When I started in on the Hypergamy doesn’t care,.. post I knew it was going to come off as some unavoidably deterministic rant about the evils of hypergamy.
That post was born out of all the efforts I’ve repeatedly read men relate to me when they say how unbelievable their breakups were. As if all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. would be rationally appreciated as a buffer against hypergamy. The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male. There is a prevailing belief that all of their merits, if sufficient, should be proof against her hypergamous considerations.
For men, this is a logically sound idea. All of that investment adds up to their concept of relationship equity. So it’s particularly jarring for men to consider that all of that equity becomes effectively worthless to a woman presented with a sufficiently better prospect as per the dictates of her hypergamy.
That isn’t to say that women don’t take that equity into account when determining whether to trade up or in their choice of men if they’re single, but their operative point of origin is ALWAYS hypergamy. Women obviously can control their hypergamic impulses in favor of fidelity, just as men can and do keep their sexual appetites in check, but always know that it isn’t relationship equity she’s rationally considering in that moment of decision.
This dynamic is exactly the reason the surrogate boyfriend, the perfect nice guy orbiter who’s invested so much into identifying with his target, gets so enraged when his dream girl opts for the hot asshole jerk. She’s not making a logical decision based upon his invested relational equity. Quite the opposite; she’s empirically proving for him that his equity is worthless by rewarding the hot jerk – who had essentially no equity – with her sex and intimacy. He doesn’t understand that hypergamy doesn’t care about relational equity.
This is a really tough truth for guys to swallow, because knowing how hypergamy works necessarily devalues their concept of relational equity with the woman they’re committed to, or considering commitment with. Men’s concept of relational equity stems from a mindset that accepts negotiated desire (not genuine desire) as a valid means of relationship security. This is precisely why most couples counseling fails – its operative origin begins from the misconception that genuine desire (hypergamy) can be negotiated indefinitely.
The Rational Female
Aunt Giggles recently posted a fluffy little piece of interpretive Alpha fiction extolling the virtues of Beta men (who of course to her are the real Alphas only without teeth, pee sitting down and only say sweet things about girls). It’s not a bad list in and of itself despite the fact that her definition of Alpha is George Costanza who morphs into Sterling Grey upon command when the moment strikes. It’s a noble effort, but where her list falls flat is in the presumption (her hope) that women will make a conscious, rational decision to opt for a Beta male as a suitable long term provider. What a novel concept!
Irony aside, Giggles still falls prey to two fallacies in her pleas for a better Beta. The first is as discussed above; the hope or the realistic expectation that women’s hindbrain hypergamy can be sublimated in favor of a rational cognitive decision making when choosing with whom to spread her legs for, much less settle down with. I understand it’s been at least 28 years since she had to make that particular decision, but not much has really changed in that time with regards to the limbic influence hypergamy has over women’s decision making processes. The short answer is that she believes that healthy relationships can be rooted in negotiated desire (which is also called ‘obligated desire’ in the real world).
This then leads into the second fallacy in which she presumes relationship equity – even the potential for that equity – will make the life time commitment to a “he’ll-haffta-do” Beta endurable while repressing her innate hypergamy. As I stated above, hypergamy doesn’t care about relational equity. If it’s a consideration at all in a woman’s decision making process, it’s only for comparative purposes when assessing risk motivated by hypergamy. Some times that risk association is present in deciding whether to accept a marriage proposal, sometimes it’s present when she decides another man’s genetic potential rivals that of the provider she’s already committed to, but in all instances the originating prompt is still hypergamy.
*late post edit* As is his way Roissy offers up another timely refutation of Aunt Susan’s played out trope ‘WARNING: Alpha traits alone are suitable for short-term mating only!’
