Tag Archives: women

Trophies

trophy

Hypergamy is seen 90+% in men while “upgrading” their wives; and only <10% in women for “upgrading” their men. Yet it gets called out disproportionately as a thing women do… Geese and ganders. Geese and ganders.

I got this comment on Hypergamy Doesn’t Care a little while ago. It’s about what I’ve come to expect from women who find revealing the secret of hypergamy offensive. These of course are the women who’s sexual strategy relies on men’s unawareness about hypergamy in order to consolidate on long-term security, but I find it entertaining that when a Man exposes that truth there is a ready social convention to shame him with, rather than the prideful embrace of an ‘empowered’ woman revealing exactly the same truth.

What commenter CV’s proffering here is the Trophy Wives convention. A lot has been made of this recently and it’s brought to my attention that this is a feminine operative social convention that I haven’t covered as of yet.

There was a time when this social convention was a very functional shaming device for women. Right around the mid 1980’s to the late 1990’s the notion of men becoming bored with their wives and “upgrading” them for a newer (younger, hotter) model was a very popular trope. There were romantic comedies based on the convention as well as an underlying presumption that men would just be biologically predisposed to this upgrading.

In the popular media, movies and sit-coms of the period, we could tell the measure of a man’s character by the way he would or would not fall to the temptation to ditch his ubiquitously loving and devoted, but SMV declined, wife in favor of a hot young (usually mid 20s) woman who was stereotypically vapid, immature and shallow. It was fun to ridicule (and pathologize) men’s sexual response while fostering an endearing sympathy for the poor, unjustly served wives who, through no fault of their own, fell victim to so many men’s base urges to wantonly discard her for a hotter, tighter blonde with fake tits.

Naturally the caricature wouldn’t be complete without accounting for a Trophy Wife’s character – always vapid, usually gold digging, and uniquely incapable of relating to him on the same level of intellectual and emotional maturity his discarded wife had so selflessly devoted herself to.

To further the mythology this want for a young ‘Chippy’ was almost always paired with the ‘infantile and ego-bruised’ man’s mid-life crisis, selfishly attempting to recapture his youth in a sports car and a new ‘bimbo’ wife.

This was an effective convention then because it played on women’s fear of the Wall and built upon their, feminine-as-correct, moral / intellectual superiority of men, who could only be counted on to reason with their penises rather than consider the relational equity women would necessarily invest into a marriage with only the best of intentions. In a sense it was the female flip side of the Relational Equity fallacy found predominantly in men today.

As with most of its social conventions, the Feminine Imperative got a lot of milage out of the Trophy Wife fear – not the least of which was due to the perception of men’s more prominent role as financial providers. But with time and a new global degree of connectivity this trope is no longer as tenable as it was.

Dead Conventions

From about the turn of the millennia, the concept of “Trophy Wives” has been a dead feminine social convention.

Whereas most long held feminine social conventions can be socially rejiggered to accommodate new circumstances or even directly proven contradiction as time and society progresses, the Trophy Wife canard simply doesn’t hold water the way it used to. In fact, for men aware enough of it, it’s really a cruel reminder of its original intent now.

You see, when it’s statistically 70+% women initiating divorce, detonating marriages because of an Eat Pray Love script and a “I coulda done better than this Beta” commercialization effort of women’s innate hypergamy, it’s kind of hard to float the male-shame of “men divorce their wives because they want a newer model” trope. At present, there’s enough connectivity and enough shared male experience, even from the female side, to make the Trophy Wives convention an embarrassing holdover from when it was useful.

Oh I still get it occasionally in my comment sections, but now it’s just the “ooh ooh men do it too” script that falls flat, and I think even the hard-sell women are realizing this with such readily available divorce stats online now.

The Trophy Wife convention worked in stupid 80′s movies plots as a vehicle to infantilize men’s commitment to women’s long-term security, but when Stella heads off to Jamaica to ‘get her groove on’ it’s called female empowerment.

Trophy Wife may not be a functional convention anymore, but it’s certainly a good illustration of the Feminine Imperative at work.

Smoking Guns

About a month ago Dalrock did some yeoman’s work in comparing divorce statistics with women’s rate of remarriage. From the Smoking Gun:

I’ve focused on the stats for women because it is women who are driving the divorce rates.  As you can see, divorce rates track very closely with women’s opportunity to remarry.  Note also that the old canard that as women age their desire to be married goes away;  if this were true the divorce curve would slope upward, not downward.

Rather than lift Dal’s charts I’ll refer readers to have a look at his original post. For the purposes of comparing these stats to the old model of the Trophy Wives convention, it’s fairly obvious that the actual trend was never a mythology of discontented men jettisoning their wives for younger ones, but rather common, average women discontent in their hypergamous “Assortive Mating” detonating their marriages for the promises of a guaranteed security and a second chance at optimizing hypergamy “before their looks run out.”

From a legal and social perspective, a feminine-primary society has undeniably made the cash & prizes incentive for women to Cash Out of their marriage a realizable and socially acceptable option.

I may ruffle some feathers with this proposition, but I can’t ignore the prospect that, for some women, this ‘detonation’ may have been part of, or became, their long-term security strategy once she’d ‘settled’ on her post-Wall Beta male provider. Even for women with whom this wasn’t a conscious plan the failsafe of post-divorce social and financial support represents is always present.

Whereas the Trophy Wife convention primarily revolved around elite men with the capacity, status and affluence (if not the intent) to discard their wives depended on suppressing the Apex Fallacy (only men of extraordinary means could entertain it), for women the Eat Pray Love schema can be realized by virtually any western woman – and statistically we see this played out in reality.

High profile men, who took up with a stereotypical Trophy Wife are statistically insignificant compared to women’s divorcing their Beta providers, assured of his support in the long term, and either return to their ‘party years’ model of short term fulfillment, or take up with another provider. The old male-shame Trophy Wife social convention has been replaced by a feminine-primary, feminine acceptable, form of hypergamous optimization.

Assortive Mates

This reality is a fairly ugly one to confront for women and a feminine based society at large. For the most part Beta men are more prone to get along than make waves in a marriage or LTR. So conditioned and prepared for this self-sacrificial monogamy and support, few will consider women’s sexual strategies, much less question their sincerity of their reasoning for wanting out of their marriages later.

Still, that ugly truth is becoming increasingly more unavoidable as men share their experiences with each other. What to do?

As I mentioned there’s a lot of talk about debunking the old Trophy Wives convention. I imagine my readership is already aware of a recent “study” ‘proving’ that men and women tend to pair off according to like interests and attraction – rather than the notion that women would in any way be opportunists and motivated by hypergamy:

Here’s some bad news for men with highly successful careers and fat wallets: You probably will not end up with a “trophy wife,” a new study suggests.

When researchers compared qualities such as level of attractiveness and socioeconomic status within couples, they found almost no evidence of the trophy wife stereotype, which suggests attractive, young women tend to marry rich and successful men.

Instead, couples are far more likely to end up together because they share similar traits. For example, attractive, wealthy or highly educated people are more likely to choose a partner with the same qualities. The same is true for less attractive, low-earning or less educated people. Trophy wife marriages still happen, but not nearly as often as expected, the study revealed.

Obsidian over at JustFourGuys has done an admirable job of picking this study apart. Needless to say the study begins from a point of error, relying on a sample group of early 20s couples to determine the overall social “trend” of assortive mating. Commenter John Albertsen makes the old model Trophy Wife observation:

Trophy wives are, according to the generally accepted definition, not only attractive, but considerably younger than their husbands. Limiting the study to “couples in their twenties”,eliminated the older guys with younger wives, as the difference in the ages of the pair would be a maximum of 9 years. Further, very few highly successful men reach those heights by 29 and of those that do, how many would be married at all?

The sample used in this study seems to eliminate the very people who would need to be included to accomplish it’s stated goal. Studying married couples in their 50s would be just as invalid as it would still not include a fitting age difference.

It would be better to study couples where the MEN were in their 50s to see how their attractiveness and financial success compared to the age and attractiveness of their wives. I suspect that you will find very few such ‘elderly’ gents paired up with young cuties unless they were loaded. In other words, what the young women find attractive about the guy is what’s in his wallet.

After considering this, an astute Red Pill Man needs to question the true underlying motive, not just for the study itself, but the reason for it being popularly reposted and relinked in a feminine-primary cultural bubble.

In western society it’s a statistical rarity for early 20s men and women to be married (or seriously monogamous enough to consider it) at all. Feminine-primary culture can’t seem to make up its mind; why would men need to Man-Up, stop being ‘kidults’ and accept mature marriage responsibilities at 29 if so many early 20s men (like those in the study) are pairing with their equalist approved fiancés?

Any number of studies and polls empirically show that women not only want their husbands to be older (5-7 years), but also wish to marry at or around 28-30 years of age. Furthermore, there’s no shortage of articles and blog posts relating how women are postponing marriage to pursue professional goals or are frustrated in being forced to ‘settle’ for monogamy with men they consider beneath their status, financial and educational levels later and later in life.

What the McClintock study was trying to prove had nothing to do with Trophy Wives, but rather the intent was to disprove and distract from the realities of feminine hypergamy – while conveniently shaming older men that feminine-primary culture largely still believe harbor plans to marry younger women once they consolidate their fortunes.

