems.

But the real answer to your question is not “why am I so different from other men?” but rather how am I so similar to other men? I grew up breathing the same air, and drinking the same water as you did. I believe firmly in the ideals of American democracy, and so I feel compelled as a citizen to speak out against inequality and injustice. Supporting gender equality is right, fair, and patriotically American.

He is correct, he’s JUST like the majority of ‘other’ men – suffering from a  lifetime of thorough social feminization conditioning to become the champion of feminine-identification Game. His Beta mindset is easily recognizable, but his Game is still the same ‘like attracts like’ mentality that’s characteristic of a solid insaturation in blank slate equalism. Hugo Schwyzer left a vacuum, Kimmel is just stepping into it. Be more ‘like’ a woman and they’ll appreciate your efforts in supporting and understanding them, and you’ll be rewarded with reciprocal sexual interest.

It is a compassionate look at the lives of young men, and especially the things that those young me are being asked to do – by other guys – to prove their manhood. And the argument of the book is that proving masculinity becomes a sort of relentless test for guys, and that THAT is what we have to pay attention to. The book is a sort of catalog of how guys feel they have to prove it — video games, porn, sports, binge drinking, hooking up, initiation and hazing. All of it. It’s not about how awful guys are because they are doing it. It’s about how awful it is that they often feel they are being forced to do those things they don’t want to do because if they don’t other guys will call them pussies.

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

Why do men think they’re so great? Because that’s the kind of men women love.

This discomfort with ‘being a guy’ is the root disposition of many high-functioning Betas, and particularly those seeking to better identify with the feminine in the hopes it will pay off in sexual dividends. These are the guys who never ‘got it’ that shit talking and locker room jabs (the same male space invaded by the feminine) are intended not just to determine masculine fitness, but to foster living, building and measuring up to a better masculine standard that benefits both the individual man and the collective of humanity. Risk taking, physical aggression (constructive and destructive) and physicality in general, ambition, team reliance and individualism are all part of this masculinity. That potential for violence scares the shit out of men like Kimmel, but that potential is also precisely what’s need for survival and success of a species.

Betas like Kimmel who grew up in fear of Alpha aggression instead of embracing and matching it directly, see bullying in every marginalized form of boys being boys, to say nothing of Men being Men, when they reach adulthood and still haven’t figured out how to relate to men and the masculine beyond what the easy answers feminization has provided for them. These are the men who’ll explain their feminine identification Game as being a personality issue, “I’ve always related to / better with women.” For feminized male apologists anything resembling an intrinsic understanding of masculinity is indistinguishable from Hypermasculinity.

Because of this embrace of feminine-primacy, the Professor is probably not the best equipped to educate men on issues of anger. As such, my guess is he cannot discern the difference between aggression born from anger and aggression as a vetting and honing mechanism of the male psychology.

Kimmel, presumes that men don’t want to participate in this vetting, but as always, want’s got nothing to do with it. It’s easy to characterize this vetting in the context of Bro Culture, but the fact of the matter is that it exists in every masculine subdomain from Frat Brothers and the football team to coders, gamers and 4Chan /b/rothers.

What’s “wrong” with the pickup seduction manuals is not so much that they treat women as objects, the means to get laid, notches on belts etc., and not as whole people. That’s pretty silly in the modern era.

Apparently Kimmel’s has yet to discover Tindr in this modern era. Someone ought to link Kimmel and Aunt Giggles to @Tinderfessions on Twitter – don’t say I didn’t warn you. It may be silly, but it’s reliable in the context of reality. If women have to be “warned” about this or that PUA tactic, it stands to reason said tactic will be effective. It also stands to reason the technique was based on a provable, intrinsically valid, female dynamic to be effective.

But what bothers me about these books is that they treat men as pathetic losers, utterly incapable of honest conversation, genuine affection, and authentic emotion. So they male-bash. They treat men as such losers that they have to be inauthentic game players in order to be successful with women. I have a much more sanguine view of men than that. I believe that when men are honest, communicative, and authentic, they will have great relationships.