The Rational Male
All of that may sound like I’m excusing men from the equation, I’m not. As I detailed in The Threat, when men progressively become more aware of their sexual market value, the better their capacity develops to assess long term investment potential with women. The trouble with this model, in its present form, is that the phase at which men are just becoming aware of their true long term value to women (usually around age 30) is almost exactly the phase (just pre-Wall) in which women hope to press men unaware of their SMV into their long term provisioning schema. As this relates to men, most spend the majority of their teens and 20’s pursuing women, following the dicktates of their biological impulses, and to varying degrees of success learn from experience what really seems like women’s duplicity or fickleness. So it comes as a breath of fresh air for the average (see Beta) guy to finally encounter what he believes is a woman who’s “down to earth” and seems genuinely concerned with hearth and family at age 29. Her past character, her very nature, even her single-mommyness can be overlooked and/or forgiven in light of finding such a rare jewel.
There’s a new breed of White Knight in the manosphere who love to enthusiastically promote the idea of rigorously vetting women as potential wives. It sounds like virtue. For serial monogamists playing the ‘Good Guy’ card, it sounds so satisfying to lay claim to having experience and integrity enough to be a good judge or authority of what will or will not do for his ‘exacting standards’. This is really a new form of Beta Game; “look out ladies, I’ve been through the paces so if you’re not an approximate virgin and know how to bake a hearty loaf of bread, this guy is moving on,..” and on, and on, and on. All any of this really amounts to is a better form of identification Game, because ultimately a profession of being a Good Guy is still an attempt to be what he expects his ideal woman would want – a good judge (of her) character.
Know this right now, no man (myself included) in the history of humanity has ever fully or accurately vetted any woman he married. And certainly not any guy who married prior to the age of 30 or had fewer than 1 LTR in his past. It’s not that high school sweethearts who last a lifetime don’t exist, it’s that no man can ever accurately determine how the love of his life will change over the course of that lifetime.
Right about now, I can hear the “wow, that’s some pretty raw shit there Mr. Tomassi” from the gallery, and I agree, but ask the guy on his second divorce how certain he was that he’d done his due diligence with his second wife based on all his past experience. Bear this truth in mind, you do not buy into a good marriage or LTR, you create one, you build one. Your sweet little Good Girl who grew up in the Amish Dutch Country is just as hypergamous as the club slut you nailed last night. Different girls, different contexts, same hypergamy. You may have enough experience to know a woman who’d make a good foundation, but you ultimately build your own marriage/monogamy based on your own strengths or dissolve it based on inherent flaws – there are no pre-fab marriages.
The logical extension of all this is that there is no need to “build equity” the way you describe it and no reason to act the way you describe betas behaving, and I think this is the thing that really scares Susie.
If there are enough rational men out there that realize this truth, the less “freebies” women get. And make no mistake they get freebies all through life.
The gravy train ends.
Imagine a world where every man accepted and understood the concept of hypergamy.
Feminism would be dead. The pedestal would be broken.
You’re damned skippy, there’s no such thing as relationship equity. Love is not transactional, even though we toss about terms like the “sexual market,” etc. The most alpha men do loving things for their women solely motivated by love, not out of any sense of investment. Do it for the hell of it, because it makes YOU feel good to make her feel good, not because you think you’re racking up points on some scoreboard in the recesses of her heart and mind. It definitely doesn’t work that way. As you said, all women have hypergamous instincts, and hypergamy doesn’t… Read more »
no, my friedn that is slavery. You depend on having other babaes. Once you do not have them, you are done. They are still your masters. Freedom is being able to manage your feeling by yourself. You are the master.
Quick question Rollo, are you the same Rollo as used to have an epically long thread in the Love Systems forum?
Your sweet little Good Girl who grew up in the Amish Dutch Country is just as hypergamous as the club slut you nailed last night. Different girls, different contexts, same hypergamy.
Precisely. The concept of hypergamy is the most misunderstood and misused concept in the manosphere. Many express anger at it, or that it’s something optional that women can consciously suppress.
Its not optional, but it is something they can control.
The framework of our society is set up to encourage acting on hypergamy though.
