Articles from August 2012

Girls on the Side

 

Not to be outdone by the tired ‘Man-Up’ tropes begun by Kay Hymowitz, nor the upstart success of Kate Bollick – who’s managed to parlay her chronic, unconsolidated hypergamy into a career and a new TV series – we again hear the feminism triumphalist wailings from Hannah Rosin. Apparently it wasn’t enough for Hannah to allow her End of Men article to fade into the annals of feminine primacy on the pages of The Atlantic, no, she’s extrapolated her tales of anecdotal misandry into a new book of the same title. And here I was concerned about compiling the better part Rational Male into book form (*eye roll*).

I would generally pass off of Rosin as I would the ‘concerns’ of any long post-Wall, solipsistic yenta, however in her book advertisement article Boys on the Side (h/t Aunt Giggles) there was so much feminine primacy tunnel vision it made me wonder if she’d ever read the word ‘hypergamy’. When I read the complaintive screeds of neo-feminists I expect to read a certain degree of self-confirming, self-important concerns for the female condition all reinforced by anecdotal evidence, and Rosin doesn’t disappoint. Her entire article is filled with op-ed personal vignettes of how the brutality of the contemporary sexual marketplace has reduced ‘dating’ (for women) to a series of passing fuck buddies until such a time that a (westernized, upper middle class) woman feels ‘complete’ enough in the professional realm to want to shift into marriage and mommy mode.

For all of her analysis Rosin simply doesn’t grasp the totality of feminine hypergamy and the social influence it has effected upon men and women. I can’t imagine Hannah would be ignorant of the dynamic of hypergamy, but from reading this article, it’s apparent that the feminine imperative makes acknowledging hypergamy’s influence an inconvenient truth that needs to be danced around, all while complaining that men are ruthlessly capitalizing upon it and enjoying some new boon for their own sexual strategy.

I’ve brought this up on Susan’s echo chamber more than once, but what Rosin (and really any woman) doesn’t get is that from the mid 60’s to 2012 we’ve been living in a social reality defined by feminine hypergamy. Since the sexual revolution and the advent of exclusively female controlled birthing, men have progressively become ancillary to the female reality. So when women run headlong into the negative social consequences of their own unfettered hypergamy – such as the evolution of hook up culture – the reflexive response is to presume that the downside of that hypergamy must necessarily be the results of men refusing to play by the social rules they constantly and conveniently rewrite for themselves.

Hypergamy doesn’t care about the rationalizations of the feminine imperative.

Every observation, every personal account of frustration, in Rosin’s article can directly be attributed to a modern sexual marketplace (SMP) that was formed by women’s unrestrained hypergamic impulses. The college women she interviews don’t mention ‘hooking up’ with average betas, they mention banging the hot guys on Ivy League lacrosse teams. In reality, there are likely far more average frustrated betas lining up to get with these ‘poor girls’ who are more than willing to take them out “for frozen yogurt and a $3 date.” Hook up culture or not, these aren’t the guys women are motivated to fuck. Frat guys, cads, indifferent Alphas, PUAs, incarcerated murderers, these are the guys that get the reflex response from a 23 y.o. girl.

Hannah’s mistake is in presuming, in classic feminine-primary myopia, that hook up culture is the result of men sexually exploiting women’s new life schedule for career with a side of family later. Never is there an afterthought that it is in fact women’s innate predisposition to fuck and secure commitment from the best male her sexuality can afford her has  almost singlehandedly created the environment which developed the hook up culture she and her poor college girls lament. As I’ve said before, Game is the logical countermeasure to evolve under the condition of unrestricted hypergamy. This in turn contributes to creating a new socio-sexual environment that changes the rules of engagement for how men and women relate to each other.

 

Year One

Well, it’s been a year now.

I started Rational Male on August 19th, 2011at the suggestion of so many patrons of SoSuave wanting me to collect my writings there into one cohesive section. My intent a year ago was simply to compile all I’d written into a blog and refine those posts, case studies and Iron Rules into more concise essays and allow easier access.

That was the easy part. I had so much material built up at SoSuave over the previous 9 years it just became a matter of picking which topic to focus on and develop it beyond what I could expect the average forum reader to have the attention span for. I’ve never kept a journal or anything, but as I sifted back through my forum posts – some of which were almost a decade old – I began to see how my perspective on things had evolved over the years. In some respects I suppose it’s how people who keep a diary go back and read how they used to be and what they thought at the time, only I found my 2011 self using that groundwork I had laid in 2002, and into the decade, as the basis for broader ideas in the now. I had the benefit of 8+ years of evolving my perspectives as the manosphere itself evolved.