The intent isn’t to disprove the Trophy Wives social convention (created by the same influence attempting to disprove it), but rather to prove that women aren’t actually the opportunists an innate hypergamy would have them, by necessity, be. The intent is to distract men’s increasing awareness of women’s opportunistic, strategic sexual pluralism.

As I illustrated last week:

…hypergamy does not seek it’s own level. An ever pragmatic evolution drives hypergamy to seek a better-than-equal pairing. This is the evolutionary jackpot: to combine and send one’s genes into future generations with a (at least perceptually) better than equitable genetic match – and ensure one’s progeny with a better than SMV equitable provisioning.

Assortive mating (Alpha Fucks) is not the same as Assortive pairing (Beta Bucks). The conflicting sides of feminine hypergamy ensures that the prerequisites of satisfying both are met with different qualifiers. McClintock’s efforts here (besides her own professional aggrandizement) are yet one more attempt to sweep the unpalatable truth of hypergamy under a rug she’d rather men not have the curiosity to look under. This is simply an obvious effort in keeping hypergamy a secret, and to inspire men to shame for even being curious about it.


Balancing Act

balancing-life

Donal Graeme had some very relevant ‘musings’ about last week’s post that summed things up and provides me with a great prelude into this week’s post. I hadn’t intended these last couple of posts (and now this one) to become another series (again). I suppose they are now, but I don’t think I’ve quite hit this from all angles just yet. In the interests of full disclosure I should point out that these last three posts were inspired by the first section of the Preventive Medicine book I’m presently working on so it helps organize my thoughts.

From Donal Graeme’s Removing the Mask:

Many, if not most, men would not be content to marry a woman whom they realize is choosing to marry them solely as a meal ticket, and effectively a sperm donor as well. It should surprise no one that men don’t like to be used in that way, and will balk at it if they realize that is what is happening. Hence the importance of hiding what is going on from them.

On the other hand, this repulsion at being used is mitigated/countered by a sense of desperation in many men in the West. Owing to the nature of the SMP, they have limited options when it comes to female companionship. Naturally, this makes them desperate, and they are willing to take on women they wouldn’t otherwise if it gets them at least some measure of opportunity with them.

What seems to be happening is that many women are now certain that male desperation in the future will be greater than any sense of male self-respect, and so they can do whatever they want and not have to hide it. Part of me wonders if women see the ability to be open about their intentions/strategy as a status symbol- a woman who can act that way is a woman of value, and therefore a woman to be envied. The problem with this strategy, though, is that it relies on male desperation not having any limits. I suspect this to be a grave mistake. This is because the average quality of women in the West has been dropping fast, perhaps even faster than male desperation has been rising. If that is the case, we will soon reach a point where most men will simply not accept the (Western) women who are available, no matter how desperate they might have become.

All of this plays into part of this subject- the looming fight between women. Women at the margins of “value” will start to feel the pinch first. The “where have all the good men gone?” articles out there seem to indicate that this has already begun. It will only increase in tempo over time as more and more women drop below the acceptable rate for most men. Combine this with many men being burned or realizing what a danger most Western women are, and you get a huge disparity in outcome between the female “haves” and “have-nots”.

This may seem optimistic coming from me, but I think it will be ‘educated’ men who are the 3rd rail in this equation.

Men at the top end of the SMV curve will always be the commodity over which women will feel entitled to. Feminine hypergamy does not seek its own level, it looks for a better-than-market optimization. Thus the ideal ‘balance’ is one where there is a greater than 1-2 SMV degree difference between that of a man and the women he spins as plates or considers to become intimate with in the long term.

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies
For one sex’s sexual strategy to become realized, the other sex’s strategy must be compromised or abandoned entirely.

One of the greatest misdirections of gender understanding over the past 60 years has been the idea that both men and women should share the same sexual strategy. A naive equalitarian ideology dictates the need for both genders to have equally similar, cooperative gender life goals, and equally similar methods to realize them. But as with most feminine-primary social engineering, Mother Nature and men and women’s biological imperatives are always at odds with this.

Generally this assimilation of a commonized sexual strategy is ingrained early on in men’s feminization conditioning. I use the term ‘assimilation’ because men are taught and conditioned to presume that the feminine sexual strategy (however most women subjectively choose to define it) is universally the correct strategy – and any deviation from what ultimately serves feminine hypergamy is met with ridicule at best, accusations of misogyny and ostracization at worst.

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Roissy dropped this maxim years ago, but in its simplicity it defines the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies as they apply to a post-sexual revolution, feminine-primary society. Remove all constraints on hypergamy, maximally forcing men to compromise or abandon the male sexual strategy.

As I outlined in the last post, feminine hypergamy essentially revolves around optimizing (and maximally protracting) women’s unilateral sexual selection from Good Genes men and Good Dad’s men. Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.

From a biological perspective men’s sexual imperative is one of unlimited access to unlimited sexual availability. This isn’t to discount the very strong impulse in men to seek assurances of paternity in the children they ultimately sire, however, prior to his parental investment, the male impetus is to seek unlimited access to unlimited sexuality.

When we consider a male sexual imperative in the biological respect, and the strategies men use to effect it, it becomes easier to understand the social conventions and engineering the Feminine Imperative uses to control and maximally restrict men as sexual selectors.

Widespread ubiquitous pornography and then the social pathologizing of the male sexual response (while empowering and encouraging the female sexual response) are two very easy observations of this control. However, when we consider paternity laws, legal bans on genetic paternity testing, outlawing testosterone while making female hormones readily available and many other legal and social trends that restrict the male control not just of women’s hypergamous priority, but any degree of a man’s shadow of his own sexual strategy’s control, Roissy’s maxim becomes all the more clear.

Is Game Adversarial?

Almost three years ago I considered this question in a post. My critic at the time posed this to me:

“My biggest problem with the Ro writers is that Game is by definition adversarial. It’s us against them, don’t let the bitch win. That is most definitely Rollo’s approach, yet he commands respect from men here. I can only assume that good men read a lot of Roissy, Roosh or Rollo, incorporate some small fraction of it, and use it to improve their relationships, rather than for nefarious means.”

It took time for me to come into an understanding of the real nature of this distortion concern until May’s tragic events and the deliberate misdirections that followed it in the media and the blogosphere proper.

Game is adversarial because it has to be. I’ve gone on record stating that Game is the logical response to the changes feminism has wrought in society and gender relations over the course of the last 60 or so years, but it’s really more than that.

Game is a threat to feminine-primacy because it returns a degree of control of sexual strategy prioritization back into the hands of men. Game challenges that maximal restriction of male sexuality and leverages (however marginally) some of women’s hypergamous choice to his own purpose.

The Feminine Imperative hates Game because it’s an effective tool against its control – so anyone steeped in the conditioning of the imperative will naturally perceive that challenge as being adversarial. You’ll notice this (female) critic’s first concern was to presume men would use Game and a red pill awareness for ‘nefarious’ ends. This is a prime illustration of that terror of losing hypergamous control.

Tricks and Traps

As I mentioned at the beginning, hypergamy does not seek it’s own level. An ever pragmatic evolution drives hypergamy to seek a better-than-equal pairing. This is the evolutionary jackpot: to combine and send one’s genes into future generations with a (at least perceptually) better than equitable genetic match – and ensure one’s progeny with a better than SMV equitable provisioning.

For all of the handwringing about assortive mating recently, evolution’s capacity to adapt stagnates and stunts under conditions of homogeny. It may occur under less than ideal circumstance from a moral perspective, but assortive mating is regularly thwarted by the (usually hypergamous) drive to mate with a better than equitable sexual market value than the lesser partner.

The problem with the assortive mating equation is that hypergamy has two sides and two (often conflicting) aspects to optimizing it – Good Genes / Good Dad (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks). Assortive mating is not the same order as assortive pairing.

Nature has selected-for women with an instinctual capacity to satisfy and optimize the visceral needs of short-term breeding and optimizing on the genetic aspects of hypergamy. However the better-than-SMV assortive pairing aspect  relies on men adhering to and behaving within defined roles in order to optimize it.

The Feminine Imperative needs honest provider males to behave predictably in order for women to select a better than equitable provider.

The Feminine Imperative demands assurances of both better than equitable breeding and better than equitable provisioning – and it’s got a very brief window of sexual peak SMV competitiveness in which to assure them.

The imperative needs men to fulfill these roles according to calculated and defined sexual stations of each man. So any duplicity or challenge on the part of men to this defined order is a threat to the assurances that women need to optimize hypergamy. Hypergamy’s optimal window of peak SMV for women can’t afford to be tricked into presuming men are anything less or more than their feminine sexual strategies define those men’s roles as.

Hypergamy can’t afford tricks, the ‘tricks’ that Game’s breaking of their sexual strategy’s code represents to women expecting to have their sexual strategy remain unilaterally dominant. As women’s comfort level has increased with the confidence that their strategy will contain that of men’s, they are that much more offended when their strategy is figured out and read back to them by red pill aware men.

It’s an uncomfortable reminder that they’ve traded their believed capacity to intuitively filter for themselves the men who best fill their hypergamous roles; traded that is for the comfort of having men socially controlled to expect to fulfill those roles as a default.

This outrage isn’t just limited to women’s hypergamous ‘exploratory’ years in her SMV peak. Whenever you read an article or hear some 33 year old woman lament the lack of marriageable men of ‘equal’ pairing to themselves (intellectually, professionally or otherwise) know that every cry of ‘Man Up’ is really a frustrated cry over men not playing by the conditioning the Feminine Imperative assured them men would play by, before or once they got to the point of losing the capacity to attract those men.

