Tag Archives: intergender relations

The Best of The Rational Male – Year 4

Milestones-Photo

Four years ago on August 19th I finally took some SoSuave friends’ advice, stopped procrastinating and began organizing and building upon about 9 years worth of writing I had done on that forum and in my university work. Back then all I wanted to do was flesh out the forum posts I thought might make for some interesting reading. I had so many members and newly unplugged friends ask me to collect all of these essays in one place I had to make some sort of effort.

Four years later I think I’ve moved beyond just the core Red Pill ideas I had then. I don’t keep a personal journal. I do have a small notebook I write ideas into as they hit me, but my only way of reviewing my writing is looking back through these notes and searching back through 4 years of writing here. Even if I’m just going back through the previous year’s work it’s an interesting review of where my life was at as well as where the manosphere in general was too.

Even if you’re just peripherally aware of the events in the sphere you know that things have been more than a bit unsettled for the past 5 months. I really dislike involving myself in the manosphere’s PR, but as one of the primary writers (one of the three ‘R’s as it were) I’m sometimes compelled to do so. I would much rather be writing about what I do than writing about the ‘sphere itself. I don’t do this for a living, nor do I have any plans to ever make it my vocation. I enjoy the freedom of being able to focus on issues I believe are important to making men Red Pill aware unencumbered by any concern about how my writing  might affect revenue generated by web stats or advertising.

As of today I have 452 published posts. My posting has gone up a bit more this year to 1-2 per week. I’m getting a bit more comfortable with this schedule as it allows me to craft a post over the course of a week and give more thought (and counterthought) to what I’m mulling in my head. I like doing the weekend discussion questions too so I’ll be upping these for the weekenders here in the coming year.

2015_stats

In 4 years the view traffic is fast approaching the 13 million mark. My monthly views are averaging almost half a million now. I might be a bit off, but I think this is pretty impressive for a Red Pill blog that doesn’t advertise and has never been monetized. I have a stake in a couple of liquor brands that would kill for half of this traffic.

I’ve been a bit more public in the last few months. Since the last ‘Best Of’ post I’ve done 5 interviews, and in a couple of weeks I’ll be making my first in-person appearance at the Man in Demand conference in Las Vegas. I’ve got some high hopes for this event, but I should state for the record that it’s the first and only appearance I’ll be making for at least a year. I have no plans of ‘going public’ in the foreseeable future.

Obviously I think the best thing about the past years was publishing the second book Preventive Medicine. I now own the trademark for The Rational Male (just to be official and protected) and I do have plans for a 3rd installment of The Rational Male series, but this wont be until Q4 of 2016 at the earliest. I should also say that I’ve been entertaining the idea of writing what I call Red Pill fiction. Not to go into too much detail, but I’m toying with the idea of writing some down to earth, gritty fiction that’s firmly rooted in a Red Pill perspective.

Beyond all this, Sam Botta has just recently finished the audio and editing of the first book in Audible format. The plan is to have it available by mid-September, but I’ll be announcing it officially when it’s available.

The following are links to the posts I felt had the most relevance and impact for the year. The comment volume has increase exponentially this year which I’m very happy about. Open, unmoderated, discussion has always been the strength of this blog and it’s encouraging to see the interaction stepped up this year.

I have a love-hate kind of feeling with the Best Of posts. I want to highlight what I think were great, but I do so at the risk of marginalizing the posts I think had great merit, but just didn’t make the cut. These selections aren’t necessarily the most popular or the most commented on, but I thought they deserved some consideration as the most significant (several were even included in Preventive Medicine).

The Rational Male – Preventive Medicine

Interviews

Series

Social

Red Pill / Game

Hypergamy

SMV

Personal Development

Love

Thanks for another great year!

 

RT


Peak Hypergamy

Peak_Hypergamy

Commenter Divided Line came on with such a strong take on Our Sisters’ Keeper I had to riff on it:

Hypergamy is a given and it’s not going anywhere. But even if women’s sexuality is biologically rooted, their rationalizations for it aren’t possible without a compliant culture. So long as women are the damsels, the victims who are put upon by the cruel and all powerful patriarchy, so long as men are perceived to be powerful and free in a way that they clearly are not nor have ever been, open hypergamy is possible. After all, any guy who points it out or complains about it is branded an embittered loser, a misogynist, a creep, and so on, but I wonder to what degree this will change as red pill awareness spreads and penetrates the mainstream. I mean, how long do we think that men will go on smiling and nodding when it’s increasingly the case that more and more of us can see what bullshit all of this is?

What it makes me think of is Alana Massey’s Dickonomics article.

If you haven’t already read it, she goes on and on about how male attention is abundant and cheap, proving that women are well aware of what men who bother with online dating realized from the start. She recognizes the extreme degree of power this gives her before hamstering it away with this:

“Some will read my gleeful rejections on the many faces I encounter on Tinder as evidence of a disturbing uptick in malevolent, anti-male sentiments among single straight women. It is not. It is evidence of us arriving nearer to gender equilibrium where men can no longer happily judge the clear and abundant photos and carefully crafted profiles of women but become incensed when they take the opportunity to do the same.”

How many times have you seen this? All venality, cruelty, selfishness, indifference, etc is justified, of course, because men have it so good, women have it so bad, blah blah etc. So she can write something like this and the sisterhood will nod their heads and no doubt be able to ignore doubt or second thoughts in regards to their atrocious, destructive, and cruel treatment of the opposite sex. Women, like people who rationalize generally, tend to think in bogus bumper sticker one liners because they provide excuses not to think for themselves. And men, after all, just saunter about in the patriarchal torture dungeon of a society free and powerful, and pluck women from the trees before discarding them like jizz towels, so naturally, why should she consider their complexity as human beings or ever recognize what a rotten, horrible human being she is? They’re free to retaliate against men for women’s imaginary oppression.

But how long will they be able to keep employing these rationalizations and getting away with it if the public dialog changes? And it has already begun to change. I’ve watched it happen over the last year. You see more and more disclaimers in articles which appeal to the you-go-girl crowd. It really does seem as if there is a growing awareness that they are full of shit, or at the very least, that maybe there are moral complexities and obligations that come with female social power, to the degree that they are even willing to recognize that power.

Hypergamy isn’t going anywhere, but since men increasingly are comparing notes now and voicing their criticism of women’s bullshit (at least online), maybe it really isn’t the case that women are going to be able to continue this bullshit with public sanction. Is this wishful thinking?

I’ve made the case in several other blog comment and forum threads, but it’s getting almost too easy to point out women’s overt embrace of Open Hypergamy. There was a time – only 4 short years ago – that I would be run up the flagpole for publishing my observations on the ins and outs of women’s sexual strategy. Women in the blogosphere hated the fact that I was exposing their Game. They didn’t like the idea that I was informing men about the plan women had for them or the part they played, and by informing them it represented a fundamental threat to the long term success (and essentially their long term security) of that plan.

If you’re feeling nostalgic you can skim through the comments of posts like Wait For It? or The Threat:

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

[…]

Race to Awareness

Because of women’s relatively short window of peak sexual viability it is imperative that men be as unaware of their slower, but progressively increasing SMV for as long as possible in order for them to achieve the prime directive of female hypergamy; realize the best genetic options and the best provisioning options she has the capacity to attract in that peak window. If Men become aware of their SMV before a woman can consolidate on her options with monogamous commitment her sexual strategy is defeated.

The mistake (and the binary retort) is to think this need for contrivances was concocted in whole as some grand sisterhood conspiracy. This just proves an ignorance of social constructs. For a social contrivance to be such, it necessitates being repeated by society WITHOUT a formal conception – meaning we learn the contrivance from seeing it, internalizing it and repeating it ourselves without forethought. The best social contrivances are inconspicuous and rarely questioned because they’ve been learned without having been formally taught. This is why I think encouraging men NOT to bother trying to understand women is in itself a social convention. Don’t look at that man behind the curtain, just accept it for what it is, enjoy the show, you’re better off that way, the Mighty Oz has spoken.

This is the threat that Game represents to the feminine imperative. Widely shared, objective assessments of Men’s SMV and how it develops is the antithesis of the female sexual strategy. Women’s greatest fear is that they could become the ‘selected’ instead of the ‘selectors’.

Bear in mind I wrote this years before I published Preventive Medicine. This was also only a few years before I formally identified women’s embrace of openly, proudly, flaunting their sexual strategy. I can remember being soundly rebuked by women denying they adhered to anything so callous as an Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks schedule with regard to men.

There was a certain nervous undertone that accompanied their shaming that revealed how protective they were of keeping the plan as ambiguous and secretive as possible from men in general. For every acknowledgement of the biological influences of Ovulatory Shift behaviors by these women there was always an obligatory, “yes, but, people are people, we’re above all that, it’s what’s on the inside that counts, NAWALT” intended to offset the ugliness of it.

Now, the same women who adamantly denied what their functionally opportunistic concept of love represents; the same women who rejected the idea of an Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks sexual strategy openly and triumphantly boast about it. It’s become a source not only of agency, but a proud admission of perceived power on the part of women.

At some point the social impetus behind Open Hypergamy became so blatantly obvious they could no longer deny the truth of it. The Genie was out and it was more advantageous to not only to welcome it, but to brandish and profit from forcing men to accept it. Thus we have Open Hypergamy both subtly and triumphantly waved in our mainstream advertising, our pop-culture, our social media, our music and even the movies we take our kids to enjoy.

To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.
– George Orwell

I expect most of the worst aspects of Open Hypergamy (Overt Hypergamy if you prefer) are fairly obvious to my readers. Even the now the subtle influence in the media and advertising becomes not-so-subtle for men accustomed to seeing things with a Red Pill Lens. We can only shake our heads and hope that so blatant a confession of relishing power in Hypergamy on the part of unaware men will come to light for them.

Divided Line raises a very poignant observation – what’s next? What’s the natural progression?

Hypergamy isn’t going anywhere, but since men increasingly are comparing notes now and voicing their criticism of women’s bullshit (at least online), maybe it really isn’t the case that women are going to be able to continue this bullshit with public sanction. Is this wishful thinking?

I think there is a caveat we have to address here first. With Red Pill awareness it gets very easy to slide down the slippery slope and believe that ‘all women’ will have some equal capacity to enforce the worst of Open Hypergamy on men in general. Yes, in a westernizing context, women have an almost unilaterally state-backed influence on enforcing men’s de facto participation in Hypergamy by order of degree. However, it’s important to remember that men’s willing participation or coercion in it is still (as yet) limited by women’s capacity to attract and involve them.

Men want (and yes, need) sex and will find behavioral and psychological adaptations and workarounds to get it. That may be MGTOW, prostitution, porn or an as yet developed alternative of virtual sex. It may be Red Pill awareness and applied Game, it may be a self-aligning push to pander to the most extreme elements of the Alpha Fucks or Beta Bucks ends of Hypergamy, or it may be upping fame or a false social proof (via personality politicking on social media) that makes for men’s future adaptations.

