Balancing Act

balancing-life

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

From Donal Graeme’s Removing the Mask:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Game Adversarial?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tricks and Traps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s the trap.

 


Controlling Interests

controlling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selling the Beta

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

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

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

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

Quoted from Why Muscularity is Sexy:

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

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

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

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

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

Building the Beta

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hypergamy Schism

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

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

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

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

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

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


Owed Sex

ron-hermione

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

“Men are not owed sex for anything.”

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

In its entirety:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Two Sides of Hypergamy

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

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

The Need for Certainty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Old-Order

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

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

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

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

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

Relational Equity vs. Alpha Fucks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminine-Primary Assortive Mating

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

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

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

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

 


Male Space

female-boss-motorboat-elite-daily

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

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

The First Woman

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

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

The goal is to be a woman in male space.

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

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

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

Overseers in the Locker Room

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

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

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

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

‘Bro Culture’

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

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

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

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

Infighting

From The Apologists:

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

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

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

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

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

Resisting the Influence

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

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

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

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


The Severing

frayed-rope-1960x900_34210

I’m not really sure where to begin with the killings in Santa Barbara.

About 6 years ago my niece attended UCSB and I became peripherally aware of the social landscape there from what she’d relate either to the family or via FaceBook. It wasn’t really anything less than I’d expect from a notorious ‘party school’ populated by the kids of affluent families – beautiful people, beautiful environment and all the displays of conspicuous consumption you’d probably expect. And it would be the perfect hell for a guy like Eliot Rodger.

Until now I’ve tactically avoided throwing my hat in the ring about this incident because I know the dangers inherent in going off half-cocked about a developing story. If you’re looking for details and information about how this kid evolved into what he was I’ll refer you to Heartiste’s, RoK’s and JustFourGuys breakdown of it. That said I’m going to tap out a few of my own personal thoughts about the kid and the social impact of not just how he came to be, but also what you can expect from a feminine-primary media.

PUAHate

As I’m sure most of the primary manosphere sites have, the members of the PUAHate forum found select posts at Rational Male as a particular targets of their vitriol. When I initially became aware of the forum (via link backs) it was due to their being very publicly linked to the Manboobz blog (now We Hunted the Mammoth).

After perusing the forum for a bit I wrote it off as a collection of guys commiserating about their shared social disenfranchisement and, not to be too blunt, but their shared lack of social intelligence. That these guys were angry with the manosphere was pretty much a given. For the most, they fit a particular personality pattern that’s characteristic of boys / men looking for an easy solution to their social ostracization and noted rejection from female intimacy.

I know the personality well since these types of guys are usually the first to email/PM me for advice for the easiest path between where they are now and where they want to be. They initially believe that Game / red pill awareness / PUA techniques are the panacea they’re looking for to cure their largely sexless and lonely existences.

When, due to their functional autism, Asperger’s syndrome or simply a social awkwardness, they find that the only thing that posed to be a ‘plan’ to help them “get their girl” doesn’t work the way they’d hoped, the reaction is a hostile rejection of what they believe ‘promised’ them the results of curing their sexless state.

To compound things the same PUAs they sought help from, become caricatures of the men who are successfully hooking up with the girls they wanted really nothing more than to be a loyal boyfriend to. They resort back to the only thing they knew, Beta Gameidentify and qualify with women – only now they not only reinvest themselves in it they want to become activists against any form of Game that isn’t what they believe women should respond to.

I don’t have any corroboration of it, but my guess is that a guy like Eliot would’ve made the ridicule list for the now defunct Tumblr “Nice Guys of OKCupid“. I’d suggest reading that post as a primer for anyone wanting to get a better grasp of how this personality type thinks and is ridiculed for.

The PUAs they’d hoped would let them in on the ‘secret’ to a woman’s intimacy, are revealed to them as the charlatan Bad Boy, ‘Alpha males’ they’ve always resented, who they believe mock them with every successful lay they manage.

What’s worse, what fuels their PUAHate activism, is that they ever believed their ‘enemy’ would reveal a way to become like they are. I bring up this observation from experience. I’ve had more than a few of these kinds of guys hit me up, not for advice, but a specific plan that will lead them to some kind of relief from their condition.

