Tag Archives: social conventions

Solipsism II


A comment from Truman gets us started today:

Rollo, it would be great if you could provide some evidence for female solipsism beyond a few examples. From my own experience I could name a few solipsistic women, but I could do the same for men as well, and I’m far from convinced that the trait is universal in women, or even that it’s more prevalent in women than in men.

I will admit that the main reason I split this post into two was because I anticipated this example-seeking. And to their credit my more vocal female commenters didn’t disappoint me with (sometimes over the top) illustrations. If you haven’t had enough of the hamster spinning goodness yet feel free to sift through the comment thread from part one.

However, to begin to work out Truman’s request Voverk from the TRP forum had this example:

One of the most eye opening of the solipsistic world of females was when a plate of mine was giving me directions on where to pick her up. It went something like this:

Her: “When you come to that traffic light, turn over to me.”

Me: “What do you mean?”

Her: “Just turn here towards me.”

Me: “How the hell am I supposed to know which way is that? Left or right?”

Her: “I don’t know. Just turn my way”

She eventually gave directions, but it amazed me how hard it is for a woman to put herself in someone else’s shoes, even if she wants to.

Women’s mental point of origin (solipsism) presumes the entire world outside of her agrees with her imperative and mutually shares the importance and priorities of it.

Just like The Red Pill Lens, it takes a sensitivity to it, but you will begin to notice instances of that solipsism all around you if you pay attention. An equalists, feminine-primary upbringing and acculturation predisposes men to accept the manifestations of this solipsism as ‘normal’, so we blow it off or nod in agreement without really considering it. Most plugged-in Blue Pill men simply view this as a standard operating condition for women to such a degree that this solipsistic nature is pushed to the peripheries of their awareness.

It’s just how women are and women are more than happy to have men accept their solipsism as intrinsic to their nature. It’s excusable in the same sense that women hold a “woman’s prerogative” – she always reserves the right to change her mind. When your default is to accept this social imperative any greater inconsistencies fall into line behind it.

We are conditioned to accept that what best benefits women’s sexual strategy is necessarily what benefits men. On both a social and personal level women’s solipsistic importance presumes, by default, that what best serves themselves automatically best serves men – even when they refuse to acknowledge it. Remember, nothing outside the female existential imperative has any more significance than an individual women will allow it. So, perceptually to women, if a man suits a purpose in her self-primary requirements he must also mutually share in that awareness of his purpose. Thus, she maintains that his imperatives are the same as her own.

Societal Reinforcement

Social reinforcement of women’s solipsistic nature is a self-perpetuating cycle. A feminine-primary social order reflects in itself, and then sustains, female solipsism. For most Red Pill aware men this cycle is apparent in women’s overblown self-entitlements, but there’s far more to it than this.

When men accept and reinforce this socially, we feed and confirm women’s solipsistic natures. When men are steeped in a Blue Pill acceptance of what they believe should be men’s condition, and defend (or ’empower’) women’s solipsistic behaviors or manifestations of it, thats when the cycle of affirmation of this solipsism comes full circle.

Recently I called commenter InsanityBytes to the carpet about her first priority being to defend the Sisterhood when Dalrock published a post critical of a woman’s abortions and another who’d joined Ashley Madison then rationalized it away because she was in a loveless marriage with a man who was in his last days.

This is another instance of solipsism; that a woman’s first directive is to defend her sex’s imperatives even above considerations of religious conviction, marriage vows or espoused personal ideology. That’s the depth and breadth of feminine solipsism, and again, this reinforces a cycle of affirming it in women.


One of the easiest ways to identify women’s solipsistic nature is manifested in their communication style, and as fate would have it I received a fresh comment from a new female commenter on my interview with Niko Choski. I wont bore you with the histrionics of most of it, but her ending comments serve a purpose here:

I’m not lonely, I enjoy solitude…
I am a whole person who needs no other for my own completion.No man, no woman. The qualities identified by different cultures as male and female…are all mine.
Your obsession with division….iis absurd.

I’ve dug into women’s communication styles on more occasions than I can account on this blog, and with regard to how women defer to their solipsistic nature there is no better way to identify it than in the priorities they give to communicating with men and other women.

From Duplicity:

It’s endlessly entertaining (and predictable) to see how often women’s (and feminized men’s) default response to anything they disagree with in regards to gender dynamics is met with a personalization to the contrary. It’s always the “not-in-my-case” story about how their personal anecdotal, exceptional experience categorically proves a universal opposite. By order of degrees, women have a natural tendency for solipsism – any dynamic is interpreted in terms of how it applies to themselves first, and then the greater whole of humanity.

