Tag Archives: iron rule

March 1, 2015

The Isolationists

By Rollo Tomassi

isolation

Pandora at Sosuave has a conundrum for us to solve today:

It seems there are two contradictory schools of thought on dating:

1.) You hear from one side of the argument to pursue your interests in life and women will come to you. This is what the MGTOW movement espouses. Im not sure if men can even be totally indifferent to the power of pussy. But some believe the total indifference is the key to a fulfilling love life. I have found that if you are indifferent then you will get nothing and be celibate. This doesn’t sound very good.

2.) The other argument is that you should not be indifferent at all. This school of thought says that dating is purely a numbers game. Its similar to sales. The more women you meet the higher the likely hood of one of these women liking you. The more approaches you do the more lays you get. Simple statistics. This school of thought is the opposite of indifference. This is the way i personally go about dating and i have had mediocre results. This is represented by the NEXTING mentality.

Not sure which one to choose or which one is correct. I do know that i am tired of being a slave to vagina. I do OK but it takes a ton of work to get one mediocre lay. Its not good for your self esteem either. Being rejected or toyed with mentally is unhealthy for your psyche. Most of my friends are also slaves to getting laid. Roosh V made a post about how ” His Boner is his master”.

So is it ” Pursue your interests in life and women will take care of themselves” vs ” Go out and do the field work”..which one will lead to a more fulfilling life?

Before we get down to nuts and bolts here let me address this last part first. There is no such thing as a “fulfilled” life. God forbid you reach fulfillment in life. The human state is one of a perpetuated discontent, and so long as that discontent is constructively pursued, this is a good thing. When anyone presents you with a plan or an abstract for life fulfillment, understand that they are selling you something based on the very human want for a better life.

That said, the rest of the question makes for some interesting debate. I often read a common thread in the manosphere about how men should develop some mental disposition of “outcome independence.” I understand the sentiment and why it would be beneficial for any guy to simply shrug his shoulders and say “either way, yes, no, I’m good with it”, but what this really boils down to is another indirect Buffer against real rejection.

I’ve read some ‘life coaches’ rattle off something similar. The idea is that if you put yourself out there, just by doing so, a woman will appreciate the inherent risk of rejection in your approach and at least give you merit points for trying when she does reject you. It’s a flawed idea because it presumes the women you’d approach would have any capacity to recognize that risk, much less reward the effort. It presumes that women would have that rational insight in the moment and think “well, he must have confidence for just trying to hit on me” and add that to some subconscious list of pros and cons for accepting or rejecting him.

And of course when it comes to light that the majority of women don’t have any concept of the approach-risk appreciation they’re supposed to have, that’s when a guy is told he’s hitting on the wrong kind of woman – they’re not the “quality” women they should be risking themselves with.

So the next deductive step becomes one of insulating oneself against that rejection preemptively. Thus, outcome independence becomes not just a mindset, but also a (misguided) Game strategy. Therein lies the conflict; is outcome independence who you are or is it a strategy disconnected from yourself which you rely on to Buffer rejection?

I touched on this in Vulnerability:

The idea goes that if a man is truly outcome-independent with his being rejected by a woman, the first indicator of that independence is a freedom to be vulnerable with her. The approach then becomes one of “hey, I’m just gonna be my vulnerable self and if you’re not into me then I’m cool with that.”

The hope is that a woman will receive this approach as intended and find something refreshing about it, but the sad truth is that if this were the attraction key its promoters wish it was, every guy ‘just being himself‘ would be swimming in top shelf pussy. This is a central element to Beta Game – the hope that a man’s openness will set him apart from ‘other guys’ – it is common practice for men who believe in the equalist fantasy that women will rise above their feral natures when it comes to attraction, and base their sexual selection on his emotional intelligence.

The fact is that there is no such thing as outcome independence. The very act of your approaching a woman means you have made some effort to arrive at a favorable outcome with her. The fact that you’d believe a woman would even find your vulnerability attractive voids any pretense of outcome independence.

In a larger scope, there is no real outcome independence. Even making the effort to adopt that IDGAF mindset is itself an investment in an outcome. If you were truly indifferent to the outcome of a situation there would be no discussion about it.

Being truly indifferent to whether or not a woman accepts or rejects you implies a disinterest in that woman’s interests in you. There are certainly ways to insulate oneself against a negative outcome, but outcome independence is not Game itself. You will learn more from your failures than from your successes.

With that in mind Pandora raises some interesting propositions here:

1.) You hear from one side of the argument to pursue your interests in life and women will come to you. This is what the MGTOW movement espouses. I’m not sure if men can even be totally indifferent to the power of pussy. But some believe the total indifference is the key to a fulfilling love life. I have found that if you are indifferent then you will get nothing and be celibate. This doesn’t sound very good.

I think for the most part this want for indifference gets pushed to extremes. As I’ve stated many times, a woman should only ever be a complement to a man’s life, never the focus of it. However, that doesn’t mean a complete dissociation from women is healthy. For a woman to be a complement to your life you’ll need interact with, and understand the nature of, women.

Roissy summed this position up well in the 16 Commandments of Poon:

III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority

Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.

What this commandment doesn’t presuppose is that there isn’t a woman in a man’s life to be superseded by his mission. It’s not all mission, no woman. The MGTOW branch of the manosphere is made up of a diverse set of guys. From my experience not all MGTOWs are interested in complete indifference to women; most would be happy to have women be interested in them enough to make an effort to associate themselves with them, they just don’t see the point in making a direct effort to make those connections. Others simply resign themselves to isolation and meeting their physical needs with porn or escorts while they ‘enjoy’ life and pursue their own interests absent of women.

