The Disposables

Martyrdom is the ultimate expression of social proof.

After I finished my Chivalry vs. Altruism post, I had to kind of pause for a moment to consider the impact of ‘women & children first’ as an operative social convention. Even before the overt rise of the feminine imperative, this female protectionism was in effect, and I’m fairly certain that this was a result of our primal hind-brain wiring to protect our families. Most higher order animals have evolved this instinct so I don’t see that as much of a stretch. However, human’s being a much more complex species, I think that the social convention of WaCF goes a bit deeper than a simplistic protectionism. In fact, I’d argue that ‘familial protectionism’ is more of a convenient foil for women (and sympathetic men) who’d rather see men’s mortal sacrifice in honorific terms than the much uglier truth.

Tits for Tat

In its rawest form, the sexual marketplace of our early ancestors would’ve been one where feminine hypergamy and Alpha dominance would’ve been more or less in balance. Obviously men being the stronger sex would’ve forcibly put women into a weaker position in the earliest incarnations of the SMP, but also consider that men fought and killed each other for access to those breeding rights – short version; men were disposable. As our species began to socialize, collectivize and cooperate, our earliest social conventions would’ve revolved around the environmental prompts and biological stimuli that were essential to the survival of their more feral ancestors.

The earliest form of proto-Game would’ve been a sexual quid pro quo. Can’t figure out how to seduce that hot, hunter-gatherer woman in the tribe? Save her ass from being torn limb from limb by a sabre tooth tiger and she’ll reciprocate her gratitude with open legs. In other words, risk your life and women will reward you with sex in gratitude. Today that may not be a reality in practice, but it’s the A+B=C  logic that’s led to the psychological internalization and the social doctrines that follow it. It’s such a primal, male-deductive-logic principle that’s worked so successfully, for so long, that social contingencies were evolved to both mitigate it and exploit it. Don’t believe me? Promise a young middle eastern girl 70 virgins in heaven and see if she’ll strap explosives to herself. The downside to this is that men often do “die trying.”

All of this kind of brought me around to thinking about the psychological ‘software’ that’s been evolved into our species as a result of environmental adaptations of the past. In War Brides I went into detail about the Stockholm Syndrome women seem to have an inborn propensity for, which logically makes them predisposed to abandoning emotional investments more readily than men. Considering the brutality of our feral past, evolving a capacity for quick emotional abandonment and reinvestment would’ve been a valuable survival trait for women (thus insuring a perpetuation of the species), however, in the present it serves to complicate newly developed social dynamics in terms of parental and ethical considerations.

Likewise, men have evolved into the disposable sex as a result of that same feral past. In today’s environment it’s very easy for men to draw upon ethical indignation about our disposable status, but it’s not primarily due to social influences. To be sure, social influence has definitely exploited men’s disposability, but the root of that devaluation (in contrast to women’s) really lies in our evolutionary past and our biological make up. Men have always been disposable – so much so that women evolved psychological contingencies (War Brides) to cope with that disposability.

As socialization and acculturation progressed, so too did the social rationales for men’s disposability. It became honorable to sacrifice oneself, ostensibly for a greater cause, but subversively as a means to recognition.

Martyrdom is the ultimate expression of social proof.

Appreciating the Sacrifice

Unfortunately, as is women’s biological imperative, once a man’s martyred himself women seek a suitable substitute within the week. I’m still getting a lot of response on my Appreciation post, and predictably most of the criticism is rooted in assuming my intent was to illustrate women being inferior to men in terms of sincerely appreciating the sacrifices he must make to facilitate her reality. The inability of women appreciating men’s sacrifices isn’t an issue of who’s better than who, it’s merely an observation of facts and corollaries. What I think critics fail to recognize is that I’m simply relating the observed mechanics; any conditionality they choose to apply to those mechanics are their own opinions and biases.

“Yeah Rollo, it’s pretty fucked up that women have some inborn ability to ‘switch off’ their emotions for you in favor of a higher SMV male…”

You’re right it’s pretty messed up. It’s also unethical, insincere and duplicitous when you also consider the planning involved in dissociating her emotional investment in favor of a new investment; but all of these are social conditions we apply to the underlying mechanic. It’s also pretty fucked up that men’s lives intrinsically have less value than women’s – but we can apply esoteric principles of honor, duty and courage to men killing themselves and engaging in the dynamic of their own disposability. We can also apply principles of cowardice and betrayal to men who refuse that sacrifice in favor of self-preservation, but these are qualification of social conventions that we establish as a culture.