Peak Hypergamy

I’m not a prognosticator about such things, but I can make logical estimates based on observations. One thing is for certain, and I discussed this with Niko in our talk, intersexual politicking and the condition of women will reach a ‘Peak Hypergamy’ state in the not too distant future. There will indeed come a point when even Blue Pill men will be unable to ignore so gross a power imbalance between the sexes.

There’s been some debate as to whether there’s some socially conscious ‘marriage strike’ in the manosphere for some time, and I think marriage statistics being at an all time low bear much of this out. I don’t think this is the result of some nascent MGTOW awakening, but rather a deductive, peripheral, general awareness men have of Open Hypergamy in our current social order at the moment.

Just as a last aside here, let me state that I am aware of the more militant, absolutists of MGTOW belaboring the idea that ‘the juice aint worth the squeeze’ and the dangers of even approaching a woman risk his being accused of sexual harassment, much less having recreational sex with her leaving a man open to post-sex regret-rape allegation. I get that. It’s part of the ascension toward a ‘Peak Hypergamy’ social state. My question is whether these men would find it worth their while to engage with women if their fears were removed in a post Peak State social order? Some may even live long enough to have to figure that out for themselves.

I think Divided Line is correct – there will come a state when Open Hypergamy’s power consolidation becomes too obvious and the social mechanics the Feminine Imperative has used to ensure that consolidation will be too much for women to maintain as a collective. Then what? What will women rationalize for themselves when they realize their monster has become too much?

I’ll reiterate it again; socially, it didn’t take long for women to transition from a secretive Hypergamy to an open display of it. The same women who called AF/BB the imaginings of misogynous men only 4 years ago are now proudly claiming it as truth (they knew all along) and a means to a power they’ve always had and should openly use.

The social, political and personal stress point of Peak Hypergamy is coming. It may take a bit longer, but there will come a point where even women will be forced to recognize the consequences of legislating their hubris.


The Quick Fix

quick_fix

Becoming the Captain of My Boat dropped this comment in the This is now thread (emphasis mine):

You know, I found the RP about a year and a half ago. I’ve been working on applying things to my life, and for the most part things are going well.

Most of the articles though are about what to avoid, what to look out for, or how to think about women when you’re in your 20’s. The difficult thing is now being aware and seeing it all around you and being married.

I see the Sandberg quote, I hear it all the time from women in one form or another, and then my wife says similar shit. Like she dated the assholes, or had to find herself. Now I’m like, shit, I’m the nice guy she married. I don’t want to be that guy.
I was the asshole in college, what the fuck happened to me and how do I fix it quick? But there is no quick, once you’re in this it’s an uphill battle, a necessary one, but an uphill battle none the less.

I read the Rational Male, I’ve read a number of the books, but it get’s tricky when you’re already in it.

My wife isn’t a terrible person, and I can see firsthand how all this applies to her, but she isn’t malicious. This is subconscious shit reinforced by all their surroundings. Hell, my own betaization was subconscious shit reinforced by my surroundings.

I can say without a doubt that if your’e not already in a LTR or married and you’re younger than 30-35 don’t get in one. Read this stuff, make yourself a better man, fuck around and “find yourself” then you can get into a LTR, because it’s much harder to take control of a ship and right the course with your now demoted wife psychologically kicking and screaming than it is to captain a boat from the get go and then find a hot, willing first mate along the way when you’re already a seasoned salty captain.

He can only speak for himself of course, but Captian’s situation is not an uncommon one. Far too many men discover too late that the great relationship they swore they had with their wives was founded on their having fulfilled a Blue Pill set of achievements.

This belief is part of the plan Hypergamy had intended for him to follow, but as women’s sexual strategy has become more visible (if not outright flaunted) to him he begins to see the code in the Matrix he’s been a willing participant of. The machinations of Hypergamy are unignorable, or soon will be, but it’s one thing to be single and young enough to be able to leverage that plan to your own benefit when you still have the options and maneuverability to do so – it’s quite another to become aware of your own participation in it once you’re committed legally, emotionally and familially to going along with the plan.

For men, one of the more unfortunate consequences of Open Hypergamy is the degree of comfort their wives have in revealing the part their husbands play(ed) in their sexual strategy. As I’ve mentioned in prior posts, in a previous social order it was simply a matter of course that women should keep the mechanics of Hypergamy secret from the men they paired with in the long term.

Amongst themselves women were (and are) very open and frank about their sexual exploits both in the short term sexual and the long term provisional. I’ve always been convinced that women’s insistence on proliferating the trope of men’s “locker room talk” or ‘Humble-Bragging’ about their sexual conquests is a distraction from their own peer clutch groups congratulating themselves on the successes of their sexual strategy.

In a prior social climate keeping these ‘hen house’ Hypergamous revelations to themselves made sense. There was little point to informing the men they depended upon for parental investment and security that they were really the best available option to be their means to an end.

Not so in the present social climate. There is an eager brazenness on the part of wives to openly explain the part their husbands play(ed) in her Hypergamy. I’d attribute most of this to a social climate that encourages women to believe they have nothing to lose by doing so, but there’s also a want to participate (even if vicariously) in the single-woman peer clutch that has openly embraced revealing the ins and outs of Hypergamy publicly.

It’s a rough transition for men to have their Blue Pill idealisms dispelled by the Red Pill community, but it’s far more devastating for men steeped in Blue Pill merit badge accomplishments to have their wives openly confirm what the Red Pill aware have been trying to awaken him to for some time.

Open Hypergamy isn’t just a game for single women; it’s made its way into contemporary marriages. It’s now part of the egalitarian equalist expectation of men in marriage – that in order for men to truly be men worthy of marrying a co-equal ‘modern woman’ he must dispense with any notion of ownership of her, forgive the worst of her Hypergamous indiscretions as part of her “finding herself” and then accept his role as the Plan B, Beta provider for her in the nick of time to help her fulfill her sexual strategy in the long term. All of this coming with no expectation of any reciprocal value on a woman’s part – in fact to believe so is tantamount to marital rape.

I see the Sandberg quote, I hear it all the time from women in one form or another, and then my wife says similar shit. Like she dated the assholes, or had to find herself. Now I’m like, shit, I’m the nice guy she married. I don’t want to be that guy.

I was the asshole in college, what the fuck happened to me and how do I fix it quick? But there is no quick, once you’re in this it’s an uphill battle, a necessary one, but an uphill battle none the less.

This is the revelation men in this situation find themselves in. Even the men who may have fulfilled the role of “a great living dildo” for women in their 20s can still find that their role may have shifted to that of ‘non-threatening relationship material guy’ who she’d never have sex with on the same night she met him.

Now granted, all of this comes back to the subconscious expectation of cuckoldry women place on the men they cast in the passive, supportive role. Women don’t expect the Beta Bucks men they pair with will ever be the Alpha Fucks men their biochemistry predisposes them to want to fuck. But ‘great Dad’ must believe he was chosen as her best option, her best choice for the balance of the two. Only later, once she’s consolidated on him with family, children, financial and professional liabilities to her, is she comfortable in letting him in on how the game was really played.

As I said, the truth of that is hard enough to hear from Red Pill writers on the internet, but to have it viscerally confirmed by a wife without the social filters of an older social climate is a much harder pill to swallow than the red one.

The Fix is In

That sounds like an awful lot of gloom and doom doesn’t it? I can’t speak for Captain, but a woman delivering the confirmation that a guy is really a Blue Pill consolation prize is rarely couched in so melodramatic and sinister delivery. I’ve had many men (mostly disillusioned husbands from MMSL) relate similar stories as Captain’s and none of them were screaming confessions of deceit on the part of their wives. Most were simply matter of fact comments in passing that aligned with their suspicions about themselves.

I hate to harp on Pixar’s Inside Out cartoon, but it’s the simple everyday open Hypergamy that goes unnoticed by Blue Pill idealists. It takes a Red Pill lens to even be sensitive to it, but when you see how casually the wife/mother in this movie fantasizes about her widowed Alpha, the Alpha fantasy she couldn’t consolidate on, and how frustrated she is every time her Beta husband fails a shit test, you begin to understand the passive nature of an overt Hypergamy in women.

Women get frustrated that Blue Pill men Just Don’t Get It. The Blue Pill idealism blinds them to having the insight needed to realize the role they’re supposed to play and the frustration comes from their being over-supportive and over-engaging in order to make things right for their women. Blue Pill men will graciously ‘play equal’ in their marriages in order to live up to the equalist goal-set they were taught would pay off for them for a lifetime if left uncheck or unchallenged.

It’s my belief that wives will use a married form of open, or certainly casually overt, revelations of Hypergamy in order to rouse a man to a Red Pill awareness in the hopes that he’ll Just Get It.

And to answer the inevitable question, yes, this is a meta-scale shit test on the part of wives. However, it’s important remember that Hypergamy is rooted in existential and life-security doubt for women – “Is he really the best I can do?” – and that the shit tests associated with this vary depending on the influences of a woman’s phase of maturity as well as which part of her menstrual cycle she happens to be in.

Revealing the machinations of Hypergamy to a husband has potentially disastrous consequences, or at least it used to. As I said before, women generally don’t sprout horns and a forked tail and say “Ha ha, sucker!” when they reveal Hypergamy; it’s usually a casual inference. If a Blue Pill husband isn’t Getting It about his participation in women sexual strategy from outside means (media, social networks) then the passive or overt shit tests about his awareness of it need to be implemented.

In a previous social order making men aware of this could just as likely result in a woman being divorced or ostracized socially. Today, in men’s never ending quest to satisfy “equalism’s” approval, men are less likely to even believe their role when a woman confirms it for them. Ego-investments meets cognitive dissonance. Not only does he not get it his ego refuses to get it.

This then is the pathetic state of 80%+ of contemporary men. Men so inured by Blue Pill conditioned idealism that they’ll entertain ‘open marriages‘ in order to make themselves ‘better husbands‘ according to an emasculated equalist ideal.

Help! Quick!

So now we come to a situation like Captains – one where that husband Just Gets It only he’s gotten the message, received the awareness, from his wife (either passively or overtly) and he’s both pissed off at his state and equally wants to improve it. I expect most men would advise Cap to sack up and dump that bitch; and they’d probably be right in that assessment. She was duplicitous and then felt so self-assured in her position (reinforced by feminine primary social influences) that she was comfortable in revealing it to him. What’s he gonna do about it, right?

The right answer is to preemptively detonate the marriage. When you consider he’ll be cast in the role of villain no matter who files for divorce (he’s an asshole, or he’s the asshole who couldn’t meet her needs) why not, right? Any kids, any family discord, certainly the financial liabilities, should all be small shrift, collateral damage, when we look at this in terms of justice. It’s just revenge for her double-cross.