There is an inherent problem in this latter MGTOW preference, they build a fortress around themselves:

Law 18: Do Not Build Fortresses to Protect Yourself— Isolation is Dangerous
The world is dangerous and enemies are everywhere— everyone has to protect themselves. A fortress seems the safest. But isolation exposes you to more dangers than it protects you from-it cuts you off from valuable information, it makes you conspicuous and an easy target. Better to circulate among people, find allies, mingle. You are shielded from your enemies by the crowd.

You cannot entirely remove yourself from the Game. You can cede the governance of your participation in intersexual dynamics to whatever or whomever you think may control it, but you cannot recuse yourself from its influences. This is a foundational truth I think some MRAs and the more isolationist MGTOWs believe they can in some way buffer for themselves. They believe that not playing the Game is a preferable situation to “dealing” with the means and efforts necessary to “succeed” with women.

The natural progression then becomes one of self-affirmation in the belief that they’re not ‘dealing’ with women, and any guy who is is little more than a slave doing the bidding of women by even his interest in applying an effort to understand and interact with them. Even the most marginal effort becomes ‘pussy begging’.

16. Dancing Monkey Hate

Hater: Men who run game are just doing the bidding of women. Alphas don’t entertain women.

If you want success with women, you are going to have to entertain them… one way or the other. The same is true of women. Once a woman stops entertaining men with her body, her femininity, and her commitment worthiness by getting fat, old, ugly, bitchy, or single mom-y, she stops having success with men. We are all doing the bidding of our biomechanical overlord, and on our knees to his will we surrender, by force or by choice. You fool yourself if you believe you have some plenary indulgence from this stark reality.
Or: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

The problem with the ‘pussy begging’ rationale becomes one of defining what degree of interest a man ought to have with women. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy; the women who accommodate this level of (dis)interest become ‘quality women’ while those who don’t align with that impression serve as convenient proof of their isolationist belief. The latent rationale becomes one of sour grapes, disdain the things you can’t have while making necessity a virtue. If there is something you want but cannot have, show contempt for it. The less interest you reveal, the more superior you seem.The logic then becomes circular.

The opposite extreme, and one intersexual isolationists like to promote, is that it’s all a numbers game with regards to any “success” with women. If you throw enough spaghetti against the wall something will stick. Isolationists would have us believe that even what sticks is rarely worth the effort (sour grapes), but if you play the game often enough what you get is due more to persistence than any real accuracy of applied Game.

So is it ” Pursue your interests in life and women will take care of themselves” vs ” Go out and do the field work”..which one will lead to a more fulfilling life?

I’d say a measured balance of both. I don’t believe for a moment that any man is functionally indifferent to the influence of women. Men are the True Romantics; we want our idealistic impression of love to be impossibly reciprocated. We look for ways to buffer the frustration of trying to make our concept of love and female acceptance fit women’s when we don’t understand that each sex adheres to separate ideals. Outcome independence, isolationism, are ways some men think they can enforce our ideal as the standard for women.

With the Feminine Imperative in social ascendance women enforce a Hypergamous ideal that imbalances intergender dynamics, but that doesn’t mean men are powerless to effect their own interests and draw women into men’s Frame. The solution isn’t one of ‘taking all your toys and going home’ to wait for women to come around to appreciate men. It’s going to take a learned interaction.

The real pussy begging comes from demanding a woman to come over to your perspective unbidden and unmerited. Make your mission not your woman your imperative, but in that mission be the Man a woman will want to be associated with. I always stress the importance of Frame control – it’s the first Iron Rule of Tomassi – but this presupposes you have command of that frame to begin with. She enters your reality, you don’t enter hers, but you must have a reality a woman wants to enter into before you can maintain it.

406 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Game, Idealizations, Unplugging

November 2, 2014

Alpha Tells

By Rollo Tomassi

Alpha Tells

For as long as I’ve been writing in the manosphere, the definition of “what is Alpha?” has been the number one point of contention I’ve had to state and restate the most often. I’m not going to rehash this now as I have several posts on the nature of Alpha already linked in the sidebar, so if you’re looking for my take on Alpha that’s where to find it.

However, to lead in to today’s post I need to address the basis of what I believe are the most common misunderstandings about the term Alpha.

Well before the inception of this blog, in the early beginnings of what would evolve into the manosphere there was a need of terminology to describe the more abstract concepts developing in the ‘community’. Some of these analogies and terms are still with the manosphere today, others have morphed into more useful abstractions; Alpha Widows, Hypergamy (in its true nature), the Feminine Imperative, even Red Pill awareness are all examples of established terms or analogies for understood abstractions. Among these are also the concepts of a man being Alpha and Beta.

From The Unbearable Triteness of Hating at CH:

5. Etymology Hate

Hater: Your definition of an alpha male is false. In the animal kingdom, the alpha male is leader of the pack, not a cad/badboy/jerk who pumps and dumps women.

Isn’t it just like a nerd to get hysterical over the appropriation of a narrow-sense scientific term to conveniently illustrate broader truths about men and women.

One of the most common disconnects men encounter with the Red Pill for the first time is equating the term Alpha with its usage in describing the mating habits of Lions, Wolves or Silver Back Gorillas. It’s easy to ridicule or simply dismiss a valid, but uncomfortable, Red Pill truth when you’re simplistically comfortable in defining ‘Alpha Male’  in literal etymological terms.

This is the first resistance blue pill men claim they have with the Red Pill. They have no problem understanding and using abstractions for blue pill concepts they themselves are ego-invested in, but challenge that belief-paradigm with uncomfortable red pill truths and their first resort is to obstinately define Alpha (as well as Hypergamy) in as narrow, binary and literal a sense as they can muster.

