Tag Archives: intergender relations

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].


Building Better Worlds

building_worlds

I had an interesting conversation this week with my good friend Ray and a couple of my designers, Sadie and Sam (names changed to protect the innocent). Just a little background first; Sadie is the Japanese woman I mention in Mental Point of Origin. She’s been divorced once and her relationship history is one punctuated by her involvement with Beta men.

She’s is the definition of the opportunistic concept of female love, but her frustration comes from never having been able to consolidate on an optimized Hypergamy – she simply doesn’t have attractiveness or feminine pleasantry to generate the Alpha interest that would satisfy her. Thus, she attracts Beta orbiters looking for some low hanging fruit, and force-fits them into a contextual Alpha frame. In other words, she opportunistically entertains the Betas with provisioning potential and hopes they’ll man up into dominant Alphas. Thus far she’s been disappointed.

Sam is a gay man in his early 30s who makes a good living afforded by not having children and possessing a high calibre technical skill set. He’s got the outgoing, “look at me, I’m special because I’m gay” exuberance I expect from gay men, but he’s not flamboyant and can still be professional when he has to be. He’s been “dating” a new guy for a while now and has moved this guy into his home recently. He took part in our conversation because the issues of sharing resources, money and picking up half the rent (in his case mortgage) in a relationship came up.

Ray has been one of my best friends for over 15 years now and he’s the guy I mention in Good Girls Do. He’s worked for me directly or indirectly for most of that time and he’s notorious for starting conversations like this when we have downtime. He’s a firestarter, it’s what I like about him, and among the three he’s the only one who knows my online reputation. Ray is Red Pill aware so he knows how to prompt a controversial conversation with me when we’re in mixed company.

Ray: “RT, hypothetical question…”

RT: “Do I have to?”

Ray: “Let’s say you move your girlfriend in with you…”

RT: “Let’s say I don’t and I would never do that. End of hypothetical.”

Ray: “No, I know, but, say you did, and let’s say your rent is $1,000 a month. Would you tell your girlfriend ‘Hey the rent is $1,000 a month how about you pay $300 and I’ll pay $700 or would you say 50/50?”

RT: “No. I’d pay it all myself. I’d also be sure that only my name was on the lease.”

Sadie:”What? Why, that’s silly?”

Ray: “You wouldn’t expect any contribution?”

RT: “No. I wouldn’t turn it down if she took it upon herself to contribute, but I wouldn’t expect it from a girl I (foolishly) brought into my living arrangement.”

Sadie: “You wouldn’t expect her to pay half?”

RT: “No. If I can’t provide my own $1,000 rent or food, or to keep the lights on, I have no business bringing a woman into that arrangement. If I have more than enough for myself I don’t need her paying. Besides, if she’s that into living with me, she’ll want to contribute in other ways and I wont have to ask.”

Sam: “You don’t think it should be an equal split? Maybe that’s a man and a woman thing…”

RT: “Yes and no. I’m sure between you and your boyfriend there’s a more dominant personality right?”

Sam: “Yeah, me.”

RT: “And you probably make more money too. So there’s really no ‘equality’ when it comes down to it.”

Sadie: “I expect my boyfriend to pay half the rent.”

RT: “Of course you do, because women think in terms of equality when it works to their advantage. What if your ‘boyfriend’ could pay for all the rent, utilities and most of everything else? Would you still try to pay half?”

Sadie: “Yes of course.”

RT: “What if he only paid just half and you knew it was a better deal for him?

Sadie: (tentative) “Yes,…”

RT: “I doubt that, but what you’re saying is that you’d limit improving your way of life to maintain a belief in equality.”

Sadie: “All the guy’s I’ve lived with have been mooches.”

RT: “Which explains why you’re not living with them any more. It goes both ways, women don’t respect men they need to support. All this stuff about equality in relationships is nonsense.If your boyfriend could easily make rent while you struggled to come up with it you’d resent him for it. There is no equal division.”

Sam: “I guess I see what you’re saying, but the expectation is still the same even for me and [boyfriend].

RT: “There is no equality in a relationship, but there can be complementarity where either person’s benefits can offset the needs of the other.”

Ray: “So you and Mrs. T aren’t 50/50?”

RT: “Ray, I make about 4 times the money that she does, how is there ever going to be anything like equality with that kind of balance?”

Ray: “But what about chores and shit?”

RT: “I take care of the outside of the house, she takes care of the inside. I do the smelly dirty jobs, she keeps the fresh cleaning ones, it’s not rocket science.”

Sam: “Sounds like you just want to stay in the power position.”

RT: “Yes, but it’s only a power play if you’re exploiting your partner. Women like to say they want an equal partner, but they don’t, do they Sadie? They want someone to respect and look up to. So when that comes down to numbers, to money, what’s really holding you together? Love? Mutual interests? (at Sam) Right now you can’t help but be the more dominant one in your relationship. So do you stop being so just to balance things? Do you expect [boyfriend] to pick up the slack more?

The Cardinal Rule of Relationships

In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.

This principle isn’t so much about ‘power’ as it is about control. This might sound like semantics, but it makes a difference. It’s very easy to slip into binary arguments and think that what I mean by the cardinal rule of relationships is that one participant must absolutely rule over the other – a domineering dominant to a doormat submissive. Control in a healthy relationship passes back and forth as desire and need dictate for each partner. In an unhealthy relationship you have an unbalanced manipulation of this control by a partner. Although control is never in complete balance, it becomes manipulation when one partner, in essence blackmails, the other with what would otherwise be a reinforcer for the manipulated under a healthy circumstance. This happens for a plethora different reasons, but the condition comes about by two ways – the submissive participant becomes conditioned to allow the manipulation to occur and/or the dominate initiates the manipulation. In either case the rule still holds true – the one who needs the other the least has the most control. Nowhere is this more evident than in interpersonal relationships.

When I was writing this post many years ago I hadn’t fully considered how this rule interacts with, and contradicts, many of the tenets of egalitarian equalism. The idealistic state of that equalism is one in which two co-equal, yet independent people come together in a perfect union of balance. In theory that balance should account for resources, emotional investment, family considerations, as well as intellectual and social status aspects of either partner.

These considerations alone should be enough to illustrate equalitarianism as the manipulative farce it is, however, all we really need to do is take into account the Cardinal Rule of Relationships. It’s very easy to be accused of being controlling when you embrace the truth of this rule – and particularly so when the reigning social undercurrent is one in which everyone ought to be co-equal rational actors.

I expected to have that leveled at me in this conversation, but it’s important to bear in mind the real nature of power. By my own definition, power is the degree of control we exercise over the direction of our own lives. As I mentioned, I don’t mind being the more powerful partner in terms of resources in my marriage because I accept that stupid notions of maintaining anything like “equality” is simply infeasible. I know more than a few men who’ve sold their lives’ potential away in the belief that they should lessen themselves in order to support a more balanced, equalist ideal. Ultimately their relationships, marriages and families suffer because they never own that potential – just the idea of owning it is a source of guilt and shame.

For all of the bleating about more equitability being needed between men and women. the fundamental truth is that it’s neither a realistic nor workable state. I’ve used money for my illustration here, but this applies to many other facets of an intersexual relationship. From an equalist perspective this sounds a lot like a want for creating a condition of dependency, but in truth it is an unachievable state of egalitarianism that creates a never-satisfied state of dependency.

Her World or Yours?

If you go back and look at the video from Bachelor Nation you can see the dichotomy that presumptions of “equality” sows in western(izing) women today. Within the first 6 minutes of the video we see the internal contradictions inherent in women. There is a want for an idealized equal pairing, but yet a desire for a man to be a Man. The documentary finds the root of this dichotomy in modern resource imbalances between the sexes, and makes the predictable appeal to men not living up to their burden of performance. The male shame comes in contrasting women’s taking on what should be men’s performance burdens – the male obligation to which ironically flies in the face of anything like true egalitarian equalism.

Stay-at-home dads, house husbands, and anything relatable will always have a stigma attached to them in spite of any weak attempts to make them socially acceptable. That stigma is founded in a limbic-level understanding of men’s burden of performance; to be a Man is not just to produce sustainable resources, but to provide a surplus of those resources.

I recently read a poll sponsored by Forbes magazine that listed men’s top goals in life and for the first time in that poll’s history “a good physique” outranked all personal and financial ambitions for top executives. The predictable shame then followed that men aren’t “Manning Up” any more, and they’ve become vain, self-absorbed narcissists for a new focus on what image they present.

The obvious Red Pill conclusion is of course a realignment with the prevailing social perceptions (courtesy of the Feminine Imperative I might add) that women are out-earning men financially and educationally; thus the Alpha Fucks side of Hypergamy takes precedent. If America’s top execs are heeding the message of Open Hypergamy, why bother establishing yourself financially, academically, ambition-wise or otherwise?

The problem with this equation is evident in the Bachelor Nation video. I can understand the sentiments of MGTOW; if the opinions expressed by the quality of woman represented in the video are any indicator of a female zeitgeist it makes the idea of abandoning the Game altogether that much more appealing.

That said, and I’m going to dare to get prescriptive here, I believe that establishing yourself as an independent Man should be your top priority. I have no doubt that that sentiment will get convoluted with feminism’s Strong Independent Woman® meme, but lets clarify something first – the ideal that men ought to be strong and independent has always been the precursor to his quality as a man. Independence, self-sufficiency and determined ambitions have always been the hallmarks of a man comfortable with his burden of performance. Only in women is independence a novelty.

Yet now, in men, this independence is not just a novelty, but it’s been distorted into being an obsessive-compulsive sign of a man’s imagined insecurities. The very strength and independence men have always been expected to embody is the domain of women, while any hope for it from men is a sign of a fragile ego.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #1

Frame is everything. Always be aware of the subconscious balance of who’s frame in which you are operating. Always control the Frame, but resist giving the impression that you are.

I firmly believe Alpha is a mindset. That mindset can get the poorest son-of-a-bitch laid with the right application, tact and circumstance. That’s a tough pill to swallow when you work your ass off in the belief that your affluence and status should be the metric Alpha is judged by and women respond to. That’s also not to say affluence and status won’t get you laid by their own merit, it’s just the context in which that happens that makes the difference. There are many men who’ve found their retroactive cuckolding after having based their personal successes on the presumption that those successes should be the basis of his quality to women.

The concept of frame covers a lot of aspects of our daily lives, some of which we’re painfully aware of, others we are not, but nonetheless we are passively influenced by frame. What concerns us in terms of inter-gender relations however is the way in which frame sets the environment, the ambience, and the ‘reality’ in which we relate with both the woman we sarge at a bar and the relationship with the woman we’ve lived with for 20 years. One important fact to consider, before I launch into too much detail, is to understand that frame is NOT power. The act of controlling the frame may be an exercise in power for some, but let me be clear from the start that the concept of frame is who’s ‘reality’ in which you choose to operate in relation to a woman. Both gender’s internalized concept of  frame is influenced by our individual acculturation, socialization, psychological conditioning, upbringing, education, etc., but be clear on this, you are either operating in your own frame or you’re operating in hers. Also understand that the balance of frame often shifts. Frame is fluid and will find its own level when a deficit or a surplus of will is applied to change it. The forces that influence that lack or boost of will is irrelevant – just know that the conditions of an operative framework will shift because of them.

We can go back and debate the Crisis of Motive once again – who do you really do it for? – but in terms of Frame, even if you subscribe to a MGTOW perspective, it’s important for a Man to have a world into which a woman might enter. Not for her sake, but for a Man’s edification.

Establish your world; you shall make your mission, not your woman your priority. Women should only ever be a complement to a man’s life, never the focus of it.


The Dangers of the Red Pill

redpill_danger

I came across an interesting thread on Roosh’s forum recently that linked very well with some experiences I’ve been having over the course of the last few weeks. Eldelwiess was the OP here and he just hints upon a greater whole of the danger of the Red Pill:

It’s a very tough choice to make, yet inevitable. You HAVE to.

But it’s a difficult pill to swallow.

The side effects are really nasty.

Ever since I did it, my life changed to the better, but alas, to the bitter too.

The thing is I now SEE. I’m not blind anymore. But I don’t LIKE what I see.

Because what I see is hypocrisy, degeneration, mediocrity, ignorance and mental slavery.

When you see the world in red pill eyes, you see the ugly reality.
It makes you stop enjoying many things in life.
It makes you find the majority of the people boring, uninteresting and frankly stupid. You pity them.
It makes the bulk of the women unworthy of your time.
It makes you can’t stand your colleagues.
It makes many jokes not funny anymore.
It makes you question everything.
It makes everyone untrustworthy, even your physicians.

It makes you…a better person ! And I love it.

But I understand why the majority of the people ignore the red pill and decide to remain in blue pill slavery and mediocrity. It’s easier. And you get to still enjoy life as you knew it, keep the friends who do the exact same thing, sympathize with your colleagues who complain about long working hours, date the same women who feel entitled to everything, watch the same TV programs which numb your mind and make you lose IQ points, vote for the same politicians who control the strings that make you move…

It’s easier.

Eldelwiess is just coming around to acknowledging The Bitter Taste of the Red Pillbut the inherent danger he’s hinting at here goes a little further beyond the perception of a Red Pill aware man being “bitter”, and into the social dynamics that center on creating and interpreting him being such. The danger in this context is not just a bitter perception, but rather one of personal, professional and familial ostracization for expressing Red Pill truths.

I touched on these liabilities in The Secret of the Red Pill, but this was more from the perspective of women having their Game explained to them and what Red Pill aware men might expect for having confronted them with it. The impact of that may only be the perception of you being a presumptuous asshole by an individual woman, however, there are broader implications and consequences for “living” the Red Pill in a larger social sense.

Wutang from Roosh’s forum:

I actually had a falling out with a group of casual acquaintances when my association with RP was revealed among the group so there is a “danger” with it affecting your social bonds. I put danger in quotes because you really should see it as more of an act of filtering out who you associate with rather then any sort of great harm; the exception being if these are people who you work with or who can put a wrench in you advancing in your goals. If the only real harm is losing a few acquaintances or even friends then you should ask yourself if these are really the sort of people you want to associate with. Do you want to surround yourself with people that are apparently so mentally weak that mere words and difference of opinion can drive them into bouts of wailing and sobbing?

While we promote self-sufficiency and being beholden to no other man or system in our particular subculture we need to keep remembering that no man is an island. The people you associate with are going to determine where you are heading. Surround yourself with people who possess beliefs that lead to perpetual victimhood and you’ll become a victim yourself. Associate with people that can’t stand up for anything except a spineless tolerance that refuses to make any sort of value judgements and make the tough choice of saying ‘A is simply better then B when it comes to accomplishing C” whether A is an idea, an action, or even a type of person and you will soon lose your own spine; being afraid to fight for anything for the fear that it’ll make someone somewhere unhappy.

That said this was still a lesson in knowing when is the right time to drop RP knowledge. Naturally I’m a very open and sharing person when it comes to my beliefs and opinions but after this incident I’ve learned to be a lot more careful. In this case I didn’t really lose much since I was already growing to dislike quite a few of the people in the group but it definitely was a warning – what if this has happened with people who I actually respected and who were in positions and had connections that could either help or hinder me in my personal goals? Be careful out there guys.

I quoted this today because I find myself having to temper and measure my Red Pill evangelism with people I know personally or interact with professionally. I say evangelism because, in spite of any measured explanation, this is what it comes off as to most uninitiated Blue Pill plugins. There’s a degree of diplomatic tact you have to practice the more Red Pill aware a man becomes.

Sometimes that’s tough, especially when you’ve gone through personal changes and development that’s benefitted your life as a result. Red Pill awareness may have even saved a man’s life, so just shutting up about it, or having a hesitancy to help out a fellow man in need of that awareness becomes a real conflict.

In June I’ll have been back in Nevada for two years and in that time I’ve reacquainted myself with old friends I haven’t seen since I left for Florida almost ten years ago. All of them I find in similar (if not identical) states in which I left them. Some of these men are long time close personal friends I’d kept in touch with over the years, but with the exception of maybe one out of a dozen, all are still foundering in the same Beta mindset, lifestyle and behaviors they had ten years ago. All of them still complain of the same Beta-relationship issues they had with their wives (some now ex-wives) they confided in me then.

The Rule

NEO: I can’t go back, can I?

MORPHEUS: No. But if you could, would you really want to?  I feel that I owe you an apology. There is a rule that we do not free a mind once it reaches a certain age. It is dangerous. They have trouble letting go. Their mind turns against them. I’ve seen it happen. I’m sorry. I broke the rule because I had to.

You’ll have to forgive my using the Matrix metaphor, but every time I’m tempted to awaken a man I think may desperately need the truth of Red Pill awareness I’m reminded of this exchange. I understand why this would be a rule. Granted, I’ve broken it myself many times; usually when I think a man is a danger to himself, but I do so with the knowing that I’ll need to invest myself personally in his conditions and that’s where that cautious hesitation comes from.

There are friends I have who I know would outright reject Red Pill truths, but more so their lives would be turned upside down by having to confront those truths. I have a very good friend who’s remarried and living a new life with his second wife, who is still clinging to all of the internalized Beta illusions and behaviors that contributed to his first brutal divorce.

I could make him aware of all the factors that led up to this very painful episode in his life. I could run down the list of how the woman he married early in life followed the time line I put forth in Preventive Medicine to the letter, why his daughters are both following her footsteps and why his son will grow into being a martyred Beta White Knight like himself.

I could also explain all the factors that led to his new wife’s need for him (who by his Beta measures he’s thrilled with), but I ask myself, why destroy that bliss for him? He’s not now, nor likely will be, ready to have any of that explained. My concern is that he’s too far along in life to bear the burden of that truth. He’d have trouble letting go. His mind would turn against him.

If he were to reach that point of desperation again I’d certainly be compelled to reach out to him and offer the Red Pill to him, but as I’ve said in the past, unplugging men from the Matrix is a lot like triage – save the ones you can, read last rites to the dying. But this guy’s not dying and giving him the medicine might be worse than his conditions.

Law 10 – Infection: avoid the unhappy and unlucky.

Though your compassionate, charitable side may compel you to associate with the sad and downtrodden, if power attainment is your goal then avoid such people. Their bad vibe and energy-draining demeanor are too often infectious. You run a very serious risk of falling into line with their misery. Instead spend your time with people who are happy and successful. You can die from someone else’s misery – emotional states are as infectious as disease.

When I quote Law 10 it’s usually in response to a guy dealing with troubled, toxic women dragging them down into the quicksand of their own making. The Savior Schema usually warrants this truth; it’s a want in a belief that a woman will appreciate and reciprocate for a man ready to be the solution to her problems. However, the same can apply for men who attempt to free the minds of other men.

In both volumes of The Rational Male I make a specific effort to address that Rollo Tomassi doesn’t want to be a savior – I want men to be their own saviors because, although I may present Red Pill truths, it’s ultimately a man who needs to be the director of his own life. If the true measure of power is the degree of control a man has over his own life, relying on a savior, relying on how well one conforms to his plan, is really a limit on that power.

As I state in the books, I’m not interested in Tomassi clones, this is why I’m humbled by every man’s story I’m emailed or commented on about how they changed their lives with what I put forth in my writing.

From the Roosh forum again:

The only ‘danger’ the red pill presents is one’s own inability to let go of previous beliefs when confronted with truth. The red pill makes you look in the mirror and come to terms with your own ego and the lies it convinced you of.

“You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”

Our ego is what we’re ultimately protecting. Most people don’t have an identity beyond their ego, that’s why most of the population can’t handle the red pill. Unless you were born with red pill parents, being raised blue pill and transitioning to red (altering your very reality) will always be traumatic on some level.

I’m of the opinion that trauma and crisis are necessary components to arriving at a point where a man is open to Red Pill awareness. I realize how distorted that sounds. It should be that a rational laying out of Red Pill truths should be self-evident, but it’s important to contrast that hope with the lifetime of feminine-primary conditioning men receive since their infancy.

There will always be people who will never accept even to most base and evident Red Pill fundamental truths. I completely understand Wutang’s premise for wanting to create our own manospherean tribes. We’ve had a good bit of commentary regarding Jack Donovan’s (Way of Men) call for organizing in like-minded collectives of men, and while I agree and find that laudable, I also know that isolation is dangerous.

Even by Law 10 it makes sense to surround oneself with the “happy and successful”; that’s a pretty deductive truth. However, I can’t ignore that many of the most condition-blinded people are also the most happy. I know multi-millionaires who are among the most abject Betas with regard to their intersexual relations.

So I guess what I’m saying is that there needs to be a level of discernment and discretion in this regard. I reach over half a million viewers / readers every month on TRM without advertising, without proselytizing, and men seem to find my works more and more. When the student is ready the teacher will appear – these men are seeking out the Red Pill and I suspect more will as Open Hypergamy and the machinations of the Feminine Imperative become unignorable.

You can’t teach those unwilling to learn – maybe it’s less about being convincing and more about being ready to help when the opportunities arise? That’s not me being magnanimous, that’s me being practical.


Strength of Interest

10407975_880067355398915_2343533858160698952_n

I had a couple of questions from the SoSuave Forum‘s (yes, I’m still a mod there) Judge Nismo I thought I’d take a crack at:

G’ morning Rollo. I got a couple questions for you that I don’t think you touched on in your book…or I may have overlooked.

1. What is your opinion on the Celebrity Maxim?

That is, I know you see it a lot in your Rational Male comments and on this board (i.e. Would she flake out on Brad Pitt? Would she make George Clooney wait for sex? She wouldn’t confuse Channing Tatum, etc.) I’ve even used it a lot on here, usually saying you wouldn’t fall asleep if you had a date with Katy Perry, and you wouldn’t pull a last minute flake text with Kate Upton, and you wouldn’t have to babysit if you had Shakira ready to bang!

If there’s three things I’ve learned from writing in the Manosphere for the past 12 years it’s this; no matter how apt, never use an allegory to illustrate a point, never try to relate a fictional story, movie or character to a real world dynamic and never hold up famous celebrities as common reference examples of broader, mundane dynamics.

The temptation to do so stems from a want for a common point of reference. However, appealing to a highly recognizable exemplar of a dynamic only makes picking apart the known particulars about that individual a priority – not on really grasping the dynamic itself.

I see this in the ‘sphere occasionally, and I’d be lying if I said I’d never committed these sins myself. For the most part, and certainly as far as my own readership goes, I think many of the best writers and the commentariat of the ‘sphere are very intelligent men. That’s not to account for the occasional troll, but I’ve found that even an OCD troll still needs to be clever in the ‘sphere.

That said, it’s just this preponderance of intelligence that makes men take illustrative examples as face value facts. Using celebrities as examples of commonality in purpose just smacks of the Apex Fallacy.

“….the Apex fallacy is the idea that we assign the characteristics of the highest visibility members of a group to all members of that group.”

If you’re at all familiar with the controversy surrounding the Apex Fallacy, feminists and manginas alike decided to commandeer wikipedia to paste this as a Men’s Rights misappropriation of the definition, but in actuality the true definition cuts both ways. So while women misappropriate the highest visibility men to associate a totality of the “patriarchy”, men, on the other hand, misappropriate the highest echelon men with examples of common inference of a dynamic.

In English, those celebs aren’t you or me or any layperson you deal with daily. I get the inference of course, and the message is usually one about incentives being strong enough to prompt behaviors. However, what Nismo is getting at is really less about the validity of those illustrations and more about genuine desire:

I ask since it’s quite a big trope in the manosphere…

2. What is your take on the one strike rule?

You do have a 3 strikes article on Rational Male, and I did read it. On this board, it’s quite common to see situations with chicks go like this:

– She flaked on me, she is deleted.
– She stopped responding to my texts and calls, automatic out.
– She wants to bring some friends along, sorry this is one on one.

I could go on and on, most of these situations often get read by red pill men as low interest, thus move on or become a beta orbiter. Yes, I do online dating and work 2 jobs, but I do have a one strike policy.

Sure, sometimes life will truly get in the way, but most men who are red pill will likely move on if there’s low interest. We all know not to waste time with uninterested chicks because they won’t put out. Heck, the sick excuse is often times a blow off, and lately, death in the family has been disguised as blowing someone off.

Zero Tolerance

The problem most men have with a Zero Tolerance policy is that you’re not George Clooney and you’re not Brad Pitt, but moreover, most men still cling to Blue Pill idealisms and the conditioned hope that women will see the “real” men they think women have a magical sensitivity to detect. Thus, they play by the script and hold out for the real desire they believe women should have a capacity for with them.

This is why Blue Pill men get angry at the 3-Strikes rule; that scarcity mentality colors their interaction with women to the point that anything counter to playing the patient, devoted, “prove-my-quality” white knightery role invalidates everything they’ve sacrificed and waited so patiently for up to that point.

They’re afraid of throwing the baby out with the bath water, and damn it, if you suggest doing anything other than what makes their patience worthwhile you’re a misogynistic prick.

If these men could pause with any insight they’d understand that any threshold – one strike, three strikes – suggested by myself or the manosphere isn’t about punishing a woman’s indecisiveness, but rather a pragmatic vetting meant to be efficient for men. That tolerance policy is about conservation of resources and time, not so much retribution (though I’me sure some men entertain that).

  • She flakes on you with no counter offer or marginal reframe? –
    Message: Insufficient interest
  • Stops responding to communications (and possibly resumes after a period)? – The Medium is the Message
  • Wants to bring friends along to a date? –
    Message: you are a rich resource to be exploited, or her interest is so low that she foresees a need to bring friends along to make her date with you entertaining.

The Prince with Interest

What Nismo is comparing here is really an evaluation of interest a woman has in you. I’ve gone into this in the past:

Women with high interest level (IL) wont confuse you. When a woman wants to fuck you she’ll find a way to fuck you. If she’s fluctuating between being into you and then not, put her away for a while and spin other plates. If she sorts it out for herself and pursues you, then you are still playing in your frame and you maintain the value of your attention to her. It’s when you patiently while away your time wondering what the magic formula is that’ll bring her around, that’s when you lean over into her frame. You need her more than she needs you and she will dictate the terms of her attentions.

From an evolutionary perspective Hypergamy can’t afford to wait once a woman’s filtering mechanism is satisfied that a man passes for an Alpha. Women will break rules for Alpha men and create more rules for Beta men to have access to her. Keep in mind that first part; women will make access easy for a man she perceives as an SMV superior. Hypergamy always seeks a better-than deserved SMV benefit.

So to use the apex example, no, a woman can’t afford to confuse Channing Tatum. Mix in the behavioral influences a woman’s ovulatory chemistry predisposes her to with that SMV+ benefit perception and you’ve got dilated pupils, seductive ornamentation, lower vocal intonations and an elevated heart rate – Estrus.

As you might guess, this poses a problem for most guys because, lets face it, most of us aren’t examples of this apex. Even when we make dramatic leaps in self-improvement and physical transformation it’s hard to shake our former self-impressions and our previous degrees of self-confidence.

Back in the early days of SoSuave there was a concept we’d use that I think had a lot of merit – the concept of the Prince. For many men just coming into a Red Pill awareness meant re-imagining oneself in a new, more intrinsically valued light.

For instance, after you understand the basic psychology of why a technique like Cocky & Funny or Amused Mastery works with women, personally applying those dynamics requires a man to view himself in a more valuable context.

As I said, Hypergamy always seeks a better-than deserved SMV benefit, so it follows that a man should at least reconsider himself as that “better-than her SMV” prospect. Irrespective of that being a reality or not, the idea is a sound one. In fact it’s a law of power:

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.

And also:

Law 34 – Be Royal in your Own Fashion:  Act like a King to be treated like one

The way you carry yourself will often determine how you are treated; In the long run, appearing vulgar or common will make people disrespect you.  For a king respects himself and inspires the same sentiment in others.  By acting regally and confident of your powers, you make yourself seem destined to wear a crown.

In Amused Mastery, it helps to actually have some context of mastery to source as amusement.

Needless to say, asking a former Blue Pill Beta to simultaneously digest a new Red Pill awareness and revalue his self-worth is a pretty tall order. As I mention in Rejection & Revenge as a man, your existence will be defined by how you deal with rejection, so for a majority of men who’ve been hammered flat for the better part of a lifetime by women’s rejection telling him to adopt the mindset of a Prince is alien to him.

Furthermore, much of his feminine-conditioned self-perception has always taught him to be self-conscious and respectful of women’s default authority. It’s part of men’s previous Beta Game to want to identify with the feminine in order to prove how alike a man is with a woman. This conditioning is really a plan to force compliance to women’s sexual strategy from men, but it’s sold on the belief that being more feminine-like, feminine-sensitive, will set a Beta man apart from other brutish men who aren’t.

When you consider his previous degree of ego-investment in his conditioning, you can get a real appreciation of the unlearning a Red Pill man must do. It’s very difficult for most guys to consider themselves a Prince when they’ve been taught reverent deference to women all their lives.

Qualities of The Prince(ss)

A Prince’s time is valuable. His efforts and attention are gifts he bestows on the woman he’s interested in, and as such that woman’s esteem should be validated by it. She is envied by other women because of the Prince’s interest in her; it confirms there is something about her that sets her apart from other women. Her role becomes one of both humbling gratitude and excited, almost childlike, anticipations of him.

If that comes off like a pipe dream or a fake-it-till-you-make-it motivational screed, it’s because most men are so inured by a lifetime conditioning designed to hold them in the role of expectant, reverent, and deferring lover if they can perform to a woman’s standards. So ingrained is that subservience that a Princess’ acceptance of a man is exalted to an appreciation of spiritual, metaphysical, significance. God ordained her acceptance of him, the fates conspired or he “just got lucky”.

Beta men, in their Blue Pill expectations of women being rational agents, are often dumbfounded by the woman who compulsively returns over and over again to the Alpha ‘asshole’ who doesn’t respect, appreciate and love her like she deserves – like he would if she’d just come to her senses. We call that guy the emotional tampon, but what he doesn’t get is that the woman he’s orbiting is locked in a cycle that only a man with an SMV above her own can induce.

Even if that valuation is just perceptual, a woman’s Hypergamous optimization efforts will predispose her to wanting to lock that man down. This is the danger of relying on apex examples of a dynamic – women must still operate within their respective frames and within their capacity to accurately evaluate the SMV of the men she can realistically attract.

That semi-abusive Jerk boyfriend she loves so much? He’s not Channing Tatum or Brad Pitt, but contextually he’s the guy with the strength of her interest.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,466 other followers