And yet that’s not what the vast majority of men in Cap’s situation first consider. Their first thought is “How do I fix this? I’ve lost Frame! How do I get it back fast! Help?” For all of the duplicity inherent in Hypergamy, for all of the insult that comes from a wife confirming he’s her Beta ‘sure thing’ (not the ‘hawt’ college asshole), that guy still wants to make lemonade from lemons, knowing full well she deserves piss.

That husband wants to still be all things, the mythical Good Guy balance, to his wife. There’s something in men’s romantic natures that wants this to work for themselves and in spite of women who fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate it.

The first question I think men in this situation need to confront is whether it’s worth the effort to attempt to change their wives’ impression of them. If you’re 35 and (should be) entering your SMV peak years, this open Hypergamy revelation is particularly tough to accept since it’s likely you’ve invested 7-8 years in a woman who’s just told you what you are to her (and confirming it’s not who you are that’s of primary importance to her). As I’ve stated many times before, going from a Beta character to an Alpha (or more Alpha) one is always an uphill battle:

How many of the simpering, socially conditioned, Betatized men these women seeth about would make for believable Alphas once they had a red pill epiphany? It is precisely because of this impressionistic, binary solipsism that women will never be happy with ‘fixing’ their Beta. This is why he has to Just Get It on his own.

It is a far better proposition to impress a woman with an organic Alpha dominance – Alpha can only be a man’s dominant personality origin. There is no Beta with a side of Alpha because that side of Alpha is NEVER believable when your overall perception is one of being Beta to begin with. This is why I stress Alpha traits above all else. It’s easy, and endearing to ‘reveal’ a flash of Beta sensitivity when a woman perceives you as predominantly Alpha. If your personality is predominantly Beta, any sporadic flashes of Alpha will seem like emotional tantrums at best, character flaws at worst.

Women may love the Beta, but they only respect the Alpha.

That’s not to say a real transformation isn’t possible, but rather it’s a question of whether the juice will ever be worth the squeeze. There is no ‘quick fix’, no magical formula that will reverse Frame to your favor. Even if you won the lottery tomorrow, you’d still be a Beta with more money to your openly Hypergamous wife now. Frame establishment (not re-establishment if you never had it to begin with) takes time and active, practicable Red Pill awareness.

As I was telling Goldmund in my interview, that awareness needs to become a man’s internalized nature. He needs to become his own self-important mental point of origin; that and a Red Pill aware nature take time to develop. Anyone telling you they have a ‘one-size-fits-all’ Red Pill solution that ‘guarantees results in your marriage’ is selling you something.

I say they’re selling you something because of one simple truth – no quick fix that could make you seem more Alpha, more like the asshole college guy your wife loved to fuck back in the day will ever be believable to her if it happens overnight. On a root, hindbrain level, your Beta designation was set for your wife when she was having her Epiphany Phase. She knows and is comfortable with what she expects your nature and your character to be.

As I illustrated in Archetypes , women need consistency in behavior – they expect you to be Beta and are so comfortable in that assessment that they feel no guilt and have no fear in revealing to you the role you play for her. Thus, any radical shift in that comfort doesn’t seem genuine, and in fact it seems childish that you wont accept your designation.

So, is it worth it? I think my advice in this instance would be this:

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.

Once your wife has openly revealed your part in the plan, you’ve effectively broken up. Logistically that may not be the case, but I think most guys need to see this for what it is; a rejection of a husband’s authority, masculinity, his decisiveness and his capacity to read the nuances in behavior and a society that’s been (sometimes literally) screaming to him to Just Get It.

Your wife’s garbage can was dragged to the curb by your wife’s admissions, only the trash truck never comes for it because you’re committed to that can staying on the curb until you walk away from it. If you go digging through it to find what you think is valuable, prepare to get real dirty and look for a long time.

You’ve effectively been ‘friend zoned’ in your marriage. You may still have sex, you may still share special moments, but never forget, her confessions make you ‘just a friend’ in your marriage.

 


*Standard disclaimer: Yes, men should forego marriage altogether and/or stringently vet women for virginity, homemaking and childrearing. Importing wives from third world countries is duly noted. Rollo Tomassi has been married for 19 years to a magical unicorn he found after being a semi-pro rock star and lives an idyllic life of riches and extravagance. NAWALT. Your milage may vary. See dealer for details.


Archetypes

archetypes

Law 17

Keep Others in Suspended Terror: Cultivate an Air of Unpredictability

Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. Your predictability gives them a sense of control. Turn the tables: Be deliberately unpredictable. Behavior that seems to have no consistency or purpose will keep them off-balance, and they will wear themselves out trying to explain your moves. Taken to an extreme, this strategy can intimidate and terrorize.

In Law 17 Robert Greene hits upon a human dynamic that has much broader implications than a useful tool for power. Of course Dread – whether a passive acknowledgement or an overt display – is rooted in this principle, but the fundamental dynamic is that humans have an inherent ability to perceive patterns in nature.

It’s comforting for us to know what to expect in both people and our environments. It gives us a certain sense of security to have things remain consistent, but it also allows us to better pick out and isolate exceptions to that consistency. In a herd of brown cows we can better avoid or prefer the lone purple cow in the field.

It’s important to understand this basic need in humans because it’s both an aid and a hinderance to a Red Pill awareness. Dread works because when it’s applied, or even when it’s simply a new perception, what a woman is being forced to recognize is an inconsistency in what she’s come to expect about a man she’s familiar with. When a husband (or a wife) takes on an interest in hitting the gym where previously he’d had none before, the imaginings this prompts is the triggered result of seeing an inconsistency in a previously reliable behavior pattern.

We are creatures of habit, so when that habit is replaced by another behavior this then becomes the purple cow in a field of brown cows. I’ve stated this in many prior posts, but familiarity, comfort and rapport are anti-seductive elements in a man’s Game. This is one of the first areas I try to address with men trapped in a sexless LTR. Most Beta conditioned men believe that a woman needs to be comfortable with him before she’s willing to sleep with him and are then dumbfounded by how quickly she bangs the hot guy in the foam cannon party in Cancun on Spring Break.

These men believe that consistency in behavior will lead to their becoming intimate with a woman – this is a principle of Beta Game that’s reinforced by women with a ‘plan’ for him. However, it’s important to bear in mind that this comfort and familiarity is based on establishing a pattern of behavioral consistency; a pattern women really have no capacity to appreciate.

That’s not cut on women per se, but women’s lack of being able to appreciate a man’s consistency is founded in the same human want to experience security in the environment. Thus the anomaly is what’s appreciated; the ‘hawt’ guy in the right place at the right time who “she wouldn’t normally do this with”.

Bucking the Meta

Men’s unlearned, deductive Game derives from efforts to appear unique amongst the herd. This is the foundation of all Game really. Early PUAs identified the base utility in principles like Peacocking, being Cocky & Funny and mastering the art of Negging because their willingness to experiment with the boldness necessary to do so (often with women they perceived were above their SMV level) set them apart from the masses of men who’s Game was based on the comfort, rapport and familiarity women had told them would make them attractive all their lives.

These early PUA were bucking the meta game of the time. Women were (and mostly still are) accustomed to being pandered to by ‘Nice’ guys, ready and pre-programmed to defer to, respect and pedestalize them by virtue of their being a woman. Thus the anomaly, the man undisposed to that deference, who reverses her expectations of him qualifying to her becomes the purple cow.

Statistically Beta men are the common herd, but this isn’t what they believe of themselves. What that Beta  believes his herd is is what makes his efforts fail and traps him in the plan of the Feminine Imperative. He believes he is the purple cow, but that belief is what makes him common.

That Beta man makes his efforts about adhering to what a fem-centric culture has convinced him will make him unique. He believes he’s bucking the meta; a meta environment he’s convinced is overwhelmingly populated with insensitive Alpha assholes. He believes the Alpha Men (women love to hate) are the common herd and the more he is alike with women and his behavior is more consistent than the Alpha ‘douchebags’ the more he will appear unique amongst them.

Archetypes

I’ve been asked on many occasions about my impressions of Vox Day’s now manosphere-common referencing of different sub-types of men as Alpha, Beta, Delta, Sigma, Omega, etc. I had Goldmund ask me about these classifications when we had dinner last week and I had to admit that I’m much more of a reductionist when it comes to delineating and Alpha mindset from a Beta mindset.

I’ve always been impressed with Vox’s thinking and observations, and I do think his classifications have a definite merit as useful models for abstract personality types, but I have to also temper that by saying these classifications are by no means absolutes. I say that because I know that humans have an insatiable desire to see consistency and familiarity in people. For the better part that want to interpret patterns is generally reliable in predicting behavior, but that isn’t to say personality is ever static.

Robert Greene works his own personality archetypes into the first half of his book The Art of Seduction. He too categorizes different seduction types in an effort to make their strategies more understandable – The Dandy, The Natural, The Rake, etc. And again, these are very useful archetypes upon which Greene builds and applies examples of how each uses various seduction strategies more or less effectively.

While generalizations are always a necessary tool in a broader understanding of a dynamic it’s important to grasp that the archetype you believe you embody are neither static nor deterministic. As I’ve stated before, Alpha and Beta are mindsets, not demographics. We’ve recently had an interesting debate about how uncommon it is for men to break their Beta cycle, and how rare it is for a man to change his stars. I’d like to address this by saying that personality is never static.

Over the years I’ve evolved from naive Beta high school chump to unwitting Alpha semi-pro rock star, to simpering Omega crushed by a BPD woman, to a lesser Alpha husband / father, to an Alpha businessman, artist, and successful brand owner – those are demographics. You could’ve placed me in many of Vox and Greene’s personality types along my progression to who I am today, and my Game evolved with what I adapted to and what proved successful (or so I thought) for me then.

But when I distill it down to an essence, what shifted for me in all these instances wasn’t the label I would’ve applied to myself, but rather what mindset I adopted at that time – Alpha or Beta. The results of my Alpha or Beta impression of myself became what I was. This is why I’m more of a reductionist in this respect. A want for consistency makes archetypes comforting, but there is never growth, there is never arousal or stimulation in comfort.

Equalism in the Meta

I should also address that the prevailing ideology of egalitarian equalism hates the idea of easy archetypes (even though it fluidly applies its own). The easy observation of course is that if all are equal blank slates then categorizing people by personality type smacks of profiling and denying the individual in a state of equality. However the real flaw in the equalist philosophy comes from an ego-investment in a blank slate state that doesn’t allow for ‘types’.

While critics in the manosphere see this categorization as deterministic and incapable of changing, the equalist chafes at the idea that people could be too predictably alike in type and behavior.