Descriptions and Prescriptions

In Preventative Medicine IV a commenter (who, for the record is not an InCel by any stretch) asked me why I had no real prescriptive plan for men to follow with regards to ‘preventing’ or avoiding the bad decisions associated with the time line I laid out in that series. This was my response:

Imagine for a moment I had the temerity to presume that I know exactly what a 60 year old reader like bbb experiences in his personal life with a post-menopausal wife. I could take a good stab at it (in fact I have a post in the can about menopause) but anything specific I could prescribe for him would be based on my best-guess speculations and according to how I’ve observed and detailed things in this series or any of my past posts.

From my earliest posts at SoSuave I’ve had men ask me for some ‘medicine’ for their condition; some personalized plan that will work for them. This sentiment is exactly what makes PUA and manosphere ‘self-help’ speakers sell DVDs and seats at seminars. They claim to have the cure. I say that’s bullshit.

I’m not in the business of cures, I’m in the business of diagnoses. Imagine David D’ Angelo, the “new” Tucker Max or Tyler Durden attempting to force fit their plans to accommodate bbb’s situation. Athol Kay makes attempts to remedy married men’s (non) sex lives, but what’s his real success rate? Is it even measurable? Even Athol recognizes that his MMSL outline is just a map, a diagnosis, that men have to modify for themselves per their individual experience and demographic. You see, your cure, your plan of action isn’t what bbb’s will be, or your future son’s, or anyone else reading my work. I can give you a map, but you still have to make your own trail. I’m not a savior, you are your savior

Short version: I’m not interested in making men be better men, I’m interested in men making themselves better Men.

What’s more legitimate, my prescribing some course or template to follow that leads a man to a success that ultimately I define for a reader, or my laying out an accurate landscape for his better understanding and he creates his own success with it?

Are you your success or my success? I’d rather a Man be his own.

Most men already know what the keys are, and most even know how to use them, but what they really want is confirmation that they actually have the keys.

My approach to Game is defined in much broader terms than simply ‘how to get girls’, and I think for the better part of the manosphere the understanding of Game has evolved beyond rote memorization of scripts and plans. It’s gotten to a stage where even the most enthusiastic proponents of PUA techniques acknowledge a need for an individualized approach to relating and interacting with women based on a broader applied understanding of feminine psychology, sociology and the particular conditions that apply to themselves as well as the women they’re interacting with.

It’s been noted before, my approach to Game is descriptive, not prescriptive.

What’s Next?

In the next month or so I expect there will be a lot of armchair psychologists making their best attempt to suss out what Eliot’s killings represent without ever really having experienced in any depth the mental schemas of minds like his. A fem-centric media and society will want its easy, binary answers and I suspect they’ll get no less in passing Eliot’s neurosis off on whatever conveniently fits the narrative that makes for the easiest to swallow and move on.

Right now I expect that’s going to be the manosphere, but Eliot wasn’t our monster, he was the product of his own psychosis and his neurotic belief in the First Set of Books. Eliot was a more violent version of what happens when socially maladaptive men root themselves in a transactional, reciprocal, model of what would solve his loneliness, sexual frustration and desperation.

Eliot and those of his mindset believed that everyone ought to be playing by the set of rules he was conditioned to believe everyone else was playing by and he dutifully subscribed to. They want a prescription, not a painful, ego destroying description.

Under those rules, he embodied his own definition of an Alpha – the guy who played it right and would be gratefully appreciated by any normal person adhering to the way things should be. But he couldn’t come to terms with the fact that everyone else wasn’t playing by that rule set, and he wouldn’t be rewarded for his self-righteous dedication to his conditioning with sex or justice or even basic human interaction. Six people died because he couldn’t come to terms with the fact that much of the opposite of what that conditioning taught him was what he saw was being rewarded.

Would a better grasp of Game have changed Eliot’s mind? I doubt it.

That’s not an indictment of Game or red pill awareness, but rather an understanding of the mindset he developed. I know the obsessiveness of the kind of guy Eliot was. A devoted girlfriend, and her sexual affections wouldn’t have steered his course any differently.

His hate required his destitution, and vice versa. That hate wasn’t about women or misogyny, or Alpha jocks getting after it with the girls he wanted, or even PUAs selling him a new set of rules he couldn’t stomach; his hate was about his inability to reconcile his ego with the ugly realities that a brief exposure to red pill truths revealed to him.

Game saves lives, and not just the lives of the person awakening to a red pill awareness. I know this firsthand from twelve years of private email testimonials and heartbreaking confessions.