That’s the trap.

 


Controlling Interests

controlling

I realize I dropped this quote last week, but it provides us with a unique illustration of the prevailing feminine psychology that’s been evolving since the sexual revolution.

“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

In last week’s post I made note that Sheryl Sandberg was blissfully ignorant of her blatant admission of feminine hypergamy, but I felt her ‘advice’ to women here represented so much more than just a display of her solipsistic ignorance.

For as long as I’ve butted heads with many obstinate deniers of hypergamy’s influences, on women personally and society on whole, I’m not sure I’ve read a more damning indictment of hypergamy from a more influential woman. Sandberg’s advice to the next generation of women essentially puts the lie to, and exposes the uncomfortable truth about, women’s efforts deny the fundamental dynamic of female sexual strategy – Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.

Even if you want to argue the evolutionary (psychology) and biological origins of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, the fact is now socially evident; women have come to a point where they’re comfortable in openly admitting the truth that Red Pill awareness has been drawing attention to for over a decade now.

Courtesy of Sheryl Sandberg, the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks basis of women’s sexual pluralism is now publicly recognized. It’s kind of ironic considering that what the manosphere has been trying to make men aware of for years is now being co-opted, embraced and owned as if women had always practiced an open sexual pluralism – incredulous to any man’s shock over it.

However, the truth is that a feminine-centric social order can no longer hide the increasingly obvious fallout and consequences of a society restructured to accommodate women as the predominant sexual interest.

Last week I speculated that Sandberg was ignorant of the feminine-primary implications that her statements draw attention to – and I’m still of the opinion that an innate feminine solipsism motivates more and more women to this admission – but it’s impossible to ignore the new degree of comfort in which women feel in laying bare their dualistic sexual strategy.

To some significant extent the Feminine Imperative no longer needs to keep the ‘Good Genes’ / ‘Good Dad’ dichotomy ugliness a secret from men.

In last week’s post I mentioned that a new ambient sense of an assured long-term security in the feminine mind was predisposing women to prioritize the ‘Best Genes’ (Alpha Fucks) side of feminine hypergamy. Sandberg’s ‘advice’ is a vital confirmation of this, however, she tacitly acknowledges a window of  opportunity during which women possess a better capacity to pursue this side of hypergamy:

The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner.

In these two sentences Sheryl (and by extensions the Feminine Imperative) essentially confirms women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, my (now infamous) sexual market value graph depicting women’s peak SMV and decay, and the first half of the time line of women’s phases of maturity I laid forth in the first two installments of the Preventative Medicine series.

Selling the Beta

With regards to men, I believe the most salient part of Sandberg’s admission is found at the end:

These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.

For the better half of the time since the sexual revolution it was necessary for the Feminine Imperative to convince a majority of men that their eventual Beta providership for women was not only their duty, but also a prime aspect of feminine attraction. As I mentioned last week, under the (pre-sexual revolution) old-order attraction model this may have been the case to a large degree. However after the revolution, and as women’s hypergamy prioritized towards ‘Good Genes’ short-term sexual partners, the ‘Good Dad’ (Beta Bucks) men needed an ever increasing ‘sell’ of their own attractiveness by women.

This persistent sell was a necessary element of ensuring a future long-term security for women while pursuing increasingly more short-term breeding opportunities as feminine-primacy expanded into society. The future ‘Good Dads’ would need to be patiently waiting out women’s “indiscretion years” during their SMV peak, so the sell became an ever-evolving definition of what women found attractive in men based on that old-order model of dependability, patience, industriousness, and every other characteristic that defined a good provider.

Quoted from Why Muscularity is Sexy:

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.

Strategic pluralism theory is a pretty good definition of feminine hypergamy, but what this theory hadn’t yet accounted for (at the time it was published) was the necessitousness of women with regards to short-term mating strategies and long-term parental investment opportunities over the course of the various phases of maturity as they aged.

The Beta investment sell was necessary because it ensured male parental investment at a later (usually just-pre-Wall) time in a woman’s life. Thus, Sandberg’s praise of men “who think women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. [Men] who value fairness and expect or, even better, want to do his share in the home” will eventually be sexier than the Alpha “bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys” she encourages women to fuck earlier in life is an excellent example of this sell.

Ironically it’s exactly with this sell that women encourage the very transactional nature of sexual relations with men they’re screeching about recently. It’s the Choreplay fallacy on a meta scale – do more around the house, play into the equalitarian schema women think they need in a provider, support her ambitiousness and opinionatedness and you’ll be considered “sexier” and get her Best Sex she’s been saving just for a guy like this.

Building the Beta

The problem the Feminine Imperative runs into with selling the Beta is that as women’s “independence” expands this sell becomes less necessary and less effective. Less necessary because women’s personal, social and legal long-term security insurances have become almost entirely disconnected from men’s direct (not indirect) provisioning. Less effective because men have become increasingly aware of their disenfranchisement of the old-order provisioning model as being something they might equitably be rewarded for.

As the consequences and repercussions of women’s hypergamous priority shift to Alpha Fucks become more evident and real for men; and as their capacity and comfort with connecting and relating these experiences with other men becomes more widespread, the less effective the sell is for Beta men awaiting their turn to enter into a pre or post Wall monogamy with the women attempting the sell.

Throughout the 70’s, 80’s and most of the 90’s, the sell was effective because men were isolated socially and technologically from each other’s relative experiences. From the late 90’s onward that isolation has diminished while the societal results of feminine-primacy have become more glaringly, and painfully, evident to men.

In its ever-reinventive fluidity, the Feminine Imperative found it necessary to transition from selling men on being later and later life long-term providers for women into building a generation of men who would expect of themselves to fulfill that role when the time came. These men would be raised and conditioned to be the patient Beta providers women would need once they had followed the Sandberg model of hypergamy.

These would be the boys / men who would be taught to “naturally” defer to the authority of women under the auspices of a desire to be an equal partner.

These are the men raised privately and created socially to be ready for women, “when it comes time to settle down, and find someone who wants an equal partner.”

These would be the men ready to expect and accept a woman’s proactive cuckoldry of him in the name of being a pro-feminine equal.

These are the men raised to accept an open form of hypergamy in place of the selling to an old-order Beta provisioning model.

The Hypergamy Schism

The problem this creates for women becomes one of dealing with the men they need to sell a secretive hypergamy to and the men they build to accept an open form of hypergamy to. The increasing comfort with an open admission of hypergamy is relative to a woman’s capacity to get away with it.

A woman like Sheryl Sandberg has the means to decisively ensure her future independence and long-term security (at least in the financial sense) whether she’s married or not. She could very well return to the Bad Boys she found so arousing and advises women ‘date’ and never rely on a man’s direct provisioning. As such she’s very comfortable in publicly revealing the ins and outs of post-sexual revolution hypergamy without so much as an afterthought.

While she publicly affirms the build model of Beta provisioning (under the guise of equalism) and expects “those guys will be awaiting you” this doesn’t hold true for a majority of women. Women with affluence enough, or a physical attractiveness sufficient to virtually ensure their future provisioning are much more comfortable with the build a better Beta model than women who find themselves more lacking in this assurance.

The more necessitous a woman finds herself in the sexual marketplace, the more likely she is to deny the mechanics of her own hypergamy.

A woman less confident in consolidating on her future long-term security (and / or cooperative parental investment) has a much more personal investment in keeping the truths of hypergamy a secret from men. As such, these women will be more predisposed to misdirecting the men becoming more aware of this truth and relying more on the selling model of Beta provisioning.

Needless to say this split between women comfortable in open hypergamy and women reliant upon secretive hypergamy is a point of conflict between the have’s and have not women in the sexual marketplace. The more men become aware of women’s hypergamy and strategic sexual pluralism, through women’s open embrace of it or the manosphere, the more pressure the ‘have not’ women will feel to also embrace that openness.


Owed Sex

ron-hermione

In the aftermath of the Eliot Rodger’s tragedy there was one resounding go-to mantra from mainstream media, blue pill plugins and the femintariat alike…

“Men are not owed sex for anything.”

Last week I left a couple of comments on Dalrock’s blog outlining my expectations of having this be the first easily consumable public meme.

In its entirety:

This is the first binary retort I expect from feminists unwilling to dig any deeper into the transactional nature of human sexuality. God bless Roosh, but he didn’t do the manosphere any favors by simply stating that incidents like Eliot Rodger’s wouldn’t occur if men had more socially acceptable alternatives for sexual release or female intimacy, and then just leave the interpretation up to a media founded on feminism and feminine-primacy.

I get what his intent was, and probably most of the manosphere did too, but it was just too oversimplified not to be snapped up in the most binary (black or white) terms by feminist, like Linker, and the MSM as an easy mark to line up against. So of course “men” and fem-centrists throw out stupid bromides like “what, do we need ‘sex vending machines’ to keep men’s urges in tact so they wont shoot the pretty blondes they wanna fuck?”

The premise that a man would ever be ‘owed’ sex for anything is offensive to the feminine imperative because it offends women’s self-entitlement to being filters of their own hypergamy, plain and simple. Women’s hypergamy dictates whom they will and will not fuck according to their sexual strategy’s most urgent needs.

To presume a man is ‘owed’ sex for services rendered, or due to his own self-perceived prequalifications for a woman’s intimacy, is to remove women’s control of the decision making / filtering process of their hypergamy.