Preferences

In Women’s Physical Standards I briefly outlined the concept of men’s fetishization of their ‘type’ preferences when it comes to women:

You see, men will very readily cater their physical sexual “preferences” in accordance with what has proven sexually successful for them in past experiences. In other words, men tend to return to the same watering hole they found to be plentiful in the past. These preferences of convenience manifest themselves as ‘fetishes’ for men. And you don’t even need all that extensive research to prove this.  All one need do is search the vast variety of porn available catering to the physical attributes that men will fetishize. Big boobs, small boobs, big ass, small ass, every hair color of the rainbow, shaved snatch, hairy snatch, teen girls to MILFs and older, tan, pale, ultra-thin to the ubiquitous BBWs (Big Beautiful women). Ladies, name the physical attribute(s), and there’s a fan-group just waiting to bang you. Rule 34 was never more provable than in men’s willingness to fuck damn near any physical demographic of women – just ask the female midgets catering to that fetish of porn.

Men tend to stick with the same breeding circumstances that proved successful in the past. Again, this is another function of the want of a predictability in pattern and behavior. It’s the Watering Hole Theory as I stated here; we go back to what worked for us before.

Men’s deductive, rational nature when it comes to problem solving is both a blessing and a curse in this respect. The problem inherent in repeating the pattern in order to extract a similar success runs the risk of a man being trapped by what he believes are his “natural ”  preference for a certain ‘type’ of woman – the type who would eventually fuck him.

We may fetishize these preferences and thus men believe their only options for sex and intimacy with a woman get pared down to archetypes of women – Goths, Plain Janes, single mothers, big “beautiful” women, etc. become the ‘type’ that will fuck him. They become his ‘preference’, but in the same way men consider the deterministic nature of applying archetypes to themselves, rarely do they consider the archetype of woman their conditions and self-image predispose them to.

Most men don’t see the link between physical types and personality types. In other words they don’t really grasp why they like what they like. A fem-centric society, with the imperative of keeping a man ignorant of it, will offer him the easy answer that his desires, his very arousal cues, aren’t ‘natural’ at all. Rather they’re the result of a nebulous “society” programming him to only respond to what makes a woman less able to compete and consolidate on a man.

In reality physical and personality preferences can differ according to what was priorly successful for him, as well as what a man understands about himself (maturity, SMV peak potential) and what women have or lack in contrast to that.

Law 25

Re-Create Yourself

Do not accept the roles that society foists on you. Re-create yourself by forging a new identity, one that commands attention and never bores the audience. Be the master of your own image rather than letting others define if for you. Incorporate dramatic devices into your public gestures and actions – your power will be enhanced and your character will seem larger than life.

I began this essay with the truth that others will always want to see a consistency in your behavior. It’s interesting when you consider this and how flashes of Alpha tend to both shock and excite women expecting a Beta response from you in a confrontational instance.

Both men and women want what they expect from you consistently. Granted, the comfort of the pattern is part of human nature, but the categorization that comes from it is often a way to keep you trapped in the role others expect of you. One reason I advocate that there is no “Beta with a side of Alpha” is because the inconsistent side of that equation is never believable. Women want that consistency to keep you in the role they expect of you.

Men struggling in Dead Bedroom marriages, or ones in which the power/authority dynamic defaults to their wives fight an unenviable, uphill battle to reclaim the Alpha respect their wives really want from them. It’s a difficult situation because the believability of that change doesn’t happen in an instant, it takes the progressive establishment of consistent behavior changes. A sudden switch from Beta servitude to Alpha respect from a woman never happens. What’s necessary is a persistent, slow, believable change in the pattern she’s expecting.


Interview with Goldmund

Last week I got a tweet from fellow manosphere blogger Goldmund Unleashed informing me that he’d be making a slight detour to his ‘American Tour‘ as it were and he wanted to visit me in Reno. Far be it from me not to play the gracious host, I put him up at one of my clubs for a couple nights and we got together for dinner and talked a bit.

After we’d finished and were heading back to the club Goldmund asked if I’d be down for an impromptu interview. My time was limited, but I thought what the hell, and we ended up doing a quick half hour talking on the video of his SLR camera and a little mic he had. It was early evening and the high dessert was cooling off so I just pulled over to a spot I thought might do.

What follows here is what we discussed.

I generally don’t do video ‘appearances’, but Goldmund is doing what I can only describe as touring documentary of the manosphere as he makes his circuit around the United States, so I felt compelled to do this one. He’s making a herculean effort in this ‘On the Road’ trip and I had to make sure his stay here was comfortable and worthwhile. This isn’t some new foray in my going public; I thought my readers would appreciate this.

On Goldmund’s blog Jack Raynor left this comment and I thought it might make for an interesting discussion:

On the topic of being, instead of acting (which I’m 100% in agreement with), my current position is that this isn’t something that is possible for all men, or even “most”…

Just like the behavioral differences between males and females are the results of inborn traits (and these traits’ adaptations to the environment), not just “socialization” (the blank slate hypothesis), the behavioral differences from one male to the next are likewise the results of such inborn traits. These things can be…tweaked, but how far?

I, for example, have had an easy time with the red pill because I’ve have always had a rather shallow emotional response. My own brother, however, has always had a terrible temper. (He takes after my father much more in that regard.) As he’s matured he’s learned to get it under control a little, but it’s still there. He’s even gotten into Buddhism, but it hasn’t suppressed it completely. The difference between us is significant enough that he claims that I’m a natural born Buddhist, even though I don’t know the first thing about Buddhism…

This thought of mine originated while getting more involved in the conversation on r/theredpill. I’ve observed individuals who talk about the fact that, try as they might, they can’t get their emotions under control enough to keep up the act for long periods of time , much less to simply “be”.

Any thoughts on this?

Let me know what you think.


Hats Off to the Bull

open_hypergamy_cartoon

CH maxim: The feminist goal is removing all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality

The following is a story from the Red Pill subredd:

My all too true story goes like this: years ago in my divorce my wife basically stopped having sex with me. The lack of sex was in line with her seemingly having a problem with anything I did (be it how I dressed, how I told jokes, and more). …Note: sex was once every two months or so if that.

I tried to talk to her about how it seemed we just weren’t getting along that well. She said we were getting along just fine. The only problem was me. Per my wife I had UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS about married life after 15 years of being together and with kids running around. Her work demands also helped make sex a low priority for her. She was too tired in the evening. The kids were up in the morning. The weekends were needed to catch up on house stuff and spend time with the kids. Vacations were also “kid” time. The twist she put on it was DIDN’T I LOVE THE KIDS?

Another problem I had (per my wife) was that was I was TOO SENSITIVE. My “whining” about the lack of sex and closeness was proof of this.

[Game note: If I were to consider another Iron Rule of Tomassi it would be this: Never complain, whine, negotiate, or otherwise attempt to appeal to a woman’s reason by explaining your need for sex, intimacy or “closeness”. Nothing demonstrates lower value and reconfirms a woman’s Beta perception of you than openly complaining, or explaining, about your sexless status.

This is not exclusively for married men. Rank Beta men will often make these “dryspell appeals” to female friends who then talk to their other friends and pass on your DLV impression to them.]

Unfortunately, I bought her story line and internalized it. I self-censored, essentially stopping my complaining about no sex and just accepted it. I was less accepting of her poor day-to-day treatment of me but even on that point I tried not to complain too much (not wanting to come across as “whiny”).

And I was pro-active about trying to make our marriage better. I tried my best to be positive about things. I even kept a diary to keep myself honest. I did more chores around the house. I more and more let her have things her way. And I was already in quite good physical shape. I made myself even more so.

And the end result of all this? Turns out my wife had been having secret affairs for years. She was having sex 4 or 5 times a week with her lovers (lunch time, quickies after work in a park, the beach locker, the driveway at night, etc.) Her story line on “my problems” had mostly just been bullshit to keep me at bay so she could continue her secret affairs. As she told me at the tail end of our divorce in a moment of candor, the “forbidden fruit” of extramarital sex was “very exciting”. Her longest term lover (3 years) had just been a play thing and only ended when he asked her to marry him (not realizing he was also being “cheated” on with another lover my wife had).

Next up is TRM reader Razorwire who came strong with this comment from the Adaptations II thread:

[…] I’d say by now the societal and personal risks are negligible for pretty much any decision made by women. So these days, the delay of the beta-bucks model is extended to encompass a starter marriage or having children. The cuckold window is wide open.

I’ve seen this in fellow genXers who actually married young (by todays standards) but of course those men turned out to be jerks or were too irresponsible or selfish (all of the things that got her wet) so they divorced and she quickly locked down the beta-bux who was likely her “friend” back in college or some “nice” co-worker she met in her three-year career with the insurance company.

I went to one such wedding a couple of summers ago. Now that they have a kid and she’s realized the full potential of the AF/BB transition, she can’t (or doesn’t bother to) hide her disdain for his niceness and general lack of alpha behavior. He’s a dead man walking.

On that note, I caught a trailer of an upcoming Will Ferrell film: “Daddy’s Home.” Frames it up nicely.

While I’m sure they will have some hollywood make-believe ending in which the biological dad realizes his loss, has to confront manhood (as defined by the FI), and is jealous/admiring of the stepdad for his honorable provisioning of the kids, the interesting part of the trailer was how it focused on the two “dads” competing for the love and attention of the kids. I’m sure it is funny, but also telling.

Not only is the Sandberg stepdad supposed to be a just-in-time dad to fulfill the equalist needs of the post-wall (and in this case – post reproduction) wife, but he is also expected to pedestalize and perform for the offspring of the cad in order to earn (and keep) his place as the settle-down guy in the eyes of the wife. He must keep winning his way through the consolation bracket for a wife who has not just achieved the AF/BB transition, but has done so after capturing the genetics of the Alpha. He doesn’t even “get” the beta bucks prize of breeding.

The dwindling societal pressure to honor marital commitments and minimal shame of divorce has allowed the delay of beta bucks to blow past birth control in terms of prevention into what is now birth control in terms of actualizing female preference for the AF offspring – with rapidly decreasing risk/impact on her ability to secure the Beta Bux stepdad or post-baby-daddy husband (because now marriage means something to her.)

With, of course, big daddy gov’t as a stand in. But I’d reckon that the attractive single moms are not struggling at all to parlay into BB.

Because they aren’t his kids the stepdad’s burden of performance includes purchasing/exchanging resources for the children’s love which is one more condition he must continually meet in order to maintain her conditional love. Talk about a fleeting proposition.

Peruse any online dating site and you will see the teaser advertising for this coming from all single moms. It’s really just “must love dogs” on crack but often with more bait n switch mechanisms.

Meanwhile the perpetual competition (between you and him) merely deepens the resource pool for her to leverage into her lifestyle and security.

One man is operating under the threatpoint of divorce, the other under the legal extortive aspects of the post-divorce financial fatherhood model. Both must pay to play. Both are subject to her approval, her terms – backed by the social and legal structure. As such, neither are actually fathers, but just offshoots of motherhood channeled through provisioning and conditional exchanges.

