Articles from August 2012

Reality vs. The Internet

As much as I’d love to read more Field Reports and follow ups (which I do agree are important) the simple fact of the matter is that you’re relying on whatever it is any one blogger or forum poster is telling you. I speak ‘manosphere’ very fluently. I could very easily go on the RSD boards, create a new identity, and fabricate a very believable story about how I managed a 4-Way with three HB 9 swimsuit models using using a direct approach or any number of PUA techniques. Once I posted, there’d be guys who’d virtually pat me on the back and ask how they could repeat it themselves because they want to believe it.

Then there’d also be another set who’d believe it, but take the faux-pity position and say I was wasting my life away in meaningless orgies with the ‘low quality’ centerfolds they wish their LTR girlfriends looked like.

And finally, there’d be the nonbelievers who’d accuse me of making it all up. Not because it was too fanciful a story, but rather they’d think all women are just smarter than to be suckered into an instant porn movie with a random guy – only to lose all faith in women in general after watching another home-made amateur porn video.

Legitimacy of experience vs. Online personae.

Even when PUA gurus go to the trouble of making as anonymous, and as inconspicuous as possible, videos of themselves showing their approach techniques, the first thing anyone says is it was staged. And unless he could someway get a camera secretly into his bedroom after the successful pull, there will still be an element that will think it was arranged, or there’ll be another element that say the girl is just a common slut so of course it worked.

Now as bad as all that sounds, I think Field Reports definitely have their place as field testing experiments, doubters or not. Just bear in mind, you will never filter out that situational bias. Observing a process will change that process.

What’s interesting is this constant, perceived conflict between “theorists” and “practitioners”. Honestly, I don’t believe you can separate them. All the tools a guy will have at his disposal to practice don’t amount to much if he doesn’t understand why those tool work in the first place. Similarly all the theory in the world is useless until you develop an application of it by trial and error. Now, add to all that the situational bias I just described – what do you tell an AFC who’s stuck on Matrix conditioning “try using negs” or “here’s why Negs work”? I’d say both of course, but which do you start with?

Wax On, Wax Off

If you’ve seen the original Karate Kid, where Mr. Miyagi teaches Daniel-San karate by having him wax his car you kind of see the disconnect here. Wax on, wax off; silly in premise, but useful in teaching. Here you have Daniel wanting to be able to fight, but for the moment his teacher seems like an exploitative fool, and he wonders if he’s been duped by an old man who doesn’t know shit about karate. That is until he puts it into practice.

Mr. Miyagi knows his shit, but Daniel has to take all that on faith; faith that Mr. Miyagi is who he claims to be, and possesses the experience he claims to have.

I am not a Guru, nor am I a Master Pick Up Artist, nor am I some motivational speaker, pastor or self-help psychologist. I’m a man with experience. What I write here is in the hopes that others can benefit from that experience and the insight that comes from sorting it out. When I can devise practices from those insights I’ll offer them, but understand that the validity of what anyone you have respect for professes or suggests you do, it’s still up to you to decide what works best for yourself and critically determine its veracity.

I can tell you, you can trust that I am who I say I am, but my experiences and how I relate them is how you can verify my own or anyone else’s perspectives. It’s exactly for this reason I take a hands-off approach to moderating my comments on this blog. I may sharply disagree with certain perspectives, but it’s more important to read them to know just what that commenter’s experience and/or legitimacy is.

Dry Spell

From Sosuave member Flatnose:

Has the PUA community sent me delusional?
Ok I’m 47, well toned still have a 6 pack. 5’11. Ok looks. Well dressed, Good conversationalist Good job, full head of hair, hobbies are climbing potholing[?], playing guitar weight training etc. I’ve worked hard on body language, can approach ok. Often get glances and flirted heavily with.

Not getting laid though!

In a real dry spell at the moment guys, I am beginning to think that banging anyone under 30 who turns me on is just an impossible dream and that I am deluded to believe it.

I guess I am seeking some objectivity about this, are my expectations unrealistic?

Are you fishing where the fish are?