Game saves lives, particularly in an era where hypergamy and the new gender paradigm, established since the sexual revolution, ruthlessly selects-out men who might otherwise expect to be considered intimately acceptable by their dedication and adherence to the set of beliefs their feminized conditioning has promised them would be their reward – but the men who need it most have to come to terms with the pain, remorse and resentment of having ever needed to cut themselves away from their prior system belief.

That severance from their conditioned ego-investment is a test that will either prompt them to see the old system for what it was and adapt, or simply put a gun to their head (or the heads of others beforehand).

It is very difficult to make men aware of Game, but the acceptance of it is more difficult when it challenges a man’s sense of self that’s been literally built upon the belief that the system he’s cut himself away from was part of who he really is.

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.

As an end note here I think in the coming weeks there will be a greater scrutiny placed on Game and the manosphere in general. There will undoubtedly be more back and forth about the how’s and why’s of Eliot’s killings, and I sincerely doubt all the effort expended to prove that this kid was an antisocial, psychotic and really needed the unplugging an acceptance of Game would’ve benefitted him with. You simply wont teach those unwilling to learn.

However, as always, my comment thread here will be unmoderated for those who want to offer their take on all this. I would ask though that if you have a personal testimonial about how Game, or The Rational Male (book or blog) or any other manosphere writer, or idea / experience changed the course of your life, please considering leaving it here for the benefit of others. Nothing is TL;DR as far as I’m concerned.

As I mentioned earlier, I have an email ‘save’ box reserved for inspirational emails I receive from readers. Many of these are confessionals about aborted suicide attempts due in part or whole to something I wrote or caused some man to rethink. I wouldn’t dream of breaking any man’s confidence by copy and pasting them into a blog post, but if you have some experience you comfortable with sharing in the comments I’d encourage you to do so during this time.

Thank you.


Purgatory

purgatoryheader1

I’m going to apologize in advance to commenter Softek (hopefully you’re cool with my posting this), but his comment from The Real Nice was exactly what I was digging into this morning:

I’ll tell you where the friendzone is: it’s in your head. You want to believe that something is going to happen with a girl and that you’ve got your foot in the door because you’ve always been there for her for so long, and you always have “so much fun” when you hang out, they like you, they tell you they enjoy spending time with you.

Yeah…no.

Rollo’s said if a woman’s interested in you, she won’t confuse you.

A girl that I was not interested in was interested in me. That girl let me know she was interested in me because while we were hanging out she initiated physical contact herself, I just went along with it, and next thing I know I’m on my back and she’s pulling my boxers down and sucking my dick.

After she swallowed I figured out, “Oh. She must be interested in me. Okay.” For real. That oblivious.

And that was the second day we were hanging out. I’d never met her or hung out with her before. We’re talking 0 to 60, although in her mind when we started hanging out I guess she was already going 60. She did not tell me she liked me or cared about me or wanted to be with me. What she “said” was ask if I wanted her to go down on me, and then she did.

Night and day. I’ve known other girls for years and years and spent so much time with them and never saw one iota of pussy, and only on a couple of occasions got a hug. Nothing was ever going to happen. And I was in the friendzone in my mind. I’d spend all my time there wishing and hoping and never realized how short I was selling myself and how by being the pursuer, I’d already lost.

If you’re waiting for something to develop, you’re already fucked. I learned that one after reflecting on that experience with that other girl. That was the first time in my life any girl showed sexual interest in me — and it was very, very clear. She was the one throwing herself at me. And when she did and I just soaked it all up she was very happy about that and it was just this torrential downpour of praise and compliments and how great I was and everything inbetween.

I haven’t had a lot of experience, but the little I have had has shown me the difference between pursuing a girl who may or may not be interested in you eventually, and one who absolutely, unequivocally is. It is night and day. There’s no mistaking it.

We’re not being nice to ourselves and loving ourselves when we willingly stay in the friendzone in our minds — wishing and hoping and fantasizing. A girl who’s interested will give you so much more, and she’ll give it at the drop of a hat.

I’ve done posts in the past about the utility LJBF rejections mean to women, men’s Beta Game tactics of Playing Friends in the hopes of qualifying for a woman’s intimacy at a later date, and how men and women differ in their approaches to friendship based on their same-sex friendships. In all of these I brush a bit into the concept of the “friend zone” and how it’s really men who put themselves (usually willingly) in this state:

Men get a LJBF rejection because of a process. These are the “friends first” mindset guys; the guys who put far too much emphasis on a solitary woman and wait her out until the perfect moment to attempt to escalate to intimacy, at which point her most comfortable rejection (Buffer) is to LJBF. This is made all the more easy for her because of the process the guy used to get to that point.