I’d say even with the extensive provisioning (the kids in this flick have it all), the kids are still getting the shit end of it. Two marginalized dads is still less than one Father, one marriage. They are just being indoctrinated into the consumerist, fem-centric, self-indulgent model of modern marriage.

A mom who goes full AF/BB with kids in tow may get sold as the heroines journey, but it still strikes me as deeply selfish.

We had an interesting discussion in this thread about modern cuckoldry and the rise of it becoming ‘fetishized’ for men as some new form of ‘alternative’ lifestyle. I’ll get into the grisly biological nuts and bolts of this later, but before I do the practical reasonings for a societally acceptable cuckoldry need to be highlighted.

I chose Razorwire’s comment and the story above to illustrate a fundamental Red Pill truth – Hypergamy is nothing if not pragmatic.

In a larger respect, a woman optimizing Hypergamy follows a predictable schedule, but as Razorwire points out, on a psychological level it also builds fail-safe contingencies into that schedule. Root level, largely subconscious, survival/parental investment insecurities and long term insurances against them drives this pragmatism. Thus we see operative social conventions carefully prepared to excuse and absolve women’s duplicitous behaviors in both a social and personal scope.

What benefits a female sexual strategy is forgivable and prudent in a fem-centric social order no matter what the personal consequences are. Women’s default victimhood status is their strongest insurance against those consequences while what benefits men’s sexual strategy is characterized as selfish, juvenile or criminal. These characterizations, and the social conventions that are an extension of them, are part of the pragmatism of Hypergamy.

When you look at the time line I presented in the Preventative Medicine book and series, and you get to the stages just before and just after a woman’s Epiphany Phase – the phase at which a woman’s subconscious understanding that her SMV decline has begun in earnest – you begin to see a bigger picture; a meta overview of the necessity of keeping Blue Pill men ignorant of their long term role in that strategy.

While women increasingly embrace Open Hypergamy and become increasingly more confident of their capacity to satisfy both sides of it (AF/BB) due to a presumed expectation for men to also openly support it, there comes less expectation to try to optimize Hypergamy with only one man.

The Future of Hypergamy is Cuckoldry

The following quote came from a fantastic essay one of Heartiste’s readers, Chris, submitted regarding the recent gay marriage ruling:

I don’t know many men who would sign up to an institution where the partners are expected/morally obliged to be emotionally faithful but not sexually faithful. It is much easier for women to get casual sex than men, so any man signing himself up to that deal would be signing himself up for cuckoldry and cuckoldry is the absolute worst thing that can happen to a man pursuing a long-term mating strategy, (and it is the evolved moral norms surrounding the long-term mating strategy which marriage as a cultural institution is/was developed around/for.)

Of course, if people became more knowledgeable about evo-bio/evo-psych and instead started calling marriage essentially what it is, the social-codification of the long-term mating strategy in humans, then this concern wouldn’t really matter. (No worrying about importing norms anti-thetical to the reproductive interests of one party in the relationship and subsequently which disincentivizes the pursuit of the strategy from that party as its definition is strictly evo-bio/evo-psych.)

In The Myth of the Good Guy I put forth the idea that while women would ideally like to have both the Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks aspects of Hypergamy satisfied by the same man, women today don’t even have the expectation that this is in anyway possible, much less is it preferable to them anymore. The expectation becomes one of the Sandberg plan; expect to bang the bad boys, the Alphas and the thrill providers while your SMV is high, and expect a good, persistent and reliable ‘Dad’ to be ready to forgive and forget all that before you’re 30.

What Chris digs into in that essay isn’t so much about gays being married, but rather the fundamental restructuring of the nature of marriage. Religious issues only serve as a convenient distraction, the nuts and bolts of it is that this edict fundamentally restructures the legal aspects of male/female marriage. When this restructuring questions and impedes the access to long-term resource provisioning for divorced women (initiators of 70+% of divorces), that’s when you’ll see a truly misandric inequality in hetero vs. homosexual marriage arrangements. Men will still need to be forced into indenturement and forced to cooperate with a binding commitment to Hypergamy in the face of alternative marriages not based on monogamy.

Indeed, what man would sign up for that arrangement? Particularly in an era when women (not the Red Pill) blatantly lay bare the duplicity of their sexual strategies.

Limiting Dick

Around the time I was writing the second book I’d gotten into a Twitter debate with several feminists on a hashtag called #askmenanything or something to that effect. The pretense was of course to “ask men” all the insipid meme questions and answer them for men with feminist boilerplate. Once the Red Pill forums and manosphere proper got involved the tag quickly switched footing and feminists lost interest.

It was during one of these exchanges that I’d quoted Heartiste’s maxim from the start of this post to a particular feminist; Feminism’s end goal is removing all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Her response was an incredulous, “So you think all feminism is about is limiting dick?!”

It was of course the type of simple dismissive I’ve come to expect from the fem-powerment generation, but it sums up the dynamic pretty well. It’s always been my take that feminism in all of its waves has always been another social arm of the Feminine Imperative; which has always been an imperative driven by the best interests of optimizing women’s Hypergamous choices.

So yes, feminism is in fact about ‘limiting dick’ by socially, legislatively, personally and psychologically facilitating the selecting out and opting in on what best serves a woman’s short term and long term sexual strategy needs – throughout her entire life, not just around her Epiphany Phase. She needs the Alpha bull for his raw sexuality, dominance and confidence, and she needs the Beta comfort, investment and reliability that her bull is unwilling or unable to give her.

In this new age of proactive and reactive cuckoldry, men are expected to put up and shut up with playing the role of one or the other. In our thread conversation about cuckold fetishes the idea was put out that there’s some sick or deviant mindset in which a man gets off on watching his wife get pounded by another man. Keep in mind the possibility that the rise in popularity of cuckold porn may be an extension of this new paradigm.

The cuckold fetish narrative follows the same Hypergamous script as any other “alternative lifestyle”. As I mentioned in the Adaptation series, even within the ostensibly Free Love paradigm the same Hypergamous imperative was played out. In cuckold porn there is always an Alpha bull, a ‘superior’ sexual competitor that fucks that man’s wife; an inferior Beta sexual partner is never the tingle generating center of that fantasy. Thus that husband plays his expected passive, supportive role within that “fantasy” and thus is that wife’s dualistic Alpha Fucks sexual strategy completed.

That’s the messy nuts and bolts of it, but it’s all too easy to get caught up in the sensation of our blood boiling in righteous indignation than to see the larger perspective. This too is a part of the pragmatism of Hypergamy.

Cuckoldry is not simply about who got to breed with a woman before or after she settled into a committed monogamy; it’s about the consistent impulse to optimize Hypergamy. It is cuckoldry for a man to assume the parental investment responsibilities of another man that a woman previously bred with. It can be proactive or it can be reactive, but the purpose it serves is the same.

Few people really grasp how outrageous it is for a man to take part in his own cuckoldry. We call those men heroes for playing savior to a woman who made “bad choices” and invests himself in a child he didn’t father, but even this association has become yet another expectation of the dutiful Beta’s role. A conditioned White Knight disposition makes him feel good about it, but it’s a woman’s strategy that comes to completion, not his own. A bull was in his bed long before him.


Adaptations – Part III

chart7

Today’s chart comes courtesy of Time’s recent analysis of how Americans met their spouses (h/t to Heartiste). Heartiste provides the most obvious reasoning for these stats:

Every inception source of romance is down over the past 70 years except for bars and online. What happens in bars and online that doesn’t happen in the normal course of events when couples meet through the more traditional routes? That’s right: Intense, relentless, and usually charmless come-ons by drunk and socially clumsy men, that pump girls full of themselves. We’ve entered the age of the narcissistically-charged woman who houses in the well-marbled fat of her skull ham a steroid-injected, Facebook-fed hamster spinning its distaff vessel’s place in the world as the center of existence.

Not to be outdone, but what CH doesn’t address here is the adaptive strategies men are pragmatically employing in order to facilitate their sexual strategy. What this chart illustrates is a graphic representation of the adaptive sexual strategies of the sexes over the course of 70 years.

Granted, in contemporary society women’s attention and indignation needs are as ubiquitously satisfied as men’s need for sexual release (i.e. internet porn) is . This of course leads the mass of women to perceive their social and SMV status to be far greater than it actually is – and when that inflated SMV is challenged by the real world there are countless social conventions already established to insulate women and simultaneously convince men that their perceived status should be the fantasy they believe it is.

It’s important to keep this in mind because men’s adaptive strategies key on women’s self-impressions of their SMV (and often personal worth). I start with this for the last installment of this series because the intergender conditions we’re experiencing today were seeded by the adaptive strategies men used in the past and the contingent counter-adaptations of women employed then too.

From The Abdication Imperative:

The Abdication Imperative

Hypergamy is rooted in doubt. Hypergamy is an inherently insecure system that constantly tests, assesses, retests and reassesses for optimal reproductive options, long-term provisioning, parental investment, and offspring and personal protection viability in a potential mate. Even under the most secure of prospects hypergamy still doubts. The evolutionary function of this incessant doubt would be a selected-for survival instinct, but the process of hypergamy’s assessment requires too much mental effort to be entirely relegated to women’s subconscious. Social imperatives had to be instituted not only to better facilitate the hypergamous process, but also to reassure the feminine that men were already socially pre-programmed to align with that process.

In an era when women’s sexual selection has been given exclusive control to the feminine, in an age when hypergamy has been loosed upon the world en force, social conventions had to be established to better silence the doubt that hypergamy makes women even more acutely aware of. And nowhere is this doubt more pronounced than in the confines of a monogamous commitment intended to last a lifetime. Thus we have the preconception “Happy Wife equals Happy Life” pre-programmed into both gender’s collective social consciousness. It’s as if to say “It’s OK Hypergamy, everything’s gonna be alright because we all believe that women should be the default authority in any relationship.”

When you disassemble any operative feminine social convention, on its most base, instinctive level the convention’s latent purpose is to facilitate and pacify hypergamy.

Heirs of Free Love

Over the course of this series I’ve mentioned the “Free Love” movement. When most people hear that term their first mental impression is usually something like the picture I posted for part one; hippies at woodstock smoking pot. Later it quickly morphed into the 70’s adaptation of socially permissive promiscuity. However, it’s very important to understand that this most recent Free Love social push is by no means the first in human history.

Our impression of Free Love today was colored by the Baby Boom generation, but there have been many Free Love “movements” in the past. This was a fascinating read in light of the SCOTUS recent ruling on gay marriage:

A number of utopian social movements throughout history have shared a vision of free love. The all-male Essenes, who lived in the Middle East from the 1st century BC to the 1st century AD apparently shunned sex, marriage, and slavery. They also renounced wealth, lived communally, and were pacifist vegetarians. An Early Christian sect known as the Adamites existed in North Africa in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries and rejected marriage. They practiced nudism and believed themselves to be without original sin.