“Get in Touch with Your Feminine Beta Side”

The next most common misunderstanding comes from conflating the abstractions of Alpha and Beta with masculine and feminine traits. In this (often deliberate) misdirection, the concepts of being Alpha or Beta become synonymous with being masculine or feminine. This is the personal basis of Alpha and Beta many Purple Pill advocates (really blue pill apologists) comfortably redefine for themselves, to suit themselves.

This purple pill conflation is really just a comforting return the the curse of Jung – anima & animus – if the complete man is an even mix of Alpha and Beta, masculine and feminine, then all the worst aspects of his “betaness” can’t be all bad, and he reinterprets what really amounts to a complete androgyny as “being the best balance”.

Unfortunately, and as blue pill chumps will later attest, the feminine expects to find its paired balance in the masculine, not an equalist idealization of both in the same man. Thus women, on a limbic level, expect men to be Men.

This one of the missives of an equalitarian mindset; that an individualized, egalitarian balance of masculine and feminine aspects in two independent people should replace the natural complementary interdependence of masculine and feminine attributes in a paired balance that humans evolved into.

What purple pill temperance really equates to is a 21st century return to the 20th century feminized meme “men need to get in touch with their feminine sides”… or else risk feminine rejection. 60+ years of post sexual revolution social engineering has put the lie to what an abject failure this concept has been.

What they fail to grasp is that an Alpha mindset is not definitively associated with masculine attributes. There are plenty of high-functioning, masculine men we would characterize as Alpha based on our perception of them in many aspects of life, who nonetheless are abject supplicating Betas with regard to how they interact with, and defer to women.

Whether that disconnect is due to a learned, Beta deference to the feminine (White Knighting), some internalized fear of rejection, or just a natural predisposition to be so with women, isn’t the issue; what matters is that the abstraction of Alpha isn’t an absolute definitive association with the masculine.

Likewise, Beta attributes are neither inherently feminine. As has been discussed ad infinitum in the manosphere, 80%+ of modern men have been conditioned (or otherwise) to exemplify and promote a feminine-primary, supportive Beta role for themselves and as many other men they can convince to identify more with the feminine.

The Beta mindset isn’t so much one of adopting a feminine mindset as it is a deference to, and the support of, a feminine-primary worldview.

The reason purple pill (watered down red pill) ideology wants to make the association of Alpha = Masculine, Beta = Feminine is because the “get in touch with your feminine side” Beta attributes they possess in spades can be more easily characterized as “really” being Alpha if it helps make him the more androgynously acceptable male he mistakenly believes women are attracted to (if not directly aroused by).

Alpha Tells

From jf12:

The sexual alphaness of a male towards a female is exhibited by her wanting to please him, and the sexual betaness of a male is exhibited by him needing to please her. A man’s alphaness obviously and definitionally does not cause her to more require him to please her (i.e. alphaness does not rub off like that). And also, betaness is not transferrable, no matter how much we betas wish that our women-pleasing caused women to want to please us.

Moreover, the social dominance of a male in a male hierarchy is barely correlated with his sexual alphaness, and certainly not causal. There are far too many counterexamples, such as Bill Gates, Napoleon Bonaparte, Horatio Nelson, and the list is very very long.

However, and this is a key sociologically empirical point, the social dominance of a *female* human (the best kind!) in a *female* human hierarchy is extremely correlated, in this precise way: A woman to whom women cater to will 99.9% of the time demand to be catered to by her man. This is why women believe man-pleasing women (I admit there are some) are “lesser”. It is also why men (e.g. me) who have tended to be mated to females who are socially dominant in a female hierarchy are invariably betas. It’s simply false that female-dominant women tend to choose men who demand pleasing.

What critics of an Alpha/Beta dichotomy conveniently sweep under the conversational carpet is that the dichotomy they want to debate only exists in their convenient, personal interpretations of Alpha or Beta mean to them.

From a male perspective we can endlessly debate (from our own personal biases) what we believe constitutes an Alpha state (remember, an abstract term, stay with me here) and the expectations of which we think women should respond to according to those expectation. But it’s women’s instinctive behaviors around Alpha men (or men they contextually perceive so) that provide us with the tells as to how she perceives a man’s Alpha or Beta status.

For as much as we believe women should respond to our definition of Alpha – and despite how women will explain they agree with those self-prescribed definitions – as always, it is their behaviors when in the presence of, or in a relationship with men they perceive as being Alpha (or of higher sexual market value than themselves if you prefer) that they bely their true, instinctual recognitions of Alpha.

In a social environment where men are conditioned to believe that women are as equal, rational agents as men, the belief men put their faith into is that women will appreciate their intrinsic qualities and base their sexual selectivity upon a man’s virtue, bearing, intelligence, humor, and any number of attractive intrinsic qualities. However, the truth of what women base their sexual selectivity upon (arousal) is far more evident in their instinctual, unconditioned behavior when around Alpha men – as well as men’s instinctual sensitivity to that behavior.

There are many examples of this Alpha reactive behavior. I’ll make an attempt to illustrate a few of them here, but I expect there’ll be many more offered in the comment thread an I’ll encourage a discussion of the behaviors that serve as Alpha tells. Rossy/Heartiste has made a sport with his ongoing “spot the Alpha” series of posts in which he analyzes a picture or video of a woman’s reaction to a man who she is obviously has an Alpha interest in as her body language and subcommunications suggest. (h/t to CH for today’s image)

The common criticism of these images is that red pill men would read too much into these displays, but the underlying message in that criticism is rooted in understanding and willfully ignoring what our instinctual perceptions of them are. We know Alpha when we see it, but need an explanation to protect our own ego’s Alpha assessment of ourselves.