The biomechanics are what they are, irrespective of the social paint we color them with. It’s not that women lack an intellectual capacity to appreciate men’s sacrifices, it’s that this isn’t their evolved psychological predisposition. The social constructs which tells her to expect a man’s sacrifice, which normalizes his martyrdom, have evolved to better dissociate her own investment in her biological imperatives (i.e. Hypergamy). In English this means evolution has prepared her socially and psychologically for his sacrifice, and readies her to move to a better provisioning should one present itself in her surroundings. Likewise, men putting themselves in harms way is rooted in our competing for resources – in this case breeding rights.

Ravenous wolves tearing apart a moose aren’t evil; they’re doing what nature has prepared them to do in order to survive. This isn’t to give anyone, male or female, some biologically determined free pass for bad behavior, it’s just to understand where this behavior originates and how it came to be what we make of it today.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

37 comments on “The Disposables

  1. No disagreement here really, but I would disagree that males (in general) have a high future disposability quotient… in most cases of late, it seems that plenty of males, definitely a majority, have disposed of themselves just by accepting social norms as to the females’ artificially high value.

    This differentiates from a guy who is willing to throw himself on a grenade to save his buddies — it comes directly from the fact that fathers aren’t teaching their sons game, and even worse: many fathers are accepting the female as the leader of the family and home.

    1. I agree.

      For fuck’s sake, is there ANY blog where A.B. Dada doesn’t post first?

      This guy must have no life at all — except anxiously panting over the keyboard as he waits to post the first comment on one of various PUA blogs.

      Gives a lot of credence to the commenters who call bullshit on the extravagant claims he makes in his comments.

  2. any suggestions on how to morally coercively enforceably train a girlfriend who grew up in a mother ruled the roost house hold, im not looking for ideological utopianism just trying to mould this plate,

  3. It is fucked up that men are the disposable sex (especially when civilization has evolved beyond its usefulness) but unfortunately that’s the way nature works.

    There is no worse feeling than the one that comes when you realize that you still care about a chick after a your two year relationship comes to an end knowing that she has about as much regard for you as the turd she scooped out of her cats litter box earlier that morning.

    The lesson here is that you should make absolutely no apologies for being a man and embracing everything that entails.

    Women would have you believe that cheating is the worst thing you can do to them, but that is far from the truth. Fact is, male infidelity isn’t the opposite of female infidelity, it is the opposite of female hypergamy. When all is said and done MOST women you care about will eventually look at you with as much regard as a piece of trash when the relationship eventually ends.

    What does this mean? It means that if you remain faithful and devoted to a woman who eventually tosses you to the curb with little regard, you lose the game. That’s why you feel so sick to your stomach when a chick swings to another branch and you know that you’ll never be hittin’ that again.

    The morality brigade would have you believe that if you find the right woman you are immune to the forces of hypergamy but that’s not how it works. In the mating game your value isn’t determined by the game you won last year, it is determined by the game you won last night.

    The point I am trying to make is that you can choose to be the guy who straps explosives to your chest and blows himself up or you can choose to be the guy who fucks all the women the other guy leaves behind.

  4. “…all of these are social conditions we apply to the underlying mechanic.”

    Excellent explanation.

    I’ve been struggling to understand the inability of women appreciating men’s sacrifices. This post sheds a lot of light on that.

    When are you going to get into some married man game? Recently you stated that you can’t spin plates in an LTR. So, what’s the angle? Do you simply rely on the frame that had when you entered into the relationship?

  5. Reading stuff like this at 16 is very depressing. While it may teach me how to achieve better success with women, it makes me not want to.

    Sure, I want sex. But more importantly, in the long term, I want understanding and love. Knowing that a moment of weakness will shatter any girl’s interest is impossible to accept.

    I don’t want dominance, I want understanding. Fuck.

    1. There’s nothing wrong with solitude. You don’t need anyone else to make you happy. Break your programming, accept yourself, and just enjoy the ride. Life is too short to be tied down. You need somebody to talk to? Why? At the end of the day, what doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger. Be a man and learn from your mistakes on your own. You want to be loved? Look in the mirror and find it within yourself.

      1. This advice is not suitable for everyone. For some people it is simply wishful thinking, and is not true and will never be true.

        Some of us have a sex drive and have emotional and social needs that can not be met adequately in any other way other than with women.

        It is a lie that all or even most men can be happy without women, and that all they have to do is find some internal balance to do so.

      2. I’m reminded of the T.M. meditators who believe that if they try real hard, and if they accomplish some internal alchemy, they will be able to fly.

        They spend a great deal of time hopping in the lotus position.