The offensiveness doesn’t come from the notion that men would need to perform in order to get sex, but rather that a man might forcibly assume control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.

This first comment was in response to the Damon Linker article Dalrock was picking apart. I won’t steal Dal’s thunder, so if you’re interested in that full article go have a read of it in its entirety. Later Dal asked me to clarify what I meant about men “forcibly assuming control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.”

I’m not clear on what you mean here, and fear that others will take this as a justification of rape. What do you mean by “forcibly”? Are you talking about Game?

To which my comment was, again, in its entirety:

Game, rape, guilt, shame, prearranged marriage, obligation, moral enforcement, really anything that removes or limits a woman’s hypergamous filtering and puts that control into the decision making process of men.

In the case of Rodger, although his killings don’t bear it out, his intent, at least as interpreted by a feminized MSM, was a presumed obligation on the part of women (and top shelf women no less) to recognize his self-perceived superior qualifications for their intimacy and reward him with sex, love, adoration, affection, etc.

Granted, the kid was a sperg with a list of very real psychological disorders, but the only thing a fem-centric society focuses on is the audacity he had in presuming he, and by association Any Man®, could assume control of a woman’s hypergamous filtering – in this case via an implied obligation.

The Two Sides of Hypergamy

Anyone who’s read the first part of my Preventative Medicine series understands the dual nature of feminine hypergamy. From a biological level to a social level, feminine hypergamy demands the optimization of two disparate elements: securing the best genetic (breeding) option a woman can attract, and the best long-term provisioning (security) option she can attract in a male. From biologically prompted mating behaviors to contemporary social entitlements, women seek a balance between breeding optimization and security optimization – preferably in the same man, but failing this, optimally in different men.

I’ve written about women’s security needs in various posts, but it’s important to understand that optimizing a woman’s best available options for hypergamy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) prompts a deep, evolved, psychological need for certainty. Feminine Hypergamy is defined by a profound, often life-long, uncertainty and doubt over the choices she makes in breeding and / or bonding with a given pool of men in her lifetime.

The Need for Certainty

Women’s sexual filtering, vetting, nagging, shit testing, as well as many other evolved habits are all subconsciously inspired by a need for hypergamic certainty.

In a pre-sexual revolution social order, a woman’s capacity to optimize her hypergamy (and pacify the uncertainty) had a variety of extrinsic limitations.

Some of these I listed in my comment to Dalrock; guilt, cultural stigma, shame, moral and religious conviction, obligations to family, arranged marriages, polygamy, and yes, rape, were all a means to limiting a woman’s decision making capacity to optimize her innate hypergamy.

Before I continue, let me state in no unclear terms, rape, in its most visceral definition, is bad. I don’t believe the general population of men need a lesson in yet more feminine shaming efforts to understand this simple idea. As most readers know, it’s generally my practice to describe things – not to prescribe things – and allow readers to make their own moral conclusions, but I’ll break form in this case.

Any given reader may see a positive or a negative argument for limiting feminine hypergamy via cultural or religious doctrines, but I am not now, nor will I ever, endorse forced sexual penetration on women (or men) as anything but a negative. However, in light of its undeniable limiting of feminine hypergamous choice, throughout human history, rape is the most direct way men have most decisively removed a woman’s hypergamic decision making capacity. To ignore this truth, or to be cowed by even the thought of considering it, is to deny the obvious.

In a post-sexual revolution social order, women’s control over their hypergamy is only limited by their capacity to attract the best prospective mate their sexuality, personality and physicality will afford them. Whether provided for by the state, personal independence or other means women in a post-sexual revolution era, to a larger degree than any other time in western history, have the security side of their hypergamic optimization virtually guaranteed.

Even with women for whom this security isn’t fully realized, the greater social undercurrent for the past 60 years has been one which presents women with a social responsibility to break away from provisional dependency on men, thus granting women unilateral control over their hypergamous decision making.

Whether this security-side assurance comes from legal institutions, abortion laws, paternity laws, the advent of no fault divorce, child custody and support distribution, or, the security guarantee comes in the form of social conventions which foster the expectation of men to be bound to a one-sided provisioning contract, the modern message is clear for women; Independence from the necessity of men’s provisioning largely reduces or eliminates the uncertainty of  long-term security.

Or in other words, unilateral control of a woman’s hypergamy means Beta Bucks now takes a backseat to Alpha Fucks.

The Old-Order

The provisioning and personal investment in character, masculine virtue and ambition that made the, pre-sexual revolution, old order man an attractive prospect for a woman’s security-side hypergamy no longer carry the necessary appeal they did to ensure he would attract a marriageable woman. For women, the old order of attraction was based primarily on the security side of her hypergamous need because this was the most uncertain aspect she could secure in a social climate where her hypergamous decision making was more constrained.

Not unsurprisingly, women’s prioritizing long-term security inspired men to accommodate it by cultivating provider characteristics in themselves in order to be attractive. This isn’t to say the same Alpha side arousal we see in women’s sexual prioritization today wasn’t important, or tingle generating. Rather, the old social order prioritized women’s security needs since the Alpha Fucks side of her hypergamy was buffered by women’s general dependence on a man’s long-term provisioning.

The problem now is that, since the sexual revolution, the majority of (Beta) men are still raised and conditioned in this old-order context, based on an outmoded social contract that they were taught to ego-invest themselves into in order to best effect their own sexual strategy.

Although it’s the easiest dismissal fem-centric society would have anyone believe, only the most ignorant and self-important of men would ever come to the conclusion that they were owed (in the most transactional sense) the sexual and intimate affections of a woman in exchange for his personal investment, resources, dedication and acts of kindness. Certainly not men raised and conditioned to defer to a woman’s honor and respect, by default, above his own.

However, due to the old order social conditioning that taught them that a man in the unquestioning service of a woman’s security-side hypergamy should be the pinnacle of attraction, their conflict comes not in being denied an owed reward, but rather that rewards of sex, love, adoration, affection, respect, etc. the old-order convinced them they can and should earn is observably being offered to men who embody the exact opposite of his old order conditioning.

Relational Equity vs. Alpha Fucks

Deti picked up on this conflict in the comments of last week’s post:

We as human beings need to eliminate the words “deserve” and “entitled” from our vocabularies. Women are not entitled to anything from men; just as men are not entitled to anything from women. This entire “male sexual entitlement” strawman that our opponents have erected is just bull, plain and simple. Men do not go around claiming “entitlement” to sex; only psychopaths and mental defectives do that.

For anyone unacquainted with the fallacy of Relational Equity, I’d suggest reading that post to get some familiarity. Relational Equity is the idea that the more a man invests himself into his relationship, all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. equity he accrues for that dedication and commitment should be rationally appreciated by a woman and thus a buffer against the Alpha Fucks side of feminine hypergamy.

In essence this fallacy is the is rooted in the old order, security-side dependence of women’s hypergamy – the trust is that Beta Bucks will trump Alpha Fucks.

A man’s ego-investment into this fallacy is often the cause of his want to define Alpha in his own image, rather than remove his ego from the process and observe how women react and behave around men they actually have an Alpha arousal for. An example of this old order Beta disconnect is embodied in the person of Corey Worthington (a.k.a. the Alpha Buddah):

Guy’s like Corey infuriate men who have invested their self-worth in the accomplishments of what they think ought to be universally appreciated and rewarded. So when they’re confronted with a natural Alpha being undeservedly rewarded for brazenly acting out of accord with what they think the rules ought to be, they seethe with resentment. The natural response in the face of such an inconsistency is to redefine the term ‘Alpha’ to cater to themselves and their accomplishments as “real men” and exclude the perpetrator. The conflict then comes from seeing his new definition of Alpha not being rewarded or even appreciated as well as a natural Alpha attitude and the cycle continues. Your respect (or anyone else’s) for an Alpha has nothing to do with whether or not he possess an Alpha mindset. 3 failed marriages and 100+ lays has nothing to do with his having or not having an Alpha mindset. There are many well respected betas who’ve never had a passing thought of infidelity, or may have 300 lays either with prostitutes or because they possess fame or stunning good looks and women come to him by matter of course.

I wrote this almost three years ago, but the parallels of this ‘Alpha in his own image’ dynamic that Eliot Rodger shared with men conditioned in the old order of earning or meriting women’s intimacy are undeniable. Despite Arthur Chu’s male-apologetic mewling, it’s not that men like this feel ‘entitled to or ‘owed‘ sex with their idealized women, but they do feel their investments in a relational equity, and what they’ve been conditioned to believe should qualify them for women’s attentions have been betrayed to men who gratify the Alpha Fucks side of women’s hypergamous natures.

Feminine-Primary Assortive Mating

 “When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

Ironically the best spokeswoman to illustrate the dichotomy between both sides of women’s hypergamy should be Sheryl Sandberg – the voice and embodiment of several generations of women raised on the Feminine Imperative and unilaterally unrestrained hypergamy. So oblivious is Sandberg to her feminine-primary, solipsistic confirmation of hypergamy that it never occurs to her that men would be anything but accommodating of her life-plan advice for younger generations of women. It never occurs to her that a “man who values fairness” would ever reject her (much less despise her) for the duplicity that women’s dualistic sexual strategy disenfranchises men of.

So you see, it’s not a red pill awakening that predisposes men to believing they’re ‘owed’, ‘entitled to’ or ‘deserving’ of sex, love, adoration, affection or anything else from women – it’s the generations of women like Sandberg who unabashedly exploit the old order conditioning of Beta Bucks men, while expecting them to dutifully accept their open or discrete cuckoldry with Alpha Fucks men – and then tell them that “nothing’s sexier” than their complacency in it with a wriggle of their nose.

 


The Severing

frayed-rope-1960x900_34210

I’m not really sure where to begin with the killings in Santa Barbara.

About 6 years ago my niece attended UCSB and I became peripherally aware of the social landscape there from what she’d relate either to the family or via FaceBook. It wasn’t really anything less than I’d expect from a notorious ‘party school’ populated by the kids of affluent families – beautiful people, beautiful environment and all the displays of conspicuous consumption you’d probably expect. And it would be the perfect hell for a guy like Eliot Rodger.

Until now I’ve tactically avoided throwing my hat in the ring about this incident because I know the dangers inherent in going off half-cocked about a developing story. If you’re looking for details and information about how this kid evolved into what he was I’ll refer you to Heartiste’s, RoK’s and JustFourGuys breakdown of it. That said I’m going to tap out a few of my own personal thoughts about the kid and the social impact of not just how he came to be, but also what you can expect from a feminine-primary media.

PUAHate

As I’m sure most of the primary manosphere sites have, the members of the PUAHate forum found select posts at Rational Male as a particular targets of their vitriol. When I initially became aware of the forum (via link backs) it was due to their being very publicly linked to the Manboobz blog (now We Hunted the Mammoth).

After perusing the forum for a bit I wrote it off as a collection of guys commiserating about their shared social disenfranchisement and, not to be too blunt, but their shared lack of social intelligence. That these guys were angry with the manosphere was pretty much a given. For the most, they fit a particular personality pattern that’s characteristic of boys / men looking for an easy solution to their social ostracization and noted rejection from female intimacy.

I know the personality well since these types of guys are usually the first to email/PM me for advice for the easiest path between where they are now and where they want to be. They initially believe that Game / red pill awareness / PUA techniques are the panacea they’re looking for to cure their largely sexless and lonely existences.

When, due to their functional autism, Asperger’s syndrome or simply a social awkwardness, they find that the only thing that posed to be a ‘plan’ to help them “get their girl” doesn’t work the way they’d hoped, the reaction is a hostile rejection of what they believe ‘promised’ them the results of curing their sexless state.

To compound things the same PUAs they sought help from, become caricatures of the men who are successfully hooking up with the girls they wanted really nothing more than to be a loyal boyfriend to. They resort back to the only thing they knew, Beta Gameidentify and qualify with women – only now they not only reinvest themselves in it they want to become activists against any form of Game that isn’t what they believe women should respond to.

I don’t have any corroboration of it, but my guess is that a guy like Eliot would’ve made the ridicule list for the now defunct Tumblr “Nice Guys of OKCupid“. I’d suggest reading that post as a primer for anyone wanting to get a better grasp of how this personality type thinks and is ridiculed for.

The PUAs they’d hoped would let them in on the ‘secret’ to a woman’s intimacy, are revealed to them as the charlatan Bad Boy, ‘Alpha males’ they’ve always resented, who they believe mock them with every successful lay they manage.

What’s worse, what fuels their PUAHate activism, is that they ever believed their ‘enemy’ would reveal a way to become like they are. I bring up this observation from experience. I’ve had more than a few of these kinds of guys hit me up, not for advice, but a specific plan that will lead them to some kind of relief from their condition.

Descriptions and Prescriptions

In Preventative Medicine IV a commenter (who, for the record is not an InCel by any stretch) asked me why I had no real prescriptive plan for men to follow with regards to ‘preventing’ or avoiding the bad decisions associated with the time line I laid out in that series. This was my response:

Imagine for a moment I had the temerity to presume that I know exactly what a 60 year old reader like bbb experiences in his personal life with a post-menopausal wife. I could take a good stab at it (in fact I have a post in the can about menopause) but anything specific I could prescribe for him would be based on my best-guess speculations and according to how I’ve observed and detailed things in this series or any of my past posts.

From my earliest posts at SoSuave I’ve had men ask me for some ‘medicine’ for their condition; some personalized plan that will work for them. This sentiment is exactly what makes PUA and manosphere ‘self-help’ speakers sell DVDs and seats at seminars. They claim to have the cure. I say that’s bullshit.

I’m not in the business of cures, I’m in the business of diagnoses. Imagine David D’ Angelo, the “new” Tucker Max or Tyler Durden attempting to force fit their plans to accommodate bbb’s situation. Athol Kay makes attempts to remedy married men’s (non) sex lives, but what’s his real success rate? Is it even measurable? Even Athol recognizes that his MMSL outline is just a map, a diagnosis, that men have to modify for themselves per their individual experience and demographic. You see, your cure, your plan of action isn’t what bbb’s will be, or your future son’s, or anyone else reading my work. I can give you a map, but you still have to make your own trail. I’m not a savior, you are your savior

Short version: I’m not interested in making men be better men, I’m interested in men making themselves better Men.

What’s more legitimate, my prescribing some course or template to follow that leads a man to a success that ultimately I define for a reader, or my laying out an accurate landscape for his better understanding and he creates his own success with it?

Are you your success or my success? I’d rather a Man be his own.

Most men already know what the keys are, and most even know how to use them, but what they really want is confirmation that they actually have the keys.

My approach to Game is defined in much broader terms than simply ‘how to get girls’, and I think for the better part of the manosphere the understanding of Game has evolved beyond rote memorization of scripts and plans. It’s gotten to a stage where even the most enthusiastic proponents of PUA techniques acknowledge a need for an individualized approach to relating and interacting with women based on a broader applied understanding of feminine psychology, sociology and the particular conditions that apply to themselves as well as the women they’re interacting with.

It’s been noted before, my approach to Game is descriptive, not prescriptive.

What’s Next?

In the next month or so I expect there will be a lot of armchair psychologists making their best attempt to suss out what Eliot’s killings represent without ever really having experienced in any depth the mental schemas of minds like his. A fem-centric media and society will want its easy, binary answers and I suspect they’ll get no less in passing Eliot’s neurosis off on whatever conveniently fits the narrative that makes for the easiest to swallow and move on.

Right now I expect that’s going to be the manosphere, but Eliot wasn’t our monster, he was the product of his own psychosis and his neurotic belief in the First Set of Books. Eliot was a more violent version of what happens when socially maladaptive men root themselves in a transactional, reciprocal, model of what would solve his loneliness, sexual frustration and desperation.

Eliot and those of his mindset believed that everyone ought to be playing by the set of rules he was conditioned to believe everyone else was playing by and he dutifully subscribed to. They want a prescription, not a painful, ego destroying description.

Under those rules, he embodied his own definition of an Alpha – the guy who played it right and would be gratefully appreciated by any normal person adhering to the way things should be. But he couldn’t come to terms with the fact that everyone else wasn’t playing by that rule set, and he wouldn’t be rewarded for his self-righteous dedication to his conditioning with sex or justice or even basic human interaction. Six people died because he couldn’t come to terms with the fact that much of the opposite of what that conditioning taught him was what he saw was being rewarded.

Would a better grasp of Game have changed Eliot’s mind? I doubt it.

That’s not an indictment of Game or red pill awareness, but rather an understanding of the mindset he developed. I know the obsessiveness of the kind of guy Eliot was. A devoted girlfriend, and her sexual affections wouldn’t have steered his course any differently.

His hate required his destitution, and vice versa. That hate wasn’t about women or misogyny, or Alpha jocks getting after it with the girls he wanted, or even PUAs selling him a new set of rules he couldn’t stomach; his hate was about his inability to reconcile his ego with the ugly realities that a brief exposure to red pill truths revealed to him.

Game saves lives, and not just the lives of the person awakening to a red pill awareness. I know this firsthand from twelve years of private email testimonials and heartbreaking confessions.

Game saves lives, particularly in an era where hypergamy and the new gender paradigm, established since the sexual revolution, ruthlessly selects-out men who might otherwise expect to be considered intimately acceptable by their dedication and adherence to the set of beliefs their feminized conditioning has promised them would be their reward – but the men who need it most have to come to terms with the pain, remorse and resentment of having ever needed to cut themselves away from their prior system belief.

That severance from their conditioned ego-investment is a test that will either prompt them to see the old system for what it was and adapt, or simply put a gun to their head (or the heads of others beforehand).

It is very difficult to make men aware of Game, but the acceptance of it is more difficult when it challenges a man’s sense of self that’s been literally built upon the belief that the system he’s cut himself away from was part of who he really is.

The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill

The truth will set you free, but it doesn’t make truth hurt any less, nor does it make truth any prettier, and it certainly doesn’t absolve you of the responsibilities that truth requires. One of the biggest obstacles guys face in unplugging is accepting the hard truths that Game forces upon them. Among these is bearing the burden of realizing what you’ve been conditioned to believe for so long were comfortable ideals and loving expectations are really liabilities. Call them lies if you want, but there’s a certain hopeless nihilism that accompanies categorizing what really amounts to a system that you are now cut away from. It is not that you’re hopeless, it’s that you lack the insight at this point to see that you can create hope in a new system – one in which you have more direct control over.

As an end note here I think in the coming weeks there will be a greater scrutiny placed on Game and the manosphere in general. There will undoubtedly be more back and forth about the how’s and why’s of Eliot’s killings, and I sincerely doubt all the effort expended to prove that this kid was an antisocial, psychotic and really needed the unplugging an acceptance of Game would’ve benefitted him with. You simply wont teach those unwilling to learn.

However, as always, my comment thread here will be unmoderated for those who want to offer their take on all this. I would ask though that if you have a personal testimonial about how Game, or The Rational Male (book or blog) or any other manosphere writer, or idea / experience changed the course of your life, please considering leaving it here for the benefit of others. Nothing is TL;DR as far as I’m concerned.

As I mentioned earlier, I have an email ‘save’ box reserved for inspirational emails I receive from readers. Many of these are confessionals about aborted suicide attempts due in part or whole to something I wrote or caused some man to rethink. I wouldn’t dream of breaking any man’s confidence by copy and pasting them into a blog post, but if you have some experience you comfortable with sharing in the comments I’d encourage you to do so during this time.

Thank you.


The ‘Real’ Nice

fake_nice_guy

I once posed this question to the SoSuave forum:

Let us say, in a strange alternate world, women would LOVE you if you were a Nice Guy. In this world, you could do all the things you wanted to do. You could be sappy. You could write her poetry and SHE WOULD LOVE IT. The more of a Nice Guy you were, the more women in general would love and appreciate you.

And in this alternate world, the jerks and players would be the ones sneered at by women. If you were a jerk in this world, no woman would like you. If you were cocky, they would dismiss you immediately.

Would you remain a Nice Guy if you were in this alternate world?

I got a variety of answers ranging from the want for clearer, but no less useful terminologies,…

First off, I object to the labels. I know they’ve been used here and in the seduction community for a long time, but I don’t really believe in the stereotypes. I’m not a ‘nice guy’ or a jerk or a bad boy. Having said that and cleared the air, let’s go back to the stereotypes:

How many guys came here to this forum as “nice guys”? They were probably perfectly happy with themselves and only decided to change so they could do better with women. So they became assholes. Just to please women. I don’t see why they wouldn’t do the opposite in this “alternate reality”. I don’t care for the stereotypes. Half the guys on this forum think a “jerk” or a “douche” is a desireable thing to be. Something’s wrong with this picture. Somehow a “jerk” has become a guy with backbone who stands up for himself. 

The definition of a “nice guy” should just be a man who respects others as well as himself. But instead, in dating circles, “nice guy” means wimp.

…to the hope for Relational Equity and an appreciation for being ‘nice’…

I don’t think it’s that simple. You can be compassionate and kind without supplicating–and the whole “nice” thing isn’t really about kindness, it’s about supplicating and expecting something in return. “Nice” is really just synonymous with needy, unattractive behaviors, as I see it-it’s not even GENUINE kindness, as when you expect nothing in return.

To me, being an alpha “bad boy” just means going after what you want. It means pushing the envelope and being aggressive in pickup. It doesn’t mean being antisocial or violent, or being a dick to people. It often happens that an aggressive guy has these tendencies, but I don’t think they contribute to his success with women unless they bring him some fame, too. I think women DO have a capacity to appreciate kind gestures, and will certainly judge a man by how he treats his family, etc. The “protector of loved ones” is an attractive archetype to women. 

The guys that lose out are the ones that do “nice” things in the hopes that a woman will grow attracted to them. They let the women control the frame in this case, and act like children trying to please their mother. This is always an attraction killer–it doesn’t matter if they’re a jerk or an alpha in every other aspect of their life. Lots of really tough dudes are complete wussies around women. 

It is truly one of the cosmic ironies of the universe that women should completely lack the capacity to truly appreciate the niceties of men – yet still perpetually claim to desire those niceties.

With the notable exceptions of natural born Alphas, I believe most men would overwhelmingly default to being compassionate, empathic souls, steeped in romantic notions of chivalry, dedication and honor. Whether this sentiment is the result of a genuine dedication to principle or inspired by a hope that women will appreciate his sacrifices to principle and reciprocate with her intimacy is really a Crisis of Motive.

That was really the gist of my question – are guys just playing nice to get laid or is “niceness” (for lack of a better term) something deep rooted that they have to necessarily repress in order to be taken seriously as a sexual competitor because women would despise him were he to be as ‘nice’ as he really has the capacity for.

Most guys make lame attempts to redefine raw, natural, Alpha masculinity to fit into accord with all these noble qualities. Tragically women and reality prove them wrong at virtually every instance, but their fallback denial is an easy one (ironically provided for them by the Feminine Imperative) – “those women who don’t appreciate your niceness are just Damaged Women®, no quality woman would value an asshole above a real Nice Guy.”

Men are simply never rewarded for displays of these higher-self aspirations with genuine appreciation of women. They certainly appreciate them on a by-need basis, and as a ‘value added‘ benefit, but the esoteric, self-actualizing concerns men believe women should prioritize as primarily attractive aspects of themselves are never what they hope women will appreciate. If anything overly ‘nice’ men are punished for it, either in the instance or progressively over time.

The only way to garner true appreciation, true valuation, truly inspired displays of affection, from women is to covertly imply the risk of losing a high-value Man. Whether the man is even truly of a higher value is irrelevant, only the perception needs to be reinforced for her. Risk of loss is all that factors. Risk of losing an investment in optimizing hypergamy is weighed against her own perceived sexual market value and the effort needed to reinvest in another, potentially higher SMV man. Risk of loss is why her imagination furiously spins the wheel in her head.

That sounds horrible, but the truth often is. Women’s lack of appreciation for the more compassionate natures of men, and their consuming regard for rewarding men that appease their hypergamy is so well proven it’s become predictable enough to develop techniques and behavioral modifications to exploit it (i.e. Game). Most guys would like nothing better than to honestly play the loving, white knight, romantic who women bemoan a lack of in the world. Yet for every sonnet composed, every provision met, every compliment delivered and every well planned candlelit dinner conversation, there’s a woman feverishly fucking her Alpha bad boy in his low rent apartment for fear of losing him to the competition.

Attraction and Arousal


Occasionally we return to a common theme of debate with self-proclaimed ‘red pill women’ in various manosphere comment threads about how women may be attracted to certain characteristics men would like to identify as being ‘nice’, but no woman is aroused sexually by these qualities. As I’ve argued in the past, attraction and arousal are two separate elements of hypergamy. Alpha Fucks is arousing, Beta Bucks is attractive.

A couch surfing Alpha will be arousing enough to bang women indiscriminately despite his impoverished condition. He has no relational equity, and so frustrates the efforts of men who believe that the definition of Alpha ought to be based on the equity they hope women will appreciate. Women will return (even if just mentally) to the callous or cavalier Alpha because he arouses her, but she will stay faithful to her well-providing husband because what he offers is attractive to her.

This is why I say, by and large, women love most men for what they represent – once they cease to represent that, once they stumble in maintaining that, hypergamy is free to run. On a personal level this may be you losing a job or how you failed a shit test, on a meta scale it may be women’s social capacity to provide for themselves.

A lot of guys get lost in these definitions. They believe a woman at her word in what she finds attractive in a man, but then conflate this list of qualities (read any woman’s online dating profile) with what a woman finds arousing. While there may be attraction without arousal, there is never arousal by way of what makes a man attractive. Your respectability, sterling character and being good with kids doesn’t make you look any better when your shirt comes off.

The New Nice

There’s an interesting social convention that’s developed as Game-awareness has become more widespread. As with all social conventions it provides a convenient rationale for women to cling to in order to alleviate uncomfortable truths, but the dilemma of the Faux-Nice Guy has picked up a lot of steam in the feminist / feminine-primary set of women. I covered this a while back in Play Nice, but since then I’ve been reading more about how this convention is dovetailing into the re-imagining of a so called Rape Culture.

As women become more aware of Game (even if just peripherally) there’s developed a convenient distrust of men’s ‘Nice’ qualities. The dynamics I put forth in The Savior Schema all become suspect for what in essence is really a tit for tat exchange of services rendered for intimacy at a later date (once his niceties have proven his worth).

The problem with this is twofold, first, the guy’s relying on Beta Game, convinced that what women say they are attracted to is what they are also aroused by, believe that faux Nice Guys are blowing their chances with the women they believe will eventually come to love them for their earnest Niceness. If all these charlatan Nice Guys are jading their pool of prospective nice-appreciating women it ruins their Game. Consequently they get agitated by women doubting any man’s sincerity and by extension their own. This then leads to Nice Guy infighting and greater, more sincere displays of a Niceness that really only ruins their Game that much more.

Second, women’s doubt of a Nice Guy’s sincerity and unsolicited ‘niceness’ is really a red herring meant to distract men employing Nice Guy Game away from the point that they simply don’t find them all that attractive (and certainly not arousing). Being nice, supportive, dutiful and possessing all the intrinsic characteristics on her list of attractive traits in the hope of proving his worth and qualifying for her intimate acceptance is really one long Appeal to a Woman’s Reason. It’s very convenient for a woman to enjoy (and often become dependent upon) the services a Nice Guy renders to her, but when that Nice Guy is discovered to have a sexual interest in her the “you weren’t really nice, you just expected something sexual in return” social convention finds its use.

Women have been aware of this Nice Guy Game, prequalification schema for generations, because it used to actually work in a time and culture where the Beta Bucks / parental investment side of women’s hypergamy was the predominant factor for determining of a man’s intimate acceptability. The problem now is that the deductive reasoning men use – find out what women want in order to become intimate, become it and solve the problem – in order to achieve a woman’s intimacy comes from an old set of books that no woman is still using. However the reliance on the responsibilities outlined in that first set of books are still useful when it comes to control the intents and actions of men.