The Real Selection

For all the delighted ego ’empowerment’ of women boasting they are the sexual selectors in this life, there is still a nervous uncertainty about being found acceptable themselves to an Alpha lover of higher SMV status than they might otherwise merit. This is where the illusions of an assortive mating model break down for women. If feminine-primary sexual selection were the only element to mating there would be no need for the behaviors women are subject to in seeking the approval from men they perceive as Alpha.

There’s a look, an attitude and a presence women will give to Men for whom they have a natural deference to. I don’t just mean blatant sexual subcommunications like casually biting her lower lip, or the hair twirling that’s almost cliché now. It goes beyond the sexual into a kind of meta-attraction/arousal. While the sexual urgency for an Alpha is strong and manifests in a woman’s forwardness toward him, the meta-attraction is both of submission and a subconscious desire for his approval of her.

Men predisposed to a Beta mindset also display many of these same behavioral cues with the women they hope will appreciate them in the same fashion a woman does for a Man that her hindbrain instinctually knows is of a higher SMV. In Beta men we see these behaviors as evidence of “clinginess” or “neediness” and is an identifiable Beta tell; but in women this natural and unprovoked leaning in to a Man, this desire to submit for his approval, is a positive indicator of Alpha attraction.

This is why, as third party observers, we instinctually find such behavior in men distasteful; we subliminally sense a complementary imbalance between the man and woman.

When a woman makes an unforced effort to please a man with subtle words, unintentional wide-eyed contact, and body positioning / posture you’re dealing with a woman who is compelled to defer to you as Alpha.

That isn’t to say this can’t be faked. In fact strippers, good ones at least, are not just physically arousing, or more sexualized, but are in tune with the deficit most men feel when it comes to this Alpha deference. Beyond just the sexual aspect, one thing that makes strippers so enticing and seductive is that the majority of men are simply unused to the fawning affections and Alpha interest (albeit feigned) of any woman, much less an attractive one.

This is also one reason men become so prone to ONEitis both inside and outside this contrived, transactional, sort of attraction. Men are the True Romantics, they want to believe a woman’s sincerity in her Alpha deference to him.

Does the girl you’re interested in come to you, or do you go to her?

I’ve emphasized the importance of establishing and maintaining Frame for years now, but I sometimes wonder if the importance of holding Frame isn’t lost on most men.

To an equalist mindset this Frame establishment seems like I’m advocating men be domineers of their relationships and a man rely on some dark manipulative psychology to enforce his will in that relationship. That’s not what I’m suggesting for the simple reason that it’s too effort consuming, and genuine desire is unsustainable within that constant effort. Maintaining Frame demands a voluntary, uncoerced, desired compliance.

What I’m suggesting is that men simply not invest themselves in women whose Alpha interest in them is mitigated by doubt or an obvious SMV imbalance. This is difficult for most men as it conflicts with our want for an idealized romance with a woman – a want for a love that requires a mutual definition with a woman lacking the capacity to realize this with him. And it’s within that idealized desire men lose Frame and excuse the behaviors of Alpha deference.

The Medium IS the Message

As I’ve written in the past, the Medium IS the Message with women. On some level of consciousness men instinctually understand their relative status with a woman based on the behaviors she directs toward him.

Is she affectionate without being prompted or only when circumstance makes your comfort needed for her?

Is Amused Mastery an easy default for you, or does she resist even playful attempts at it?

Does she initiate sex with you, or is your provocation only ever the precursor to sex?

Is sex even a priority for her (with you)?

Does she make efforts to make things special for you (you both) or is your relationship one of her grading your efforts in qualifying for her Alpha approval of you?

What most guys think are ‘mixed messages’ or confusing behavior coming from a woman is simply due to their inability (for whatever reason) to make an accurate interpretation of why she’s behaving in such a manner. Usually this boils down to a guy getting so wrapped up in a girl that he’d rather make concessions for her behavior than see it for what it really is. In other words, it’s far easier to call it ‘mixed messages’ or fall back on the old chestnut of how fickle and random women are, when in fact it’s simply a rationale to keep themselves on the hook, so to speak, because they lack any real, viable, options with other women in their lives. A woman that has a high interest level in a guy has no need (and less motivation) to engage in behaviors that would compromise her status with him. Women of all ILs will shit test, and men will pass or fail accordingly, but a test is more easily recognizable when you consider the context in which they’re delivered.

Are you making psychological concessions with a woman who’s never displayed an Alpha deference to you?

189 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Alpha, Foundations, Game, Idealizations, Love, Sexual Market Value

October 27, 2014

Last Minute Resistance

By Rollo Tomassi

LMR

Many PUAs have at one point encountered and considered what’s commonly known as LMR, Last Minute Resistance after they’ve successfully moved through the various phases of seduction and had a girl reconsider fucking him and ultimately reject him at the zero hour before sex was in the offing.

LMR is the acronym PUAs gave to the tendency, but you don’t need to be a PUA to have had the experience of pleading your case for sex while spooning on the bed with a girl you’ve been trying to ‘make comfortable enough’ to want to fuck you using your best Beta Game for two months. I’d say blue pill men are much more familiar with LMR than most self-styled PUAs.

I’ll admit, I did this in my younger Beta days.

This was long before I realized that sex was about urgency, anxiety and tension, not comfort, familiarity or rapport, or proving how much better a boyfriend I’d make than the Jerks she’d enthusiastically spread her legs for because they naturally created that urgency.

