All In

I can remember reading with great interest the particulars of Tiger Woods’ affairs when they went public. Considering his talent and drive I had always thought he’d cashed in far too early by marrying his Swedish model, but this woman represented the feminine archetype most men idealize for most of their lives. When the unattainable becomes attainable for a man so deprived, he tends to look past anything but his most immediate gratification.

However, Tiger was following a common script for beta men, and just this weekend a new example of this script has been illustrated for us in the resignation of General David Petraeus. Petraeus’ story is a classic tale of when youthful beta idealism, an almost self-affirming obliviousness of the SMP, and a Contextual Alpha status run headlong into the realities of our contemporary sexual marketplace and the brave new world of a fem-centric society.

Understandably most of the media concern about Petraeus revolves around the political implications of his resignation as CIA director, but there’s much more ‘under the hood’ here with respect to how he came to resign. For the breakdown have a read here for the timeline of events.

First and foremost, Petraeus is a beta. I realize that’s going to come off as presumptuous on my part, and possibly offensive, but I’m making this assessment based on history and behaviors here.

Disgraced former CIA Director David Petraeus exchanged a sexually explicit email about having sex under a desk with his mistress and continued to pursue her by bombarding her with thousands of messages even after she had broken off the affair it has been revealed.

I have no doubt that manosphere readers subscribing to the “Leaders of Men” definition of Alpha will have their rationales about how Petraeus was never really Alpha, or his actions prove his betaness, but his story follows a common pattern for betas in a feminized social structure. He married his idyllic ‘high school sweetheart’ and launched his military career. Only later in life does he become aware of his true SMV as his wife’s nose-dives after hitting the wall. After his contextual Alpha status has been established he begins to come to awareness of his now matured SMV, and a flirty, subjectively attractive, late 30s PhD looks a whole lot better than clinging to the idealism that’s kept him unaware of how the SMP really works.

For young idealistic betas, the fairytale scenario of marrying the ‘girl of your dreams’ out of high school (college?) seems perfect. If you need a musical example of this, listen to any Taylor Swift song or ‘Hey there Delilah’ by the Plain White T’s. The idea of only ever having sex with that one special girl, that “genetic celebrity”, only reinforces the fantasy for a young beta who’s never gotten laid before. At 17-19 this seems like conviction, but 37 years later, and after realizing his true SMV it’s a liability; it’s a sacrifice that cannot be appreciated.

The cruel hoax is then revealed once a man becomes established in his personality, his career, his maturation and mastery of his particular elements. His achievements are commonplace to the wife he’s been with for decades, but they’re a wellspring of attraction and arousal for women unfamiliar with how he achieved them. As I outlined in Navigating the SMP, there comes a point (usually by his early 30s) that a man, at least should, become aware of his higher sexual market value while realizing the SMV declination of the woman he’s committed himself to. He starts to see the code in the Matrix, and the long term wisdom, or lack of wisdom, his youthful idealism led him to.

The Status-to-Marriage Failsafe

As I stated though, a man should become more aware of his higher SMV as he matures. For some, this is an internalized, subconscious acknowledgement –it’s something a man knows, but either hasn’t the reason or the opportunity to act upon it. For other men it may be a more overt acknowledgement, one useful in prompting dread or reigniting competition anxiety in women. Still for others, such as Petraeus, the acknowledgement doesn’t really come until the right opportunity to address it comes along. In this case in the form of Paula Broadwell.

One societal fail-safe against this inevitable male SMV awareness the feminine imperative has established for women comes in tying a man’s status to his degree of commitment to his wife. For as accomplished and determined a man is, for as lofty as his achievements may be, in girl-world none of that matters unless it directly benefits a woman he’s committed to in an enduring security. Beyond the obvious financial imbalances written into our contemporary divorce laws, there is the societal aspect that accompanies a man’s ‘downfall’ when he cheats on his wife. Tiger Woods could weather the cash & prizes settlement of his divorce, but what he couldn’t weather was the hit to his reputation. His status, his personal perception, was damaged as a result of his breach of contract. Similarly Petraeus, a General with the distinction of a storied military career and directorship of the CIA had his status diminished as a result of this status-to-marriage association.

To further complicate matters Petraeus himself ‘believes’ in this status association so strongly that he was willing to resign his position – relinquishing the source of status that made him attractive to the likes of Broadwell – in order to comply with it.

Back to Beta

Petraeus’ story of beta doesn’t end here. As his relationship with Broadwell decayed we can see further evidence of reverting to beta in his ‘thousands of emails’ to her. As with most people reinserted into the SMP after having married in their youth, Petraeus reverts back to the only social skill set he knew when he was dating his wife – an adolescent social skill set. So the beta desperation comes back strong. For all of his post-revelation posturing about how “We all will make mistakes. The key is to recognize them and admit them, to learn from them, and to take off the rear view mirrors – drive on and avoid making them again.” Petraeus literally made thousands of them. Like any desperate beta I’ve consulted with, he ‘wants his girlfriend baaaaack’ and so, like a teenage boy, inundates her with a barrage of emails over the course of months – not unlike the battery of texts Tiger Woods sent to his mistresses.