In the 6th century, adherents of Mazdakism in pre-Muslim Persia apparently supported a kind of free love in the place of marriage,[15] and like many other free-love movements, also favored vegetarianism, pacificism, and communalism. Some writers have posited a conceptual link between the rejection of private property and the rejection of marriage as a form of ownership

[…] The challenges to traditional morality and religion brought by the Age of Enlightenment and the emancipatory politics of the French Revolution created an environment where ideas such as free love could flourish. A group of radical intellectuals in England (sometimes known as the English Jacobins), who supported the French Revolution developed early ideas about feminism and free love.

Notable among them was the Romantic poet William Blake, who explicitly compared the sexual oppression of marriage to slavery in works such as Visions of the Daughters of Albion (1793). Blake was critical of the marriage laws of his day, and generally railed against traditional Christian notions of chastity as a virtue. At a time of tremendous strain in his marriage, in part due to Catherine’s apparent inability to bear children, he directly advocated bringing a second wife into the house.[19] His poetry suggests that external demands for marital fidelity reduce love to mere duty rather than authentic affection, and decries jealousy and egotism as a motive for marriage laws. Poems such as “Why should I be bound to thee, O my lovely Myrtle-tree?” and “Earth’s Answer” seem to advocate multiple sexual partners. In his poem “London” he speaks of “the Marriage-Hearse” plagued by “the youthful Harlot’s curse”, the result alternately of false Prudence and/or Harlotry. Visions of the Daughters of Albion is widely (though not universally) read as a tribute to free love since the relationship between Bromion and Oothoon is held together only by laws and not by love. For Blake, law and love are opposed, and he castigates the “frozen marriage-bed”.

There are certain manosphere writers of note who believe that our current state of “social degeneracy” is unprecedented in human history. And while it’s certain that no prior generation did it in the same manner as the one before it, ours is simply one more chapter in a Free Love flareup that’s punctuated history for many cultures, not just the west – all prompted by the underlying bio-evolutionary / psychological impulses our race has always been subject to.

That said, it’s important to consider the residual social after effects of our most recent Free Love incidence. I can’t speak to the era in the past, but the Free Love ideology is very much an evident part of the egalitarian equalism ideology that’s rooted itself in our contemporary culture. As western culture spreads, so too does that equalism rooted in Free Love.

The Rise of Fem-powerment

By the time the 80s had begun the redefinition of conventional masculinity – masculinity adapted to capitalize on women’s short-term, Alpha Fucks, sexual strategy – was beginning to take shape. By the mid 80s gone were the Captain Kirk and Han Solo archetypal machismo characters. They were systematically replaced by sensitive, supportive, asexual and unthreatening Dr. Huxtable and increasingly contrasted with laughable parodies of conventional masculinity; these roles redefined to fit into shaming and obfuscating any former idea of masculinity and the men who’d attempt to embrace it.

The action heroes of the era abounded, but the expectation to accept a new archetype, the Strong Independent Ass Kicking Woman® was coming into its own.

Granted, the feminization process was gradual. Throughout the 80s this feminization was primarily reinforced by men (or men like them) who’d borne the brunt of the ‘macho men’ of the 70s sexual opportunism. Beta men of the post Disco Generation and the men who identified with them adapted their own Beta Game of increased identification with the feminine, and thus began the rise of the era of fem-powerment.

A new paradigm was evolving; a social environment founded on the same ‘higher selves’ faux-equalism of the Free Love generation(s), but one predicated on Beta men’s enthusiastic supportiveness of women’s imperatives. Gradually the Free Love narrative was sublimated by a one-sided expectation of male supportiveness and self-identification with women.

From Identity Crisis:

Far too many young men maintain the notion that for them to receive the female intimacy they desire they should necessarily become more like the target of their affection in their own personality. In essence, to mold their own identify to better match the girl they think will best satisfy this need. So we see examples of men compromising their self-interests to better accomodate the interests of the woman they desire to facilitate this need for intimacy (i.e. sex). We all know the old adage women are all too aware of, “Guys will do anything to get laid” and this is certainly not limited to altering their individual identities and even conditions to better facilitate this. It’s all too common an example to see men select a college based on the available women at that college rather than academic merit to fit their own ambitions or even choose a college to better maintain a pre-existing relationship that a woman has chosen and the young man follows. In order to justify these choices he will alter his identity and personality by creating rationales and new mental schema to validate this ‘decision’ for himself. It becomes an ego protection for a decision he, on some level, knows was made for him.

Beta Game is predicated upon this effort to become more alike, more in touch with a calculating feminine ideal men they were being conditioned to believe was equitable to their concept of love and would be reciprocated with appreciation and intimacy. Into the 90s, men built their lives around the ‘high self’ hope that if they could just relate more to the feminine – supporting their girlfriends and wives in equalist endeavors women of the past never had access to – they could out-support the ‘ridiculous cad’ parody straw men they’d created for themselves.

The burden of performance that the men of the Free Love eras had hoped to avoid with higher self conditions of love were replaced with a burden of more accessible Beta supportiveness. Thus, into the 90s we had more and more characterization of masculine competition become associated with men out-supporting one another. Stay-at-home Dad became a socially lauded life choice to be proud of. Tootsie, Mr. Mom, Friends, and the culmination of total abdication to feminine identification, Mrs. Doubtfire, became apex examples of men adapting to a socio-sexual environment they’d been conditioned for – a burden of support.

Mrs’ Doubtfire was a particularly egregious depiction of this male to female transition. The apex Beta Father Provider versus the social and sexual Alpha ‘great guy’ in a battle for the genetic rights to the Beta’s children (which he eventually concedes and accepts). This story epitomizes the subtle undercurrent of socially acceptable cuckoldry that would define men’s adaptations during this era.

By assuming the female role, by identifying with the feminine they’d been convinced was so lacking in themselves, men reinforced, aided and abetted the rise of contemporary women’s default entitlements; not just to support, but to conventional masculinity when convenient, and equalist independence when convenient.

There’s a presumption in the manosphere that women have become more masculinized today, and while this is true, the Hypergamy that’s defined every era for women is more dominant now than in any other age. There is nothing that defines the feminine more than the Feminine Imperative’s want for the security of provisioning and sexual optimization that the masculine provides for women.

As men we’re prone to believe that if we’ve become more feminine women have become more masculinized, but is it this or is it the expectation that women need to adapt a masculinized outlook to counter men’s conditioned Beta passivity? Even staunch feminists get tingles from conventionally masculine, unapologetically Alpha men.


In Defense of Evo-Psych

11401070_898653166873667_5827836315704352642_n

You’ll have to forgive this exceptionally long post here, but for many critics of (and in) the manosphere of evolutionary psychology the following post articulates things better than I could. Some in the ‘sphere seem to think a reliance on evo-psych is some form of blind faith at worst; some sort of creative, purpose-built guesswork at best.

It is not.

When I apply anything regarding evolutionary psychology on Rational Male I approach it in the most deductive manner I can see fit insofar as connecting the behavioral dots with the social apparatus I observe. While Red Pill awareness isn’t reliant upon evo-psych it is founded upon a similar observationally deductive methodology.

Evo-psych is a very broad school of psychology that is not just limited to intersexual relations. While I do largely embrace the foundations of evo-psych, it’s important to remember that my particular education revolves around behaviorism.

The following re-blog here is a collection of ten answers to common criticisms of evolutionary psychology by Dr. David P. Schmitt. I’ve pared it down a bit for readability, but do see the link for all the sources cited.

Emphasis my own.


A few years ago, I was giving an invited presentation to an audience of mostly sociologists and family studies professors on the topic of evolution and human reproductive strategies. I mentioned that some social scientists hold false beliefs about “evolutionary psychology,” such as the mistaken assumption that evolutionary psychologists think all men are interested in bedding as many women as possible (often called short-term mating), whereas all women are only interested in marrying a single man and staying faithful to him for a lifetime (i.e., long-term mating).

When I tried to dispel this common misperception by noting, for instance, that evolutionary psychologists have hypothesized women are just as designed for short-term mating as men are—in some ways even more so such as women’s heightened desires for cues to genetic quality in short-term mates—an audible gasp swept through the conference hall. I kid you not, I could see rows of people who looked genuinely horrified. I was a little taken aback, so I asked an audience member near the front row who had her hand over her mouth if something was unclear, to which she proclaimed, “that’s not the evolutionary psychology I know.”

When I tried to explain that women’s evolved short-term mating desires have been studied by evolutionary psychologists since the early 1990s and the topic remains a very active area of inquiry today, heads swiveled in disbelief. My subsequent Power Point slides chock-full of studies confirming women’s specially designed short-term mating psychology were falling, I feared, on an auditorium of deaf ears (or blind eyes, I suppose). Alas, this stereotype about evolutionary psychology wasn’t going to change anytime soon.

It seems to me many critics of evolutionary psychology cling steadfastly to false stereotypes of the field, both theoretical and empirical. This is partly because so much evolutionary psychological research has been produced over the last 25 years it is hard for even evolutionary-informed scholars themselves to keep up (for an up-to-date review, I recommend Buss’ new edition of The Evolutionary Psychology Handbook[1]). Add to that the methodological breadth of different techniques used by evolutionary scholars to test hypotheses about the adaptive design of the human mind, and it is understandably difficult to know what all evolutionary researchers have been, and currently are, up to as active Darwinian scientists.

Perhaps more than other social scientists, evolutionary psychologists use an incredible variety of research methods, ranging from self-report surveys and behavioral field test experiments, to investigations involving genetics, hormones, and neuroscience, to cross-species and cross-cultural comparisons, to ethnographies of foraging societies and computer modeling of artificial intelligences[2] [3] [4]. To be aware of contemporary evolutionary psychology requires broad and deep knowledge of many scholarly disciplines, and a lot of evolutionary psychology’s critics simply do not know what they do not know about the field as it is practiced today.

Beyond simply not knowing about the empirical breadth and methodological richness of modern evolutionary science, many critics exhibit a certain kind of “empirical nihilism” toward any psychological findings even remotely portrayed as supporting evolutionary hypotheses. For instance, when one points to a set of studies that respond to a specific criticism, some critics reply with a “yes, but” attitude and set forth new criticisms requiring more evidence (sort of a serial “moving the goalposts” maneuver).

Now, in science extreme skepticism is generally a good thing. For scientists, there are no capital “T” Truths, and every claim about reality is tentatively true with a small “t” and is always adjustable as more evidence is accumulated over time. Sometimes, though, this attitude is more than healthy skepticism about a particular empirical finding and is, instead, clearly an attitude of irrefutable empirical nihilism toward evolutionary psychology studies in particular. As an example of this type of unshakeable attitude of disbelief, I list below 10 of the more common “yes, but” criticisms of evolutionary findings on women’s long-term mate preferences. It’s an illustrative (not exhaustive) list of just how impenetrable some scholar’s beliefs are when it comes to considering evidence that our evolved human mind might be something more than a domain-general learning mechanism writing on an asexual, ungendered blank slate. 

Women’s Long-Term Mate Preferences

Looking across the animal kingdom, one cannot help but notice that members of most species tend to mate non-randomly. Whether it is peahens preferring peacocks with more elaborate trains[5] or female common chimpanzees preferring males who possess higher social dominance[6], males and females of most species display adaptive forms of preferential mate choice.

Evolutionary psychologists were among the first to propose similar sex differences might exist in human mate preferences. For instance, evolutionary psychologists hypothesized that women may possess specially-designed long-term mate preferences for cues to a man’s ability and willingness to devote resources to her and their offspring[7] [8] [9]. Such cues include a man’s status and prestige which, depending on local culture, may involve hunting ability, physical strength, or other locally-relevant attributes, as well as his ambition, work ethic, intelligence, social dominance, maturity, and slightly older age[10] [11]. Not all women desire the highest value long-term mate at all times, of course, but it is expected that women’s long-term mate preferences should be marked by some degree of “special design” that is reliably observable using the methodological richness of modern evolutionary psychological science.

One way to evaluate whether women possess long-term mate preferences for cues to status-related traits is to directly ask people whether they prefer those attributes in long-term mates (via methods such as self-report surveys), and then compare the intensity of responses of women and men. When doing so, psychologists typically evaluate the degree of sexual differentiation using the dstatistic, with an observed d value of ±.20 being considered a “small” sex difference, ±.50 is a “moderate” sex difference, and ±.80 is a “large” sex difference[12]. Negative d values typically indicate women score more highly on a particular preference, whereas positive values indicate men score more highly.

Buss and Barnes[13] were among the first to evaluate whether women (more than men) prefer cues related to a man’s ability and willingness to devote resources. For instance, they found women more strongly prefer long-term mates who have a “good earning capacity” (a large sex difference, d = -0.82), “are a college graduate” (d = -0.60), and “possess intelligence” (d = -0.19). Obviously, these findings are not definitive proof that men and women differ in the evolved design of long-term mate preferences. The findings are merely tests of evolutionary-guided hypotheses, and the tests were supportive of specially-designed sex differences existing in human mate preferences. Still, some critics challenge these results, arguing yes, but…

1) Yes, but…that is just one study. One cannot trust the results of just one study. Evolutionary psychologists need to conduct many more studies before I am convinced these effects are legitimate, let alone evidence of evolved psychology. I’m sure many other studies wouldn’t find sex differences in mate preferences.

Actually, most investigations of sex differences in mate preferences have been supportive of these hypotheses (to be honest, virtually all studies have). In 1992, Feingold[14] meta-analytically reviewed the extant literature (including 32 independent samples) on self-reported mate preferences across college students and community samples and found women more greatly desired socioeconomic status (d = -0.69), ambition (d = -0.67), and intelligence (d = -0.30) in potential long-term mates. Numerous additional investigations have since replicated these basic sex differences in long-term mate preferences among college students[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. For instance, a recent study focused on women’s mate preferences for men with the ability to invest in them, revealing that college women desire a man who has earned his money (compared to other sources), ostensibly reflective of the aforementioned qualities (ambition, work ethic, intelligence), and that this effect is strongest in the long-term mating context[23].

2) Yes, but…those studies are mostly with college students. People in the real world (e.g., representative samples of adults) won’t display these stereotypical sex differences of youth.

Actually, yes they do[24] [25] [26]. For instance, Sprecher and her colleagues[27] examined sex differences in mate preferences across a nationally-representative sample of the United States and found women, more than men, valued a long-term mate who had a steady job (d = -0.73), earned more than they did (d = -0.49), was highly educated (d = -0.43), and was older by five years (d = -0.67). Young or old[28] [29] [30], gay or straight[31] [32], sex differences in long-term mate preferences for status-related attributes tend to reliably emerge.

3) Yes, but…many of those findings are from decades ago. Sex differences in mate preferences are probably not historically stable. They may have existed many decades ago (in the era of Mad Men), but sex differences in mate preferences are surely not present in more recent times.

Actually, yes they are. In a cross-generational analysis of the same mate preference questionnaire administered to Americans from 1939 to 1996, both men and women increased their valuing of good financial prospects and decreased valuing ambition/industriousness over time, but the degree of sex differences in these items largely persisted in strength across more than 50 years[33].

4) Yes, but…that is only when you have people self-report their ideal mate preferences from a pre-chosen list of traits given to them. If you ask them what they really want, say at a minimum, or maybe let them freely design their ideal potential partners, status-related traits aren’t emphasized by women more than men.

Actually, yes they are. Researchers have questioned people about their long-term mate preferences using a wide variety of self-report methodologies. Kenrick and his colleagues[34] asked people what the minimum threshold of possessing a particular attribute would need to be to agree to marry a person. Women, on average, required men’s earning capacity to be in the 70th percentile to be marriageable, whereas men required women to be in the 40th percentile (overall d = -1.41).

Using another nuanced form of self-report, Li[35] compelled men and women to engage in tradeoffs among various cues when intentionally designing a desirable long-term mate. Women devoted the most of their limited budget toward their mates’ social level (33%), whereas for men social level was of moderate budgetary importance (17%). Across a series of studies[36], researchers using this tradeoff paradigm concluded that women, but not men, consider a long-term mate’s social status a “necessity” and not a “luxury.” Indeed, when forced to make decisions with very limited budgets, sex differences in long-term mate preferences are stronger than with typical self-report surveys.

Self-report surveys also reveal men, more than women, appear effective at displaying status-related traits to the opposite sex[37]. Overall, self-report methods (via ratings, rankings, trade-offs, nominations, or open-ended questions[38]) consistently support the hypothesis that women possess long-term mate preferences for cues to a man’s ability and willingness to devote resources.

5) Yes, but…this is only because women are denied access to resources themselves. If women have higher status themselves, they would not prefer men with high status. It’s just basic rationality, not evolved psychology, causing these sex differences in mate preferences for status.

Actually, it is a compelling test of women’s long-term mate preferences for men’s status-related traits (including their ability and willingness to provide resources) to evaluate whether their expressed preferences disappear when women have ample resources of their own. It could be women only prefer cues to men’s ability and willingness to provide resources because women are structurally denied access to resources[39].

Addressing this alternative explanation, Townsend and his colleagues have found women in medical school[40] and law school[41] are more selective of a future mate’s financial status, not less. Similarly, Wiederman and Allgeier[42] found college women’s expected income was positively associated with their ratings of the importance of a potential long-term mate’s earning capacity. Regan[43] found as women’s mate value goes up, so does their insistence on men’s high status and resources (i.e., they “want it all”; see also[44]). Having higher personal status and resource-related traits appears not to attenuate women’s preferences for cues to men’s ability and willingness to provide resources. Instead, at least in the USA, women achieving high status themselves appears to make their long-term mate preferences for men’s high status even more intense!

6) Yes, but…that is only true in the United States. Americans happen to live in a culture with conspicuous gender stereotypes about mate preferences that the rest of the world does not share. If you look at more gender egalitarian cultures, in Scandinavia for instance, sex differences in preferences for status-related attributes “disappear” (as claimed by Marks[45]).

Actually, no, they do not. Numerous studies have found sex differences in mate preferences for status-related attributes are prevalent across cultures[46] [47] [48]. Lippa[49] conducted an internet sampling of 53 nations and Zentner and Mitura[50] conducted an internet sampling across 10 nations and both studies found 100% of cultures displayed expected sex differences, with women demonstrating especially heightened long-term mate preferences for good financial prospects, social status, ambition, and older age.

Some researchers have found the magnitude of sex differences in mate preferences for status-related attributes shifts from a large/medium effect size to a more moderate medium/small effect size in nations with higher gender egalitarianism. Zentner and Mitura found exactly this pattern of results after placing nations into three groups, low gender egalitarian cultures (within which women valued Ambition-Industriousness moderately more than men, d = -0.65), medium gender egalitarian cultures (women valued Ambition-Industriousness moderately more, d = -0.53), and high gender egalitarian cultures (women valued Ambition-Industriousness moderately more, d = -0.48). Hence, sex differences in the preference for Ambition-Industriousness in long-term mates were reduced (though not by much, and were still medium in terms of effect size) in nations with higher levels of gender egalitarianism.

Most other sex differences in status-related mate preferences also were attenuated from larger to more moderate levels in Zentner and Mitura’s sample of nations that were higher in gender egalitarianism (e.g., Good Financial Prospects went from d = -1.04, to d = -0.84, to d = -0.55; Favorable Social Status went from d = -0.67, to d = -0.42, to d = -0.31). In most cases, these reductions were caused by women preferring status-related traits less in high gender egalitarian nations, though in many cases men’s preferences for status-related attributes also were reduced in high gender egalitarian nations (which seems counter to the logic of men appreciating women’s status-related traits more as women enter the workforce in high gender egalitarian nations). One thing is clear, sex differences in long-term mate preferences for status-related traits do not “disappear” in gender egalitarian cultures. They may only be moderate in size, but we see them just fine.

Importantly, Zentner and Mitura also found in low gender egalitarian nations, men valued Good Looks only a little more than women, d = 0.24; in medium gender egalitarian nations, men’s valuation of Good Looks was higher still than women’s, d = 0.43; and in the highest gender egalitarian nations, men’s valuation of Good Looks was the most different from women’s, d = 0.51. Thus, contrary to the expectation that gender egalitarianism always reduces sex differences, Zentner and Mitura found sex differences in Good Looks are largest in nations with the highestgender egalitarianism. What!? Actually, these findings are not unusual, as high gender egalitarian nations also exhibit larger sex differences in Big Five personality traits and the Dark Triad traits of Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and psychopathy; in romantic attachment and love styles; in sociopolitical attitudes and personal values; in clinical depression rates and crying behavior; in tested cognitive and mental abilities; and in physical attributes such as height and blood pressure[51]. If the sociopolitical gender egalitarianism found in Scandinavian nations is supposed to produce smaller psychological sex differences, it’s not doing a very good job of it.

7) Yes, but…all these studies showing men and women want different things in potential partners are merely evidence of gendered narratives as measured by self-report surveys. If ever tested in the real world, women would not preferentially choose or be affected by a partner’s status-related attributes more than men.

Actually, there have been dozens of studies of real world mating and mating-related cognition, and almost all find that women do choose and are affected by a partner’s status-related traits more than men are.