        The fact that none of them has ever flown doesn’t stop their very strong belief. It only seems to re-enforce it. If people haven’t flown, it’s only evidence that they didn’t try hard enough and didn’t believe hard enough.

        The fact is that people get lonely, and that the cure for loneliness is not an acceptance of solitude – it’s company. People get horny and the cure for horniness is not porn – it’s women. Humans are built with levers, pulleys and buttons arranged in specific configurations. There is only so much internal re-arranging you can do – you can not re-design your brain wholesale. A very deep need that does not go away for healthy men is the need for sex and love and relations with women. It’s akin to the need for food and oxygen. It’s not a belief that can be altered by other beliefs. It’s a hard wired necessity.

        Some of us find it difficult to focus and feel like we are climbing the walls and get depressed and anxious and feel desperately uncomfortable if we don’t at minimum have access to regular sex.

        The cure for those negative feelings is sex. Then life becomes very pleasurable.

      3. I’m speaking as a man who has spent years seriously devoted to internal alchemy, both on my own and with the help of a good Buddhist community. I’ve spent years studying and practicing various meditations, lived for months in solitary meditation retreat several times, lived for many months in a Buddhist monastery, and lived for many months in a non-monastic isolated Buddhist retreat setting.

        1. Whoa. Slow down with the essay, champ. The statement was geared towards the long term love aspect. I didn’t say not have sex and quit women all together. Yeah, we have sexual urges, but that whole love/marriage crap is mental conditioning. A man should accept the fact he will be alone at times, and that the only real love comes within, while getting some pussy in the process. I think some people are just emotionally different, cause I can care less if I’m around people. I prefer solitude… either than the occasional dick wetting session.

          1. Ya, that’s the philosopy I often hear. “A man should accept the fact he will be alone at times, and that the only real love comes within”

            That sounds really good. But its quite philosophical. Is it practical? Is it possible? I’m saying that for some of us, it is not possible. It doesn’t and can’t happen. Some of us are simply not happy being alone for too long.

            Personally I start to feel uncomfortable at the two week mark, and extremely uncomfortable at the one month mark.

            I know that some people don’t feel this way. But those people have nothing useful to say about my personal experience. Some of us are better off learning how to get steady access to what makes us happy rather than focusing on how to live without it. Because we’ve tried living without it and it is extremely uncomfortable.

            It’s like someone with a high threshold for pain advising others that when they go to the dentist that they really don’t need to use pain killer. For the guy sitting in the dentists chair, that’s all very philosophical. Pain isn’t philosophical, and no one wants to feel it. The cure for pain is not philosophy. And the cure for unbearable loneliness and horniness is not self acceptance.

            Not for all of us, anyway. And I think not for most of us.

    2. Our strong sense of identity makes it difficult to realize that our habits of mind change dramatically over time. Although at your young age you have seen dramatic changes in identity every few years, you haven’t yet seen that many of them. You may also assume that once you are an adult that you will have a stable identity. It isn’t so: you can expect to have a very different identity every 5 years or so.

      And so the self that grieves for a lost hope of relating with women as equal caring partners devoted to love may not have the same attitudes once you become a self who is proficient attracting and maintaining attraction with women, and who has had intimate relations with many women and seen again and again the good, the bad, and the ugly in them.

      Your grief now is temporary because the man who grieves will no longer be around.

    3. Your identity will have to change to adjust to the new painful information. No self want’s to exist in a state of turmoil and angst for long.

      You’ll have several options for adapting to this new information. Some of them will lead to a harmonious, healthy and happy integration of all information, and you’ll be able to smile inside and feel warm when you think of women.

      Some adaptations would lead you to avoid women and to think poorly of them.

      Some adaptations would lead you to see them as an inferior being to be exploited ruthlessly for advantage and for sadistic pleasure.

      If people can go through the stages of grief and come to acceptance of death, and still enjoy the pleasures of living, you can come to terms with the facts of women, and still love and enjoy them for what they are.

  6. Yes you are right if you think the humans are mere animals. But civilization is the going against nature for excellence.

    In prehistory a man could have been eaten by a beast. But for sure already in earlier tribes the (male) shaman was more important than the lives of the women. And later, a male noble was worth way more than a lot of poor children and women lives.

    There is not reason anymore to consider men disposable, specially in front of today women.

  7. Not long ago, I woke up with an understanding that’s probably mainstream now (even outside the manosphere) but once internalized, it has dramatically changed my perception of reality.

    It’s simple – women live in the present, men live in the future.

    If a woman sees a possibility to make the present moment more enjoyable, she would do that in a heartbeat no matter what the future consequences are.