When I read some guy use the term ‘dry spell’ it’s usually due to one of two things: He’s either an AFC or a recovering AFC with only a tentative grasp of Game and is in the learning stages of applied Game, OR, he’s got Game, has a workable estimation of his SMV and knows how to demonstrate it (DHV), but due to logistics and/or his environment lacks the opportunities to effectively hook up as he’d like to.

From your description here I’m inclined to believe the latter. Even with marginal Game application a guy such as yourself could be expected to be reasonably attractive enough to generate interest in the right arena. Maybe you need to change up your environment? Find a new venue to meet women?

It’s been my experience from counseling that when men complain of being in a proverbial “dry spell” it becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy for them. In psychological terms this is known as a negative feedback loop. When you’re in a condition of deprivation you’ll manifest behaviors that cue others about that deprivation. Even declaring that you’re in a dry spell (really an appeal to pity) is evidence enough of your deprivation. The frustrating thing for men is that these deprivation behaviors become a subconscious default action – usually in the hope that some girl will take pity and end his period of desperation.

The Loop

“No mortal man can keep a secret. If the lips are silent, he chatters with his fingertips; betrayal oozes out of him at every pore.” – Sigmund Freud

The trouble with a self-acknowledged dry spell is that most guys are unaware of the subtle deprivation cues they telegraph to the very women who’d break them of the deprivation that causes it. When a beta chump is resistant to the truths of Game this feedback loop is simply a frustrating aspect of his self-denial, but don’t think that dominant, Game-aware Alphas aren imune to the dry spell loop. The inherent danger is to start believing that the dry spell is the result of bad posturing, or caused by a false impression of women’s response to Game, or worse still, due to fate or karma (“it’s just beyond my control, the gods want me celibate”). These are all rationalizations for not recognizing and making a conscious effort at controlling the cues that women read as sexual deprivation.

While it is important to be self-aware of your dry spell feedback loop, the worst thing you can do is admit to the dry spell with a prospective woman. As I wrote in Sorry,..

Iron Rule of Tomassi #9 Never Self-Deprecate under any circumstance.

Apologizing for a lack of Game isn’t Game. Women want a man that other men want to be and other women want to fuck, and that guy, by definition, is already getting laid when a woman first meets him. Being necessitous isn’t an aphrodisiac, it’s a turn off in subtle ways that men don’t realize, but women register even when they’re not trying to. This is the first mistake the dry spell man makes – he attempts to leverage his dry spell into a form of Beta Game, thinking that a pity-fuck will lead to something more substantial.

While ‘slump busting’, or paying for sex, or falling back on a lesser plate may aid in regaining some confidence to break out of those dry spell behavioral tells, leveraging that dry spell for a pity-fuck is not only bad sex, but the girl who would bang you for pity’s sake will only resent herself and you more in the long term.

Breaking the dry spell loop relies upon recognizing it and changing the variables that are perpetuating it. As I advised Flatnose, a change in venue goes a long way, especially if you’re dependent upon some kind of social circle Game. Move to a new environment, meet new prospects. Most guys wont entertain this because it forces them from a comfort zone; a comfort zone which has ‘dried up’.

Changing variables is usually the key. Change in dress, attitude, doing something out of your preconceived Game routine, that may have produced fruit before, is essential. In body building there is a principle known as muscle confusion. When you do the same workout routine for months, muscle memory will find its level and plateau your gains. However, by varying your work outs, by doing new exercises and consistently forcing your muscles to adapt to unexpected condition you break through that plateau for new gains. Breaking a dry spell requires that same principle – variation, adaptation, improvisation.

Pushing Forwards Back

 

 

Recently I’ve been sifting through the comments at the Chateau and some other blogs regarding the Kristen Stewart dust up about her “infidelity” with Rob Pattinson in favor of a married, 41 y.o. movie director. The PMs barraged my inbox for a week. Alright, alright, you got me, I’ll give you my take,..