[…] Get it out of your head now that you’re even in a so called “friend zone” with any woman. There is no friend zone – there is only the limbo between you being fooled that a girl is actually a friend on an equitable level to your same sex friends, and you understanding that as soon as she becomes intimate with another guy your attentions will become a liability to any relationship she might want to have with the new sexual interest and she puts you off, or you do the same when you become so involved with another girl.

I probably could have mentioned this in The Real Nice post, but I’m noticing a social trend from overly ‘empowered’ women in not simply rejecting the concept of the ‘friend zone’, but outright hostility towards the men who insist they’re forced into it. Women are angry about men complaining about the friend zone.

Neo-feminism HATES the idea of the friend zone for the same reasons it hates Faux-Nice Guys; there’s an implied state of exchange. They hate the reciprocal part of the Savior Schema because it’s considered one degree away from rape.

Nothing upsets the feminine-primary balance of sexual selectivity and betrays the secret mechanics of women’s need to optimize hypergamy than having a man overtly expose the transactional side of women’s sexual strategy. The side that puts him into a friend zone purgatory for being a ‘tryer’ when it comes to sex, but her need for his trying hasn’t reached a critical point.

This is what the friend zone does; it makes a man simultaneously responsible for, and accountable to, his want for sex by attempting to qualify for it with a woman. The friend zone is a Beta man’s punishment for expecting to be entitled to the rewards reserved for an Alpha. The Alpha doesn’t qualify himself for a woman’s intimacy, she qualifies for his sexual approval. And the longer you stay rapt by her in the friend zone the readier you’ll be when she needs your dutiful, sex-lured, providership.

If you want an example of the feminine imperative’s fluidly reinventing social conventions for itself look no further than how the concept of the ‘friend zone’ has evolved since the mid 90’s. In 1994 it was cute in an “Aww, hang in there fella, she’ll come around to loving you for who you are eventually (once she’s “grown” from the experiences of banging bad boys). In 2014 it’s  “Any guy who thinks he’s in the so called friend zone is just a potential rapist because he thinks he’s owed sex for his friendship.”

A Way Out of Hell

One of the most common questions you’ll read from desperate blue pill men, not just in the manosphere, but on damn near every dating forum, to Dear Abby, to AskMen is “How do I get out of the friendzone?” Type that question into a Google query and look at the number of returns you get. The question of course is usually followed by some plea for advice or a script to follow in order to finally get with the Girl of his Dreams®, and rationally and reasonably make her aware of how he measures up to everything on her ‘boyfriend list’.

If you want some actionable Game advice about the ‘friend zone’ here it is – leave it yourself!

Even if you think you have the best and noblest of intentions in your White Knight ‘friend zone’ status, the fact remains that women in general, and the woman you have set your noble intent upon, will consider your ‘friend zoning’ a prison of your own making – not theirs.

Even the most complicit or implicit woman in a guy’s ‘friend zoning’ will never accept the liability for placing him into that state, and even the most culpable woman in this will still resent him; not just for pointing out her own participation in it, but because it irrecoverably confirms him as being a Beta chump who would allow himself to participate in his own ‘friend zoning’.

If you believe you’re in some friend zone with a woman, never overtly admit to or complain about it with anyone, man or woman – you will only reaffirm your perception of being a necessitous Beta. Men will judge, women will talk, and your self-perception gets caught in a negative feedback loop.

Next, remember Iron Rule of Tomassi #7:

Iron Rule of Tomassi #7
It is always time and effort better spent developing new, fresh, prospective women than it will ever be in attempting to reconstruct a failed relationship. Never root through the trash once the garbage has been dragged to the curb. You get messy, your neighbors see you do it, and what you thought was worth digging for is never as valuable as you thought it was.

Your “friend zoning” is a failed relationship. Approach new women, develop new prospects. A Woman doesn’t want the ‘liability’ of implied sexual exchange (actual or imagined) for your friendship? Don’t give it her.

 


The ‘Real’ Nice

fake_nice_guy

I once posed this question to the SoSuave forum:

Let us say, in a strange alternate world, women would LOVE you if you were a Nice Guy. In this world, you could do all the things you wanted to do. You could be sappy. You could write her poetry and SHE WOULD LOVE IT. The more of a Nice Guy you were, the more women in general would love and appreciate you.