It wasn’t until I’d hit my sexual stride in my semi-pro rock star 20s that I realized that striving to make a girl feel comfort and trust was anti-seductive.

Eventually I got to the point that I could get laid predictability enough with girls who were enthusiastically down to fuck, that I no longer felt the responsibility to endure the blue balls I had in trying to behave according to how girls ‘told’ me I should go about being intimate with other girls.

It was then I realized I had been attempting to Game girls according to the advice other girls had given me (or even some of the girls I wanted to get with themselves). I realized how adolescent this really was; these are games teenage girls played with guys who’s attentions they enjoyed, but couldn’t bear the thought of fucking someone they were so familiar with. I figured out that when a woman says, “I don’t think of you in that way. I think of you as a brother.”, what she’s really saying is “I’d consider sex with you to be incest”.

I didn’t know it then, but this was an important lesson in my red pill education.

I’ve never been an advocate for pushing past last minute resistance with a woman. From that point on in my life if there was any hesitancy on the part of a woman becoming sexual with me, and certainly once clothes were about to come off, I knew something else was affecting the needed sexual tension and urgency. Something else was mitigating genuine desire and I knew it wouldn’t be the kind of sex I wanted to have, or couldn’t already have had a better experience with another plate I was spinning at the time.

I get that for a lot of guys, “pushing” for sex – really trying to wait a girl out for sex – is the only Game they really have to speak of. However, I’d gotten to the point where I realized that any sex a woman makes a guy wait for is negotiated desire and mitigated sex, and the experience was never worth the wait.

I learned how to do very effective takeaways during this point in my life, but not because they were practiced to perfection from a want to bang a particular woman. Rather, and unintentionally, I had what PUAs termed a very good ‘push/pull’ technique due only to the fact that I knew if a new girl I was with was hesitant to get sexual I was wasting time I could’ve spent with another girl who was a proven commodity.

Women pick up on cues like this. Men are often oblivious to them, but there are subtle differences in our behaviors, indifferences to women’s expected behaviors from us, and subtle attitudes we sub-communicate which women are attuned to thanks to an evolved psychological understanding of when they have a sexual competitor for our attentions. Women who have a genuine interest in a guy, rarely confuse that guy with “mixed messages“.

I didn’t consciously process it then, but an overt attempt to overcome last minute resistance broadcasts a perception of ‘pussy begging’ in an obvious way. While I realize there’re sometimes situations that call for a need to be sexually assertive to promote a dominance women are testing for, if you’re in a position of what amounts to pleading or “c’mon baby” convincing a girl to fuck you, you’re negotiating (really compromising yourself) for her unenthusiastic desire.

When you overextend yourself in getting past LMR, you risk sending the message that “you just don’t get it” with regard to how women need to be seduced, and how the men they do want to fuck organically behave. By being too self-effacing in convincing a woman to fuck you, you present the perception of being optionless with other women, and thus a non-sexual Beta and she can deal with you, or not deal with you, accordingly.

It was really simple pragmatism for me to walk away from a sexual dead end girl – I had other options – but in doing so I’d unwittingly, but organically, passed a shit test. And more often than not I got laid a week or two after “bumping into” her again; after she’d had time to process it.

Game 101

Now, why am I going back to Game 101 here?

Likely this is something I should’ve included in the book, or come about to in the early posts of Rational Male (I have actually, but not in depth). Well, it’s because of a pathetically brief throwaway post from Lindy West praising the recent Yes Means Yes law on California campuses.

West usually wrote feminist agitprop before she was surreptitiously let go from Jezebel a few months ago, and rest assured this is the first and last time I’ll ever quote her on this blog, but in her giddy sputtering over the YMY law she did manage one coherent point:

“Why would you want to be tolerated when you could be desired?”

Following along in the wake of the Yes Means Yes social initiative, many a feminized blogger has gone through a good deal of mental contortions in order to rationalize why they support it. The problem they encounter is that in supporting YMY they have to explain away more than a few previously, and publicly, held stands they made in the past about gender relations to align with YMY.

One such inconsistency stems from women’s dubious want for comfort and rapport prior to sex that conflicts with what, essentially, amounts to negotiating for their genuine desire. Thus, I agree with Lindy, why would you want to be tolerated, when you could be desired?

What Lindy is oblivious to (no doubt from a lack of experiencing male attention) is that genuine desire cannot be negotiated for. Many a hapless Beta suffering in a ‘tolerance’ relationship is all too familiar with the lackluster experience of ‘duty sex’. Women will bemoan some fanciful epidemic of misogynists who think they’re entitled to, or owed sex, but the fact of the matter is the same women actively contribute to that belief by (legally now) requiring a checklist of terms necessary for men to have sex with them.

When I published Iron Rule of Tomassi #3 I received (and periodically still receive) a rash of criticism from the femosphere for insisting men excuse themselves from, and not wait for, compromised, mitigated and I daresay now, unenthusiastic sex.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #3

Any woman who makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex; the sex is NEVER worth the wait.

When I wrote this it was an effort in illustrating a pragmatic approach to save men the time and resources of investing in a less than optimal sexual experience. In essence, it’s a rule to help men avoid negotiated, unenthusiastic sex with women who feel obligated to fuck him. Whether it’s ostensibly from pity or duty or some other pretense the outcome is still the same.