Great post, but I think you dance dangerously close to dismissing “standards”. Yes, all women are hypergamous, but I don’t believe that means every woman is a “slut”. Nobody has ever vetted perfectly, or fully accurately, but vetting is better than no vetting and should absolutely be done. We will never know if whatever woman we commit to (assuming we commit) is a reformed slut or not…..but like any mystery, there are clues to follow. There is a saying “The one you divorce is never the one you married”, and it is absolutely true. The sad things is, some men… Read more »
Agreed. Hypergamy may always be present, but a woman who rides the c0ck carousel without discrimination is not necessarily succumbing helplessly to hypergamy. A woman will never tell you everything she’s done sexually (nor should you ask). However, if you listen to her and watch her long enough, she WILL communicate to you her general sexual history and standards in some way. Even the 35+ provider-hunters will struggle to completely keep the curtain up on their sexual exploits, in part because they tend to use these experiences to lure in their prey. E.g. “I’ve had a bisexual experience…” can be… Read more »
Point is, while we will never know for sure if our potential wife was a c0ck-gobbling cum-dumpster, carousel riding h0r who follows every hypergamous impulse… Which is why adultery originated as a term that only applied to women, whose whorishness has the power to secretly “adulterate” a man’s blood line. A father “will never know for sure,” absent the DNA test whose requirement is an affront to a wife’s dignity, who should be above reproach. “Caesar’s wife must be above criticism.” The point is, this is an impossible standard to achieve individually, through individual commitments. It requires social sanction and… Read more »
A woman who submits to the only comprehensive solution to her hypergamy — the male will — not only preserves her dignity as a woman, but also experiences the thrill and relaxation of submission. She transfers her responsibility along with the transfer of her will. She achieves freedom in obedience.
Beautiful.
Its not optional, but it is something they can control.
No…what they can control is their own behavior. Hypergamy is not A behavior, nor is it an action. It is simply the females visceral attraction hard wiring.
When I mean control, I mean they can control in terms of acting on it, but if we want to play semantic games we can, because your incorrect. In fact if you want to get technical the word hypergamy as it is defined is the action of marrying or being in a relationship with a higher status male, or mating with a higher status male. Just as monogamy is the act of being in a relationship with only one person. All of which are in fact actions. Now, if you want to say that woman’s attraction triggers are hypergamous, then… Read more »
“Change her mood, not her mind.”
Been a PUA rule for years.
“Know this right now, no man (myself included) in the history of humanity has ever fully or accurately vetted any woman he married.” This makes me feel better. I did all the usual beta crap for years, believing I was building up equity, believing I had married one of the good ones. I was shocked when I found her spate of long phone calls and coffee dates with Mr. Travels-A-Lot-Never-Married-No-Kids. My initial reaction was, “You owe me.” That’s how misguided I was. After going through hell last year cockblocking that motherfucker and learning about Game, I’ve been wondering if I’d… Read more »
The best thing you can do for both of you is to finish it ASAP. But talk to your lawyer to minimize damage (financial) and do it discreetly. Afterwards you will have time to practice game with better models (physically speaking), hahaha.
Thanks, J.M., but I wasn’t clear in my post that all that mess was finished about a year ago. We made it through, although there were dozens of times when I was convinced we wouldn’t. I persuaded the guy to back off, turned myself around, and transformed myself into a man my wife would be attracted to, the man I should have been all along if I hadn’t been plugged into the Matrix. The trick that changed everything for me was showing my wife that I had sexual alternatives. It was the threat of her having sexual alternatives that motivated… Read more »
I don’t know, sounds like you put in a lot of effort to win her back, while her contribution was getting off another man’s cock. If she discovered you having an affair how fast would you have been kicked out of your own house? Doesn’t seem like a recoverable situation to me
Men don’t want to hear that adultery is a sin — and it is. Heck, it’s a whole commandment (two, if you count “covet your neighbor’s wife”). What gets lost, however, is the fact that female adultery is ten times the sin as the male’s, and male adultery is understandable only within the context of civilized standards. (A bull cannot commit adultery on “his” cow.) If the civilization has ceased to acknowledge this gap between male and female versions as ours has, then it relinquishes all authority over shaming men for fornication. To ask men to bear the full burden… Read more »
Come on Matt please start writing your own blog soon.
You speak great truths.
Agreed.
Matt, you’ve probably been told this, but you’d do well posting on Dalrock’s latest series:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/reframing-christian-marriage-part-5-sex-as-a-weapon/
No, I hadn’t seen that thread. Thanks for the connect.
you still DO care about women. Deep down you respect and appreciate them. You do want to direct them, to protect and rule them. You NEED them. You would be a good husband and maybe a good dad as well. Men like you are necessary to keep this life experiment going. There were the times when I was the same. I honestly do not give a fuck about their well being. Neither I do hold them responsible for anything. They have lost any real value for me. I use them for occasional pleasure and a dose of life energy when… Read more »
This post is quite hilarious almost nine years later, the degeneracy circus hasn’t even reached its crescendo yet. The last time it was put on pause, Europe spent a decade embroiled in total war.
Good post.
“This is really a new form of Beta Game; “look out ladies, I’ve been through the paces so if you’re not an approximate virgin and know how to bake a hearty loaf of bread, this guy is moving on,..” and on, and on, and on.”
Very true, and what is striking is that this attitude is no more than a pale copy of the antics of the checklist-chicks out there on the internet dating sites. In other words, conscious vetting is essentially a feminine trait. I would suggest that it will have similar results.
See my interpretation of that demand from a guy is to have standards. I am not sure why that is considered a form of “Beta Game”. If you do not find what you want from a woman, the general rule is to move on.
How is that phrase above any different
Hi danger, This is possibly a problem of terminology. I agree that we all have standards, to a greater or lesser degree, which is perfectly normal. What I thought Rollo was alluding to was conscious “rigorous vetting” i.e. having a mental checklist of what qualities a potential partner must have before even considering them. It seems to me that this goes way beyond simple “standards”. I don’t particularly care whether vetting is Beta or not, I just don’t think that it will work. Women do it, and it doesn’t work for them. I would say just go with your guts… Read more »
Good reply.
I suppose the cold blunt truth is to realize that you will never know what is under the hood, and it will always be changing (in the end we are all guessing, regardless of experience).
She could have been a h0r, she may end up being a h0r, but all you can do is keep improving yourself and keep your options open.
Danger, my point wasn’t to suggest that guys simply say “fuck it” and not be selective, or ignore red flags, etc., but rather to address this self-righteous ‘vetting’ vibe I’m reading so many guys twist into some form of Game. It’s as if they think their sensibilities are so refined as to be a point of attraction – and any woman not appreciating his exacting standards is automatically a “low quality woman”. They believe women will think to themselves, “wow, this guy really must be a prince among men if he demands all this moral imperative stuff”, but all it… Read more »
“Danger, my point wasn’t to suggest that guys simply say “fuck it” and not be selective, or ignore red flags, etc., but rather to address this self-righteous ‘vetting’ vibe I’m reading so many guys twist into some form of Game. It’s as if they think their sensibilities are so refined as to be a point of attraction…“ The bolded portion is key. “Vetting” becomes another form of beta game when guys fetishize it to the point where they think doing it rigorously will spark gina tingle in girls because of some misguided notion that only “alphas” are that exacting and… Read more »
Another brilliant post from Rollo.
In terms of relational equity- the caveat is that it becomes easier to agree with when you see fewer options. As women get older, not only do they not see opportunities (‘where have all the good guys gone?’) but they literally don’t have opportunities. Technically they do, if you can rationalize a long sexual history plus extra kids plus entitled attitude. As men get older, their long term confidence has the potential to increase, so that they see more opportunity as well as literally have more opportunities. Its not hard for a woman to rationalize connecting with a confident, sexually… Read more »
Hahaha.
The way you explained Relationship Equity made me think that it’s like engaging in international trade with a child.
They have different values for what they want than what you do. They operate for their own interest above yours, though yours (may) factor into their decisions slightly. And if something shinier than what you have to offer catches their eye, they’ll take it and put it in their mouth while giving you large eyes of disbelief that you would consider them wrong for doing such a thing without a thought.
Learning how to manipulate women to advantage has a few simple steps. The first is the most difficult; deciding to do so. This is a big step for many, as we had been conditioned to seek an equal partner and to respect her autonomy and decision process. The 2nd step is stop thinking from a solipsistic male standpoint. Women aren’t men with tits and an innie. Their brains are wired differently, and although they can occasionally masquerade as capable of masculine rationality, they connive in female ways allways. To manipulate women you need to be able to know how women… Read more »
Learning how to manipulate women requires one thing which is very hard to achieve for 99 percent of men. It requires to …. wake up. Unless we manage this they are still manipulating us – men are learning game, changing places to live, enterug marriages, paying for their shit, slaving in shitty jobs, etc, JUST for being worthy of their company. We are made that way.. otherwise women can not choose. We think that when we have many chicks that we are playing with them. No my friends, we are living just for THEM. Manipulation of women – real, cold… Read more »
Step three grows out from one and two because you can’t know what you want from women until you know women and know what you can expect to get from interacting with and manipulating women. Initially a man might want marriage and babies, but after much experience he may discover his inner desires are not in line with what society taught him to expect to feel. Or he may discover he wants marriage but not monogamy on his part. Or he might find he wants a companionate marriage with a best buddy, and that passion is low on his list… Read more »
This is why it is so dangerous to invest in a woman who grew up in a society where hypergamy is essentially unchecked. Absent an obscene amount of wealth men have a laughably small amount of tangible leverage in a relationship. The end result is that your woman has a lot of motivation and means to fulfill her genetic imperative at your expense. She can fuck around on the side and her worst case scenario is that she walks away with a bag full of parting gifts and the knowledge that she can support herself since she’s been working 40… Read more »
I agree. Take away the unjust laws and the social bias for women in divorce and I don’t think we men will have to worry too much if our careful wife vetting process isn’t a 99.99999% guarantee. As it is right now, getting married makes you a damn fool, regardless of your Game mastery.
Hear, hear!
Depressing when it’s stripped down to the bare bone and exposed. Solution? Avoid marriage, kids, and spin plates? Why sign up for such a raw deal? I’d seriously rather love a dog than a woman.
“Dex is just bitter because he’s never been in love.”
“I love my dog.”
Brilliant post once again.
http://www.henrymakow.com/contraception_and_the_female_p.html
Rollo you got to do a write up of this post, the woman is trying to validate her righteousness only to glaringly show her hyperagamy in action. I couldn’t imagine an article that so obviously shows the opposite of what her intentions were.
By the way Rollo, what is your take on MGTOW, are simply losers or are they following their own masculine centric perogatives.
“Hypergamy” is euphemism for “The Devil made me do it”.
Hypergamy doesn’t care about your predilection for personal responsibility in freewill vs. determinism arguments.
Hypergamy doesn’t care as long as it get away with it.
“He who cares the least, has the power in a relationship” Live by those words – and the way to be sure that you don’t care as much is to always have “up and comers” in the wings – even if you don’t use them, always have options. So when you invite someone to something and they bow out, you have others. Then be sure to mention how good it was – that gets the hamster going, “Who did he go with?” Always keep a woman guessing, and never let her be “secure” in any relationship. You have to make… Read more »
the old proverb “honest men marry early, wise men never” summarizes it all. No need to talk anymore about this one.
Why is it so hard to see that negotiated desire isn’t desire at all? Seems like the most logical thing in the world (what women really want might not be that easy to see, but realness or fakeness of obligated desire should be). After all, men can’t will themselves into a satisfying LTR with a woman they have no physical attraction for, either, even if she is really nice. “it’s that no man can ever accurately determine how the love of his life will change over the course of that lifetime.” Isn’t that true for any person in a relationship?… Read more »
“Bear this truth in mind, you do not buy into a good marriage or LTR, you create one, you build one. Your sweet little Good Girl who grew up in the Amish Dutch Country is just as hypergamous as the club slut you nailed last night. Different girls, different contexts, same hypergamy. You may have enough experience to know a woman who’d make a good foundation, but you ultimately build your own marriage/monogamy based on your own strengths or dissolve it based on inherent flaws – there are no pre-fab marriages.” SO wise. Yup, as I wrote before, men who… Read more »
This is actually a very defensive position to take. “Relational equity” is not just a man’s strategy, it’s what women are going to rely on when they are old, fat and ugly. The problem is that women have become so short sighted, and to be blunt, stupid. The derisive attitude you take towards beta men who deign to think that behaving well and treating you well is worth something is going to turn to desperate hope that he will appreciate the same from you when you get old. It’s not all about raw attraction and desire, grow the fuck up,… Read more »
Solution: instead of investing in the relationship, invest in your growth as a man. She’s more likely to stick around and in any event if she does leave you for a bigger alpha then your investment hasn’t been wasted.
[…] other words, hypergamy doesn’t care about Relational Equity. It’s one set of conditions to consider this in terms of how your girlfriend might’ve […]
[…] Relational Equity […]
[…] Relational equity – http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/relational-equity/ […]
[…] loses its teeth without a core belief in the Soul-Mate Myth. The fear of loss and the delusions of Relational Equity only really matter when the person men believe that equity should influence is their predestined […]
[…] “If I’m a better man than dad I’ll be deserving of love the way I envision it, I’ll be appreciated and hypergamy will be inconsequential due to the equity I’ll invest in our relationship.” […]
[…] I explore the War Brides dynamic, the amoral aspects of Hypergamy or any of the more moralistically uncomfortable dimensions of Game, people want to apply their own […]
[…] For his part Michael isn’t going to have any ambition for himself until he has nothing left to lose, including his girlfriend. He’s not going to join the military, sees no point in taking the SAT and will most likely only do just the bare minimum to sustain himself until such time that his girlfriend’s ambition supersedes his own and she moves on, or worse, he knocks her up. Even James’ framing the possibility of his girlfriend leaving him due to his lack of ambition doesn’t register for him because Michael’s feminine conditioning has ‘taught’ him that she’ll inherently… Read more »
[…] One of the more rage inspiring posts I’ve ever published here was Hypergamy Doesn’t Care. It’s become a manosphere meme now. It was simplistic in its measure, and it struck a nerve. I got so much enthusiastic follow up on that post (thanks red pill reddit) I had to elaborate and explain the dynamic in greater detail with Relational Equity. […]
This plays both ways as well. There are many raging broken-hearted women upset that her man left her for a hotter woman despite having kids together, mortgage, marriage, etc. Men trade “up” to a hotter woman just as readily as women do, relationship equity be damned.
Then perhaps you’d care to explain why it is that 75% of divorces are initiated by women?
[…] the risk of encouraging some ecumenical debate in the comment thread, the great failing of most military guys is the expectation of relational equity with regards to their commitment to the 7 Army values. In a military sense, in a sportsmanship […]
[…] From a male perspective it’s easy to see the compliance utility of such a phenomenon when employed with women, however, when you combine this dynamic with a beta (or God forbid an omega) AFC mindset you can begin to understand how it molds the ego of a person ego-invested in reciprocity or Relational Equity. […]
[…] doesn’t care, and many a man suffers the unprepared consequences of outdated expectations of relational equity, I don’t believe the cultural shift towards the primacy of the feminine imperative is the […]
[…] blogs he linked to. I was able to apply many of the concepts to myself, like qualities of the beta, relational equity, and of course feminism and the feminine imperative. After a few months, I’ve begun […]
[…] [Relational Equity] […]
[…] consider Relational Equity, but as we’ve already observed, Hypergamy doesn’t care about Relational Equity. The problem with Mary’s estimation here is she hasn’t considered women’s […]
[…] expectations that she would feel comfortable being that instigator. In a way he subscribes to the Relational Equity fallacy – he believes she ought to appreciate him sexually because he’s invest so much of himself […]
[…] […]
[…] I propose that all TheMatrix is offering is Social brain thinking. If you read Rollos RelationalEquity. […]
[…] Rob was still playing by a rule set he believed Kim should recognize and should appreciate (i.e. Relational Equity fallacy), but after 3 kids and “missing out on her 20′s”, Kim’s Hypergamy […]
[…] fallacy of Relational Equity is essentially founded on men’s dependency on appeals to women’s reason. Your doing […]
I see here frustration and willing to control women, essentially all the “good old” double standarts. but hey sometimes men are wrong too.
Anyway I saw a “feminist” site that is for ditching all double standards, also those that come handy to women, as this is detrimental to the cause of emancipation.
[…] Relational Equity – Plate Spinning – The desire dynamic – Saviour […]
[…] months, but aside from that I outlived my usefulness to her. The only explanation is that an even higher value man is likely waiting in the wings, which actually brings solace to the situation. That would […]
[…] combined with ONEitis (the soul-mate myth), a Scarcity Mentality, a subscribing to the myth of Relational Equity or especially a self-righteous dedication to his feminine conditioning and White Knighting, then […]
[…] in touch with your feminine side’ curse of Jung: in a similar respect to the myth of Relational Equity where a man expects his sacrifices and investment in a relationship will be a buffer against […]
[…] the most difficult part. You’ll want to couch your decision making process based on Relational Equity, but you have to set aside that emotionalism and use cold […]
[…] conditioning that convinces them they’ll be rewarded for loyalty, support and building relational equity with a girl. I’m highlighting this phase because often enough it’s at this beginning […]
Law 13 seems to apply here.
[…] a woman’s party years “indiscretions”, he believes, will be an investment in Relational Equity any ‘rational’ woman will […]
[…] with. This is the turning point at which most Beta men, hopefully reliant upon the false notions of Relational Equity, find themselves on the sharp end of the feminine hypergamy they cognitively dissociated themselves […]
[…] the hope for Relational Equity and an appreciation for being […]
[…] anyone unacquainted with the fallacy of Relational Equity, I’d suggest reading that post to get some familiarity. Relational Equity is the idea that […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] The first being a moral high-ground idea that women do in fact have a moral or rational agency and thus have an obligation to keep their own Hypergamy in check. This may be from a religious perspective, but more often it’s based upon men’s idealistic equalist hopes that a woman can rationally be expected to parse her own investment in what men think should be Relational Equity. […]
[…] Alpha providers, while being an idealistic character, can exist, but are they realistic? I’d propose that embodying this role has become one of being seen too readily as a Beta by women due to the unbelievability of it. Does men’s romantic nature predispose them to thinking they can adequately fulfill this role? Does that romanticism expect women to be receptive and appreciative of it? Is that expectation on of investing in Relational Equity? […]
[…] like genuine desire, cannot be negotiated for. Whatever your misguided concept is about how Relational Equity should merit a woman’s sympathy or respect, those are only valid and genuine when a woman […]
“It’s a noble effort, but where her list falls flat is in the presumption (her hope) that women will make a conscious, rational decision to opt for a Beta male as a suitable long term provider. What a novel concept!” They do. After they had their bad boy fun and need someone to play good role model and father figure to their kids. OK fine. But here’s the catch – men are lining up to play Captain Save-a-Ho and by-passing, rational, justice-oriented, child and baggage-free women in the process. I asked this question over at Dragon’s blog (from where I… Read more »
[…] to understand the precariousness of it. These are the men who tend to rely on the fallacy of relational equity and the equalist hope that his wife can be expected to rationally appreciate the sacrifices […]
[…] or goodness – if it did, reciprocity would be the norm and none of us would be confused about relational equity. Women reward not goodness, but strength. And strength is amoral, meaning it can be either just or […]
[…] is it inherently Beta? Possibly, when a guy has the Blue Pill mindset that makes him believe in the Relational Equity fallacy and he subscribes to the Blue Pill conditioned idea that he’s inherently lower SMV than ANY […]
[…] covered the fallacy of Relational Equity in a prior post, but I think it’s necessary to revisit the idea here to understand how it […]
Reblogged this on YOUR ERROR IN JUDGEMENT A.K.A. DEPLORABLE PUSSYGRABBER.
[…] covered the fallacy of Relational Equity in a prior post, but I think it’s necessary to revisit the idea here to understand how it […]
[…] “Hypergamy doesn’t care about relational equity” – Rollo Tomassi […]
[…] only reinforces my stance on Blue Pill men investing themselves in the fallacy of Relational Equity. One reason men have such trouble getting over a previous lover is because Blue Pill conditioning […]
[…] to the extreme it can end up as the Savior Schema and expectations of women reciprocating in Relational Equity. This is where many Betas have their ‘game’ disillusioned for them. They see the guys […]
Reblogged this on eghost247.
[…] perspective, but also because, like most Beta men, he’s heavily invested in the fallacy of Relational Equity. He’s observably sexually optionless so it’s a moot point, but if he were to muster up […]
[…] Çeviri : Relational Equity […]
[…] Relational Equity I made a case for men investing too much of their egos into what intrinsic (and extrinsic) value […]
I know this is an old post but thought I’d still add my thoughts here. It’s interesting to read both blog posts “burden of performance” and “relational equity” back to back if you can. It is a very bitter red pill to swallow in coming to realise that a man has his burden of performance, i.e. his need to perform and demonstrate higher value to satisfy a woman’s hypergamous need but at the same time realise that what he is investing to meet that hypergamous need is not always going to be appreciated in the way he would like if… Read more »
[…] to invest themselves in their mates and offspring and likely believed they’d earned some Relational Equity from it. But then, their turn was over with their wives. For whatever reason they were faced with a […]
[…] Femoids don’t appreciate the sacrifices men make, and there’s no such thing as relationship equity. If you believe otherwise, you run the risk of ending up like […]
Great blog Rollo. I’m new to the red pill and I’m glad I’m not going mad with these experiences. I found the content in a moment of desperation dealing with women in my life. I’m in the red pill rage phase, seeing their actions for what they are. I see hypergamy and epiphany stages happening in real time. What annoys me or stings the most is relational equity. This lack of reciprocation for the mountain of effort I put in is mind boggling. I feel this way about my wife and about my closest female “friend”. I call her “friend”… Read more »
@New guy
The rage happens because we expect women to behave like we have been told that they will behave…like men…but women don’t behave like men, so we get angry and frustrated…it’s so much better to just understand how women really are and not expect them to be something that they are not…it’s hard to accept that we have let ourselves be fooled about women’s nature…that we are suckers…but that path leads towards a better outcome after we swallow the Red Pill…
The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male.
This should be “…all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before deciding the relationship is over, for whatever reason.”
I don’t think another branch-swing is the only reason women leave the relationship. but when they decide to to it, the effect is the same.
[…] over and all the effort, time and emotion you invested in her will be for nothing (i.e. Sunk Cost, Relational Equity). In fact, it may be worse than nothing when you consider the opportunity cost of having bothered […]