Chivalry is an anachronism in a post-feminist society, particularly where equalism is concerned, but it’s a liability when it’s useful to the feminine imperative. It may be a man’s duty not to expect sex in exchange for his niceties and services, but when his chivalry is useful to her then it becomes his responsibility.


Intersexual Hierarchies –Part II

Hierarchy2

Don’t wait for the good woman. She doesn’t exist. There are women who can make you feel more with their bodies and their souls but these are the exact women who will turn the knife into you right in front of the crowd. Of course, I expect this, but the knife still cuts. The female loves to play man against man, and if she is in a position to do it there is not one who will resist. The male, for all his bravado and exploration, is the loyal one, the one who generally feels love. The female is skilled at betrayal and torture and damnation. Never envy a man his lady. Behind it all lies a living hell. – Charles Bukowski

For my more optimistic readers, you’ll be happy to know I don’t entirely agree with Mr. Bukowski’s sentiment here, however Charles gives us a great introduction to the next progressions of intersexual hierarchies. While I’m not sure every woman is as skilled as the next in betrayal, torture and damnation as Charles’ waxes poetic about, I do believe that his understanding of the male nature is not only accurate, but that male nature is actually the source of his equating women with betrayal, torture and damnation. It’s not that women are inherently evil, it’s that men’s idealism make them so available to being betrayed, tortured and damned.

If you’re at all familiar with Charles Bukowski, you’ll know he was one of the last true son’s of bitches – the unapologetic epitome of gloriously arrogant self-concern and masculine independence. For what he lacked in polish he made up for in talent and a brutal honesty that could never be acknowledged in the fem-centrism of today. In the mid 60’s he was a feral, instinctually red pill Man.

Charles, for all his musing on women, knew that it was the male nature that facilitated women’s damaging of men. The feminists of his generation and today simply dismiss him as a relic of a misogynist era, but his real insight was about men’s inner workings.

“The male, for all his bravado and exploration, is the loyal one, the one who generally feels love.” I’d like to believe that Bukowski was ahead of his time with this, however I think it’s more accurate to presume that, due to a constant feminine-primary socialization, men have been conditioned to interpret love under feminine pretexts, rather than acknowledging men and women approach love from different concepts.

In light of these differing, often conflicting, concepts of male-idealistic and female-opportunistic love, it’s easy to see how a man might find women duplicitous, torturous and damnable – particularly when his feminine ‘sensitivity training’ predisposes him to believe women share the same love idealism he’s been encouraged to believe.

Hierarchy2

The Feminine Primary Model

The Feminine Primary model of love is the idealistic fantasy the vast majority of men have been conditioned to presume is a universal model of love. In this fantasy a woman reciprocates that same idealism he has about how she should feel about him based on his concept of love. That love eventually has to (potentially) include children, but the fantasy begins for him with a woman’s concept of love agreeing with his own love-for-love’s-sake approach, rather than the performance-based, opportunistic approach women require of men in order to love them.

The best illustration I can apply to this model is found in the very tough lessons taught in the movie Blue Valentine. You can read the synopsis, but the plot of this film graphically outlines the conflict that occurs when a man conflates his idealism of the feminine primary model of love with women’s opportunistic model of love. That idealism is exacerbated by a feminine-primary conditioning since early childhood which prepares him to expect girls and women will share in it.

When you look at this model objectively you can’t help but see the Disney-esque, blue pill promise of a mutually reciprocated love. Men being the true romantics predispose themselves to wanting to believe this model is really the only acceptable model. The dispelling of the fantasy this model represents is one of the most difficult aspects of coming to terms with red pill awareness – in fact one of the primary reasons men become hostile to the red pill is an inability to imagine any other possible model.

Most men’s dispelling of this fantasy comes after he’s reached the ‘happily ever after’ part of this schema and he realizes the conditionality his wife places on her terms for loving him. He comes to the realization that women’s love model is based upon what he is before who he is.

While there is a definitive conditionality placed on her love, men don’t necessarily expect an unconditional love. It’s usually at this stage that men are conveniently expected (or expect themselves) to ‘Man Up’ and earn a woman’s mutually reciprocated love by adopting the male responsibility aspects of the first, conventional model. As Gustavo describes, “a man provides” and for all of his previous equalist conditioning that made him believe a woman would “love him as he loves her” he blames his inability to achieve that idealistic love on himself for not living up to being a “man” deserving of the feminine primary model of ideal love.

What he’s really done is convinced himself into accepting a woman’s opportunistic model while retaining the idealism he’s been conditioned never to reject – thereby leaving her blameless in her own concept of love.

It’s hard to consider this model without presuming a woman’s manipulative intent of a man, but let me state emphatically that, for the better part, I believe most women simply aren’t specifically aware of the mechanics behind this intersexual hierarchy model. Through any number of ways women are socialized to presume that their feminine-primary position implies that men should necessarily take the life and maturity steps needed to fulfill women’s opportunistic approach over the course of their lifetime.

We like to bemoan this as feminine entitlement, and yes it can get, and is getting abusively out of hand, but this entitlement and expectation originates in women’s opportunistic approach towards love.

Men are the “romantics pretending to be realists” and women; vice versa.

Hierarchy3

The Subdominant Model

Lastly we come to male subdominant model wherein a man, by conditioning and circumstance, expects love from a woman as he would from a mothering dynamic. Often this situation seems to result from an overly enthusiastic belief in absolute gender equality and parallelism, but the underlying motivation is really an abdication of masculinity and, by association, abdication of conventional masculine responsibility. There simply is no presumption of masculine ‘headship’ prior to, or into a long term relationship.

I outline the origins of this hierarchy model in Pre-Whipped:

These are the men I call pre-whipped; men so thoroughly conditioned, men who’ve so internalized that conditioning, that they mentally prepare themselves for total surrender to the Feminine Imperative, that they already make the perfect Beta provider before they even meet the woman for whom they’ll make their sacrifice.

The social undercurrent of an ideal gender equalism plays an active role in creating these men, and specifically this hierarchical model. Unfortunately the social and / or personal illusion of control this model is idealistically based on is usually overshadowed by the male-dominant / female-submissive expectations of the more naturally fluid conventional love model.

These are the ‘house husband’ arrangements, and the ‘gender is a social construct’ relationships. While the hope is one of a realized egalitarian equalism within the relationship, the psychological struggle eventually becomes one of dominant and submissive gender expectations in the pairing.

From Master and Servant:

In an era when Hypergamy has been given free reign, it is no longer men’s provisioning that dictates her predisposition to want to be a submissive partner in their relationships. To an increasingly larger degree women no longer depend upon men for the provisioning, security and emotional support that used to insure against their innate Hypergamous impulses. What’s left is a society of women using the satisfaction of Hypergamy as their only benchmark for relational gratification.

Men with the (Alpha) capacity to meet the raw, feral, demands of women’s Hypergamy are increasingly rare, and thanks to the incessant progress of feminization are being further pushed to marginalization. The demand for Men who meet women’s increasingly over-estimated sense of Hypergamic worth makes the men women could submit to a precious commodity, and increases further stress the modern sexual market place.

For all of the mental and social awareness necessitated by this equalist fantasy, men subscribing to this model inevitably fall into a submissive (conventionally feminine) role. As the red pill gods would have it Heartiste had a timely post outlining all of the logistical failing of this arrangement today, but underneath all of the trappings that make this model seem imbalanced is the reversal of conventional roles which place women into the love flow state men are better suited for since their approach to love originates from idealism (and not a small amount of martyr-like sacrifice for that idealism).

Essentially this model forces a woman not only to mother her children, but also her husband.

In the beginning of this series I stated that men and women’s approach to love was ultimately complementary to one another and in this last model we can really see how the two dovetail together. That may seem a bit strange at this point, but when social influences imbalance this conventional complement we see how well the two come together.

When a woman’s opportunistic approach to love is cast into the primary, dominant love paradigm for a couple, and a family, that pairing and family is now at the mercy of an opportunism necessitated by that woman’s hypergamy and the drive to optimize it. Conversely, when a man’s idealistic approach to love is in the dominant frame (as in the conventional model) it acts as a buffer to women’s loving opportunism that would otherwise imbalance and threaten the endurance of that family and relationship.

From Heartiste’s post:

7. Arguments about chores, money, sex life, and romance were highest in couples where the woman made all or most of the decisions. Female decision-making status was an even stronger determinant of relationship dissatisfaction than female breadwinner status. Women can handle making more money in a relationship, but they despise being the leader in a relationship.

8. Argument frequency decreased among female breadwinners if they were not the primary decision-makers. Lesson for men: You can have a happy relationship with a woman who makes more than you as long as you remain the dominant force in her non-work life. Or: GAME SAVES MARRIAGES.

When a woman’s love concept is the dominant one, that relationship will be governed by her opportunism and the quest for her hypergamic optimization. The ultimate desired end of that optimization is a conventional love hierarchy where a dominant Man is the driving, decisive member of that sexual pairing.


Intersexual Hierarchies – Part I

One of the withdrawal symptoms of unplugging from the Matrix is usually an overwhelming nihilism that results from being torn away from the previous blue pill preconceptions a man has been conditioned to for most of his life. It’s my hope that in the future red pill men will make the necessary interventions and apply what they’ve learned from their unplugging and red pill truths in general towards their sons (and daughters) as well as other men they know or are related to. Until then, the process of breaking away from that conditioning is usually going to begin as the result of a traumatic breakup, a divorce, or having had the relational equity he thought he’d built a long term relationship on proved worthless in the face of hypergamy.