    She would return the cake she ordered at the coffee shop three times if it’s not absolutely to her liking, with just the right amount of chocolate sauce and sprinkled cocoa.
    She would turn the heating up by just 1 degree if she’s just a tiny
    bit cold.
    If you do something that she doesn’t like then fuck you! she’s pissed! crying and screaming. you’ve ruined her perfect moment!
    If that other guy is into her and no one’s around – she’ll fuck him! then come back home and cook dinner like nothing happened.

    Men, on the other hand, will suffer in the present if they believe that it will be worth it in the future. We will work hard, eat cup ramen in college and earn money in order to attain financial security.
    We can eat every day the exact same meal and get used to that and move on.

    Women will never have the mental constructs necessary to just view men’s suffering and sacrifice as beneficial at the current moment. they cannot see how the present sacrifice extends into the future.

    However, when a women realizes that her current happiness is derived from a man’s past effort, it is very different to her – they call it “romantic”.
    At that present moment when she realizes this, the man is genuinely appreciated by her.

    As that moment passes and becomes past, so does her appreciation.

    Those bastard-not-even-hell-would-suffice-for marriage counselors have this mantra that they spout at couples – “marriage is constant effort”
    Wrong you bastards! marriage is MEN’s EXCLUSIVE constant effort!

    It is very easy to label women that do this (read – all women) as the whiny bitches that they are. However, this is the reality we live.

    It is in our hands now to decide how much we’re willing to put up with in order to get sex/love/whatever and realize that we will never be able to achieve that fairytale true lasting love without putting an irrational amount of effort into it. and even then, it may not be enough.

    1. What you are describing here are some sort of domestic pets. I agree, women are like domestic pets, but pets are more able to be faithful when in bad times – they perceive the love.

  8. xsplat: congratulations for your path. I did something similar while I never knew anyone claiming to become able to fly.

    Sex like food? Nah, how many times we heard that? Without food we die. And without sex? If it were true, a lot of betas would be dead right now and the population would be very smaller.

  9. Perhaps the metaphor puts it a little strongly. What metaphor would you use to convey that sex and companionship is a base need built into most humans? Because there is a word called “loneliness”, I know I’m not the only person who feels this psychological requirement for intimacy.

    Most humans are wired, through millions of years of evolution, to feel uncomfortable when not in a position to mate, and to feel satisfied when in such a position.

    It’s not a philosophical issue of whether we can be satisfied alone and whether we need sex or not. We simply have those feelings, and nothing other than sex and intimacy makes us feel better. And nothing in the world – no drug, no other experience – feels as good on a consistent moment to moment day by day basis as that initial flush of being romantically involved.

    Therefore I propose that serial or parallel monogamy, with changing up the girls from every 6 months to two years is the path that will lead to maximizing happiness and well-being and life satisfaction for those of us who are not strongly family and child oriented.

  10. Some religions talk tough, but really they are beta/weak, and they are their attempt to get/keep women all in the guise of religion. It is said that many women if they had to choose between a warrior or a celebrity would choose the famous (popular social proof)/rich (mega money) celebrity, probably because the wealthy celebrity raises her status as also being somebody special because he is with her plus with more money he can buy her more stuff. Maybe for a better chance at world peace, just tell those males instead of blowing themselves up and only maybe getting in the 70 range, that if they become a celebrity (rock star, actor, pop singer) they can get over 100 real women on earth now. Becoming a celebrity sounds like a better deal for those males.

  11. To paraphrase Howard Bloom in his book, The Lucifer principle: a scientific expedition into the forces of history.

    “Men were designed to live short nasty brutal lives. Women were designed to live long miserable ones.”

  12. Pingback: Year One «
  13. Pingback: The Last Straw |
  14. Men are more disposable with their own lives in the sense taking higher risks leads to more potential mating opportunities, whereas for women there no real advantage in taking risks to secure more mates. Consider a primitive man who is able to get to the top of the mountain for even a brief period before being killed by rival males. He could potentially impregnate an entire village of women in that brief period. If/when some other regime takes over, they may or may not kill the previous regimes offspring. If the offspring are girls, certainly they would be no threat to their dominance, and would even provide them with additional mating opportunities.

  15. One question:

    Based on mestrual circle of woman – Alfa fucks/Beta bucks -, Alfa: Girl don’t want to contact with Father/Brother, cuz she wants to have sex with the alfa guy… That was your explanation on 21 convenction. But can you explain, what about the Daddy fantasy that womans have?

    Thank you!

  16. Scary how true this is, on this note… In relation to this present time. The notion of how feminization has progressed … The popular culture meme follows with … ” two types of girls” and for the vast majority that’s true …

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: