Tag Archives: social conventions

Jails & Churches

self-control

Slut Walkers & Soccer Moms

This picture has been making the rounds on Face Book recently. Last I looked it’d been shared about 89,000 times from the source I pulled it from. For the most part, what passes for some organized debate in most comment threads about this centered on a conflict between two factions of women – the responsible mothers and the ‘Slut Walk’ feministas faction of the femosphere.

Yes, ‘responsible mothers’ and Soccer Moms are in fact a very vocal part of the Feminine Imperative’s sphere of social control. It’s a mistake to believe women of a feminist bent are the only driving factor in influencing a feminine-primary social order. It’s not just grrrl-power demi-lesbians with fuschia hair, it’s that sensibly dressed lady in Target too. As I mentioned in last weeks post, Peak Hypergamy is yet to be settled, but until then the women who’s sexual strategy would best be served by keeping the ugliness of it secret will be at odds with women who proudly embrace open Hypergamy with gusto.

It’s easy to apply our Red Pill lens for such things as TV shows, popular music and media, and see the social undercurrent messaging of the Feminine Imperative, but there are some more subtle instances that need a proper lens focus on them. One trapping of the Red Pill lens is that aware men often overlook the more personal, more localized influence of the Feminine Imperative when they see the most public displays of it.

I’ve stated in prior posts that if you took a roomful of God-fearing traditionalist women and asked them if they identified as feminists the answers would range from “No” to a resounding “Hell no!” However, if you asked them specifics of how a woman’s role in society should be defined, what a woman’s obligations to a man ought to be, or in what way women’s influence in should be expressed in our culture (westernizing), then you would get your real answer.

Most traditionalist women would be appalled to be associated with anything bearing the Feminist® brand name, but still find themselves carrying the same flag when it comes to their rationalized beliefs. The ‘Sisterhood’ comes before all other considerations – be they politics, religion or personal interests – the Feminine Imperative is the common thread that underscores all intrasexual relations with women.

Tribe of the Sisterhood

In a social context, a principle strength of the Feminine Imperative is a presupposed, tribalistic sense of intrasexual belonging amongst women that transcends politics, race identity, religious conviction and ideology. We euphemistically refer to this dynamic as the sisterhood, but this female ‘belonging’ shares it’s roots in our foraging evolutionary past. Thus, women from starkly different cultures or socio-economic tiers still share that common theme of pre-known ‘oppression’ by the nebulous patriarchy.

One problem I have with recent rise of self-styled anti-feminist “Red Pill Women” is that while on the surface it appears that they are “pro-men”, the real impetus is that they are “anti-feminists”. In other words, their primary concern becomes one of opposing the methods and ideologies of how best to assert the influences of the Feminine Imperative they both ultimately serve. The common tribalism of the sisterhood is still present, but the applications of how best to instrument it is the source of that conflict.

This is what I believe we’re witnessing in debates of this nature; it is a conflict between women who’d be better served by keeping men confused and in doubt of the mechanics of Hypergamy versus women who believe they’d be better served in openly and proudly embracing Hypergamy. This is the primary reason women despise other women who are openly ‘Gold Diggers’ or ‘Attention Whores’, or even prostitutes – their method of optimizing their own hypergamous interests reveals their sex’s larger sexual strategy which they’d rather men not fully comprehend (until such time as they are ready to consolidate on men’s commitment).

It’s important that Red Pill men not be fooled into thinking that ‘traditionalist’ women are in anyway less predisposed to the influences of their sex’s imperatives. They’re not unique or better suited to a feminine role because of their ideology, they simply can’t afford to have sexual rivals with different methodologies competing for the same optimization of Hypergamy.

Social Saturation

This may seem an unlikely way to address the core issue of this notice to school administrators, but read me out here. There are two presumptions implied in this message. The first is the presumption that these school-age girls are being shamed by expecting them to adhere to some modicum of dressing to a certain standard – a standard they can expect once they exit school as well I should add.

The second is that these girls wearing shorts that are too short, and bra straps so noticeable as to draw attention from school administrators (God forbid a male teacher make such a judgement call) would be more concerned with the their educational prospects than influencing the boys in their environment is questionable.

And lastly the presumption is that boys of a certain age should be taught to control themselves to counter their synaptic wiring and biochemical responses and not ‘objectify’ the girls who take it upon themselves to dress provocatively.

These are relatively easy assessments to make about the intent of this note, however, what both factions of women debating this presume is a condition of feminine primacy. The feminine presumption is one that this school is nominally founded in male primacy – the girls distract the boys with their advertised sexuality – but the expectation is one based in the male Burden of Performance.

While it’s important for men to have an objective understanding of their burden of performance, it’s equally important for men to realize that women understand the utility of that burden and put it to their own opportunistic ends. In a feminine-primary perspective that burden translates into these boys needing to be taught to act against their biological impetus.

The shaming isn’t about girls having their education interrupted for wearing booty shorts or their tits pushed up by exposed bras; the implied shame is that these boys are not being instructed to understand that their burden is one of controlling the very biology that compels them to distraction. In a feminine-primary context the real “shame” should be on the boys who see girls (who are signaling sexual cues) as the sexual objects these girls are intentionally making of themselves.

The implied prioritization of undistracted education is presumed to be focused towards the males in the class, but the reality is that this education is taking place in a feminine-primary environment that is being inconvenienced by social standards.

The Feminine Expectation of Performance

Instead of adapting to the realities of their environment, women expect men to accommodate their sexual strategies and incorporate them into their accepted burden of performance.

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

This goal is eminently more achievable when men are taught that it is an aspect of their Burden of Performance to self-restrict their sexuality for a feminine-primary purpose. It was recently brought up in last week’s comments that the rise in unfettered, openly acknowledged Hypergamy is (or is becoming) a comparable condition to men’s unrestricted sexuality. The contrast of course was flipping the script and considering what the results would be if it were men who’s sexual strategy was unrestricted to the degree Hypergamy has currently.

In an exaggerated feminine-primary context, women like to believe this was once the case. Granted the apex fallacy is rife in that presumption, but the Feminine Imperative needs to establish a preexisting notion that women must necessarily suffer in a masculine-primary social order. That’s the presumptive social context this note was crafted in. The truth of the matter is that the Feminine Imperative cannot afford for both women and men to believe anything different if it is to remain the primary social influence.

This presumption is what brings women of conflicting ideological bents together in solidarity despite their disagreements; there is always a common enemy, a common opposition, in the belief that it’s men who are calling the shots for them. And as I said, this apex fallacy presumption is universal in that it transcends ideology and religious convictions. Thus we see similar social conventions used to maximally restrict male sexuality in those same institutions.

Holistic Game had an interesting take on this restriction this week:

I was raised Southern Baptist, then moved on to some form of megachurch-style evangelical Christianity in high school. I felt that sex before marriage was sinful, that lust was evil, and that the female body was a source of lurid temptation. It was a constant struggle not to look at porn. I remember being in a men’s young adult service when I was 24 and the pastor asked, with heads bowed, if any man in the room hadn’t looked at porn. I peeked and realized no one had raised their hand – every man in the room had indulged at some point. Though I couldn’t grasp it at the time, I’ve since come to understand that there is no point in repressing natural human desire.

I certainly couldn’t contain my urges forever, and ended up losing my virginity later that year. I was teaching guitar to a hot blonde beach babe a couple years older than me, and we got drinks one night. We fooled around, tipsily, and after a few weeks of on-and-off gropings I finally decided to fuck her. After the act was completed, I sat on her deck and looked at the ocean and searched myself. I never imagined the staining of my chastity happening in such a fashion, but I had to face the reality that it had happened. I tried to be honest with myself, and to my surprise, I found that I didn’t feel guilty. At all. The one thing I’d tried to save, that seemed to matter so much to God and his plans, I’d wasted on a stupid blonde I’d end up dumping. I should have felt overwhelmed by holy conviction, but didn’t feel anything but normality. I felt like I was finally part of the human race. This lack of guilt was the crack in the foundation that eventually led to the shattering of the whole rotten edifice.

Holistic expounds on this experience into doubting the existence of God (which I honestly think is a shame), but it’s important to understand how this presumptive state of male social primacy, and the necessity to mandate chastity as a man’s Burden of Performance has effects that go well beyond a man self-limiting his participation in his sexual strategy.

I think a necessary stage in becoming Red Pill aware is truly understanding not just our preconditioning, but the social environment that condition takes place within. This acknowledgement needs to take place in order to really unplug; it cannot simply be an acceptance that a guy was raised into his Blue Pill circumstance, he must also recognize the social conditions he’s still operating within, and he must recognize how to avoid the pitfalls and make the changes he wants to see in that world.

In a Blue Pill, feminine-primary social order plugged in men are left to participate in two institutions: jails and churches. I can imagine the frustration Red Pill men must feel when they see their friends trapped in those institutions. They see their friends in an endless tail-chasing of a performance of their own doing, but a result of their ‘teachers’ investing it in them. They contort in an endless self-expectation to be better men by self-defeating the essence that make them men. Then they are punished for the slightest infraction of acceding to that male essence, not so much by the women they hope to perform for, but rather a disappointment in themselves for not living up to what they believe are their own self-developed expectations of a standard that only serves the feminine.

Yes I know my enemies, they’re the teachers who taught me to fight me.


Post Selection

post-selection

Anonymous Reader on Dalrock’s thread had an interesting observation about women’s (wives’) dumbfounded response to discovering that the Beta chump they believed would be entirely optionless and adrift after they divorced, in fact, had far more SMV capital than her solipsism would allow her to acknowledge:

So, dear Lisa, you (a) had a husband but (b) decided you did not want him anymore and now (c) other women do want him? Whose fault is this, again? Great display of a version of preselection that ought to be called “post selection” (if Rollo or Heartiste or someone else hasn’t already thought of that).

Reminds me of a divorce I saw from a moderate distance a few years ago. Wife got a couple of promotions at her work, while her salesman husband just plodded along with the usual feast or famine of that business. She apparently got “married” to her job, putting in long hours serving the situational alpha men she worked for. Then at home made up for the long hours by showering attention on the kids while stiffarming “whats-his-name”. When he had an affair she was, by all accounts, surprised. When he had a second affair she divorced him. Both were churchgoing, and I agree that she had Bible-based grounds for divorce, there was no question he was cheating. But he wasn’t the roving-eye type for the first 5 to 10 years of marriage, so perhaps a certain lack of something tempted him to cheat? What could it have been?

Familiarity breeds contempt, but it also breeds complacency.

I’ve stated in many prior thread that familiarity, comfort, rapport, vulnerability and security are all anti-seductive attributes when it come to women’s sexual response. I’m not saying those elements aren’t intrinsically good or bad, just that men shouldn’t buy the boilerplate sexual filibustering of women who would have them believe they are in anyway arousal cues for women.

As Roissy’s maxim states – “‘Gina tingles are born in the defensive crouch.”

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 a woman makes you wait for sex you are not her highest priority. Sexuality is spontaneous chemical reaction between two parties, not a process of negotiation. It’s sex first, then relationship, not the other way around. A woman who wants to fuck you will find a way to fuck you. She will fly across the country, crawl under barbwire, climb in through your second story bedroom window, fuck the shit out of you and wait patiently inside your closet if your wife comes home early from work – women who want to fuck will find a way to fuck. The girl who tells you she needs to be comfortable and wants a relationship first is the same girl who fucked the hot guy in the foam cannon party in Cancun on spring break just half an hour after meeting him.

If a girl is that into you she’ll have sex with you regardless of ASD or having her friends in the room videotaping it at a frat party. All women can be sluts, you just have to be the right guy to bring it out in them, and this happens before you go back to her place. If you have to plead your case cuddling and spooning on the bed or getting the occasional peck on the cheek at the end of the night, you need to go back to square one and start fresh.

The problem most husbands and LTR live-in boyfriends experience in this respect is that there is no opportunity for a fresh start once that pattern of familiarity and comfort has been established and is what’s expected from him.

This principle is easy for us to understand from the man’s side, but what about the woman’s?

Anonymous’ observations here tell a broader story. Dal’s quick-hit post and the article he linked there is well worth the read, but it essentially illustrates a common regret women are forced to acknowledge when they’ve opted out of a relationship, or were opted out of by their men as a result of their protracted dissatisfaction with those women – they simply cannot fathom that the Beta man they cut loose has a sexual market value that other women would not just appreciate, but jump at, far quicker than they imagined.

Considering that 70%+ of all divorces are initiated by women, women opting out is usually the case. If you track along with the time line I presented in Preventive Medicine you can also see that this opt out (first divorce) window usually coincides with the time a man is (should be) experiencing his SMV peak.

After 7 or so years of marriage the familiarity, the routine and the comfort a woman expects from her statistically Beta husband are cemented for her. Reliable, sensible, comforting and responsible make for a great security prospect, but a boring ‘fuck prospect’. Unless that woman is casually, but frequently put into the defensive crouch (via passive dread) that man’s Archetype is set in her mind for her. His behavior is predictable and familiar, and boring to the point that she suspects no woman but her would ‘tolerate’ him.

In fact this perception is reinforced for her, not just by a fem-centric culture, but her husband’s constant self-deprecating praise of how “lucky he is to have a woman like her who’d put up with a guy like him. Haha, LOL.” In spite of all this supplication, women still affirm that man as the unexciting Beta chump who she subconsciously pegs would be entirely optionless in the SMP were (when) he to be re-released back into the wild.

Women want to get with a man that other men want to be, and other women want to fuck.

This is an easy maxim for a woman who’s single, but it takes on new imperatives when that man is fighting against the familiarity and comfort elements that come with long term monogamy and living together. That familiar complacency combined with Hypergamic social expectations makes women doubt that the man they thought other women might compete for has morphed into an optionless schlub only she would have the patience to constantly tolerate.

One of the reasons I advise against men and women shacking up is because the comfort and regularity of that living situation eventually becomes a disincentive for women to maintain a consistent sexual desire and urgency for the man she’s paired with. Women are at their ‘sexual best’ when men keep them at arms reach, and this is primarily due to the anxiety she experiences in the doubt over whether she’ll be able to consolidate on an optimized Hypergamy with that guy.

Post Selection

As Anonymous hints at, there is a form of social proof a ‘released’ man enjoys once he’s been cut from women’s Hypergamous equation. To understand how this works we need to remember that Hypergamy is fundamentally rooted in doubt:

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.

Dumping a woman is the highest form of social proof for a man.

In no uncertain terms he demonstrates to her that he has the supreme confidence he can find another woman with better prospect than her. Even if this isn’t the pretext of the breakup, this is the message in the medium that she understands; she doesn’t measure up to his expectations.

This then is further compounded by the unconscious knowledge that it should be women who are socially in charge of the sexual selection and approval process. When a man dumps a woman he demonstrably takes that agency away from her.

However, the effectiveness of that social proof for the dumped woman is only proportional to the doubt that he may have been a better, more optimal Hypergamic choice for her. We understand the effectiveness even a fabricated perception of preselection has on women, but depending on the psychological impact a man has, post-selection and the uncertainty of his long term fitness can be so powerful it can create an Alpha Widow of her.

Hypergamous doubt makes women creatures of constant comparison. Thus, when (if) she makes another intimate connection after that breakup, the new guy is held next to the comparison of the previous one. Once that comparison is made, that post-selection value of the previous guy (or lack thereof) becomes reinforced for her.

Starting Over

Women have a biological imperative to restart the Hypergamic process far more rapidly than men when they’re younger and closer to their SMV peak. They have more time to capitalize on it.

However, once they are on the opposite side of the Wall and men are ascending to their own SMV peak, “getting over” the relationship is equated with remarriage because men have the SMV advantage. That previous husband or LTR lover has the power of selection and confirmation she no longer holds as she did in her youth.

Women have far less marketability and prospect to restart that Hypergamic process once this agency exchanges hands with men. They’ve lost on a perceived long-term investment. Thus her brooding fixates on his ease of finding a new mate, with his remarriage being the context of finalizing that break with her.

I should also add that rarely is consideration is given to the incentives and reasons for the breakup whatsoever on her part. Convenient social conventions aid her in thinking she is blameless in the circumstances that led to the split and he is heartless for “getting over’ her at all, much less quickly. We are left to presume that it’s he who should suffer the same or more. He should be pining for her, he should be regretting the split.

It’s far easier for a man to move on with new women when his benchmark for intimacy was set by a sexless marriage to an authoritarian, shaming, shrew. Maybe it’s that thought that really hurts – it was easy to get over her because the opt out for him is sooooo much better a prospect than a lifetime of having to untangle her hangups about him.

Final Thought

Bear in mind this post-selection dynamic is only effective insofar as a man’s SMV can be actualized outside of his previous relationship.

Women only contemplate whether a man has moved on from her quickly when they care to concern themselves with it. If it was she who initiated the breakup with her Beta husband/LTR women are simply indifferent to what the guy is doing a year or so down the road.

Nothing is more satisfying to a woman than to believe she’s figured a man out using her mythical feminine intuition. This works in a positive sense when a man leads her to believe she’s genuinely got inside his head, but it also works in the self-convincing negative sense when she dismisses a guy who no longer qualifies for her long term (or short term sexual) hypergamic interests.

The satisfying feminine indignation comes from convincing herself he was never really as invested as he led her to believe he was. Thus the loss of investment is converted to betrayal and becomes a source of self-righteousness despite any circumstance she contributed to the break herself.


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.


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.


Eat, Prey, Love

idealism

It started with a girl I met at summer camp and ended with the woman for whom I left my first wife. In between, I bounced from one girl to the next — dozens of them — without so much as a day off between romances. You might have called me a serial monogamist, except that I was never exactly monogamous. Relationships overlapped, and those overlaps were always marked by exhausting theatricality: sobbing arguments, shaming confrontations, broken hearts. Still, I kept doing it. I couldn’t not do it.

I can’t say that I was always looking for a hotter girl. I’d trade good women for bad ones; their character didn’t much matter to me. I wasn’t exactly seeking love, regardless of what I might have told them. I can’t even say it was the sex either. Sex was just the gateway drug for me, a portal to the much higher high I was really after, which was the chase, the seduction.

Seduction is the art of coercing somebody to desire you; playing on someone else’s longings to suit your own agenda. Seduction was never a casual sport for me; it was more like a heist, adrenalizing and urgent. I would plan the seduction for months sometimes, picking the target, looking for openings. Then I would break into her deepest vault, steal all her emotional currency and use it myself.

If the girl was already in a committed relationship, I knew that I didn’t need to be hotter or “better” than her botfriend; I just needed to be different. (The novel doesn’t always win out over the familiar, mind you, but it often does.) The trick was to study the boyfriend and to become his opposite, thereby positioning myself to this woman as a sparkling alternative to her regular life.

Soon enough, and sure enough, I began to see that woman’s attitude toward me change from indifference, to trust, to IOIs, to open desire. That’s what I was after: the sensation of steadily dragging her fullest attention toward me and only me. My guilt about the boyfriend was no match for the intoxicating knowledge that — somewhere on the other side of town — somebody couldn’t sleep that night because she was thinking about me. If she needed to sneak out of his house after midnight in order to call, better still. That was power, but it was also affirmation. I was her irresistible temptation. I loved that sensation, I needed it, not sometimes, not even often, but always.

I might win the girl over eventually. But over time (and it wouldn’t take long), her unquenchable infatuation for me would fade, as her attentions and guilt returned to her boyfriend. This always left me feeling abandoned and invisible; desire that could be quenched was not nearly enough for me. As soon as I could, then, I would start seducing another girl, by turning myself into an entirely different guy, in order to attract an entirely different woman. These episodes of shape-shifting cost me though. I would lose weight, sleep, dignity, clarity. As anyone who has ever watched a werewolf movie knows, transmutation is excruciating and terrifying, but once that process has been set into motion — once you have glimpsed that full moon — it cannot be reversed. I could endure these painful episodes only by assuring myself: ‘‘This is the last time. This girl is the ONE.’’

In my mid-20s, I married, but not even matrimony slowed me down. Predictably, I grew restless and felt unappreciated for my Beta supportive sacrifices. Soon enough I seduced a new girl; the marriage collapsed. But it was worse than just that. Before my divorce settlement was even signed, I was already breaking up with the girl I had broken up my marriage for. You know you’ve got intimacy issues when, in the space of a few short months, you find yourself visiting two completely different couples’ counselors, with two completely different women on your arm, in order to talk about two completely different emotional firestorms. Trying to keep all my various story lines straight (Whom am I angry at, again? Who is angry at me now? Whose office is this?) made my hands shake and my mind falter.

At our last counseling session, my soon-to-be-ex-girlfriend and I argued bitterly, and she ran off in a different direction. I came home distressed, only to find a string of distressing phone messages from my divorce lawyer: Nothing but ruin on that front too. Then I did an unusual thing. I did not grab the telephone and call yet another woman. Instead, I asked myself, ‘‘What are you doing with your life?’’

For the first time, I forced myself to admit that I had a problem — indeed, that I was a problem. Tinkering with other people’s most vulnerable emotions didn’t make me a romantic; it just made me a cad. Lying and cheating didn’t make me brazen; it just made me a needy coward. Stealing other men’s girlfriends didn’t make me a an irresistible player; it just made me a menace. I hated that it took me almost 20 years to realize this. There are 16-year-old kids who know better than to behave this way. It felt shameful. But once I got it, I really got it: There is no way to stop a destructive behavior, except to stop.

I spent the next six months celibate and serious, working with a good therapist, trying to learn if I even existed at all when I wasn’t soaking up women’s desire for me. Then one afternoon I ran into a girl I liked. We went for a long walk in the park. Flirted. Laughed. It was sweet. Eventually she said, ‘‘Would you like to come back to my apartment with me?’’

Yes! My God, how I wanted to unwrap this woman like a Christmas present!


Wasn’t this great? Wasn’t this a beautifully written, wise and brave account? Too many men are punished, and quietly punish themselves, for what is indeed our birthright: “human complexity”. Understanding and acceptance of a man’s capacity for cruelty is necessary for personal growth, right?

Have you ever been the cuckold boyfriend on the other side of this equation? Isn’t it nice to get a bit more clarity from a PUAs side? Its a rough road, but I admire this guy’s courage and honesty. He’s earned my forgiveness and I expect he’s also earned yours.

Or…is this guy just an evil fuck seeking absolution from women for his manipulations? Should we forgive a guy who’d run a ‘boyfriend destroyer’ scheme and sow such discord for his own personal distemper on a dozen, two dozen, women? Is this man above forgiveness in spite of his personal insight and professed regret?

Men can be so callous; it’s good to see the PUA/Seduction perspective finally come to real insight, because, Lord knows, no woman would ever be able to relate to such horribly damaging obsessions, right?


Post Edit:

OK, all snark aside, my intent with this was a comparative in a similar vein as my Qualities of the Prince post.

When you use exactly the same words and narrative women use with the genders flipped you begin to see the code in the Matrix. I purposely left the original article link at the end because the interpretation of how horrible and denigrating a man exhibiting such behaviors and rationalizing them needed to be expected and believed by default.

However, the real issue here isn’t so much Gilbert’s overt embracing of Open Hypergamy, it’s the degree to which she expects a fem-centric pop-culture not just to forgive her for it, but to redefine it as a necessary growth step in the maturation of a woman.

As most of you figured out, it’s (an albeit delayed) Epiphany Phase rationalization that all women have to confront eventually. The only difference here is the heroic narrative context. When a man spins plates, even with the most open and honest approach to being non-exclusive, he’s typecast as a monster, a predator, a player and a cad –and those are the nice adjectives.

But have a woman spin plates (as all of them do to varying degrees), and she’s a hero for her journey of self-discovery. Have a look at the comments on Gilbert’s original article. I even incorporated a few into the end of my post.

“This was a beautifully written, wise and brave account.”

“Too many men are punished, and quietly punish themselves, for what is indeed our birthright: human complexity”

As Open Hypergamy becomes more widely accepted, and men’s cooperation with it becomes an expectation for men in “a mature adult relationship” the Feminine Imperative will progressively need to redefine the inherent duplicity of women’s sexual strategy and mold it into a personal strength of women. We can see this fluid redefining in this article and I expect in Gilbert’s next book.

Men will need to be made compliant to women’s overt Hypergamy and the first step is to make them accept it as a triumphant self-discovered strength in women. Men need to be taught to applaud women for the courage to embrace their Hypergamy openly, and any man who doesn’t love women more for it is a chauvinist / misogynist.


Adaptations – Part I

age-of-aquarius-woodstock

Prior to the post-Sexual Revolution era men adapted to their socio-sexual and relational realities based on a pre-acknowledged burden of performance. I’ve outlined the expectations of this period in The Second Set of Books,

[…] when men transition from their comfortable blue pill perspective into the harsh reality that the red pill represents, the experience is a lot like Ball discovering that the set of books (the set of rules) he’d believed everyone was using wasn’t so. Likewise, men who’ve been conditioned since birth to believe that women were using a common set of rules – a set where certain expectations and mutual exchange were understood – were in fact using their own set. Furthermore these men ‘just didn’t get it’ that they should’ve known all along that women, as well as men’s feminization conditioning, were founded in a second set of books.

During the eras prior to the Sexual Revolution that first set of books was more or less an established ideal. Men were every bit as idealistic as they are today, but the plan towards achieving that ideal (if it was in fact achievable) was preset for them. Even the worst of fathers (or parents) still had the expectations that their sons and daughters would follow that old-order rule set as they had done.

For men a greater provisioning was expected, but that provisioning was an integral aspect of a man’s Alpha appeal. The burden of performance was part of a man’s Alpha mindset or was at least partly paired with it.

The danger in that mindset was that a man’s identity tended to be caught up with what he did (usually a career) in order to satisfy that performance burden. Thus when a man lost his job, not only was he unable to provide and meet his performance expectations in his marriage, he also lost a part of his identity. Needless to say this dynamic helped incentivize men to get back on the horse and get back to his identity and his wife’s esteem (even if it was really her necessity that kept her involved with him).

A lot of romanticization revolves around the times prior to the Sexual Revolution as if they were some golden eras when men and women knew their roles and the influence of Hypergamy was marginalized to the point that society was a better place than the place we find ourselves in today. And while it’s undeniable that cultural shifts since the sexual revolution have feminized and bastardized those old-order social contracts, men will always adapt to those new conditions in order to effect their sexual strategies.

There’s a lot of nostalgia for these idealized periods in the manosphere at the moment; seemingly more so as its members mature past their “gaming” years and begin to feel a want for something more substantial. Men are the true romantics of the sexes so it’s no great surprise that their romantic / idealistic concept of love would run towards romanticizing a hopeful return to what they imagine these eras were like.

It’s kind of an interesting counter to how feminism and the Feminine Imperative paints these eras – rather than some idyllic place where women appreciated men, feminists exaggerate and deride these times as oppressive; the sexual revolution akin to the Jews leaving Egypt. What both fail to grasp is the realities of these eras were still just as susceptible to human nature – the human nature described by what we call Red Pill awareness – and both sexes adapted to the social environments of the times to effect their natures.

Condoms were widely available in the 1940’s and men painstakingly painted half-nude pinup girls on the noses of their bombers. Women too adapted to that environment; from What Lies Beneath:

two books by John Costello; ‘Virtue Under Fire’ and ‘Love, Sex, and War’ in which all too much of the above female psychology manifested itself;

“Of the 5.3 million British infants delivered between 1939 and 1945, over a third were illegitimate – and this wartime phenomenon was not confined to any one section of society. The babies that were born out-of-wedlock belonged to every age group of mother, concluded one social researcher:

Some were adolescent girls who had drifted away from homes which offered neither guidance nor warmth and security. Still others were women with husbands on war service, who had been unable to bear the loneliness of separation. There were decent and serious, superficial and flighty, irresponsible and incorrigible girls among them. There were some who had formed serious attachments and hoped to marry. There were others who had a single lapse, often under the influence of drink. There were, too, the ‘good-time girls’ who thrived on the presence of well-paid servicemen from overseas, and semi-prostitutes with little moral restraint. But for the war many of these girls, whatever their type, would never have had illegitimate children. (pp. 276-277)”

and;

“Neither British nor American statistics, which indicate that wartime promiscuity reached its peak in the final stages of the war, take account of the number of irregularly conceived pregnancies that were terminated illegally. Abortionists appear to have been in great demand during the war. One official British estimate suggests that one in five of all pregnancies was ended in this way, and the equivalent rate for the United States indicates that the total number of abortions for the war years could well have been over a million.

These projections are at best merely a hypothetical barometer of World War II’s tremendous stimulus to extra-marital sexual activity. The highest recorded rate of illegitimate births was not among teenage girls, as might have been expected. Both British and American records indicate that women between twenty and thirty gave birth to nearly double the number of pre-war illegitimate children. Since it appears that the more mature women were the ones most encouraged by the relaxed morals of wartime to ‘enjoy’ themselves, it may be surmised that considerations of fidelity were no great restraint on the urge of the older married woman to participate in the general rise in wartime sexual promiscuity. (pp. 277-278)”

Women of the “greatest generation” were still women, and Hypergamy, just like today, didn’t care then either. Dalrock made a fantastic observation in a post once, and I regret I don’t have the link on hand, but paraphrasing he said “Every generation in bygone eras dated differently than the ones before it. Your parents dated in a social condition that was very different than your grandparent or their parents. No one in this generation is going to date like they did on Happy Days.” I think it’s important we don’t lose sight of this, but it’s also important to consider that in all those eras men and women’s sexual strategies remained an underlying influence for them. All that changed was both sexes adapted to the conditions of the times to effect them.

Post-Sexual Revolution Adaptation – The ‘Free Love’ Era

While there’s a lot to criticize about the Baby Boomer generation, one needs to consider the societal conditions that produced them. Egalitarian equalism combined with ubiquitous (female controlled) hormonal birth control and then mixed with blank-slate social constructivism made for a very effective environment in which both sexes sexual strategies could, theoretically, flourish.

Women’s control of their Hypergamous influences, not to mention the opportunities to fully optimize it, was unfettered by moral or social constraints for the first time in history. For men the idea of a ‘Free Love’ social order was appealing because it promised optimization of their sexual strategy – unlimited access to unlimited sexuality.

The new Free Love paradigm was based on a presumption of non-exclusivity, but more so it was based on an implied condition of non-possessiveness. Men adapted to this paradigm as might have been expected, but what they didn’t consider is that in this state their eventual cuckoldry (either proactively or reactively) amounted to women’s optimizing their own Hypergamous impulses.

The social contract of  Free Love played to the base sexual wants of permissive variety for men, or at least it implied a promised potential for it. Furthermore, and more importantly, Free Love implied this promise free from a burden of performance. It was “free” love, tenuously based on intrinsic personal qualities on the inside to make him lovable – not the visceral physical realities that inspired arousal nor the rigorous status and provisioning performance burdens that had characterized the intersexual landscape prior.

It should be mentioned that ‘free love’ also played to men’s idealistic concept of love in that freedom from a performance-based love. The equalist all’s-the-same environment was predicated on the idea that love was a mutually agreed dynamic, free from the foundational, sexual strategy realities both sexes applied to love. Thus men’s idealism predisposed them to being hopeful of a performance free love-for-love’s-sake being reciprocated by the women of the age of Aquarius.

That’s how the social contract looked in the advertising, so it’s hardly surprising that (Beta) men eagerly adapted to this new sexual landscape; going along to get along (or along to get laid) in a way that would seem too good to be true to prior generations. And thus their belief set adapted to the sexual strategy that, hopefully, would pay off for them in this new social condition.

For women, though not fully realized at the time, this Free Love social restructuring represented a license for optimizing Hypergamy unimpeded by moral restraint and later unlimited (or at least marginalized) by men’s provisional support. For the first time in history women could largely explore a Sandbergian plan for Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks and, at least figuratively, they could do so at their leisure.

The problem inherent in the Free Love paradigm was that it was based on a mutual understanding that men and women were functional equals, and as such a mutual trust that either sex would hold the other’s best interests as their own. That basis of trust that either sex was rationally on the same page with regard to their sexual strategies is what set the conditions for the consequent generations to come.

This trust on the part of men was that these “equal” women would honor the presumption that it was “who” they were rather than what they represented to their sexual strategy at the various phases of their maturity that would be the basis for women’s sexual selection of them.

In part two I’ll continue this exploration through the 70’s and into our contemporary socio-sexual environment.


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.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,715 other followers