And in this alternate world, the jerks and players would be the ones sneered at by women. If you were a jerk in this world, no woman would like you. If you were cocky, they would dismiss you immediately.

Would you remain a Nice Guy if you were in this alternate world?

I got a variety of answers ranging from the want for clearer, but no less useful terminologies,…

First off, I object to the labels. I know they’ve been used here and in the seduction community for a long time, but I don’t really believe in the stereotypes. I’m not a ‘nice guy’ or a jerk or a bad boy. Having said that and cleared the air, let’s go back to the stereotypes:

How many guys came here to this forum as “nice guys”? They were probably perfectly happy with themselves and only decided to change so they could do better with women. So they became assholes. Just to please women. I don’t see why they wouldn’t do the opposite in this “alternate reality”. I don’t care for the stereotypes. Half the guys on this forum think a “jerk” or a “douche” is a desireable thing to be. Something’s wrong with this picture. Somehow a “jerk” has become a guy with backbone who stands up for himself. 

The definition of a “nice guy” should just be a man who respects others as well as himself. But instead, in dating circles, “nice guy” means wimp.

…to the hope for Relational Equity and an appreciation for being ‘nice’…

I don’t think it’s that simple. You can be compassionate and kind without supplicating–and the whole “nice” thing isn’t really about kindness, it’s about supplicating and expecting something in return. “Nice” is really just synonymous with needy, unattractive behaviors, as I see it-it’s not even GENUINE kindness, as when you expect nothing in return.

To me, being an alpha “bad boy” just means going after what you want. It means pushing the envelope and being aggressive in pickup. It doesn’t mean being antisocial or violent, or being a dick to people. It often happens that an aggressive guy has these tendencies, but I don’t think they contribute to his success with women unless they bring him some fame, too. I think women DO have a capacity to appreciate kind gestures, and will certainly judge a man by how he treats his family, etc. The “protector of loved ones” is an attractive archetype to women. 

The guys that lose out are the ones that do “nice” things in the hopes that a woman will grow attracted to them. They let the women control the frame in this case, and act like children trying to please their mother. This is always an attraction killer–it doesn’t matter if they’re a jerk or an alpha in every other aspect of their life. Lots of really tough dudes are complete wussies around women. 

It is truly one of the cosmic ironies of the universe that women should completely lack the capacity to truly appreciate the niceties of men – yet still perpetually claim to desire those niceties.

With the notable exceptions of natural born Alphas, I believe most men would overwhelmingly default to being compassionate, empathic souls, steeped in romantic notions of chivalry, dedication and honor. Whether this sentiment is the result of a genuine dedication to principle or inspired by a hope that women will appreciate his sacrifices to principle and reciprocate with her intimacy is really a Crisis of Motive.

That was really the gist of my question – are guys just playing nice to get laid or is “niceness” (for lack of a better term) something deep rooted that they have to necessarily repress in order to be taken seriously as a sexual competitor because women would despise him were he to be as ‘nice’ as he really has the capacity for.

Most guys make lame attempts to redefine raw, natural, Alpha masculinity to fit into accord with all these noble qualities. Tragically women and reality prove them wrong at virtually every instance, but their fallback denial is an easy one (ironically provided for them by the Feminine Imperative) – “those women who don’t appreciate your niceness are just Damaged Women®, no quality woman would value an asshole above a real Nice Guy.”

Men are simply never rewarded for displays of these higher-self aspirations with genuine appreciation of women. They certainly appreciate them on a by-need basis, and as a ‘value added‘ benefit, but the esoteric, self-actualizing concerns men believe women should prioritize as primarily attractive aspects of themselves are never what they hope women will appreciate. If anything overly ‘nice’ men are punished for it, either in the instance or progressively over time.

The only way to garner true appreciation, true valuation, truly inspired displays of affection, from women is to covertly imply the risk of losing a high-value Man. Whether the man is even truly of a higher value is irrelevant, only the perception needs to be reinforced for her. Risk of loss is all that factors. Risk of losing an investment in optimizing hypergamy is weighed against her own perceived sexual market value and the effort needed to reinvest in another, potentially higher SMV man. Risk of loss is why her imagination furiously spins the wheel in her head.