On August 19th, 2011, I had no idea who a good 80% of the bloggers you see in my blog roll were, and that’s not mentioning the ones I read, or locked horns with, regularly who aren’t in that last. I had no idea who Dalrock was, or Krauser who I’d unknowingly inspired to so much insight. I knew Roissy before he adopted Heartiste and of course I was familiar with Roosh before I began blogging. I was welcomed by them as well as Ferdinand from the gone but not forgotten In Mala Fide. Before October of last year, I had no idea who Aunt Giggles was until she fired a shot across the bow at me in Wait For It?

It’s been kind of strange to be accounted as one of the three ‘R’s of the manosphere in less than a year. I passed the 1 Million views mark on August 16th and my traffic, while not comparable to the likes of the other R’s (or even Dalrock for that matter), grows exponentially each month. It seems like the blog’s a meteoric rise to manospheric celebrity, until I consider I’ve been writing ‘red pill’ material for almost a decade now.

I’ve been approached on several occasions to monetize Rational Male, but I’ve held off from that. I’d still ask readers to anonymously donate to my charity fund, but I will never monetize RM. That said, I am in the process of compiling the material here into a book I hope to publish in 2013. I’m still figuring out best practices for this, and distilling down 228 blog posts into concise chapter topics is a challenge to say the least. I don’t even have a working title for it yet, but I’ve decided to put in the effort because the most common request I get is for a publication of my material that other Men can use to help their plugged-in friends unplug.

There’s just something about having a book in your hands, or perhaps on an e-reader, that represents legitimacy for people that reading the same material or ideas online doesn’t. When I get linked to from Reddit as a reference for some guy attempting to help his friend unplug it’s almost always followed by a stream of troll posts or blithering AFC crabs in the barrel pulling him back into their Matrix conditioned group-comfort. I’ve had a significant number readers ask if I had a book they could just hand to their friends (sometimes their sons) so they could digest what I’ve compiled for so long.

And that’s one obstacle I see in my blogging: I have a library of posts on so many topics that it’s difficult (even for me) to specifically reference what might address the troubles of someone seeking individualized help. Like any blogger, I try to make things easier; I have the categories on the side bar, the standard search query, and I always make a point of cross linking to past articles to aid in referencing what I think people might find most useful.

However, it’s really hard to be everything to everyone. Personally I think some of my most relevant posts were published in the first few months of this blog going live, but the million-plus readers who’ve more recently become regulars here may have no idea about them. So as I’ve been reviewing the past year’s material for book publication I thought I’d post a ‘best of’ list for today’s post to make newer readers aware of topics that might address a particular issue they have questions about.

So without further ado, I give you,..

The Best of Rational Male – Year One

The Basics

Plate Theory

Plugged-In

Unplugging

Game

Communication

Social Conventions

Hypergamy

Iron Rules of Tomassi

Mythology

The Feminine Imperative

If you have any other favorites that really spoke to you, but didn’t make my list, please link them and tell me how it helped.

Here’s to another great year of RM.

Girl’s Night Out

A Girl’s Night Out

I’ve been dating this girl for about 5 months now. She’s very attractive, I’d say an HB7 or 8. Her interest level is extremely high. I’d say in the high 90% bracket. She always calls or e-mails me when we’re not together telling me how much she misses me, etc, etc. And she expresses her feeling towards me in many ways when we are together. So my point here is that I know she’s really into me. And I play by the rule of keeping my interest level slightly below hers to keep things going. And it’s worked. Also, I apply all of the Game principals in our relationship. So I’m no chump with this girl and I feel that I have a good grip on the realtionship.

Her friend from New York is visiting her for four days. Her friend is single and young (25). Tonight they’re going out to a dance club with another girl whom they know who is also not dating anyone. This is all just fine. I understand that I shouldn’t discourage or show any type of insecurities regarding her going out with her friends. But I do feel that her two friends are going to be interested in the possibility of hooking up with some guys even though my girlfriend is not. It only makes sense since her one friend is from out of town, and they are single. This concerns me because I think it will put my GF in an awkward position.

I’m a bit confused on whether or not I should ask her anything about that evening in a playful manner when I talk to her next. In other words, what’s the best practice to do in this situation? Should I simply ask how her night went and if she had fun and just leave it at that? Or should I playfully poke at her about dudes hitting on her, and how girls can be naughty?

So the dillema is that on one hand, I don’t want to seem too passive about the whole thing. But on the other hand I don’t want to seem insecure. Part of me says that I should express some degree of protectiveness toward her in this situation. But I don’t want to send the wrong signal.

What are your thoughts

Let her go.

“You do know what happens when your girlfriend ‘gets drunk, he was cute, and one thing led to another,..’?!!” Yes, I’ve been the guy who nailed your girlfriend.

“You do know that ‘taken’ girls just want to live vicariously through their single girlfriends?” I’ve written volumes about it.

This is a very common shit test. Don’t even pause to think about it and do NOT let her perceive for a second that you’re even contemplating it. Be matter-of-fact and tell her you’ll see her when she gets back. Don’t tell her to call you, and don’t you call her. If she calls be concise and ask her if she’s enjoying herself, nothing more – no details, nothing. Let her be as forthcoming as she wants and never for a minute give her the impression you’re suspicious or posessive. This is the surest way to pass this test.

When and if she asks about what you’ve been doing, tell her you’ve been busy with work/school, your family, etc., (i.e. something unavoidably responsible). Do NOT say you’re out with the boys in some lame effort to counter her going off with the girls. Do NOT give her the impression that you are doing anything as a reprisal to her going off with the girls. Do NOT give her the impression that you are pacing around the house waiting for her to call or sulking. In fact I’d advise letting your voicemail pick up the call and then call her back an hour later, if at all.

I’m sure many guys reading this are experiencing the twangs of possessive insecurity even in my suggesting this course of action. The reflexive response most guys will have in a situation like this will be one of mate protection; the fear being that if they don’t express their disapproval they’ll run the risk of their woman thinking they don’t care enough about them to be jealous. This is a trope most guys sell themselves, because it’s more about suspicion than jealousy. As intuitive as this sounds it really masks the insecurity that their girl will meet another guy and hook up with him. On an instinctual level we’re well aware of women’s pluralistic sexual strategies, thus an evolutionarily honed suspicion was hardwired into our psyches to protect men from becoming the beta cuckold provisioning for another male’s offspring. However, as counterintuitive as this sounds, a GNO is an excellent opportunity to display confidence behaviors.

The GNO Shit Test

The secret of the GNO (girls night out) shit test is, the truth of the matter is, that if a woman is determined to cheat on you, there’s really nothing you can do about it. You can protect your own genetic interests, but whether it’s on a GNO or with some guy from the office, if a woman wants to fuck, she’ll find a way to fuck and all the psychological, possessive arm twisting in the world wont change that desire. The covert message in this is what’s important.

Remember, a woman’s default is to communicate covertly. When you are indifferent to her proposition of a GNO it sends the message that you are confident enough in your own ability to replace her should she cross that line. Let her imagination work for you. Women love to convince themselves, “he trusts me implicitly” while they secretly sift through your text messages, but the covert message is really a veiled threat and exemplifies your self-confidence. Bear in mind it’s what she feels in this communication. If you leave her with the feeling that you’re clingy, possessive, sulky and worried, the impression she has is that you’re weak and are the kind of guy that women settle for, not compete for. Essentially you make her the PRIZE by voicing your insecurities. Alphas don’t worry about their plates on GNOs, in fact women enraptured by Alphas don’t see the appeal of GNOs.

A Prince isn’t worried about the behavior of one woman when he has several more on the royal speed-dial; one more testament to the power of abundance thinking and Plate Theory. This may or may not be the case, but the impression of it and the covert communication of it is vital. If, by your actions you can leave her with the feeling that you have a lot going for you, you’re in demand, that you are a commodity that other women will compete for, that you are the PRIZE; you plant the seed of doubt and she will voluntarily curb her desire to go on GNOs – and this is the outcome you’re striving for. You want your attention to be more rewarding than the attention she’ll receive on a GNO. You can’t force this into being so, but you can covertly manipulate her desire. You want her to talk herself out of going.

Learn this now, making a woman cognizant of higher sexual market value can only be demonstrated, never explicated.

Disclaimer: At this point I should also add that this in no way excuses the woman who CONSTANTLY goes on GNOs as some kind of ritual with her girlfriends. This is symptomatic of a larger problem and this, again, is based in desire. If you ever find yourself in this circumstance your best recourse is to NEXT and remove your attentions entirely. Women who have a regular GNO in LTRs are seeking something vicariously through their friends that they feel deprived of and need a fix for to feel completed. It’s only a matter of time until the right circumstances arise for her to consolidate on that deprivation. Better to cut your losses on a bad investment than play the cuckold for a woman who has no genuine desire for you and regularly demonstrates this in her behavior.

Possessiveness

I’ve known seasoned players who’d pee themselves over a girls night out proposition, but I always advise they adopt the attitude that she’s free to go do whatever she’d like. In fact I’d encourage it. That’s where confidence makes you a man, when you can say “go ahead, have a good time.” It’s what’s implied in the action that counts. If a woman (or man) wants to cheat, they’ll find a way to do it, with or without your knowledge. The only person who’s actions you can control are your own. Now, would it suck to break up a marriage over that? Yes, but I’d rather it be dissolved than to live disingenuously one minute longer than necessary.

If I locked my wife/GF up in a closet that only gives credence to my insecurity about my relationship and changes the nature of my LTR. In fact, in doing so the frame automatically transfers to a woman the moment you become possessive, because you confirm for her that you lack the confidence to generate new options (i.e stimulate competition anxiety) – to be a man that other women would desperately want should she decide to cheat. You must be a Man that your GF/Wife doesn’t want to cheat on. Sometimes a woman can’t appreciate this because she’s too immature to get it, but you have to be the Man confident enough to say “do what you want” while communicating higher value. As I’ve stated before, when your silence inspires more dread than your words, you’re probably an Alpha.

A lot of guys have a real tough time with possessiveness. What they tend to overlook is the element of desire. If you’ve got a girl who want’s to go off with the girls to Vegas for a weekend the operative in the whole situation is that she WANTS to go. While I do understand the necessity of ‘mate protection’ this desire is already established BEFORE you issue any ultimatum (which is a declaration of powerlessness). If she had a fear of loss to begin with she would’ve passed on the trip because she had a genuine desire to do so. In fact considering it wouldn’t even be an afterthought.

This is the Desire Dynamic – you can never force a genuine desire by means of coercion or negotiation. You can pay a woman to fuck you, it doesn’t mean she wants to fuck you of her own volition. The girl still wants to go to Vegas even if her man were to give her an ultimatum, and in addition he comes off as an optionless, possessive chump. I realize the idea is that if he’s uncompromising and she magically respects him she’ll develop a real interest level in him because he put his foot down as a “real man”, but the damage is still done. Her desire isn’t for him, it’s for Vegas, even if she says “OK honey, you win”. It’s not genuine.

Just Get It

I don’t usually cite Athol Kay on Rational Male, but I have to give him props for his recent How Walkaway Wives Run a Dirty MAP. There’s a lot going on in this post, and as per usual Athol approaches all of his observations from a married perspective constrained by a limited single-life experience, but a few fundamental points of Game really shine here. To be sure, relationship Game (or married Game) varies widely in application compared to the Game used in single-man-sex-life, but the foundational principles are essentially the same – as are the pitfalls – only the risks are higher and the rewards negligible by comparison.

I’ve stated this before, but, having experienced the ups and downs of single-man-sex-life as well as married-man-sex-life, I can honestly say that I’ve never found Game more necessary than when it’s within the context of marriage. I’ve also written volumes about the all-risk proposition of marriage for men, and women’s utter inability to appreciate the all-risk sacrifices men assume in committing to marriage. So it should be obvious that under such conditions if a man chooses to entertain a lifestyle of marriage the only acceptable condition is that it be within his frame and his terms. And this, gentlemen, requires not only a commitment to Game itself, but an understanding of, and an internalization of a much tighter Game than would be necessary in single-man-sex-life.

Higher risks mean less margin for error

In your single-man-sex-life Game, you have the leisure to Spin Plates, drop the ones which don’t produce dividends, and non-exclusively enjoy the ones who do. Though it may pain you to lose a particular girl as the result of fumbled Game, or to miss the opportunity of experiencing a woman due to a failed approach or consolidation, it pales in comparison to the risks inherent in lacking the long-term Game necessary to contend with women’s hypergamy in the context of marriage. Dumping a girl (or getting dumped) when single may be an emotional ordeal for some guys, but the decay of a marriage and the financial, familial and emotional consequences for lacking Game in marriage is a punishment that will make a single man’s break up tears seem like a blessing. Tight relationship Game means much more than just getting your wife to fuck you more regularly after the honeymoon.

A lot of men will respond that marriage is just not worth all that contextualization of Game, and they’d be right. It’s all risk with negligible reward / appreciation and the liabilities are too steep. Furthermore, there’s a contingent of men who’ll say that it’s impossible to perpetuate the solid Game necessary to assuage female hypergamy indefinitely, and they’d be right too, if Game was a constant act for them that they felt they had to keep up forever. Some guys get mad at just the suggestion that they’d need to Game their potential wives. “She should just love me for who I am!” They expect to be able to drop the Game, relax and be who they are, only to have their wives progressively convert them into an imagined ideal which really isn’t the guy who tingles their vaginas. Then they find out that their wives loved them for who they were.

Crossover

One of the points that jumped out at me from Athol’s post:

When the lines of communication are broken between you and your wife, you aren’t going to get a message that the lines of communication are broken. That’s what the lines of communication being broken means. When she checks out of the marriage, she doesn’t tell you because she checked out of the marriage. That’s what being checked out of the marriage means.

I usually have to control my laughter whenever I overhear an AFC in the crab barrel parrot back the Matrix-speak about how “good relationships are all about communication with your GF/wife.” When this is coming from a single guy I can at least partially excuse him for lack of any practicable experience, but when it comes from a married Plug-In it’s just evidence of the totality of his conditioning. Most guys who tell you this are repeating what their girl-friends always told them was the most important key to a good relationship, but as with everything femme there’s always a latent purpose underneath the veneer of aphoristic truth they sell themselves.

A few months back I was at a liquor event with my usual ‘pour girls’ and during our conversations one tells me about her ‘guy problems’ with a “clingy boyfriend” obviously on the down end of an SMV imbalance.

“It’s so frustrating Rollo, why can’t guy’s just get it?”

With a practiced, but cute, little wrinkle of her nose, and the huff of her $5K tits, my girl had just indirectly revealed one of the most vexing complexities of intergender communication – women want men to “just get it.”

Just Get It

From Female Dating Advice:

The guy with the capacity to call a woman’s bluff with a confidence that implies she is to be worthy of him rather than the other way around is the Man to be competed for. Essentially the ‘chick speak’, ‘chick advice’ phenomenon is a shit test writ large on a social scale. And even your own mother and sisters are in on it, expecting you to ‘get it’; to get the message and see the challenge for what it really is, without overtly telling you.

She want’s you to ‘get it’ on your own, without having to be told how. That initiative and the experience needed to have had developed it makes you a Man worth competing for. Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ‘the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be.

Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shit test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.

In my Pour Girl’s example we see this ‘get it’ paradox from the single-man-sex-life perspective, and in Athol’s scenario we see it from the married-man (or LTR) -sex-life perspective. Many men will complain that they hate the presumption that they need to be a mind reader and ideally women ought to just communicate overtly and directly – just as a reason-based man would communicate. The problem is that in doing so it changes the dynamic for hypergamy. As I’ve stated so often, women say they want the truth, but they never want full disclosure. Hypergamy will not be pandered to, and will not be negotiated with.

This is why the “communication is everything” meme has been responsible for the demise of more relationships than anyone will ever admit. It’s not that you communicate, it’s what you’re communicating and how you communicate it. I’ve counseled more men than I care to recount who’ve sobbed from the depths of their souls, “IF SHE’D JUST TELL ME WHAT I HAVE TO DO TO MAKE HER LOVE ME I’D DO IT!” not realizing that their very verbalization of that and a belief in open, rational communication is the very thing that’s killing (or killed) their woman’s desire for him.

As I’ve written a thousand times, a cardinal truth of the universe is that genuine desire cannot be negotiated. The moment you tell your wife, your girlfriend, that you will exchange a behavior or attitude or belief or any other compromise for her desire you fundamentally change her organic desire into obligation. What she wants, what her hypergamy wants confirmation of, can never be explicated, it can only be demonstrated. If her desire is for you to be more dominant, her telling you to be so negates the genuineness and the validity of your becoming so. Again, observing a process will change it – on a limbic level of consciousness her innate hypergamy is aware of that truth.

She wants a man who knows he needs to be dominant with her, that is the confirmation of hypergamy.

The Warrior Gene – Is Alpha Genetic?

I held off on posting this video because it’s about 45 minutes long and I figured most readers would probably want to watch it at their leisure (rather than on their ‘valuable’ work time), but it’s well worth the investment.

Any time I write about defining Alpha or detail my interpretations of Alpha as a dynamic it’s always cause for heated debate. People are always conflicted on the issues of what biological, attitude or character traits makes a Man Alpha, and as I’ve detailed before there’s always a want to force Alpha into a definition that would best describe ourselves.

Beyond this there’s the question of what makes a Man, naturally (genetically?) an Alpha, and what factors make him a learned Alpha or a contextual Alpha as situations warrant. I’ve covered all of these interpretations in the past year, but it wasn’t until I watched this episode of National Geographic Explorer that I became aware of the concrete genetic evidence of (or at least a genetic indicator) Alpha. I’ll try not to be too much of a spoiler here, because watching this video through a manosphere, Alpha-Beta filter should be enough to give most of my readers a new insight to how Alpha can be defined.

Biological Determinism

For a lot of guys subscribing to the idea that Alpha is built upon manly virtue and noble intent, your first impression of a biological Alpha-determinant will likely be one of disbelief, or incredulity. Watch the video to the end. You’ll probably come up with rationalizations about how a biological predisposition for violence does not an Alpha make, and how humans aren’t slaves to their biology or instinct. You’ll be pleasantly surprised by the end of the show.

That said, while watching this here are some things to think about:

  • Is Alpha both nature and nurture?
  • How does this propensity for violence and /or a biologically motivated dynamism agree with our present defining of Alpha?
  • Does an ability, or lack thereof, to channel this natural (genetic) impulse toward constructive or destructive ends change the definition of Alpha?
  • How does the idea of a biologically defined Alpha evolutionarily agree with what we understand about Hypergamy? (War Brides, the attraction of violence, rape fantasy, etc.)
  • Can Alpha be learned and internalized or faked in the long term convincingly?
  • Is genuine Alpha status earned or determined, or perhaps both? (don’t answer until you watch the end of the video)

This study has given me a lot more to think about in terms of how we define Alpha, but it correlates well with my prior Alpha concepts. Alpha is a mindset, not a demographic.

I will do a followup on this post once readers have had the chance to view and opine.

Over 1 Million Served

 

Yesterday, August 16th, at about 10am EST this blog passed a milestone. We broke one million views.

From what my esteemed contemporaries in the manosphere tell me it’s an accomplishment for being online less than a year (I started August 28th, 2011). While I’ve been writing in the manosphere and at SoSuave for over a decade now, I’m still relatively new to the blogging thing. So please excuse my ignorance about web stats and all, but I wanted to pause for a moment to say thanks to all the readers of The Rational Male.

Blueprint for an Alpha Widow

Hithard’s recent flushing of his nest drew the unsurprising female indignation response from Rational Reader ‘S’. Hers is the predictable reflex with which women feel the need to associate with themselves when confronted with (even hypothetically) another woman’s behaviors reflecting badly upon the feminine as a whole. In Indignation I touched upon the need for women to create the rise that comes from indignation for themselves, or live it vicariously through the proxies of their friends or media that caters to this need.

However there is still a need for a disconnect from that indignation impulse in order to preserve the feminine ego. It may be satisfying to experience drama via a third party, but not many women can afford to be called out for it.

So when a woman inserts herself into the psychological proxy role of another woman experiencing that indignation first person, the immediate response is one of ego preservation. My drawing attention to this isn’t to burn down S’s feelings about casting herelf into another woman’s role, but rather to observe the more rational process women will use when they’ve got a disconnected God’s-eye view of all the aspects of a relationship between the two parties causing that indignation.

“I would never stick around / go back to a man who dumped me! Here’s what she should do,…”

For all of what makes women primarily emotional creatures, it’s interesting to see how rational a response they can muster to a vicarious source of indignation. And in predictable feminine fashion S makes that third party indignation about herself (here’s what she / I would do). From Point, Counterpoint:

Women on the other hand almost exclusively rely upon personal experience and anecdotal evidence to form a premise; only using extrinsic information to support their personal interpretations when the source agrees with that premise. The innate solipsism of women promotes a self-centric primary position as the beginning of forming a premise and then progresses to extrinsic sources for ancillary support.

What S fails to account for, and what Hithard elaborates on in his final comment is that, with the first person emotional investment, women will routinely return to a former lover if his Alpha impact was sufficient enough. Even when a woman cannot physically return to that Alpha defined relationship, she will return emotionally.

What Hit hard describes is the blueprint for creating an Alpha Widow:

@ S
“Well that’s good for those women but I’m serious. Why would anyone want to hang around someone who does not want them?”

That’s a valid enough question for me to give an answer on before I go. I do feel it is a topic that can benefit us all.

For women it all depends on how strong the emotional connection is to a man and if you are filling her needs.
Let’s focus on the emotional connection though as it has the strongest pull factor, and hopefully I can give you some form of idea through a post. Which is difficult when challenging a held belief

Now for arguments sake let’s say you and I (hey try to visualize I am your perfect match) S go through the usual process and begin a relationship.

Things start off strongly. There is both a physical and emotional attraction, but more than that… When we are together there is an element of excitement that sets your heart fluttering. The feeling that I overwhelm your senses, where you feel safe to begin investing in me, both emotionally and physically. With each passing day you feel a stronger and stronger connection that warms your core. Where mind body and soul feel as though they are full of the pure essence of being. You are happy to be led in this passionate embrace. Your needs are satisfied, your spirit fulfilled. YOU ARE HAPPY!!

“Wait, what you’re breaking up with me?”

“What do you mean you want to break it off, no I don’t understand?”

“How is this for the better?”

And this is where the residual emotional attachment comes into play.
Developing an emotional attachment with a woman is a bit like hooking someone on drugs when it’s done right. It is very hard to maintain past a certain timeframe though in a relationship. And there can be numerous other mishaps, with this post only touching the surface.

Now first thought is usually ‘a$$hole’ and anger.
But that passes as the innate need for contact develops. The feeling of just being close to that person even if only briefly, gives them that fix that they crave.

Now I can drip feed your emotional needs to position you to where I want you to be. If I have anchored the emotions right, then you will feel as if no one can love you like I do. Or no one touches you or makes love to you with the passion that I do. Each stage through the escalation I have to ensure I am leading, directing and in touch with where I want to be. The end result I am looking for is your emotions screaming out to be fed in my absence. The reason you run back and fuck me is because it feels as if my intimacy is feeding your soul. The reason you try to please me is to grasp at the high I can deliver

You’re probably thinking:

“I’m not that stupid”

But most people can think back to moments in their life where the heart ruled the head. Hypotheticals are always a mother foucker. The most I can say is this is a high percentage occurrence.
Guys do this as well and God knows there are forum boards full of guys wanting to run back and get stomped on again. Guys tend to get hooked from their feelings being taken high, low, high, low etc over time. Women more from an intense high to a low over a shorter time frame.

Just reading something about a situation can be very hard to identify with because it reads like a no brainer. But if a lot of people wrote down the dumb things they do in love they would simply cringe and think;

‘Was I really that stupid?’

So bear that in mind when challenged with what may feel is an inconceivable notion. Emotions can blind you.

And you are right – why would a sensible person stay. The saving grace for a fool in love is time. Time to wake from his/her stupor.And generally people eventually wake up

I suppose I treat relationships a bit like bubble gum from time to time. I mean it’s great when it has flavour but over time it gets bland and tasteless and I have enough of it and throw it away. The last thing I want to do is go find it and pop it back in my mouth again for another go.

The above was just an over the top example to try and answer the question. Not something you should try and do, some kind of relationship advice, or something I go out of my way to do. Generally you only need a bare minimum of emotional attachment and play it from there. Each step can be expanded on massively and you will have to forgive my syntax, rambling and bad grammar.

Big thankyou to Rollo who has been a great mentor over the years. Someone who has my greatest respect.

Just learnt of the passing of Jophil, a great loss to the community and one that has saved many a broken man. I regret not letting him know the positive influence he had on my life.

Later all and best wishes

I’ll come to you like an affliction, but I’ll leave you like an addiction, you’ll never forget me, you wanna know why?,…

Flushing the Nest

Esteemed SoSuave member HITHARD relates a recent flushing of a nest:

It must be an attitude shift or something. But every time I come back to the SS forums my relationships blow up. I don’t notice myself doing anything different but if I’m with a girlfriend they must notice a change and purposely start pissing me off. Perhaps it’s a good thing, a wake up call that I’m not with the right girl and I should go back to FB for a while. My now ex started getting bitchy last week and it just escalated from there. I’m pretty laid back – but arc up if someone tries to stand over me or dictate terms. Her jaw dropped when I told her to pack her things and leave. She hasn’t been living here on a permanent basis but had managed to horde a bit of her stuff over here in the past three months. She was a really nice girl, very pretty good with money. But she started to not so much nag, but nitpick at me and I’m over that at this stage of my life. It’s either something she has managed to hide for all these months or I bring it out in her. Either way it’s a no go from here. Am I being selfish over this?

So perhaps SS is bad for me short term but a deal saver long term. Or it’s a subconscious thing of ‘relationship is already over time to go on SS’
After all the FB, plates and relationships, I do look around and am just not impressed with the quality of the women out there.
I do worry I’m starting to form a trend of breaking it off with women when I get bored or irritated though. My longest LTR was with what I think was a BPD chick long before what I knew what BPD or the SS forum was. I sometimes worry if that has left a lasting effect.

There’s always going to be a contingent of guys – mostly White Knights, but some well meaning red-pill men too – who’ll presume you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater when ever they read a situation like this. A Scarcity Mentality is one of the hardest mental schemas Men deal with in transitioning over to becoming Game-aware. For most, the better part of half their lifetime has been spent in a psycho-social condition that’s taught them women are to be prized, and her intimacy is a rare and precious gift, rewarded to only the man who can prove himself worthy of it.

It’s a hard schema to unlearn, and even the most unapologetic of PUA still feels that twang of doubt about a decision to NEXT a girl he thought might be of LTR potential. So it’s no shock that to NEXT a woman for what appears to be some minor infraction of nitpicking seems like a wanton overreaction – like stomping on a flower before it has a chance to blossom. Necessitous men, and men recovering from being so, will often adopt the same mentality women will when they hear about situations like this, and call it callous, or selfish, maybe even vindictive of past hurtful experiences. The reason for this is because these men, and women by default, still view monogamy from the perspective of the feminine imperative. Monogamy is meant to serve the feminine, so any action that controverts that, no matter how justified, is by definition selfish.

In the time I’ve been writing in the manosphere I’ve read more stories about how Game saved an LTR more so that the reverse, but that isn’t to say there aren’t breakups that result from a new Game-awareness. Hithard’s self-evaluation about his NEXTing isn’t unexpected. His story isn’t the first I’ve encountered about “Game destroyed my LTR” – that Scarcity Mentality self-doubt needs a scapegoat and Game is an easy foil for this, especially for guys who’ve just unplugged, pushed the envelope back against the shit they were accepting up to that point and the LTR imploded. In virtually everyone of these instances where a man reclaims his balls and the result is a breakup, inevitably the guy realizes what a tough, but ultimately good decision it was to rid himself of a toxic woman, or a woman too insecure in herself to want to relinquish frame after having been in control for so long.

Often enough, a breakup is the red-pill solution.

Flushing the Nest

However, I know Hithard (virtually) well enough to know this isn’t his case. He’s been unplugged for a while now, so my guess is twofold:

First I think there’s more to the ‘nitpicking’ and the nesting that this girl was initiating than he’s going into detail about. I think he’s trying to be more judicious about this because he’s seen (or is subliminally aware of) behavioral cues and attitude cues that are familiar to him from his prior (BPD) LTR, and wants to give her the benefit of that doubt.

He’d hit the 3 month point, and this is usually the time when a woman starts to get comfortable enough with a guy to attempt a frame grab. The obvious tell was how she was semi-permanently establishing a nest at his place. Never a good idea, but entirely expected of a woman who feels the urgency of sex decline with her competition anxiety. I don’t know for certain that this is Hithard’s experience, but it follows a very consistent pattern. At the very least she’s reached a stage at which she feels comfortable enough to make demands of behavioral change (nit picking, nagging, complaining).

On a basic, relational level these are shit tests, but these are now the variety of shit test that qualifies for LTR frame control, as opposed to the types of shit test a man receives whilst dating when the urgency of competition anxiety mediates a woman’s delivery. For example, while single, only the most vapid, self-absorbed women will feel comfortable in making the demands most other women will commonly expect of their LTR man. When single, the art of the shit test is in its nuance and subtlety, when monogamous the shit test is overt and unmistakably direct.

Secondly, after a certain age (SMV), and after some degree of prior relationship chaos there’s a want for some sense of stable normalcy. Most guys are all too willing to compromise what seem, at the time, like small concessions to their women’s demands in exchange for keeping the peace and the legs open. The problem is that this progressively becomes a situation of death by a thousand paper cuts, or frame control by a thousand conceded nitpickings. For beta men, frame control is ceded as part of their wedding vows, but of the Alphas I know who were “fixed” by their women, their backsliding into beta-dom was the result of an incessant etching away of that Alpha dominance by a steady stream of small shit tests and concession of frame by little compromises.

Dumping a woman is DHV (demonstrating higher value) of the highest order. True or not, It implies you had other, better options than her. Dumping a woman is the antithesis of the Scarcity Mentality and it broadcasts this not only to her, but her girlfriends as well as any other girls in her (your) social periphery. Dumping her implies you’ve just gone from a comfortable, familiar beta to the indifferent Alpha that she never realized you had a capacity for. My guess is Hithard will hear from her again. At first it will be desperate and crying, later it will be casual with feigned nonchalance – don’t take the bait.

Whether or not Hithard takes her back or bumps her down to fuck-buddy status, the message is now clear for her – he will control the frame. She will enter his reality or not at all. Most freshly unplugged guys have a very tough time owning this, because for most of their lives it’s been endlessly bashed into their heads that they don’t deserve it. This is the conflict Hithard must resolve.