I was loathe to even broach the topic considering the yeasty pop-culture discharge that Twilight-Moms are rutting in after this “devastating bombshell shocker!” 12 dead in an Aurora theater? That’s terrible, but a 22 year old HB 6 cheating on Edward for an older established movie director? That’s fucking news. Once women make an emotional connection with a narrative, it’s a very tall order to get women to make the separation of fantasy from reality.

Needless to say, I’m hearing the manufactured indignation in real life. It’s spreading amongst social circles, on talk radio topics – even my daughter’s 14 y.o. friends are dropping their 2¢ about how worldly and knowledgable they are as to why ‘Bella’ would cheat on ‘Edward’. As I wrote in Indignation, from a very early age girls / women have a psychological need for something beyond the mundane life that their security need drives them to. Kristen Stewart is an excellent example of this conflict because she represents a strata of woman who, minus her celebrity, is very mundane herself. Put her in an evening dress and maybe she cleans up to an HB7 on the Tomassi scale. She’s not a stunner, but then, that’s why she’s the perfect Lego brick to play Bella; socccer moms and tweens can see past her as a place holder into which they can cast themselves in her role.

But hypergamy doesn’t care about the social conventions and ‘IRL’ romantic expectations of Twilightees. Hypergamy demands optimization in terms of excitement, long-term security and Alpha dominance relative to a woman’s capacity and opportunity to maximize them all.

Lost in the midst of all this we have 26 year old Edward Rob Pattinson experiencing his WTF? moment. While he’s ostensibly a good looking guy and a Contextual Alpha, the lesson to be learned here is one which may confuse red-pill noobs. Why the fuck would Stewart ‘cheat’ on a guy who’s adored and desired by millions of women? Because hypergamy doesn’t care.

When a woman’s self-perceived SMV exceeds the degree to which she perceives is the SMV of the man she’s with, this is the point at which she will seek out (or be open to the advances of) an Alpha she believes exceeds her own SMV.

If that sounds counterproductive, just remember this dynamic relies primarily upon a woman’s self-perceptions and is predicated upon her acknowledging the phase of life in which she finds herself in according to the SMP. In the age of social media, women now have an ubiquitous source of ego inflation available to them like never before. This contributes to women’s overblown sense of worth and entitlement in a way society has never experienced.

Going Feral

The Kristen Stewart affair is really an illustration of a much broader dynamic however. Recently on the SoSuave forum member Backbreaker related a story about a friend who’d gone through much of the same thing (albeit to a more mundane degree) poor Rob Pattinson has just experienced. The thread is extremely long and well debated, but the plot summary is really one of an unfortunate guy on the receiving end of his girlfriend’s hypergamic optimization. His friend was traded for another, better option. From a life perspective, he’d failed to keep pace with this girl’s hypergamic imperative and was thus selected-out by it.

As I wrote in Navigating the SMP there is a particular window of opportunity for women whilst in their prime SMV years (22-24) that less and less women want to consciously recognize – or at least they aren’t encouraged to recognize thanks to feminized social conventions, and the ego-fuel of social media. Precious few women are self-aware of the hypergamic impulses their subconscious is driven by, and thus their behaviors are manifestations of.

When women get to be 25-29 there is a limbic, subliminal understanding that her window of hypergamic opportunity is closing. A woman’s hindbrain knows on an animalistic level that her period of maximally optimizing her hypergamy is closing, thus the motivation to pair off monogamously with the best provisioning male begins to take priority over fucking the best genetic (most sexually arousing) males she was happy to pair off with in her prime (22-24).

In Backbreaker’s, our subject woman is merely a common illustration of this process. So, in this respect, and strictly for purpose of example, I can understand Backbreaker’s line of reasoning. Young men need to be aware of the ruthlessness and callousness of this feral, evolutionary process. As a Man, you do in fact need to keep pace with the hypergamic imperative that WILL rear its ugly head when the moment and opportunity of a better hypergamic prospect present itself. Sometimes, even a woman’s perceptual prospect of a better optimized hypergamy is enough to set the process in motion. A woman’s hypergamic urgency declines as she comes to accept her diminished capacity to optimize hypergamy, but as a Man, the need to prove yourself will always be an aspect of your relationship with a woman.