What if these pathetic losers could become ‘authentic’ Men by learning how women actually relate to them on every level; from sociological to psychological, from evolutionary perspectives to the underlying biology that motivates women’s behaviors not only sexually, but emotionally, pragmatically and sympathetically? Would they still be pathetic losers?

What if these men could be ‘authentic’ in their understanding the nature of women and how women solipsistically and subconsciously institute their own Game socially and psychologically to ensure optimizing hypergamy to their best benefit?

What if these men could “Just Get It” and leverage that understanding not only to improve their own lives, but also the lives of other men, their sons, their brothers, and the lives of the women they involve themselves with? Would they be pathetic losers then?

What if these men’s genuineness in honesty, conversation and emotion were the result of red pill truth and having the blinders removed that a feminized acculturation fitted them with for the better part of a lifetime? The nature of that honesty, conversation and emotion might be something quite different than what your own feminine conditioning would have you envision Professor Kimmel. So are they pathetic losers because their genuineness derives from the red pill, or are they genuine because they buy into what you and a feminine-centric culture tells them they should adopt and internalize in order for women to love them? In other words, what are you selling that’s any different?

I agree, if men could be honest, communicative, and authentic, they will have great relationships, but how a guy comes to being honest with himself after shedding his blue pill programming, how he learns women ‘actually’ communicate, and how he becomes ‘authentic’ after having internalized Game-awareness and red pill truth is a far different prospect than telling men to just be themselves and trust in the alleged rationalness, equalism and zero-sum goodness inherent in ‘most’ women today.


The Rational Male – Kindle Update

Just a brief announcement, I’ve had the Kindle version of The Rational Male professionally formatted and the new edition is now available from Amazon.

I have to apologize for the first version. I’m a designer by trade and my initial effort was intended for a well laid out print version that could be loaned to, or bought for men who readers felt might benefit most from it. Unfortunately my freshmen effort never really converted from the PDF to an ePub the way I had intended.

I understand now that readers primarily wanted Kindle / eReader versions for themselves so I took the time and committed the money to have the text professionally formatted. The eBook is now ready for primetime. It’s essentially the same book, just everything is now in place, with links embedded.

I’ve also expanded the distribution to Kindle Select now, so readers in Mexico, Brazil and Japan have direct sales access.

Also, I’m currently having the book translated into Spanish, and have a couple of irons in the fire to convert the book into an Audible format.

Something to Look Forward to

The good news is that I’ll be taking all of this learning and applying it to the next book I began last week. I’d already begun The Rational Male: Volume II in February, however, as a result from the most recent Preventative Medicine series I’ve put this on hold while I flesh out an expanded version of this series into the new book. Furthermore, since my essays and graphs detailing contemporary SMV seem to generate so much interest (and rage, and general distortion) both inside and outside the manosphere, I’ve decided to expand this new book with SMV / SMP specific material to support the expanded  Preventative Medicine detailing.

After sifting through my past SMV related material I’ve found I have more than enough for a ‘real’ book – so, yes there will be both a (well formatted) Kindle and a printed version. While I will be using some prior posts, as well as detailing the Preventative Medicine timeline more expansively, I’ll also be including new related writing that I haven’t published on Rational Male. So the answer to the obvious question is, no, it wont all be just reprints of past essays – and even the ones I choose to will be expanded.

The purpose of this effort, like anything I write really, will be along the same intent as the Preventative Medicine series – a work to better help men prepare for, and become SMV / SMP and Game aware.

Once this book is completed I’ll be back to Rational Male: Volume II. My hope was to publish by October 1st, but that may get pushed back a month depending on the Preventative Medicine (working title) book’s publication.

And finally, amongst all of this, my stupid-hectic work schedule/travel, publishing for the blog and trying to be a husband and a father, I’ve also begun copy edits for a new edition of the printed book. I’ll be hiring a pro copy editor to help out and make corrections, but this new edition will address the formatting and copy issues in the first printed edition. The material will not change.

Thanks for all your support. I write for my readership, so if there’s a suggestion you have for any of these upcoming projects or some topic or inclusion you’d like to see, please feel free to let me know about them in the comments or with an email (address on the About page).

RT


Homosexuality

Sexual-fluidity

Alright readers, please return your seats and tray tables to their upright position and make sure your seat belts are securely fastened, this is going to be a bumpy ride. I’ve had a good portion of this post in the ‘can’ so to speak for some time, but as of yet hadn’t the purpose to publish it. I understand the potential for misunderstanding this essay is going to have, but as most of you know, unplugging guys from the Matrix is dirty work, and I’ve always been one who likes to get his hands dirty.

In the time I’ve spent writing in the manosphere both as a blog writer and a forum commenter I can only remember a handful of instances where I’ve read any attempt to define how Game is applicable to homosexuals. For the most part, personal ideologies tend to prevent Game-aware writers from objectively addressing how homosexuality actually validates a universal application of Game.

It’s kind of a shame that a lot of Game proponents would rather avoid how a larger understanding of Game is confirmed in homosexual relations. I’ll admit to some hesitancy as well, however one of my earliest posts, Sexual Fluidity, addressed exactly how an evolved  template for heterosexual gender roles is still the applicable one in homosexual relations. I also defined the dominant / submissive dynamic all intergender relations establish in Master & Servant.

Before I get myself into the inevitable morass this post will likely generate, please have a read of the Rational Male policy about morality. My purpose in setting this out isn’t to persecute anyone, nor should an objective grasp of Game be limited by personal ideologies. I realize bias in both observations and interpretation is always going to be unavoidable – I can’t scroll through my Twitter feed without reading personal perspectives regarding gay marriage these days. Just understand my point here isn’t to pass judgement on anyone (readers will do this for themselves), but rather to illustrate the universality of Game and gender dynamics.

Finally, I have to add that my interpretations here are going to be limited by experience. I tend to write from an authoritative perspective in all my posts, however, my interpretations here are rooted in my knowledge of Game and intergender dynamics not firsthand knowledge. I’m not gay so if you think my perspective is incomplete or I haven’t addressed something you think is important please feel free to make me aware of them in the comments hereafter. This is very much a work in progress and I’m open to anyone’s corrections.

The following story was related to me via email about 4 months ago by a gay male reader. With his permission, I’m going to repost it here, but I’ve changed his name to ensure his anonymity:

Hello Rollo,

I just wanted to start this message off by saying I absolutely love your blog and I am now in the process of ordering your book off of Amazon.  However, I have a very interesting question I was wondering if you could assist me with.

I am a 23 y/o gay male, and as you may have guessed, my best friend is an attractive 22 year old female. We have both dabbled in stripping since we were 18 but as of recently we have begun to make the transition to “sugar babies” to pay off our tuition.

The mind games involved in crafting a sense of “oneitis” are certainly true. Prior to even finding your blog, we have been exercising these realizations with great success. Thus, I was very excited to see a blog with 100% similar views to how we both view the standard STRAIGHT relationship.

See where I’m going with this? Men and women have clearly defined “roles” and personality types due to years of evolution. If you are a young and attractive female, men almost instinctively understand the need to compensate with cash and or providing a sense of security…especially if you are playing your cards correctly.

The issue at hand for me, however, is that the same principles don’t seem to be working. “Strip club” hustle is far different than the mind games involved in a relationship, and when I do strip, I leave with a healthy amount of money. However, when trying to cross over into “sugar baby” territory, I feel as though I am playing with a different set of rules.

Essentially, gay people are a hybrid between man and woman. I feel as though, in some cases, I posses a very “feminine” view about certain things, but due to my extensive testing and researching of human psychology, I have adopted a much more “alpha” and “masculine” personality type as well. This “alpha male” persona originally started out as an “act”, but through sheer perseverance I can honestly say it is a part of who I am now. Since then, I have a long list of gay men who want to date me. In hook-up culture gay world, finding sex is as easy as signing onto a website or downloading an application. Thus, getting a gay male to actually feel the need to “date you” is an art form in itself.

However – because gay men operate off of feminine mindsets by DEFAULT, they are attracted to my Alpha personality. But due to my “alpha”, and or “male” personality type, they simultaneously do not feel the need to spoil me with cash. I’ve hung out with a multitude of gay millionaires, I’ve gone on a few vacations, etc. however, I can’t achieve the same success as my friend.

She has had “allowances” as high as 3,000 a week…has had her tuition paid off, and has been purchased a brand new 30,000 car. She’s been all over the world. Granted, she “understands” the game and plays it well. However, I want a slice of this pie.

Do you have any experience with gay/lesbian mind sets? Do you have any tips to cross over from “alpha boyfriend” to “spoil me”. I have been having a difficult time in regard to hustling. Gay men, ironically, prefer “normal” relationships. Unlike straight men who are more than willing to spend some extra money to jump to the next league, if you understand what I mean.

It seems as though I must fabricate a “loving relationship” for 6 months before I am ever going to be handed any sort of allowance. The “trip for two” vacations are fun, but at the same time, I do not actually ENJOY their presence and they can sense this. Any suggestions?

 

First off, any ‘advice’ I could offer is going to come from my understanding of heterosexual dynamics. After having worked in the liquor and casino industries for almost 20 years now, I’ve had the opportunity to work with and market to a gay demographic, and to this day I still have homosexual friends I’ve made who hit me up for advice. I’ll tell you what I tell them, Game is universal, but I think the disconnect comes from thinking that being homosexual in someway disqualifies a person from the strictures of how the sexes evolved and how they interact.

Naturally Mark’s stripper girlfriend will be the control for this study; as with most attractive strippers she understands (and capitalizes on) the natural dominant-submissive gender architecture, and the provisioning / protector aspect men innately apply to a high SMV mating prospect. Mark also correctly identifies how ONEitis influences and reinforces this dynamic, as well as its utility to transactional sex.

I will however disagree with Mark’s assertion that homosexuals are in some way ‘hybrids’ of men and women. If you read through my Sexual Fluidity post you’ll come to realize that even in homosexual relationships there is almost invariably a dominant and submissive partner, either of which reflect the evolved natures of intersexual relations – dominant, masculine male to submissive, feminine female. It’s not that a homosexual is gender-role indecisive or is some hybrid of the two, it’s about determining who’ll be the male and who’ll be the female.

In many posts I’ve made the point that the soul-mate myth and the fallacy of the ONE are founded in a popularized ideological normalization. For instance the Carl Jung idea of anima & animus is so embedded in our culture that we take it for granted. For the past 70+ years popular culture has operated from an unquestioned idea that men and women possess both masculine and feminine aspects of their personalities. Why? Because at some point Carl Jung proposed the theory and a culture embraced and perpetuated the idea that “men ought to get in touch with their feminine sides” as a means to an end for another agenda. No one even thinks to question the origins of this concept much less the veracity of it. Small wonder that so many women and too many men get agitated and hostile at the idea that this basic of their identity understanding could very well be horse shit.

I had a very depressive lesbian friend once cry to me about how she kept falling in love with various girlfriends, but the template for her breakups was always the same. She was a very tall, and attractive, short haired woman. The vibe she projected was obvious to anyone, a butch, dominant extroverted impression, however when she got into (or thought she was getting into) a monogamous relationship – something she very much wanted – she would do what most Beta men do in their LTRs. She presented an ‘Alpha’ dominance that appealed to more fem lesbians, but when she got into an LTR that Alpha presence faded to fem Beta dependence much in the same way men who learn Game will “backslide” to their comfortable Beta ways – and much to the disappointment of a woman who believed she was going to play the submissive role.

And just like a backsliding Beta, my lesbian friend’s girlfriends would predictably leave the LTR, confused as to why they’d been sold into playing the dominant / decisive role with a woman who appeared to be the pants wearing partner. Cue the heartrending ONEitis endemic to a Beta mindset, get depressed and repeat the cycle again.

The sexes may be the same, but the roles either play don’t. This dynamic is perhaps the most damning indictment of gender equalism. Even when both sexes are the same the Game doesn’t change. For all the equalist cries that men and women are fundamentally identical, just with different plumbing, the nature of a committed relationship still reverts to an unequal dom/sub footing.

Mark’s frustration rests in his inability to convince the men he ‘hustles’ to get ONEitis for him. I’d suggest that part of this is due simply to men’s sexual strategy and appetites being prone to variety, but also because he can’t pull off the submissive, provisioning-necessitousness message his girlfriend naturally does. No gay man (as yet) wants to assume this role with him, but damn near every heterosexual man with a heartbeat and normal testosterone levels will fall in line to provide for an SMV peaked 22 year old woman with a body nice enough to be a high end stripper.

A Gay Perspective

For the record I believe homosexuality is a nature vs. nurture issue.

So with that in mind, here is the Rollo Tomassi take on homosexuality: Until such time as biologists can empirically prove a ‘gay gene’ (or genetic combinations that predispose a person to homosexuality), I believe the root of homosexual sexual expression is behavioral. Human beings have a biological need for sexual expression: masturbation is usually the first, then we move on to more complex socio-sexual behaviors. In short, we like to get off. It feels good, it’s a stress relief and orgasm (plus the resulting endorphin release) has health benefits.

Sexual behaviors and patterns become progressively associated with environmental prompts, situational stimuli, as well as a multitude of reward/reinforcers and punishments depending upon the social acceptability or unacceptability of the that sexual behavior.

That’s not to say there isn’t a biological aspect to this; when I see a semi-nude woman (conditioned stimuli) I get a hard-on (unconditioned response). My body reacts in preparation for sexual behavior by flushing my system with a cocktail of hormones that increase my heart rate, heighten my senses and gives me an erection. However it’s the associations, and prior rewards or punishments, that prompt the biological response. For instance, why do I get turned on by a naked Jessica Alba, but disgusted (physical revulsion) when I see a maggot filled animal carcass?

When I hear homosexuals tell me “I can’t help being gay”, I believe them.

Through any set of circumstances their sexual expression has been reinforced to the point where it has become normal for them – they literally can’t help but be gay, because that’s what prompts sexual response for them. They also, literally, do not make a choice to be gay; their sexual response was brought about from circumstances that rewarded (or more so than from what wasn’t) that behavior. The obvious criticism is that for the most part homosexuality is viewed as a deviant or perverted sexual expression and is discouraged. However it’s just this taboo that makes the sexual expression an even more tantalizing reward.

As I stated above, sexual release is a biological need. Heterosexual men entering a male only prison population, can and do engage in homosexuality and then resume heterosexual behavior upon their reintroduction to society. Are they gay or were they simply resorting to the only sexual expression they had available to them in their given environment?

What about bi-sexuality? Do bisexuals have only half the genetic material to make them half-gay or has their sexual conditioning been such that they’re aroused by both genders?

There are some people born with both male and female sexual plumbing, what gender should they pursue in life? Is this their choice when you consider it’s their parents who decide to raise the child as a boy or a girl?

Feminist Gender Decisions 

The problem with even attempting to define gender into a genetic vs. behavioral answer is further complicated by the people trying to define it. Just by even asking the question “Is homosexuality a choice or a genetic predisposition?” casts the one asking into one camp or another. You’re either a ‘homophobe’ or you’re an immoral hedonist by choice. Both sides are equally polarized and equally misled because they aren’t encouraged to look for answers, and when they do, the bias of their motivations for doing so become suspect.

Is gender itself biological or behavioral? This is an issue that Feminism struggles with to this day.

If gender is primarily a learned behavior then the issue of being oppressed by design is valid, but homosexuality as a genetic cause is invalid (or certainly less valid). But then, women’s biology, and the degree to which their innate hormonal differences play (estrogen, oxytocin) and the behavior manifested due to them, in molding their gender must also be taken into consideration.

The problem with asking questions like this now becomes one of polarization. Neither homosexuals nor moralists really want a definitive answer as to whether homosexuality is genetic or behavioral. The longer it goes unanswered, the longer each has to effect their own agenda. If homosexuality is proven not to be primarily genetic, then homosexuals as an oppressed underclass lose in their bid to make their status a civil rights issue.

If it is proven to be genetic, then moralists are forced to reevaluate not only their position on homosexuality, but also their philosophical concepts of predestination and personal accountability. So it’s really not in the interests of either faction to look for real definitive answers. The longer we all remain in limbo the longer either have to try to change minds.

You see feminism relies on the idea that gender is taught, not innate. It’s a classic nature vs. nurture paradox. And they’ll use this conveniently and interchangably.

To feminists, little girls are little girls because society defines their gender in their upbringing (play with this pink dolly), but ask them to explain why gays are gay and it has nothing to do with their behavior or their environment, now it’s genetic – they can’t help it they, were born that way. The problem is that this contradicts itself. If gender is learned, then homosexuality is all learned/reinforced behavior, but if gender is inherent then feminism is a sham as women are fighting against a psycho-biological order. They can’t help it, women were born that way, right?

Gay Animals

Yes, homosexuality does have parallels in other animals. However, what’s conveniently overlooked is that most instances of this animal homosexuality often occurs in social animals that rely on a collective group for survival (like penguins). Homosexuality is almost non-existent in predatory animals. Among these social animals, homosexuality is generally exhibited in higher frequency only when the population of the collective has excessively higher proportions of one sex. Homosexuality is also exhibited in lower order animals such as insects and amphibians, however it’s postulated that this homosexuality is an instinctive survival mechanism necessary to prompt sexual amorphism. Certain animals (particularly fish and amphibians) have an ability to change sex (sexual amorphism) when high frequency or exclusively same sex members dominate a breeding population.

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to define homosexuality based on the amorphous breeding habits of fire toed newts, but in principle there may be environmental triggers that prompt homosexual behavior.

Earlier I made the example of heterosexual prisoners resorting to homosexual behavior in jail and then returning to heterosexual behavior after their release. Is that person a “homosexual”, or were they simply resorting to the only sexual expression available to them in their controlled environment? Are post-Wall women who resort to Sexual Fluidity due to an inability to find a suitably dominant male really gay or are they also responding to the pressures of the sexual environment they find themselves in? Is the (subjectively) higher incidence of human homosexuality a response to environmental pressures that have developed in the past 60 years? With greater female “independence” and feminine hypergamy dictating the social / breeding  environment in the sexual marketplace I think a strong case could be made.


Preventative Medicine – Part IV

prevent_4

From The Myth of the Quality Woman:

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

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

Print

The Schism

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

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

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

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

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

Deal with It

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

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

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

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

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

Redevelopment / Reinsurance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Late Phase Security

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

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

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

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

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

Once menopause ensues that retrospective need becomes more urgent.

Conclusion

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

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

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

Thanks for sticking with this.

RT


Preventative Medicine – Part III

baby2

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

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

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

Uses

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

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

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

Who cares?

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

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

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

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

 

Print

 

The Security Phase

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

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

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

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

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

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

Settling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Development Phase

From The Curse of Potential:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 7 Year Itch

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

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

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

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

The Path to Spinsterhood

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

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

31 to 34 year olds

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

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

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

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

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


Preventative Medicine – Part II

Cougar-Cub-Curve

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

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

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

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

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

SMV_Curve

 

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

 

Print

 

The Late Party Years

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

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

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

“Where is this going?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Epiphany and Transitory Phase

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

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

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

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

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

From The Epiphany Phase:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Transition

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

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

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

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

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

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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,645 other followers