That sounds horrible, but the truth often is. Women’s lack of appreciation for the more compassionate natures of men, and their consuming regard for rewarding men that appease their hypergamy is so well proven it’s become predictable enough to develop techniques and behavioral modifications to exploit it (i.e. Game). Most guys would like nothing better than to honestly play the loving, white knight, romantic who women bemoan a lack of in the world. Yet for every sonnet composed, every provision met, every compliment delivered and every well planned candlelit dinner conversation, there’s a woman feverishly fucking her Alpha bad boy in his low rent apartment for fear of losing him to the competition.

Attraction and Arousal


Occasionally we return to a common theme of debate with self-proclaimed ‘red pill women’ in various manosphere comment threads about how women may be attracted to certain characteristics men would like to identify as being ‘nice’, but no woman is aroused sexually by these qualities. As I’ve argued in the past, attraction and arousal are two separate elements of hypergamy. Alpha Fucks is arousing, Beta Bucks is attractive.

A couch surfing Alpha will be arousing enough to bang women indiscriminately despite his impoverished condition. He has no relational equity, and so frustrates the efforts of men who believe that the definition of Alpha ought to be based on the equity they hope women will appreciate. Women will return (even if just mentally) to the callous or cavalier Alpha because he arouses her, but she will stay faithful to her well-providing husband because what he offers is attractive to her.

This is why I say, by and large, women love most men for what they represent – once they cease to represent that, once they stumble in maintaining that, hypergamy is free to run. On a personal level this may be you losing a job or how you failed a shit test, on a meta scale it may be women’s social capacity to provide for themselves.

A lot of guys get lost in these definitions. They believe a woman at her word in what she finds attractive in a man, but then conflate this list of qualities (read any woman’s online dating profile) with what a woman finds arousing. While there may be attraction without arousal, there is never arousal by way of what makes a man attractive. Your respectability, sterling character and being good with kids doesn’t make you look any better when your shirt comes off.

The New Nice

There’s an interesting social convention that’s developed as Game-awareness has become more widespread. As with all social conventions it provides a convenient rationale for women to cling to in order to alleviate uncomfortable truths, but the dilemma of the Faux-Nice Guy has picked up a lot of steam in the feminist / feminine-primary set of women. I covered this a while back in Play Nice, but since then I’ve been reading more about how this convention is dovetailing into the re-imagining of a so called Rape Culture.

As women become more aware of Game (even if just peripherally) there’s developed a convenient distrust of men’s ‘Nice’ qualities. The dynamics I put forth in The Savior Schema all become suspect for what in essence is really a tit for tat exchange of services rendered for intimacy at a later date (once his niceties have proven his worth).

The problem with this is twofold, first, the guy’s relying on Beta Game, convinced that what women say they are attracted to is what they are also aroused by, believe that faux Nice Guys are blowing their chances with the women they believe will eventually come to love them for their earnest Niceness. If all these charlatan Nice Guys are jading their pool of prospective nice-appreciating women it ruins their Game. Consequently they get agitated by women doubting any man’s sincerity and by extension their own. This then leads to Nice Guy infighting and greater, more sincere displays of a Niceness that really only ruins their Game that much more.

Second, women’s doubt of a Nice Guy’s sincerity and unsolicited ‘niceness’ is really a red herring meant to distract men employing Nice Guy Game away from the point that they simply don’t find them all that attractive (and certainly not arousing). Being nice, supportive, dutiful and possessing all the intrinsic characteristics on her list of attractive traits in the hope of proving his worth and qualifying for her intimate acceptance is really one long Appeal to a Woman’s Reason. It’s very convenient for a woman to enjoy (and often become dependent upon) the services a Nice Guy renders to her, but when that Nice Guy is discovered to have a sexual interest in her the “you weren’t really nice, you just expected something sexual in return” social convention finds its use.

Women have been aware of this Nice Guy Game, prequalification schema for generations, because it used to actually work in a time and culture where the Beta Bucks / parental investment side of women’s hypergamy was the predominant factor for determining of a man’s intimate acceptability. The problem now is that the deductive reasoning men use – find out what women want in order to become intimate, become it and solve the problem – in order to achieve a woman’s intimacy comes from an old set of books that no woman is still using. However the reliance on the responsibilities outlined in that first set of books are still useful when it comes to control the intents and actions of men.

Chivalry is an anachronism in a post-feminist society, particularly where equalism is concerned, but it’s a liability when it’s useful to the feminine imperative. It may be a man’s duty not to expect sex in exchange for his niceties and services, but when his chivalry is useful to her then it becomes his responsibility.


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.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,065 other followers