If there’s fault to be found it’s not in women’s seeming duplicity about her ‘feelings’ versus her hypergamy-motivated actions; the real fault is in young Men believing in pollyanna fantasies about true love, soul-mates and feminized romance porn in favor of the harsh realities of hypergamy.

Ethical wonks will want to have their say, “She’s a slut! She’s a hypocrite! Perfidious woman! Have you no honor? Men are made of different stuff, we’re the moral cement that holds society together, unlike you amoral weaklings.” No one gets mad when wolves on the tundra tear the throat from a caribou. No one calls them evil for messily devouring the carcass; they’re just doing what nature has embedded into their instincts to do.

“But human’s aren’t wolves Rollo, we have freewill, you wouldn’t understand because you’re not as morally attuned as I am.”

Yes, human’s aren’t wolves, and we do in fact exercise a great measure of freewill, but for all of that, presumptively righteous, self-guided refusal of determinism we are still subject to the same feral instincts. Our natural state is not one of self-control, so why are we shocked at the environment that sets the frame for us to even have any concept of what control even means? Evo-psych, hypergamy, natural instinct isn’t deterministic, it is probablistic.

We ignore at our peril the evolutionary results that directed us to the conditions we find ourselves in. When it doesn’t serve our purpose we call it weakness or moral turpitude; but when it does, that feral energy, that righteous anger, that sweaty bloodlust we evolved in the wilderness so long ago that helped us run down a caribou ourselves, that instinct we call courage or determination and we put angels wings on it in appreciation.

Backbreaker took a lot of heat for his assessment of his friend’s ‘progress’ in life. The title of the thread, “If you aren’t going forward, you are going backwards” set the tone for the discussion. In a sense he faults his friend for the demise of his relationship due to his lack of progress or ambition, but this doesn’t come from malice or ill intent. Rather he uses the scenario (not unlike the Stewart affair) to make the point that a Man must continually grow and become more than he is in order to survive and thrive. The distinction that men need to make is the difference between success motivated by the need for pussy, and an abundance of pussy that is the by-product of a man’s success.

Hypergamy doesn’t care about your moral interpretations. Hypergamy doesn’t care about your personal motivations to achieve and become more than you started with, it only cares about what you are. If that makes you feel slighted or morally indignant, go read War Brides. Yeah, that’s some really fucked up hypergamy right there, but the question isn’t whether it’s moral or not, the question is ‘what do you plan to do about it?’

Hypocrites & Little Emperors

Over the weekend I read an interesting post from Vox regarding hypocrisy (great song BTW) and the impressions we as Game-aware men sometimes indelibly leave on guys who actually make the transition from from the Matrix to being Game-aware:

It is true that adulthood and maturity are drenched with hypocrisy, because we are all largely incapable of living up to our ideals, morals, and standards. But that doesn’t mean that wallowing forever in that point between childhood and adult is desirable, or even possible. With regards to Game, it is perfectly understandable that gammas and deltas might look at the decadent world of the alpha and think it looks like paradise, complete with 72 cheerfully compliant non-virgins, but that is as much of an illusion as the world of the blue pill.

For obvious reasons, nothing motivates a man’s imagination better than the potential for sex. On the most rudimentary level, the male ideal – the counter to feminine hypergamy – is unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. The most extreme idealization of this (72 virgins in heaven) is too far fetched for all but the most mentally imbalanced and religiously fanatical. However, men’s rational predispositions want to temper the unbelievable with the concept of the fantastically attainable. Think of it in terms of porn; most men tend to click past the videos of “porn stars” – huge breasted, HB10’s®, overly made up, in lingerie and high heels, all eager and willing to perform any feat of sexual acrobatic – they’re too improbable, too unbelievable. But give a guy a tempered, believable, sexual vignette, one into which he can relatively assume the POV perspective of the male, and now you’ve got participant. You’ve got a believer.

To varying, subjective, degrees of fantasized believability, a lot of newly unplugged red-pill men can visualize themselves in some, albeit limited, capacity to experience the Alpha’s porn. However, I don’t think Vox goes far enough in fleshing out the Alpha fantasy though. A majority of men (i.e. betas) wouldn’t entertain the notion that they could experience the, now stereotyped, hedonism of the rock-star bad boy PUA Alpha for the same reason overdone ‘porn stars’ don’t appeal to them – it’s too slickly unbelievable. What they will believe, and probably to their detriment, is that they can enjoy the Game well enough to fit their personal capacity to get with their ‘believable’ ONEitis girl who they just know is their perfect soul-mate. They’ll play the Game realistically and long enough insofar as it grants them access to the ‘type of girls who’d always rebuffed them.’

Rubrosa from the Sosuave forum picks up the continuation of this fantasy:

Every religious nut I’ve ever encountered who has passed judgement on me and my “sinning ways” has had a past which was heavy on the sex and drugs. In other words, they pissed all the “fun” living out of their system before they became “Born Again”. Now they preach “The Way.”

There seems to be a theme in certain parts of the manosphere (which I agree with) which states more or less the following:
It’s not about the chicks…it’s about you improving yourself….which gets the chicks.

I have a friend who’s a very successful Businessman/Playboy. We both have similar experience in terms of our journeys in dealing with the opposite sex. We were laughing at his story about how he didn’t feel like screwing this one girl only because he didn’t feel like driving that evening. I joked that if he was 20 years old, he would have made the drive. He laughed “Are you kidding? Back then I would drive 3 hours to get laid!”

I think that maybe I’m like those wackjobs who preach only after they’ve sinned. Does all my advice fall on deaf ears because no matter how much advice one hears, experience is the only true teacher? I have enough experience and Game savvy to where I can bang a different chick every night of the week with some reliability…so it’s somewhat EASY for me to say “It’s about you, not the chicks !” Kind of like a rich John Lennon singing “All you need is Love ”
I feel guilty in some weird way because I’m saying that chicks aren’t a priority maybe because I have a large supply.

Rollo ? Your take ?

I don’t read Rubrosa as making a religious statement here so much as he’s drawing comparisons in hypocrisy. ‘Do as I say, not as I’ve done’ is what he’s concerned with. The religious are easy targets in this regard, but really, everyone’s a hypocrite to varying degrees.

When I was a young AFC in my late teens I would’ve honestly been appalled by what I advocate on this forum today. My outlook at that time was incorrect and influenced by persons, conditions and social conventions of which I was totally unaware. The 19 year old Rollo Tomassi would’ve advocated the exact opposite of the 44 y.o. Tomassi would now. Does that make me a hypocrite today? Or, what if my outlook was correct and through the course of life and events I changed my way of thinking and lifestyle for a period of time, only to later go back to what had originally been truth to me later?

Life is learning. A hypocrite is someone who’s words and actions are incongruent, certainly in the present, but maybe not so much the past. I give advice here based on what I got so horribly wrong in the past, not because I did everything perfect from the get go. This is why it’s a dangerous business to build your reputation on moralism or absolutism. What your life experiences teach you will eventually come into conflict with convictions in spite of how rock solid you believe they are. And it’s then that people will call you to the carpet for being something you say you are or you aren’t.

Hail to the Emperors

Now, more to the point, yes, it is all about getting laid, AND it’s also about improving oneself too. Pussy has inspired more men to become great than any other factor in human history. I think what’s missing here is that the drive to succeed and the drive to get laid are mutually beneficial, and often symbiotic. The problems arise when you attempt to separate these two influences and turn them into absolute binaries.

Pussy = Bad.  Being a Little Emperor = Good

Pussy = Good.  Being a Little Emperor = waste of time, or just a means to pussy.

It doesn’t work this way.

When people say “If all you’re living for is fucking and women, then I pity you for not living right.” what they’re doing is making a binary judgement call while using themselves as a referendum. When one guy feels he’s living ‘by the rules’ then everyone else has to play by them too in order for him to validate his existence.

When another guy wins by not playing by the first guy’s rules he then needs to invalidate that win. Take a guy who did everything by the book, got married to the first girl he’d ever banged, went to college, has a decent job, has 2 kids, and sit him next to the high school drop out, who’s still unmarried, enjoys many women, stumbled into a well paying job and has few responsibilities. Who has the greater life experiences? Who’s “doing it right? Which one of these guys is more likely to try to invalidate the lifestyle of the other? Who envies who, and who is ‘happier’?

The Meaning of Sacrifice

Take a deep breath and check your heart-rate before you hit play gentlemen (and ladies), you’re in for a ride.  In general I don’t necessarily promote nor disparage the MRA movement, but after watching this video I can better understand the contempt behind the groundswell. However, my point in posting this wasn’t to trigger any MRA outrage (The Spearhead and A Voice for Men has that covered), rather it was prompted by Rational Reader Dan’s comment in my 16 Years On post:

Rollo, you mention that men make a sacrifice of their desire for sexual variety and their sex life in general, when he marries.

But you are forgetting that for many men, marriage *is* the only or most feasible way to have a regular sex life. one-night-stands, flings, FWB’s, casual relationships – these are not for every guy. Most men dont get the opportunity to be promiscuous. Most men are simply not built for the going out in the jungle and hunting…physically or mentally.

I dont want marriage. I dont even want a committed relationship at this stage But I feel compelled to consider commitment and marriage because of my sexual / intimate needs. I am sure many mediocre young men are in the same boat as me. But you havent considered them here. You’re talking from the perspective of a man who is atleast relatively attractive and can sexually attract women with reasonable ease.

Forgive me Dan, I’m not trying to run you up the flagpole here. My assumption is that Dan hasn’t read Appreciation or Women In Love in their entirety. There’s much more to men’s sacrifices than just a trade off between a regular piece of ass and the potential for more varied sexual experiences. The predictable, feminized reflexive response is to presume that men would fixate on how their sacrifices would impact their sexual strategies, but sexual opportunism is only a single sacrifice among many. The feminine imperative would like nothing better than to have both men and women presume that men’s only concern is about the legs that might have been spread for them had they not opted for marriage, but there’s a lot more to men’s sacrifices.

As illustrated in this video, career, relationships, family, education, and the overarching threat of losing all of his investments in a no-fault divorce are all very real risks men tend not to consider and women would rather they not. A lot of men lament losing half (or more) of their financial assets, but what gets lost in that is the personal investments necessary to establish those assets. Those investments required a sacrifice of time, effort, emotion, determination, etc. and all whilst maintaining an intimate relationship with a woman who cannot appreciate in-full the totality of those sacrifices – because she never experienced them from a male perspective. Men’s sacrifices are only appreciated through the filter of women’s expectations and perceived benefit.

At 46 years old, I have no doubt that Charles Bruce had well over half a lifetime of personal investment into himself, his wife, their family and extended families. For most Men, and manosphere readers in particular, the initial response to Mr. Bruce’s dilemma is one of (understandable) blind rage at the feminized system. As hard as it is, I’m going to ask that readers look past this anger and see the conditions, investments and sacrifices Bruce made that makes his story so tragic.

BRIFFAULT’S LAW

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

In 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 cheated on you in spite of all your best efforts to invest in your relationship and play by the “rules”, but it’s entirely another when you consider fallacy of Relational Equity in terms of a life long, expected, entitled, commitment. Charles Bruce is on the sharp end of women’s inability to appreciate men’s sacrifices.

If you’ve ever wonder why no male hormonal contraceptive has ever been developed or marketed since the sexual revolution, look no further than Briffault’s Law. For all the bleating about equalism and gender equality of the past 60 years, women have effectively organized and fought like cornered animals to keep the power of controlling the family unit out of the hands of men.

I’ve read studies documenting men’s most productive, creative, endeavors being attempted and/or achieved in the years before they married; innovations, academic degrees, scientific discoveries, great masterpieces of art. etc. Then, a precipitous drop off in what we are meant to assume is ambition and motivation occurs after marriage. Roissy has more than a few links to these articles, but my impression of these studies is less about the neutering effects of marriage (i.e. the responsibilities of settling down) and more about the lack of opportunity inherent in maintaining a committed monogamy and addressing the sacrifices a man must make to advance his interests. Missing opportunities to get laid with new and varied women pales in life-importance when you consider the sacrifices a man makes in having to turn down opportunities that would advance his (and possibly society’s) better interest. Women are the Dream Killers because they cannot appreciate men’s sacrifices.

This is an interesting quote from a man citing Briffaults Law:

“Men love women, but I truly believe that women are incapable of what we men call love. “Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends.” How many women are willing to die for their husbands, friends, country, or comrades in arms? Damn few, if any.

Yet it is commonly expected of men (made compulsory under certain circumstances). How many men continue on in their marriages, supporting their family and their wife, while the wife is making their life a living hell? Far too many. How many men choose their wives over their parents and siblings? Most.

Women do not behave like this. Men take out large insurance policies so their wives and children will be well taken care of should they die. Even if the wife is making (nearly) as much money as the husband, she will not have insurance. She sees no reason to reduce her current ability to spend to take care of others after she is dead. She could care less what happens to the husband, and doesn’t want the husband to be able to spend money on some young bimbo, after she dies. The life insurance gender statistics are well known, and widely available. None of this should be a shocking revelation. When my second wife died, her mandatory insurance (free) provided by her teacher’s union covered her funeral expenses. It would have made life much easier if her insurance had paid the over $350,000 my life insurance would have paid.

When does the expectation of mutual benefit in marriage go seriously wrong in the west? It goes wrong as soon as the “I Dos” are said, or very shortly thereafter. Why is this so? Because you, the man have just entered into a contract with the state where you have promised that you will provide everything to your bride, and where the bride has promised nothing. By the way, the full weight of the law and public opinion will support her stripping you of every thing you have, including your children, and most of what you will ever make in the future, when (not if) she decides to dump you.

Hence, once you enter into the contract you have nothing left to offer her. Everything you have, or will have, is already hers.

Seem like a harsh statement? I thought so too, the first time I heard it, during an argument with my first wife towards the end of our marriage. She asked me the eternal female question, “What do you do for me?” (i.e. what benefit do I get from associating with you?) I responded, “I pay all your expenses. I feed, clothe, and house you. And, I am paying for your college tuition.” She told me that all the money I earned was her money and that if she let me have any of it that was pure charity on her part, so I was doing nothing for her. I thought this was unduly harsh.

The divorce courts showed me that it was pretty much just a statement of fact. The wife has it all, and can make her part of the marriage contract, the portion where she is to provide you with companionship, comfort, loyalty, sex, etc., null and void at any time while keeping everything you have/had/will ever have. She has no need to associate with you further once you are married.

To be a married man entais a sacrifice of such utter powerlessness, on so many levels, that no woman will ever comprehend, much less appreciate.

Flashes of Alpha

I was about 26 when I was in the waning days of dealing with the neurotic hell that was the BPD woman I had become psychologically ensnared with for almost 3 years at that time. I was sitting in her dorm room wondering just what the hell had happened to the sexualized, happy, and indifferent Alpha junior-rockstar I had been just a few years prior. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I’d gone from idealistic teenager, to organic Alpha, to a defeated, needy beta on a dangerously close slide into omega-tude. Some part of me knew what I needed to do, and as my living situation gradually began to deteriorate the very real prospect of cutting myself loose from who I believed was my “soul mate” only made my depression worse. However, that same part of me was also pissed off.

That relationship was defined by my sickly childish beta mentality combined with the insane co-dependent ravings of a psychotically jealous BPD girl. For her, my character was to be beta, so on the rare occasion I had the temerity to actually get pissed off it was a real call for alarm with her. For a brief moment I had flashed Alpha and that was always a shock since it was so out of character. From the time I was 17 until I was 24 that Alpha was who I was in a more or less natural sense, but after years of my BPD’s constant barrage of insecurity, and my endless attempts to ‘perfect myself’ in order to cure her neurotic jealousy, I was apologetic for any outburst of Alpha no matter how just and righteous my reasons for being so were.

Roissy and a few other manosphere notables have written about how flashes of anger and semi-justifiable bouts of indignation can be a powerful form of demonstrating higher value (DHV). Sometimes these burst are in fact genuine and/or unprompted responses to a situation. These Flashes of Alpha serve as source of stimulus, a shock, to a woman’s regulated, routine perceptions of a man. Semiconsciously checking out another woman, Freudian slips, provoked and unprovoked aggressive responses are all intrinsic examples of these Alpha flashes. It’s a man’s internal Alpha refusing to be restrained by all the social doctrines and conditioning of the feminine imperative.

Unbeknownst to me at the time I was shocking my BPD in a similar fashion back then.

For all of the on again, off again sexual insanity present in that relationship, the occasional flash of Alpha served to spark what had devolved into self-shamed episodes of frigidity dotted with incidents of porn-worthy sexual highs. At that time I didn’t have the fortitude of mind to think that tapping that Alpha energy full-time would make anything better – actually I bought my Matrix conditioning that Alpha was misogyny and to be avoided for fear of offending women’s sensibilities – but I found that when I expressed concern as to where I was going in life, my BPD interpreted this as a threat of losing me (the parasitic host). Just my contemplation of mustering the balls to leave her was both Alpha-exciting for her and cause for hysteric panic at the fear of losing me.

I can remember the day I discovered she’d been fucking some new guy at the college she attended. I lost my fucking mind. There I was, a beta with the patience of Job, content in the amniotic bath of the feminine Matrix conditioning that told me I was doing everything by the rules when she finally copped to the truth. She didn’t tell me outright, I had to discover it by way of her making it so obvious that I couldn’t ignore the truth. Then, Mr. Self-Control who’d tried for so long to allay the fears that he’d be his BPDs loyal boyfriend, Mr. Self-Control who’d endured years of neurotic accusations of even looking sideways at another woman, that guy put his fist through the bathroom wall while she was still in the shower.

I didn’t even think about it. It wasn’t some bravado or some dramatic attempt to convince her, myself or anyone else about how badass I wanted to be – it just happened. I don’t know how else to explain it, but the old Alpha flashed, and at that point her first inclination was to want to fuck me. She made a lame attempt to put on the black lingerie she knew I liked, but I knew she’d fucked this other guy in. The Alpha flashed again. More gina tingles. Then it dawned on me that just a day earlier I had shook hands with the same guy after she’d introduced me to him as one of her classmates. The Alpha was back.

Alpha Shock

I think what a lot of men experience in Matrix-defined relationships has a lot to do with this cycle of Alpha shocks. By way of pre-established beta frame abdication or by a progressive slide into beta supplication, guy’s girlfriends and wives ease into an normalcy where their man is not living up to be the Alpha they’d hoped for, or later realized they truly needed in their relationship. So when that LTR begins to decay and the very real prospect of divorce or breakup is looming, these sporadic flashes of Alpha (really flares of frustration and anger) serve to make a woman pause in her hypergamic assessment of him. For all the seeming discernment women claim to require is necessary to become sexual with a man, that hypergamic sense of discernement is far more pronounced for women to leave a man whom they’ve already established a sense of security with.

There is a greater need for certainty in a woman’s decision to leave a man than there ever will be for her to fuck a man for the first time.

I’ve posed the question to women before, what’s the best sexual experience you’ve had; after a date-night where your man spared no trouble or expense to make a “romantic evening” for you, or was it the make-up sex after you’ve had a blow out fight, just a hair’s breadth from him walking out of your life forever? Every one has said the make-up sex was best – some conceived children as a result of it.

Those flashes of Alpha are cyclic. Women thrive on indignation to be sure, but it’s the uncertainty in their hypergamic doubt that makes it exciting and the mundane beta security sufferable. A lot of what men construe as Drama Queen behavior is the direct result of this beta-Alpha-beta cycle. The more stable, healthy relationship follows an Alpha-beta-Alpha frame where the man maintains his Alpha presence, with just an occasional beta episode to “prove he’s human”.