I also wrote a follow up to this rule in Three Strikes:

Risk & Reward

In Game, there is a subtle balance that needs to be recognized between risks of over-investing in a particular woman with regards to practicality and not throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water and losing on a potentially rewarding opportunity. Women, as is particular to their own Game, will naturally come down on the side of casting doubt on a man’s valid assessment of a woman’s potential value, both in long term perspectives and potential sexual satisfaction. This presumption of doubt is a built in failsafe social convention for women; if only you’d been more patient, if only you invested a little bit more, you’d be rewarded with a great mother for your children and the best pussy of your life – don’t blow it now!

The short version is that it’s not in women’s best sexual-strategy interests for a man to have sexual options. Women’s sexual strategy is very schizophrenic – ideally women want a Man that other women want to fuck, but in order to assess his sexual market value to other women he’s got to have exercisable options for her to compete against, or at least display indirect social proof to that effect. So, she needs to limit his options while simultaneously determining he has those options. Now add to this the hypergamous necessity of maintaining  a reasonable pool of suitors suspended in doubt of her own SMV in order to determine the best one among them for short term sexual provisioning and long term security provisioning.

As ever, the intent here is to determine the potential for genuine enthusiastic sex – if there’s no interest, or hesitant acceptance: NEXT.

At the time of my writing these posts I was castigated for exactly the same rationale that femosphere bloggers are now endorsing Yes Means Yes with today. The (now scrubbed from certain blogs) criticism then was one of how terrible it was for Men to punish women by not playing along with feminine-primary Game.

Only two years ago the criticism was, “What? You just want some whore who gives it up on the first night?”

However, under the Yes Means Yes initiative, this Three Strikes pragmatism is flipped and endorsed by the women who were previously outraged by it. YMY fosters a social environment which actively promotes Pump and Dump sexual encounters, since the furtherance of that sexual relationship into an LTR increases the risk and liabilities that are the result of the YMY threat point.

Commenter jf12 from last week’s thread:

YMY makes a good case for men abandoning what women consider to be their assortative equals, i.e. women who are older, crankier, and more likely to say no, for women who are younger, nicer, and more likely to say yes. YMY is a total green light for men to push for sex immediately if not sooner.

So the question becomes one of how men will most pragmatically develop contingencies for the YMY threat point in their own sexual strategy? In an age when Sheryl Sandberg is openly telling young women to fuck the Bad Boys, and settle down with the Nice Guy before her SMV decays into non-competitiveness, when open hypergamy is not only embraced, but proudly preached in the media, what logical choice do men have but to push for sex immediately and go their own way?

YMY combined with Open Hypergamy promote a sexual marketplace based on enthusiastic consent for Alpha Fucks, and mitigated, ambiguous consent for Beta Bucks. Now add to this environment the effects and behaviors inherent with women’s Ovulatory Shift on a monthly basis and we can begin to see the latent purpose behind Yes Means Yes – insurance against regrettable sexual behavior.

254 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Foundations, Game, Hypergamy, Psychology, Sexual Market Value, Social Conventions, The Feminine Imperative

May 20, 2014

Purgatory

By Rollo Tomassi

purgatoryheader1

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

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

Yeah…no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Way Out of Hell

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

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

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

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

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

Next, remember Iron Rule of Tomassi #7:

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

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

 

136 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Case Studies, Game, Inter-gender Communication, Operative Social Conventions, Unplugging

May 7, 2012

Ultimatum

By Rollo Tomassi

A comment on the Iron Rule of Tomassi #4

Rollo mentioned that once a woman gets into a cohabitating situation, that her sexual availability markedly decreases. It seems to me that so long as the man is able to give and act out the ultimatum that “either I get a sexually satisfying relationship or I’m out (or you’re out, if it’s my place)”, then there should be no problem.

Sure, there are financial and legal entanglements, but this would be akin to dead money on any investment – sure it hurts, but that’s the risk one takes. And in the case of a lease, the man could always take the attitude that he wants out, and is only living in the apartment because he is on the lease (he could always go back to his available bachelor days.)

Interesting you used the word “ultimatum” here. It’s important that you understand what an ultimatum implies. Whenever a person delivers an ultimatum, always understand that this is a declaration of powerlessness. In other words, “I am so out of control in this circumstance you must do this or I will remove either myself or you from the circumstance.”

First off, in this particular instance it’s far more likely that you’ll be the one leaving considering the preference modern legalities give women today with regard to evicting them from such a situation. Secondly, it only confirms for her what she wants to know, that she is your one and ONLY source of sexual intimacy and by you cohabiting with her, emotionally, financially and logistically it makes it almost impossible for you to really make good on your ultimatum. You only consolidate her sexual monopoly by living with her.

I’ve already gone into all the practical reasons as to why a guy should never move in with a woman in Iron Rule #4, but I think it may be better to ask yourself why you do want to move in with her. What are you benefitting from in this situation that you aren’t by remaining independent of each other? For most guys the fantasy is more accessible sex, but if you’re living as you suggest here already, how is living together any different? And even if this were the case, that you had more sex with her by living together, you are still assuming a greater degree of responsibility, accountability and liability in your relationship and in your day to day life in exchange for that sexual accessibility. How is that an advantage? How is that not like marriage anyway?

As I’ve stated in the prior posts, when you commit to ANYTHING – women, career, education, family, etc. – you necessarily lose options and your ability to maneuver in taking advantage of them.

Ultimatums

Ultimatums are declarations of powerlessness because you are resorting to a direct threat to get someone to do what you want them to, and in doing so you OVERTLY confess your weak position. If you were in a genuine position of control it wouldn’t be necessary to resort to an ultimatum; you’d simply use that control. There are many ways to effect a change in another person, but ultimatums will never prompt a genuine change. If they change behavior it’s prompted by the threat, not unprompted, organic desire.

One of the primary tenets of my Game philosophy is that true desire cannot be negotiated. A natural, unsolicited desire state, unmitigated by obligation or concerns for resources exchange, is the ideal basis for any intergender relationship. Any factors that introduce elements that hinder this genuine desire – exchange, negotiations, obligations, reciprocity, etc. – weaken this desire and weaken the relationship. Delivering an ultimatum is the most direct, overt way to introduce exactly these elements into a relationship.

Now you might say that an ultimatum is implied in how you stated this it to her, or the context it was in. If this was your intent, you are still in a position of powerlessness since you are still trying to get this person to do what you want. It’s not what you can do to her (i.e. withdrawing your attentions) that’s the power issue, but the actual desired result, getting her to genuinely have a desire to do what she has no desire to do.

I should also add that ultimatums are, ultimately, self-defeating. You can keep your dog from running off by chaining him in the yard, but that dog still wants to run off. You cannot effect a genuine change of desire with an ultimatum as your relationship will be founded on that threat. And this is the real power issue; that you’d want a person to conform to your desire so badly that you’d use a threat to effect it in spite of the foreknowledge that it can never be a genuine conformation because they didn’t orginate it and did so only under duress.

So from your standpoint, yes you do have the power to affect your own actions (like walking away), but you are powerless to force her to do what you want (prompt a genuine desire in her), thus you resort to an ultimatum and only illustrate this OVERTLY.

Boundaries

It’s very important to make the distinction between setting boundaries and delivering ultimatums. Men with a head for absolutisms seem to think that avoiding ultimatums is the same as spinelessly avoiding laying down the law and setting the frame for a relationship (or even a particular plate they’re spinning). Establishing boundaries and assuming frame requires exemplification and demonstration. As with the 9th Law of Power: Win Through Your Actions, Never through Argument – demonstrate, do not explicate. There is no more overt an explication than your delivering an ultimatum. Ultimatums only lead to behavioral shifts based on the fear of repercussions, never a genuine desire for that behavior.

However, a continuous demonstration of what you necessitate in a relationship is vital to its health and your continued primacy of frame. Telling a woman what’s what or else often smacks of insecurity and childishness, but a firm discussion-less enacting of what is important to you and necessary for any future relationship viscerally teaches her what is expected by experiencing the very repercussions you ultimatum would only advertise to her.

34 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Idealizations, Inter-gender Communication, Iron Rules

January 5, 2012

A League of Your Own

By Rollo Tomassi

“Rollo, I’m newly Game-aware, red pill guy and I’ve been meeting girls with more and more success since my conversion, but I can’t help the feeling that the really hot girls I want to get with a so out of my league. 

Any suggestions?”

Iron Rule of Tomassi #8

Always let a woman figure out why she wont ƒuck you, never do it for her.

An integral part of maintaining the feminine imperative as the societal imperative involves keeping women as the primary sexual selectors. As I’ve detailed in many prior comments and posts, this means that a woman’s sexual strategy necessitates that she be in as optimized a condition as her capacity (attractiveness) allows for her to choose from the best males available to satisfy that strategy.

This is really the definition of hypergamy, and on an individual level, I believe only the most plugged in of men don’t realize this to some degree of consciousness. However, what I think escapes a lot of men is the complex nature of hypergamy on a social scale. For hypergamy to sustain it’s dominant position as the default sexual strategy for our society, it’s necessary for the feminine imperative to maintain existing, foster new, and normalize complex social conventions that serve it. The scope of these conventions range from the individualized psychological conditioning early in life to the grand scale of social engineering (e.g. Feminism, Religion, Government, etc.)

One of these social conventions that operates in the spectrum of the personal to the societal is the idea of ‘leagues’. The fundamental idea that Social Matching Theory details is that “All things being equal, an individual will tend to be attracted to, and are more likely to pair off with, another individual who is of the same or like degree of physical attractiveness as themselves.” In a vacuum, this is the germ of the idea behind the ‘leagues’. The social convention of ‘leagues’ mentality is where ‘all things are not equal’ and used to support the feminine imperative, while conveniently still supporting the principle of social matching theory.

The latent function of ‘leagues’ is to encourage men to filter themselves out for women’s intimate approval.

As social conditions progress and become more complex, so too do men’s ability to mimic the personal attributes of providership and security. In other words, lesser men become intelligent enough to circumvent women’s existing sexual filters and thus thwart their sexual strategy. These ever increasing complexities made it hard to identify optimally suitable men from the pretenders, and women, being the primary sexual selector, needed various social constructs to sort the wheat from the chaff. With each subsequent generation they couldn’t be expected to do all of this detective work on their own so the feminine imperative enlisted the aid of the men themselves and created self-perpetuated, self-internalized social doctrines for men to comply with in order to exist in a feminine defined society.

The concept of leagues is just one of these doctrines. Your self-doubt about your worthiness of a woman’s intimacy stems from a preconditioned idea that ‘you’re out of her league’. The booster club optimist idea that “if you think you can’t, you’re right” is true, and boundless enthusiasm may overcome some obstacles, but to address the source of the disease it’s more important to ask yourself why you’ve been taught to think you can’t. A lot of approach anxiety comes from your own self-impression – Am I smooth, hot, affluent, funny, confident, interesting, decisive, well-dressed enough to earn an HB 9’s attention? How about an HB 6? Our great danger is not that we aim too high and fail, but that we aim too low and succeed.

I’m not debating the legitimacy of the evaluative standards of the sexual market place – it’s a harsh, often cruel reality – what I’m really trying to do is open your eyes as to why you believe you’re only meritorious of an HB 7. Looks count for a lot, as does Game, affluence, personality, talent, etc. but is your self-estimation accurate, or are you a voluntary participant in your own self-devaluation in the SMP courtesy of the leagues mentality the feminine imperative would have you believe?

The Economy of the League

As I stated above the purpose of fomenting a stratified League mentality in men serves to autonomously filter the lesser from the greater men for women to chose from, however, it also functions to increase the valuation of the feminine as a commodity. Like any great economic entity, the feminine imperative lives and dies by its ability to inflate its value in the marketplace. Essentially the feminine imperative is a marketeer. One of the sad ironies of this, and the last, century is that the feminine imperative has attempted to base women’s SMP valuation on a collective importance to the detriment of the individual woman’s SMV. For men this is inverted; a man’s sexual valuation is primarily individualized, while men as a collective gender are devaluated in the SMP.

What I mean by this is that, as a collective entity women’s sexuality cannot afford to be perceived as anything less than the more valued prize. If all vaginas are considered the gold standard then men’s sexual default value will always be lower. By this definition men, on whole, are out of women’s league.

For further consideration lets assume that average men, most being varying degrees of beta, are blessed with the ‘miraculous gift’ of an average woman’s sexual attentions. The power dynamic is already pre-established to defer to a feminine frame, so it’s small wonder that men would be prone to ONEitis even with an objectively average woman. This is the intent of the League schema – to unobjectively predispose men to commitment with women who under objective condition couldn’t enjoy the same selectivity. Roissy once postulated that for a healthy relationship to exist the Man must be recognized by the woman to be 1-2 points above her own SMV. This is a pretty tall order considering the feminine imperative’s emphasis on women’s sexuality being the more valued as default. And this is  to say nothing of contemporary women’s overinflated self-evaluations due to the rise of social media.

Gaming the League

All of the above isn’t to say that there isn’t a kernel of truth to the notion of leagues; it’s just not the “truth” men have been led to believe. For as much as the feminine imperative would have men subscribe to Leagues, it equally seeks to exempt women from the same League hierarchy by evaluating women as a whole. Needless to say men have their own rating systems – most popularly the ubiquitously physical HB 10 scale. I should add that it’s a foregone conclusion that any rating system men would establish for women in the feminine reality would necessarily need to be ridiculed, shamed and demonized, but you knew that already.

Irrational self-confidence is a good start to circumventing and unlearning the concept of Leagues; unlearning this conditioning being the operative goal. The Game-aware Man can actually use the concept of Leagues to his advantage with enough guile. When you approach a woman without regard to a League mentality or even a Zen-like obliviousness to it, you send the message that there’s more to you than a feminine reality can control. It’s exactly this disregard for the influence of the feminine imperative that makes the Alpha attractive; he’s unaware of, or indifferent to the rules his conditioning should’ve taught him earlier. Just in the attempt of Gaming a woman obviously “out of your league” you flip the feminine script by planting a seed of doubt (and prompting imagination) about your perceived value. Doubt is a very powerful tool, in fact the very concept of Leagues is founded upon men’s self-doubt. Turn that tool to your advantage by disregarding women’s social convention of Leagues.

24 Comments   |  tags: , , , | posted in Iron Rules, Operative Social Conventions, The Feminine Imperative

December 27, 2011

Women in Love

By Rollo Tomassi

Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically.

Today’s pull quote comes from Xpat Ranting’s blog. The discourse there is brief, but insightful:

I really, really, really hope the myth that girls are the hopeless romantics gets kicked to the curb ASAP. Everyone needs to realize that men are the “romantics pretending to be realists” and women; vice versa

I found this particularly thought provoking – Men are the romantics forced to be the realists, while women are the realists using romanticisms to effect their imperatives (hypergamy). This is a heaping mouthful of cruel reality to swallow, and dovetails nicely into the sixth Iron Rule of Tomassi:

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

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

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

In the same respect that women cannot appreciate the sacrifices men are expected to make in order to facilitate their imperatives, women can’t actualize how a man would have himself loved by her. It is not the natural state of women, and the moment he attempts to explain his ideal love, that’s the point at which his idealization becomes her obligation. Our girlfriends, our wives, daughters and even our mothers are all incapable of this idealized love. As nice as it would be to relax, trust and be vulnerable, upfront, rational and open, the great abyss is still the lack of an ability for women to love Men as Men would like them to.

For the plugged-in beta, this aspect of ‘awakening’ is very difficult to confront. Even in the face of constant, often traumatic, controversions to what a man hopes will be his reward for living up to qualifying for a woman’s love and intimacy, he’ll still hold onto that Disneyesque ideal.

It’s very important to understand that this love archetype is an artifact from our earliest feminized conditioning. It’s much healthier to accept that it isn’t possible and live within that framework. If she’s there, she’s there, if not, oh well. She’s not incapable of love in the way she defines it, she’s incapable of love as you would have it. She doesn’t lack the capacity for connection and emotional investment, she lacks the capacity for the connection you think would ideally suit you.

The resulting love that defines a long-term couple’s relationship is the result of coming to an understanding of this impossibility and re-imagining what it should be for Men. Men have been, and should be, the more dominant gender, not because of some imagined divine right or physical prowess, but because on some rudimentary psychological level we ought to realized that a woman’s love is contingent upon our capacity to maintain that love in spite of a woman’s hypergamy. By order of degrees, hypergamy will define who a woman loves and who she will not, depending upon her own opportunities and capacity to attract it.

151 Comments   |  tags: , | posted in Idealizations, Iron Rules, Love, Unplugging

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,282 other followers