My Services Rendered post generated a lot of response in the comments, PMs and even sparked a good debate on the SoSuave forum. All of this got me thinking about economics in the SMP.
It’s funny, I can remember a time in the early 90s when getting your GF to shave her snatch clean was scandalous. It seemed to imply that a guy’s true desire was to bang prepubescent girls. Shaved pubes was ‘niche porn’ back then and you’d have to actually seek it out in the print and VHS days. Now it’s just incidental, and hairy bushes are the niche.
I also remember when I first saw strippers with navel piercings and thinking “goddam that is hot!” Then I started seeing hot ‘normal’ girls doing it, but there was this initial stigma that only sluts, porn stars and strippers got their belly buttons pierced so it was slow to catch on at first – which of course made it all the more hotter when you got with a girl who had one. Don’t even get me started on tongue piercings.
Same thing with tramp stamp tattoos. Initially hot, now, no big deal. I think maybe nipple piercings might be the next thing, but it’s not like average girls go about getting them and showing them off as readily as other “slutty” fashion statements.
I bring all this up as a starting point to illustrate the progression of how the feminine sexual arms race evolves in the sexual marketplace (SMP). It would be very easy to simply pass all of this off as just further indications of society’s moral decline, but that’s too easy an answer. Everyone thought Elvis Presley’s hips and rock & roll would be society’s ticket to Sodom and Gomorrah too. Sexual trends and catering to men’s sexual imperatives makes today’s fetishes tomorrow’s normalized expectations. I expect there was a time when getting a hummer was considered sexually deviant; now it’s expected sexual behavior to where it’s a point of pride for women to give a good one, thus making women uncomfortable with oral sex the deviants.
I can’t think of porn clip I’ve seen in recent memory where a woman didn’t have a navel piercing or shaved snatch. Porn sets a sexual standard, but it also takes it’s cues from larger society. When women complain that they can’t compete with porn stars (dubious in an age of instant amateur porn) you’re listening to a woman resorting to men’s preferred method of communication – overt communication. Essentially she’s exasperated to the point where she needs to make absolutely sure that men unmistakably understand her anxiety, so she speaks his language. “I can’t compete.”
Ironically it’s the same women who were ‘competitors’ in their youth, are the same women who consider their husbands viewing porn to be tantamount to marital infidelity.
Controlling access to sex (women’s primary agency) is the most important aspect of a feminine-primary reality. This reality necessitates that Men’s sexual interests are by default, deviant, hurtful and shameful, while women’s sexual expressions are normative, correct and above reproach. Men are perverts when they masturbate, yet women are so sexy when they masturbate that there’s a niche for it in pornography. The problem the feminine faces in maintaining this control to sexual access is that the same competition that drives women to restrain it is the same competition that forces them to ‘up the ante’ and allow it in order to beat their competitors.
What’s interesting, and ironic, is that women’s push to ban pornography is motivated by the same impetus that makes pornography appealing. Pornography is simply a manifestation of men’s desire for unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Women’s desire is rooted in hypergamy, from which the best possible situation would be unlimited access to the best quality males. In order to effect the best possible sexual outcomes, both sex’s mating schemas are at odds.
In a male-centric sexual reality, most women would simply never be able to compete; in fact unlimited access to unlimited sexuality ensures they will be outstripped at some point by a sexual competitor. Even in a feminine-centric reality this is at least the mitigated situation. They certainly cannot effect their own sexual schema under these conditions, so the recourse is to use that same sexual agency to control the narrative and enforce their own sexual primacy as the correct one. His access, in fact his very exposure, to sexual competitors must be limited in order for her to select from the most, best, suitors. Limit the experience, limit the options, make her sexual schema the primary normative, inflate the value of her sexuality as a reward, and enforce it with specifically defined moralism.
From a pragmatic, power retention point of view, it makes sense that women would expect men to submit to what best fits their reality and sublimate their sexual imperatives to accommodate a female sexual imperative. This can be effected by reward and punishment. Reward in that a man is allowed sexual access for compliance to her imperatives, and punishment via shame and ridicule for noncompliance or even being critical of it.
The Morality Clause
Appeals to religion or morality are simply convenient tools of this punishment to enforce a female-centric reality. It’s hard to argue against religion or puritanism in a “gender appropriate” debate – it’s unassailable. God / Polite Society dictates that women are to be respected, protected and valued as an unquestioned default position, and even when her actions do not match her words or convictions she’s to be given the benefit of the doubt; and even when she’s caught in her indiscretions it makes a man a Man when he forgives her.
At present, all tenets of conventional morality exist to serve a feminine imperative. That may seem like a bold statement, considering that moralism can be considered a form of ‘slut control’, but think of any example of a vice or a virtue and you can link it back to a latent purpose for it being considered such that serves a female reality. Pornography and prostitution are only considered vices by society at large because they conflict with a broader female-primary reality. Encouraging virtues like temperance and honesty, still serve a female specific reality in that men believe they will be considered higher value mating potential than men who do not possess these virtues – and they help to keep men rooted in one set of social rules while they are free to operate under another set.
As feminism progressively ’empowered’ a more overt feminine reality, so too were methods adapted to circumvent this by men (i.e. Game). Since the sexual revolution, men have been forced into 3 camps; those who embrace and function within the feminine imperative (male feminists), those who reject and remove themselves from it either temporarily or permanently (what Jay Hymowitz calls “man-boys” or “Kidults”), or those who learn the mechanics of the female imperative and subvert it to their own purpose (PUAs, DJs, Game).
These camps, and men’s increasing refusal or abdication to play in an overt, female-centric reality, is the reason for more and more litigation intended to get men to either comply or be legally bound to the responsibilities of living in a female reality. For centuries women have relied on passively engineered social conventions that were accepted into our cultural consciousness that carried shame or some attached social stigma for a man who wouldn’t comply with them. Since the beginning of the sexual revolution however, these social conventions have become increasingly less effective as women perceive them as vestiges of a male patriarchy. Men see women eschewing these “traditional” conventions, but are themselves still expected to abide by them while respecting women for NOT abiding by them. So over the course of 2 decades men become less controlled by the old social structure, and unwilling to participate in a female-centric reality. What to do?
Now, as men are becoming increasingly aware of the raw deal they’ve gotten, and with the advent of global interconnectivity with other men, the female-centric response is to legally force men into that reality. Thus the laws enacted which pertain to a specific gender become more and more gratuitous for women and more draconian for men. If men will not respect a feminine imperative by social means, then it will be necessary to petition the state to enforce their reality upon men.
“reward and punishment. Reward in that a man is allowed sexual access for compliance to her imperatives, and punishment via shame and ridicule for noncompliance or even being critical of it.”
Well, thats what they attempt to do, verbally / rationally etc.
Yet their vaginas / emotions speak the inverse language.
And you can easily tell the men from the boys just from their posture response to a woman who is demanding compliance of them. A man who is challenged by his woman immediately raises his posture to one of a stronger “don’t you dare fucking do that, woman” position. A boy who is challenged by his woman immediately slouches his posture to say “yes, dear.” No words are needed. I think Rollo should start writing about how men can raise their sons to see these non-verbal traits in other males, so the sons can learn how to not be those… Read more »
Rollo said: These camps, and men’s increasing refusal or abdication to play in an overt, female-centric reality, is the reason for more and more litigation intended to get men to either comply or be legally bound to the responsibilities of living in a female reality. I’m not sure if I agree or disagree here. I know plenty of women who have become really intrigued, even entranced, by evo-psych ideology, and those same women are vocalizing to me their hatred of the Kidults and man-childs in their lives, even going so far as to verbalize exactly what I am thinking about… Read more »
Oh lord, look at this shit:
“…creators of a new global shift.”
Yikes. They’re not even trying to hide it any more.
Why would they? Men (those not self-aware yet) are already far too steeped in a feminine-centric reality to see any wrong in it. It has become “normal”. If you’ve been taught that woman is pure, moral and the embodiment of all that is good in the world, this kinda shit would sound absolutely normal to you.
You would provide no resistance. And that, right there, is the biggest problem.
Maybe women in charge will continue to screw up the economies the white knights have and they will usher in a new dark ages. The question is: Does western man regain control, will Islam sweep the lands, or will western civilization limp along for some longer time than expected so something else comes up.
Reading this, I can’t help but feel that a thousand-plus years of social engineering is crumbling, that the very ground of social thought on which the feminine-centrism is built, is shaking itself apart.
“Of course, this problem is exactly why I’m happy to share all your posts with those I know who are experiencing their own fall into submission — maybe, just maybe, some of them will open their eyes and realize that practically every they’re doing (working in a large corporate structure, voting, going out on dates and constantly footing the bill, etc, etc, etc) is submissive in general, and submissive to the feminist doctrine in specifics.” — A. B. Dada Admirable. Except, well, Slim Fucking Chance of THAT happening. If you haven’t already, take a look at this book by Nigerian… Read more »
Rollo said: “God / Polite Society dictates that women are to be respected, protected and valued as an unquestioned default position, and even when her actions do not match her words or convictions she’s to be given the benefit of the doubt; and even when she’s caught in her indiscretions it makes a man a Man when he forgives her.” The bible does NOT teach: a) That women are a privileged class. b) That God = Polite Society. c) That a man becomes a Man when he forgives a woman. The bible teaches that: 1. Evil finds a willing conduit… Read more »
“The bible does NOT teach:
a) That women are a privileged class.
b) That God = Polite Society.
c) That a man becomes a Man when he forgives a woman.”
The Bible? Not really.
Modern Western Christianity? Yes.
Okay, not really true for B, but certainly for A and C.
A.B. Daba said, “When women can get pregnant without sperm — and I think this will happen in my lifetime — society is in for a huge change. Disposable males will become the slaves to maintain a society that will have little need for submissive males for any other reason. Maybe it’s already happening with artificial insemination and sperm banks. You’ll soon see more women in “power” in the next 10 years because of the submissive new nature of most males — Hilary for President? More women at the top of HP and maybe even Apple?” I might be inclined… Read more »
How refreshing your pessimism is. Except… So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. http://bible.cc/isaiah/55-11.htm [italic original, bold mine] There are reasons enough in anyone’s immediate purview from any time in history to believe he is living in the end times. Select certain signs and you can cobble together a case for pessimism even during the golden ages. This is not altogether a bad thing; doom mongering keeps us better… Read more »
False rape allegations are a good example of women using the law to help gain hand as a group over men. You might argue that the tactic is merely pathological. However the pathology that underlies it is common and strategic. Keep men afraid of the wrath of the spurned woman. The “you break it, you buy it” attitude towards vagina is a female centric notion that is instinctive. Just as a butterfly can instinctively migrate to a single tree thousands of miles away, women instinctively know that men must be forced, by any and all means necessary, into a “you… Read more »
Rollo – this isn’t too related to this post, but I think some folks can learn from it, and I just really wanted to say thanks man. I found your blog a few weeks ago and ever since I’ve been reading it for hours a day, trying to read all you wrote. It’s the most refreshing thing I’ve ever seen. My dad is definitely an AFC. His wife has 0 respect for him, screams at him all the time, and his own son steals from him all the time and he just sits there and takes it. He never gave… Read more »
Glad I can help.
Today I read more about how the laws against men (such as laws lobbied for by feminist women to limit the options men legally have for sex in the U.S.) are for power/control over men and for extra money for these so called women. So, these particular laws were more about the control and money for them. It is said that men want sex, and women want control/socio-economic status/money. There’s a saying something like, a woman tries to control a man, but it’s a man’s job to never let that happen. Divorce is a multi-billion dollar a year industry (lawyers… Read more »
I was kinda struck thinking about game theory and how the defector is the winner in the short term during the prisoner’s dilemma when reading the first 1/3 of the post.
I do enjoy your blog.
Brother, read this over and over until you get it. Men greater than you have plumbed depths far deeper than, “The brain secretes morality as the liver secretes bile,” which is your elementary meanderings on the topic elevated to its most articulate expression. Ease up on the pontification about the sources of morality. Appeals to religion or morality are simply convenient tools of this punishment to enforce a female-centric reality. It’s hard to argue against religion or puritanism in a “gender appropriate” debate – it’s unassailable. God / Polite Society dictates that women are to be respected, protected and valued… Read more »
kinga, now THAT is a try-hard insult. Blah blah blah Im superior blah blah blah you piece of shit.
So what are your thoughts on the subject etc.
But thanks for that link, I like Doyle.
I appreciate the feedback. It lets me know how I am perceived, and that is helpful. Unfortunately there is no other way to engage at this level. By its very inaccessible nature a discussion of fundamental principles runs the risk of appearing to be “blah blah blah” to those who do not put in the time to understand a difficult concept. Because it’s inaccessible at the immediate level, the topic is considered irrelevant or, as you seem to think, needlessly aggressive. Those assumptions keep you in the box you started in. Now, it’s a pretty expansive box, and lots of… Read more »
From that link. This is the basis of scientific / dogma stupidity. No human conduct ever puzzled a psychoanalyst, at least not for long, only until he had successfully fitted a few facts into the Procrustean bed of his theoretical presuppositions; likewise no Marxist possessed of the laws of dialectical materialism ever found any historical development surprising Sure, religious people arent ever puzzled either. Nor feminists. Nor… you name it. “How you act human”) could be understood as a function of the frontal lobes. Sure. The brain secretes morality as the liver secretes bile. Define morality? In other words, people… Read more »
YOHAMI wrote: “Sure, religious people arent ever puzzled either.” Wha? Mystery (or “puzzle”) is at the heart of faith. See: Paschal, Trinity, Incarnation. That’s why it’s called faith and not “knowledge.” So that’s just false on its face. But not quite what Daniels or I were getting at, anyway. The hubris of reductive materialism is in the claim that they have solved all mystery, that everything is intelligible, and that any acknowledgment of mystery is ipso facto superstitious. Rollo needs to read Daniels, or any of a hundred critiques of eliminative materialism or positivism, to understand the limits of the… Read more »
You know, there’s really only one topic that I post about that consistently evokes a response from you, and that’s anything to do with your perception that I may be impugning traditional morality, ethics and (presumably Judeo-Christian) religion in association with intergender dynamics. I’ll refer to my post where you make the same misunderstanding that I’m in any way implying that religion, or morality in a more general sense, is to blame for the dynamic I’m outlining in the post. For the record, I’m not specifically opposed to the concepts of ethics, moralism or religion per se, but I am… Read more »
Rollo wrote: “You know, there’s really only one topic that I post about that consistently evokes a response from you…” It is the only topic of yours that requires a response from me. Apparently your other sometime-readers don’t see the inconsistency or the corrosiveness of your position. Yes, I am “[pro]voked” when half-formed theories threaten to spread misinformation contrary to the cause. The other side must be defended, and in defending, snuff out your wrong-headed, casually disseminated canards. I know you are not “specifically opposed to the concepts of ethics, moralism or religion per se.” If you were specific, my… Read more »
Ephesians 5 sums up the male/female relationship pretty well: “Wives and Husbands 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,… Read more »
Bob is right. However, it’s easy to see why anyone would think otherwise, given the proclivities of most Christian denominations. What many churches preach on these kinds of subjects is often diametrically opposed to the Bible. I’ve been looking in the Bible to find a specific condemnation of polygamy, yet I cannot find any. The best case one can make against polygamy is this: “God commands, through Paul, that pastors have one wife, and since we’re all supposed to emulate pastors we should all have 1 wife.” It’s a craptastic argument. God never specifically says polygamy is wrong, and some… Read more »
Equilibrium wrote: t’s easy to see why anyone would think otherwise, given the proclivities of most Christian denominations. What many churches preach on these kinds of subjects is often diametrically opposed to the Bible. Absolutely. The church needs to be reformed from within just as much as the culture needs to be reformed from without. She has deep psychic wounds from a century of feminism, just as every other institution does: professional life, military, academia. The only places surviving relatively unscathed are entrepreneurialism and high-level sports. The “proclivities” have to be turned around, and to do that you can’t flee… Read more »
King A, much better.
I believe only Alphas can: women will follow them, and betas will follow the women.
[…] “There is a Reason Why Money Makes You Confident”Rollo Tomassi – “The Gatekeepers”Real Made Man – “Game is a Lateral Move“, “Why Direct Game is […]
[…] Females as gatekeepers – http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/the-gatekeepers/ […]
Wah! Wah! Teh wimminz discriminate when it comes to sex! Oh noes, boo hop. Look, men. When you are also able to get pregnant and have your life and bodily radically altered by pregnancy and childbirth, you’ll get to pick and choose who you have sex with, too. Until we can have the total biological equality you apparently desire so much, you’re going to have to live with a bit of gender inequality (sniffle! sob!) Meanwhile, enjoy being the gatekeepers to love and commitment. And men who are actually sexually desirable to women have no trouble getting laid, so work… Read more »
Usual pathetic attempt at shaming from a female – this time Kayla above. The one thing that drives women crazy is indifference – their power stopped in its track. I wonder how she is coping viz-a-viz her sisters in the sexual arms race – losing out or slutting it up. Its tough for a woman, too much on either side and she loses out, and that, of course, without the ravages of time, weight, and natural ugliness. No wonder she has to come here for a little attention.
[…] Women control sex. Men control commitment (make sure the first commitment is yourself). […]