Men tend to draw upon the larger, rational, more empirical meta-observations whether they agree or not, but a woman will almost universally rely upon her isolated personal experience and cling to it as gospel. If it’s true for her, it’s true for everyone, and experience and data that contradict her self-estimations? Those have no bearing because ‘she’s’ not like that.

This personalization is the first order of any argument proffered by women just coming into an awareness of long standing conversations and discussion in the manosphere. It is so predictable it’s now cliché, and each woman’s first retort invariably responds with personalized anecdotes they think trumps any objective, observable evidence to the contrary.

It might be entertaining for Red Pill men to count the instances of personalization in a woman’s rebuttal comment, but it’s not about how many “I”s or “me”s a woman brings to any counterargument – it’s that her first inclination for a counterargument is to use her personal experience and expect it to be accepted as a valid, universal truth by whomever she is presenting it to.

I’s, Me’s and Myself’s are simply the vehicle and manifestation of women’s first directive – a solipsistic mental point of origin; any challenge to that self-importance is invalidated by her personal self-primacy. This mental origin is so automatic and ingrained to such a limbic degree that consideration of it is never an afterthought for her.

This is common to feminine communication preferences (and men who’ve been conditioned to opt into a feminine-primary communication mode). Women focus primarily on the context of the communication (how it makes them feel while communicating), while men focus primarily on the content (the importance of the information being communicated). This isn’t to exclude men from using personal experiences to help illustrate a point, but the intent comes from a different motive. That motive is an attempt to better understand the content and information of that issue, not an exercise in self-affirmation that feminine solipsism requires to preserve a woman’s ego-investments (usually her solipsistic mental point of origin).

The most visible manifestation of women’s rudimentary solipsism is the priority with which they expect their personal, existential, experience to be considered the most valid, legitimate and universal truth apparent in any debate.

Middle of the Story Syndrome

One thing I’ve been frustrated with by virtually every woman I’ve ever known in my life is their tendency to begin a conversation in the middle of a story; all the while expecting men to understand every nuance and be familiar with minute ‘feely’ detail that made up the backstory that’s never forthcoming.

I swear, every woman I’ve known has done this with me at some time. The presumption is that their story is of such importance that bothering with any pretext, or outlining and describing the events and information that led up to that mid-way vitally important element that made them feel a certain way is all that  should matter to a listener.

Women have an uncanny way of accepting this when they relate stories among themselves; gleaning incidental details of the backstory as the teller goes on.

There’s an ironic feminine-operative social convention that complains that “men aren’t good listeners” or “men don’t listen” to what women are telling them. This convention is really another manifestation of a solipsistic mindset with regard to communication.

It isn’t that men don’t listen, it’s that our communication styles focus on content information, not the contextual ‘feel’ of what’s being communicated by women. Women, above all else, hate to repeat themselves. Not because of the inconvenience, but because men ‘not listening’ and requiring a repetition of that information conflicts with her own self-primary solipsism.

The want for a ‘good listener’ is really the want for a man who affirms her self-priority by not needing to be told something that confirms that priority more than once. And this confirmation should never require explanation or and understanding of the backstory of events that made it feel important to her.

Women have an inherent pretext in communication that always begins with themselves. In fact, most are so sure of their solipsistic, personal truth that glaring objectivity never enters their minds; at least not initially. As I mentioned in the first installment, women are entirely capable of applying reason, rationality and pragmatism as well as men, it’s just that this isn’t their first mental order when confronted with a need for it. Just as a girl can be taught to throw an object as well as it comes naturally to a boy, a reasoned transcendence above her solipsism, one that considers the individuated existences of others’ experiences takes a learned effort.

Ladies First

Luxocrat had a great illustration as well:

I asked my ex that last month, if her kids came first or if I did. She paused and said “I really don’t know. That’s a hard one.” I replied “Then it’s your kids.” I recall my ex-wife reading one of those save your marriage books right after I made it clear I was leaving. She read me a line in it and said she sees how she was wrong. The line went something like this: “If you want to have a strong marriage, you need to understand your husband comes first, even before your children. They must be taught by you, their mother, that he is head of the household and respect must be given. The only way they’ll see that is by your demostrating by your actions that this is so.”

I still left though.

The irony in this instance is that for all of the humble deference this seemingly good advice promotes, it still presumes a woman is already the primary source of authority who ‘allows’ her husband to be “the man”. I’ve heard similar advice espoused by evangelical pastors making Pollyanna attempts at ‘granting headship’ to husbands and fathers from their reluctant wives. The inherent flaw is that these men already begin from a perspective that women are in a position of unquestioned primacy and require their permission to be ‘men’.

In a way they are unwittingly acknowledging women’s solipsism (and perpetuating the cycle) as a default source of authority. That a woman would need to be taught to defer authority to her husband belies two things; first, her solipsistic mental point of origin and second, that her man isn’t a man who inspires that deference.

It’s easy to see how a Beta man wouldn’t be someone that would naturally prompt a woman to go against her natural solipsism, but in Luxocrats position (I presume Alpha since he walked) there is a conflict women have to confront in themselves.

In a social order that reinforces the entitlements presumed by women’s solipsism there develops an internal conflict between the need for an optimized Hypergamy and the ego-investments a woman’s solipsism demands to preserve it. As a woman progresses towards the Wall and a lessened capacity to optimize both sides (AF/BB) of Hypergamy this conflict comes to a head. The necessities of long term provisioning war with the self-importance of solipsism at the risk of her losing out on preserving both (and having a guy like Luxocrat simply walk away from her).


Solipsism I


“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.” – Hillary Clinton

I had planned on using Hillary’s now infamous quote for an upcoming post outlining the distinction between women’s innate solipsism and an acculturated narcissism, but fate delivered me a much more profound use for this quote last week (we’ll get to that in part II).

Before I dig in here I feel it’s kind of incumbent upon me to point out that I in no way align with, nor endorse Hillary’s political or ideological perspectives, and I think it should go without saying that I diametrically disagree with her feminine-primary social agendas.

That said, if you ever need a better quote to explain the realities of feminine solipsism I think I’d be at a loss to give you one. A lot of men, even Red Pill aware men, have a hard time understanding how solipsism fits concretely into the feminine psyche. The social conditioning and upbringing that predisposes us towards an egalitarian equalist mindset rebels against thinking women and men would have different psychological firmware. Equalism teaches us to expect that men and women’s needs share mutual origins and our impulses are so similar that any difference is insignificant.

That egalitarian frame predisposes us to consider that ‘not all women are like that‘ or to disassociate the idea that men and women could be anything but functionally equal agents. As a result we get convenient distractions to confuse our looking for comparatives to should anyone (or thing) challenge an equalist answer.

Simply put, we get rationales like “Oh well, men do it too”, or worse, or any opposite comparison that leads us away from considering the truth that men and women are psychologically, biologically and sociologically different; with different motives and different strategies which they employ to meet their different imperatives. And often these imperatives are at odds with the best interests of the other sex.

Separating Differences

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

It is the fundamental differences in either sex’s imperatives, acculturation and biology that creates this conflict. Of course, men and women have come together for each other’s mutual benefit (and love, and enjoyment) to create families and sustain our race for millennia, however, this mutually beneficial union does not originate from mutual imperatives or sexual strategies.

When I explain how women hold an opportunistic concept of love, while men hold an idealistic one, the resistance to accept that observable, behavioral, reality is rooted in a blank-slate belief that men and women are fundamentally the same. So, when we read a statement from a woman (to say nothing of a high status one) such as Hillary’s, we either scoff at the oblivious audacity of it because it is so counter to our (male) imperative’s interests, or we nod in ascension in the feminized belief that what best serves the female imperative necessarily is the best interest of the male imperative.

This is an illustration of the fundamental difference in the interpretation of experience between the sexes.

From a solipsistically oblivious female perspective what Hillary is expounding on here is entirely true. From a perspective that prioritizes feminine Hypergamy above all else, these three sentences make perfect, pragmatic sense. The idea that men losing their lives in warfare would make them victims at all (much less the primary victims) isn’t even an afterthought; all that matters is the long term security and continued provisioning of women and their imperatives.

Solipsism, not Narcissism

A lot of newly Red Pill aware men get confused at my using the term ‘solipsism‘ when I refer to this female-specific obliviousness to any concern – or lesser prioritized concern – of anything outside their immediate existential needs. The confusion comes from men who want for a similar justice to the one I outlined in Our Sister’s Keeper. Self-importance or narcissism would seem to be a more appropriate term for this dynamic, but I disagree.

Female solipsism in and of itself is not necessarily a net negative in the larger scope of human survival and evolution. On the surface that may seem a bit outrageous, but it’s only outrageous insofar as women’s solipsistic natures come into conflict with the biological and social imperatives of men. This solipsism is the necessary result of a feminine survival instinct that’s helped preserve women and their offspring in a violent, chaotic and uncertain evolution.

Recognizing the importance of feminine solipsism is not an endorsement of the anti-social, and often cruel, byproducts of it.

No doubt, men who’ve been on the sharp end of this will grind their teeth at the inevitable narcissism that becomes an extension of women’s solipsism. I’ll agree. Socially we’re living in an era of unprecedented (western) narcissism manifested in a vast majority of women.

At no other time in history have women become more accustomed to perceived entitlements of personal security, ubiquitous social control and relative assurances of optimizing Hypergamous imperatives. At no other time have women’s sexual strategies been of such primary importance to society. However, this narcissism is the result of an acculturation and learned social priorities that predispose women to expectations that border on arrogance. Over recent generations that narcissism has become learned and fostered in women to the point that narcissism is openly embraced as a feminine strength – women believe it’s their due after a long suffrage.

Women’s solipsistic nature however is an integral part of their evolved psychological firmware. Solipsism is the evolved, selected-for result of self-preservation necessities that ensured the survival of our species. As men we get frustrated by this intrinsic nature; a nature that puts women’s imperatives as their primary mental point of origin. As any newly aware Red Pill man will attest, coming to this realization is a very hard truth to accept. It’s cruel and contrary to what the First Set of Books have taught him he should expect and build his life around.

Furthermore, it’s cruel in the respect that this solipsism neither aligns with the romantic, Blue Pill hopes he’s been raised to accept, but also the egalitarian, equal and level playing field ideology he’s been conditioned to believe he should alter his priorities to accommodate for women; and in turn he can expect from women. As I stated earlier, coming to terms with men and women’s differing concepts of love is a tough disillusionment, but this difference in concept is simply one of many a man must come to terms with.

When I wrote Empathy I got taken to task about women’s capacity to feel empathy to a greater degree than do men. It’s not that women cannot feel empathically (a shared experience), my argument was that the idea that women feel a ‘greater’ empathy than men was a social convention with the latent purpose of masking women’s innate solipsism.

That wasn’t a very popular idea. The notion that women are the mothers and nurturers was predictably spelled out, but with regards to empathizing and caring for men the primary concern of women was worry over their own and their children’s well being before that of their men should they become incapacitated. Again, this is a cruel truth, but also a pragmatic and survival based one.

Mental Point of Origin

Women’s mental point of origin begins with their own self-importance, and the overriding importance of their own and their offspring’s survival. I’ve had women readers lambast me that they couldn’t possibly be so influenced by solipsism because they put their children’s wellbeing before their own. However it is just this solipsism that predisposes women to seeing their children as extensions of themselves and their own identities. And the good news is that this dynamic is one reason the human species has been so successful.

The following was a comment from Starve the Beast on the TRP subredd:

Women are bad at reasoning, but good at rationalization.

Let that sink in for a minute. One cannot rationalize without the faculty for reason. So are women really bad at reasoning? No, actually they’re great at it.

The difference is that women don’t place as much value on Truth as they do upon self-preservation, and therefore their reasoning processes do not abort when self-contradiction is reached. They’ll just rationalize their way out of that too, if exposed.

Ultimately, the so-called hamster reflects an underlying difference in value systems more than in reasoning ability.

Women can learn to sublimate their solipsism. In fact, cultures and progressive societies have been founded on sublimating female solipsism. Women can and do learn critical thinking quite regularly. Women can learn and function within a society that forces them to compromise their sexual strategies and mitigates the worst abuses that solipsism would visit on men (and themselves). Women can learn to be empathetic towards men as well as live within a social order that looks like mutual justice and fairness.

But the fact that these civil dynamics should need to be something a woman learns only reinforces the biological and evolved influences of female solipsism as women’s mental point of origin. The parallel to this is men’s learning to sublimate intrinsic parts of themselves – primarily their sexuality – to reinforce prosocial interaction in society. 

Women dislike the idea that their experience is colored by solipsism. It sounds bad, and it runs counter to what they believe are sacrifices on their own part to help others. That may be so, and I’m certainly not going to attempt to discount those investments, but they come from a learned compassion that must overcome an innate solipsism. That ‘me and my babies first’ mental point of origin isn’t necessarily a bad thing either – it’s only when that learned compassion and humility are superseded by it that anti-social behaviors and hubris arise.

I expect the predictable criticism will be that men are also self-important, and / or all humans are intrinsically selfish fucks. In part II I’ll elaborate more on this, but for now it’s important to grasp that female solipsistic nature is less about selfish individualism and more about pragmatic survival.

Many a male reader of my Hierarchies of Love series grated against the idea that a conventional model of love would progress from Men to women, women to children, children to puppies, etc. That model is a direct reflection of a uniquely female solipsism that seemingly discards men’s reciprocal emotional investment in women. However it is also the same dynamic that predisposes women to desire men who can decisively control their environment as well as dominate them sexually and emotionally.

In part II I’ll outline more examples of feminine solipsism, how it’s reflected on the individual and societal level and how a man might best use an understanding of it to his advantage.

Jails & Churches


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


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


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


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


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)”


“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.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,996 other followers