It’s a sad reality of unplugging that it most often starts as a result of emotional anguish, but to pour salt in those wounds is then having to live with the harsh realities that the red pill makes men aware of – that more or less everything they’d held as an ego-investment up to that point was founded on a feminine-primary conditioning. I summed this up in The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill:

The truth will set you free, but it doesn’t make truth hurt any less, nor does it make truth any prettier, and it certainly doesn’t absolve you of the responsibilities that truth requires. One of the biggest obstacles guys face in unplugging is accepting the hard truths that Game forces upon them. Among these is bearing the burden of realizing what you’ve been conditioned to believe for so long were comfortable ideals and loving expectations are really liabilities. Call them lies if you want, but there’s a certain hopeless nihilism that accompanies categorizing what really amounts to a system that you are now cut away from. It is not that you’re hopeless, it’s that you lack the insight at this point to see that you can create hope in a new system – one in which you have more direct control over.

Try to keep this last part in mind as you read what I propose in these next two posts. I read a lot of guys in various forums getting despondent after having the red pill make sense to them, but that despondency is really a simple lack of not having a path already preset for them to follow. Instead of the easy answers and prerequisite responsibilities that the blue pill and the Feminine Imperative had ready for him to follow, now in his new awareness he’s tasked with making a new path for himself, and that’s both scary and exciting at the same time.

Love Styles

In almost 3 years of blogging and a book written, my three most popular posts have been the Love seriesWomen in Love, Men in Love and Of Love and War. Though my SMV graph gets the most link backs, these are easily the most viewed posts on Rational Male. Unfortunately they’re often the most misquoted and misunderstood.

One of the toughest revelations of the red pill is coming to terms with the difference in experience and concept that men and women apply to love. The core principle in Women in Love is often misunderstood. For different reasons, deliberate or otherwise, both men and women critically misunderstand the main premise of that post:

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

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

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

Most critics of my differing assessment of how either sex interprets and considers love tend to blow past this last part. They oversimplify my meaning and sputter out something to the effect of, “That Tomassi guy thinks that women can’t ever really love men, what preposterous crap!”

Of course that isn’t my assertion, but I understand the want to dismiss this notion, particularly for men and women invested in the ideal of equalitarianism. It’s a threat to the ego-investment that men and women are anything less than fully equal and rational agents who come together for each other’s mutually agreeable benefit. The simple fact of women’s innate hypergamy puts the lie to this presumption, as well as confirms the relevancy of women’s constant, qualitative conditionality for whom (really what) they’ll love. I think it’s ironic that the same people who disparage this concept are among the first to readily embrace the pop-psychology notion of Love Languages.

I get why that premise pisses off women (and feminized men); it’s very unflattering to be accused of loving men from a position of opportunism. However, it’s important to understand that I don’t make this observation to condemn the way women approach love – although I’m sure it will follow, my point isn’t to presume a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way for women to love men or vice versa. There are beneficial and detrimental aspects of both women’s opportunistic approach to love, and men’s idealistic approach to love. That said, I happen to believe that the differing ways men and women love each other evolved to be complementary to the other and for the betterment of our species.

For all the “OMG I can’t believe this red pill asshole thinks women can’t really love men” misdirection, I should point out that well intentioned men, especially the newly red pill, are also guilty of the same oversimplification. Theirs is an attempt to find validation in the (usually recent) trauma of having been cut away from their prior blue pill conditioning. A similar, “Rollo says women can’t really love men, of course, it’s all so clear to me now” satisfies a simplistic need for confirmation of their former condition.

And again, it’s not a right or wrong way of loving, it’s the lack of recognizing the difference and being on the punishing side of that lack. Most men will want to apply their concepts of honor or justice in assessing how ‘right’ men’s idealistic love is, while women will still see the inherent value in loving what a man is as a prerequisite for loving who a man is. Hypergamy doesn’t care about men’s idealistic expectations of love, but neither does men’s rationality make concessions for what facilitates women’s opportunistic approach to love.

Romantic Souls

From The Red Pill subreddit:

My whole life, I’ve had it nailed into me that I would be able to find true love if I was honest and hardworking. As I grew older it was, “If I’m somewhat fit and have a good job making 60k-80k a year, I’ll find that beautiful girl that loves me as I love her“.

As I’ve stated on many occasions, it is men who are the True Romantics. Granted, it’s the unthoughtful result of centuries of evolved ‘courtly love’, but in the realm of what qualifies as a true act of romance, it’s men who are the primary actors; it’s men who ‘make’ (or want to make) romance happen. And of course therein lies the problem, a man cannot ‘make’ romance happen for a woman.

For all a man’s very imaginative, creative, endeavors to manufacture a romance that will endear a woman to him, his ‘trying’ to do so is what disqualifies his intent. For every carefully preplanned ‘date night’ after marriage, there’s a college girl swooning to bang her boyfriend living in a shithole, sheets over the windows, furniture from the dumpster, pounding shitty beer and sleeping on a soiled mattress on the floor. Romance isn’t created, romance just happens, and it’s a tough, but valuable, lesson when men come to realize that a happenstance bag of skittles, or a ring made from a gum wrapper at the right time meant more to a woman than every expensively contrived ‘romantic getaway’ he’d ever thought would satisfy her need for lofty romance.

An important part of the red pill is learning that the most memorable acts of love a man can commit with a woman are acts of (seeming or genuine) spontaneity and never apparently and overtly planned (and yes, that applies to sex as well). This is a source of real frustration for a man since his blue pill conditioning expects the opposite from him, and his romantic nature – the nature that wants her to love him as he loves her – conspires with his problem solving nature, thus prompting him to ever greater romantic planning for what he hopes will be an appreciated, reciprocated love.

The Hierarchy

The true source of a man’s frustration lies in his misdirected hope that a woman’s concept of love matches his own. His ideal is a beautiful girl that loves him the same way he loves her. The presumption (a romantic one perpetuated by the myth of egalitarian equalism) is that his concept of idealized love is a universal one which women share with men in general and him in particular.

Thanks mostly to men’s blue pill conditioning, what most men fail to ever consider is that women’s hypergamic based love always considers what he is, before who he is. For a more detailed explanation of this I’ll refer you to my post Love StoryThis is the root of the intersexual hierarchy of love.

Hierarchy1

Before the rise of feminine social primacy, the above ‘flow chart’ of love prioritization would hardly have been an afterthought for a man. Through any number of evolutionary and sociological progressions the base understanding of how Men’s love began from a position of protecting, provisioning for and directing of the lives of both his wife and children wasn’t a concern worth too much of his consideration. Neither was a prevailing desire for a reciprocal model of love an overshadowing concern.

To be sure, a baseline requirement of a returned love, sex, respect and fidelity were important elements, but this wasn’t the originating basis of male desire for being loved; there was no expectation of a woman loving him as he loved her (and by extension their children). To be a man was to have the capacity to provide a surplus beyond his own provisioning.

“A man provides, and he does it even when he’s not appreciated, or respected, or even loved. He simply bears up and he does it, because he’s a man.”

Gustavo’s monologue in my opening video may seem like an anachronism, especially in the light of a red pill awareness of the potential for injustice and the veritable certainty of a provisioning arrangement that will almost always be a one-sided proposition for a man – whether he’s loved, respected, appreciated, married or divorced.

Undoubtedly there’ll be men reading this bristling at the idea of a non-equitable model for love, but I’d argue that the idea of an equitable model is the result of the conditioning an egalitarian equalism has predisposed men to believe is even possible.

Before the rise of feminine primacy, a man’s expression of love through his support and guidance simply weren’t things women or children had the capacity to reciprocate. The advent of women’s independence, real or imagined, has served to strip men of this core understanding of the differences between male and female concepts of love. In the effort to feminize men more fully, and position men in a condition of confusion about what constitutes masculinity, this concept of love was replaced by a feminine-primary model for love.

While a woman’s respect, and a degree of love may flow back to her man, her primary love and concern is directed towards her children. One reason we’re still shocked by women who kill their children (pre or post natal) is due to an inherent acknowledgement of this natural dynamic. Women’s brain function and biochemistry largely evolved to predispose them to bonding with their children, and thus ensure the survival of the species. Beyond the rigors of physically gestating a child, raising children to self-sufficiency required a considerable investment of effort and resources – not to mention a constant attention. Nature selected-for women with an innate capacity to nurture and direct love primarily towards children.

The internal psychology women evolved to vet for men who displayed traits for both Alpha physical prowess and parental investment / provisioning potential are a result of children being a priority for a woman’s love. While a degree of maintaining a man’s continued commitment to the family unit requires her attentions in the form of sex and affections, a woman’s primary love focus is directed towards children.

Granted, not all women are capable of having children (or some even desirous of them), but even in these instances substitute love priorities still supersede directing her primary attention towards a man. It may seem like I’m attempting to paint women’s love as callous or indifferent, but this ‘directioning’ isn’t a conscious act, but rather due to the innate understanding that a man is to direction his love towards her as a priority.

 

This should give readers a bit to chew on for a while. In Part II I’ll detail the alternative hierarchy models prevalent for modern, post-feminine primacy relationships.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,065 other followers