Feingold[52] meta-analytically examined what women ask for and what men advertise in public, real-world personal advertisements and found, as expected, women more than men ask for cues to willingness and ability to provide resources (e.g., 27% of women ask for high socioeconomic status compared to 7% of men). Men who advertise such status-related cues actually receive more responses from women, as well. For example, in a study that experimentally manipulated real-life personal ads, ads placed by men noting they were financially successful elicited the most interest, whereas for women physical attractiveness was the key[53]. In a study of Polish personal ads, the top four cues displayed by men that received responses from women were good education, older age, high resource levels, and tall height[54]. In a study of mail order brides from Colombia, Russia, and the Philippines, women universally listed ambition, status, and wealth as among their most desired attributes in a future husband[55].

Numerous studies of marital patterns also have found women tend to desire (and actually marry) men who are slightly older than they are, regardless of women’s own age[57] [58]. As men get older, in contrast, they tend to desire and marry younger and younger women[59]. Women have been found to preferentially marry higher status men across such diverse cultures as the Kipsigis of Kenya, the Hausa of West Africa, Trinidadians, and Micronesian islanders, among many others[60]. It is true that some speed-dating studies in urban settings find women do not choose higher status men more often as dates, but these studies are limited by having only high status men in their samples (no homeless men allowed) and potentially including those who are interested in short-term mating (women’s short-term mate preferences focus more on gene quality, not status). In speed-dating studies with low status men included, and when the context is explicitly long-term mating only, women do pick higher status men more often for dates[61].

There also are a wide range of cognitive studies that test for women’s desires for status-related traits without explicitly asking them what they want. For instance, as part of a study ostensibly helping a university develop a dating service, Kenrick and his colleagues[62] experimentally manipulated whether already-mated men and women were exposed to a target date either very high in dominance or very low in dominance. They found women, but not men, were less committed to their current long-term mating partner after being exposed to a high dominance member of the opposite sex. Merely being experimentally exposed to a man with very high dominance lowered women’s commitment to their current mate, and did so without consciously asking women about their preferences for dominance.

Similarly, exposure to physically attractive women appears to evoke in men desires to fulfill women’s evolved preferences, such as increasing men’s attention toward and desires to possess resources and to display ambition, creativity, independence, and risk-taking[63] [64] [65]. And when exposed to men who are high in dominance, men tend to rate themselves as lower in mate value[66] and men’s feelings of jealousy are more strongly evoked[67]. All of these cognitive processes occur differently in women and men without explicit, conscious awareness of why they are doing so. Surely, to an open-minded scientist these types of non-survey findings should buttress the view that women possess mate preferences for men’s status-related attributes…

8) Yes, but…even though evolutionary psychologists may study real life cognition, emotion, and behavior, they fail to study the most important Darwinian outcome…fertility. If women evolved mate preferences for status-related traits, then women who marry men of high status men should have more children. Evolutionary psychologists haven’t even bothered to look at these outcomes, lazy-headed daisies…

Actually, several studies by evolutionary psychologists have found women who marry higher status men tend to have more children, and to have children survive to an older age. In a study of pre-industrial Finland (from the 1700s), women married to wealthier men had more children and decreased child mortality[68]. In another study, marrying a man four years older was associated with maximum levels of fertility among women[69]. Bereczkei and Csanaky[70] conducted a study of 1,800 Hungarians over 34 years of age and found women who married older and better educated men tended to have more children. These are important findings, as it is critical that women’s mate preferences for status-related attributes lead to reproductive success, or at least likely did so in our evolutionary past[71] [72].

One may also look at the effects of high personal status on men’s versus women’s reproductive success. Nettle and Pollett[73] and many other scholars have found men’s higher level of personal status is related to higher fertility, but the same is much less true (or not at all true) for women’s higher level of personal status. In fact, modern women who have higher personal incomes themselves tend to have fewer children[74]. Jumping Jehoshaphat…yes, but…

9) Yes, but…ancestral men were foragers and could not accumulate wealth, so these mate preferences for “good earning potential” are largely irrelevant to evolved mating psychology. Evolutionary psychology findings are extremely limited because they only apply to modern materialistic cultures.

Actually, it is correct that large masses of “material wealth” were not present in our ancestral past when we lived as foragers, but it is likely ancestral men did accumulate social capital or “status” (from among other things, hunting ability). Several studies have documented this form of male status as being the subject of selective pressures (i.e., high status men—whether that status comes in the form of land, livestock, money, physical prowess, or hunting ability—have more offspring[75][76]). Evidence of selection for men’s status has been found in many types of cultures, including studies of men’s hunting ability among the Aché, Hadza, and Tsimane[77]. Apicella[78], for instance, found men’s hunting reputation and upper-body strength both predicted reproductive success among Hadza hunter–gatherers.

Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that women’s preferences in modern nations do not seem to be calibrated on money, per se. Instead, women may view money as a proximal cue to the underlying qualities that they have evolved to care about, such as status, prestige, social dominance, ambition, work ethic, and intelligence[79]. So it is certainly true that ancestral men did not accumulate financial wealth, but focusing too much on the importance (or not) of money or wealth across all cultures is missing the adaptive forest for the trees.

10) Yes, but…I know so many people who strongly believe that sex differences in mate preferences simply cannot exist. The idea of evolved sexual desires of any kind are a theoretical impossibility from my point of view! Evolved sex differences in mate preferences have to be just a figment of the imagination of evolutionary psychologists bent on maintaining patriarchy. If the evidence is, on balance, supportive of women possessing long-term mate preferences for men with high status, why do so many post-modernists and social constructionists insist evolved sex differences are not, indeed cannot, be real[80]?

That’s a big question requiring several responses. First, the evidence of evolved sex differences in mate preferences is accumulating, but it is certainly not definitive. Evolutionary psychologists evaluate evidence of psychological adaptation in many ways[81], including cross-species, neurological, hormonal, genetic, and epigenetic evidence that has not been reviewed here (some examples of such evidence, see[82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]). Nothing in science is ever set in stone, and more evidence could emerge that would cast serious doubt about evolved sex differences in mate preferences (though it would take quite a lot to tip the scales against the existence of this particular set of mate preferences). Scientists are skeptical and open-minded, so anything is possible.

Second, it is a mistake to pit post-modernism and social constructivism against evolutionary psychology as though they are in an intellectual death match that only one side can win. This tribalistic, us-versus-them thinking isn’t helpful to science. Much like partitioning the causes of human behavior into nurture versus nature or culture versus biology or learned versus innate, social constructivism versus evolutionary psychology is a false dichotomy that may feel intuitively correct but should not be utilized very often by serious scientists (exceptions include behavioral genetics studies). As insightfully noted by Tooby and Cosmides[88],

“To say a behavior is learned in no way undermines the claim that the behavior was organized by evolution because the behavior was learned through the agency of evolved mechanisms. If natural selection had built a different set of learning mechanisms into an organism, that organism would learn a different set of behaviors in response to the very same environment. It is these evolved mechanisms that organize the relationship between the environmental input and behavioral output, and thereby pattern the behavior. For this reason, learning is not an alternative explanation to the claim that natural selection shaped the behavior, although many researchers assume that it is. The same goes for culture. Given that cultural ideas are absorbed via learning and inference—which is caused by evolved programs of some kind—a behavior can be, at one and the same time, ‘cultural’, ‘learned’ and ‘evolved’.”

Mate preferences in humans are certainly to some degree cultural, learned, and evolved. Ultimately, the adaptations of the human mind unearthed by evolutionary psychologists will likely play key roles in explaining precisely how and why human social constructionists have the mate preferences they do[89].

Third, some scholars believe, based on strict ideological commitments, that evolved psychological sex differences must not exist[90] or even if they do exist, studies of sex differences should be evaluated in ways that favor certain political ideologies over others, such as raising the evidentiary bar for evolutionary psychology hypotheses[91]. As a consequence of these political beliefs, many scholars chauvinistically dismiss or ignore much of the extant evidence accumulated by evolutionary psychologists.

This is a mistake on several levels, not the least of which is that even if evolved sex differences in mate preferences do exist, that does not make them “desirable” or “good” or “inevitable” in any way. Thinking like that is fallacious, it is wrong. Even though humans have likely evolved to be omnivorous, that doesn’t mean we should eat meat. What is natural is not inherently connected to what is desirable and thinking that way is committing the so-called naturalistic fallacy (actually more related to the is-ought problem and appeal to nature fallacy).

Instead of this false point of view, evolutionary psychologists take the position that by knowing what our evolved psychological adaptations are, and precisely how they are expressed (e.g., how they are specially-designed and which environments especially accentuate or attenuate their expression), we will be more capable of creating effective tools for altering human behavior in ways we do find desirable. This includes utilizing the socially-constructive psychological adaptations in our mental toolkit to do so. Evolved sex differences are not to be ideologically feared, they are to be scientifically evaluated and, if they exist, knowledge about their special design can be used to more efficiently create the healthy society within which we wish to live[92] [93].

Lastly, there are some scholars who are actively deceiving people about empirical findings in evolutionary psychology (e.g., claiming that sex differences “disappear” in egalitarian cultures[94]). Many of these thinkers spread doubt about evolved mate preferences by alluding to a highly popular study by Eagly and Wood[95]. People’s memories of Eagly and Wood’s study, however, are often quite at odds with what they actually found, and with the hundreds of empirical findings since.

Eagly and Wood related the size of sex differences in mate preferences for “good financial prospects” to sociopolitical gender equality measures across nations (actual mate preference data came from a large cross-cultural study by Buss[96]). Eagly and Wood examined four indicators of sociopolitical gender equality and found only one indicator (that’s right, only one of four tests) was significantly linked to smaller sex differences in long-term mate preferences for good financial prospects. Based on that rather meager empirical finding, a generation of scholars seems to have fallen for a “Jedi mind trick” (these aren’t the sex differences you are looking for) and have been convinced that sex differences in mate preferences completely disappear in more gender egalitarian nations. Indeed, Eagly and Wood’s study has been cited over 1,000 times and has led to many to believe all psychological sex differences disappear in gender egalitarian cultures. Not true then, not true now.

To the contrary, most cross-cultural studies find nations with the highest sociopolitical gender equality (e.g., Scandinavian nations) exhibit the largest psychological sex differences in the world. You read that correctly. Higher gender egalitarian nations tend to have larger sex differences in mate preferences for Good Looks, in Big Five personality traits and the Dark Triad traits of Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and psychopathy; in romantic attachment and love styles; in sociopolitical attitudes and personal values; in clinical depression rates and crying behavior; in tested cognitive and mental abilities; and in physical attributes such as height and blood pressure[97]. If sociopolitical gender egalitarianism is supposed to reduce sex differences to the point where they “disappear,” it’s doing a terrible job. In fact, it’s most often doing the exact opposite. Without the constraints of patriarchal sex role socialization, it appears men and women are freer to follow their evolved desires in ways that lead to even greater psychological difference[98].


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,716 other followers