I often get criticism for suggesting men ‘explore their options’ in their 20’s. Spin Plates, learn Game, understand the intricacies of how a feminized acculturation has crafted men to be what the imperative would have them be. The idealistic zeal of young men is admirable, (it’s what makes us men) but it’s important to take a long-view of how that idealism is useful to a feminized society. Have a look at the context and reporters uncovering this story. There is no male perspective, there is no male insight, only the reactions of a female perspective in accordance with the feminine specific understanding of the SMV and the social failsafes instituted by fem-centrism.

The set of convictions idealistic young men cling to today aren’t what they believe they are. Your ideal of a “quality woman”, you’re grandfather’s high school sweetheart who was your grandmother are useful archetypes that the imperative is more than happy to have you delude yourself with. There may have been a time when that idealism meant something, but it’s important to understand that it is now a tool of a feminine-primary acculturation.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

127 comments on “All In

  1. This is the first I’ve heard about the 1000’s of emails he sent to her. I could tell by his body language long ago he was never Alpha. Though this is a great illustration of SMV and the female imperative, it’s also an indication of how bureaucratic “managers” can reach positions of supreme authority. There was a time when men of such stature had combat experience and mighty deeds to their name, no more.


    Here’s the video of Paula Broadwell’s interview with Jon Stewart.

    Midway through, he accepts her invitation to do a push-up contest and Jon invites her husband up.

    Check out the husband. Then listen to her. She oozes sexuality and beats both betas in the push-up contest.

    Petraeus’ SMV was the key factor. When she finished her book, she finished with him.

    I find it revealing that he sent “thousands of emails”….

  3. Yes, this is a pretty good example of a guy without strong convictions rising to the top of a large organization because he plays ball and makes people happy. In fact most people are the top of large organizations are either hyper alphas (psychopaths), hyper betas (please and compromise masters), or some combination of the two.

  4. The alpha Rollo refers to (sexual alpha) is obviously alpha, but “leaders of men” alpha as well, albeit in a different form.

    In our feminized society, hypergamy (a female sexual imperative) is over-prioritized. This makes sexual alphas the true alphas, even if they’re economic betas.

    Conversely, an economic or political alpha, if he’s a sexual beta, becomes a sort of slave. It’s all about the female.

    So, if you can master hypergamy, even if you don’t produce squat, you rule. If you successfully orchestrate a military victory or create companies that make all of our lives easier, you’re one legal filing away from losing everything.

    Let’s see how long a society based on that can survive.

  5. I’m surprised that a man of his position didn’t know better than to leave such a huge embarrasing paper(email) trail.

  6. Amazingly, Petraeus was one of my alpha heroes! I read a profile years ago on Petraeus and his rat pack fraternity entourage of GI Joe’s- he had a core group of green beret’d, hard-partying professionals around him 24/7. I mean Petraeus and his guys would be in a presidential suite in Baghdad one day turning military strategy on its head and running a war- and that night they’d be getting blasted in a pub in Berlin after flying there in a black ops plane. Petraeus operated like a one man wrecking ball the world over and he had this ultra macho crew that basically had VIP status on planet earth- not to mention access to any tech toy, spy shit, etc. When you think of Kant’s superman on earth, these guys were it- Patton, James Bond and Capt’n America all wrapped up in one. I don’t think he had the wrong ‘alpha education’ for second. Dunno what went wrong.

  7. Her husband is such a wimp. Admits that she wins all the arguments = she is more manly than he is. No tingles. This story is almost inevitable really.

  8. Is it fair to call Petraeus a beta? The man was in the highest throes of the ruling class and theoretically held the lives of billions of people in his hands by virtue of the military power he wielded. He has had a successful career, undoubtedly after having competed against a number of competent, highly qualified men. Objectively speaking, he is an alpha male.

    Paula Broadwell fucked him, despite her husband and two kids, because he was an alpha male.

    Just a sexually inexperienced alpha male. Petraeus is a man who, like you said, was attached to his idyllic interpretation of what love should be. He’s a guy who simply was never given the opportunity to “cash in” on his success and glory. It doesn’t mean he couldn’t if he had really wanted to go out of his way to do it.

    That’s what really gets me skeptical of the “power” of game in general. You are calling guys like Tiger Woods beta males, despite the fact that they are having more sex than your neighborhood alpha male and are swimming in sexual abundance. How is it even remotely possible that these men are betas? That’s like calling a warm-blooded, furry creature a fish because it swims in water.

    [I understand your perception of Petraeus as an Alpha, but read The Contextual Alpha and notice the similarities of Alpha context that Petraeus and James Hooker both operate under. Petraeus may be in an altogether different social league than Hooker, but the contextual aspect of their Alpha perception by women is the same. Remove the contextual conditions and that Alpha mojo is gone.]

  9. The manjaw on the mistress is strong. Petraeus’s wife is a classic example of what happens to a woman that stays married to a beta. She’s homely, overweight, and looks all of 60 years old.

    Sounds like his mistress just cheated on a beta with a beta who had an alpha gig.

  10. Sexual and politcal (leaders of men) alpha are both alpha, interrelated, but distinct.

    Because of hypergamy run amock, sexual alphas now trump political alphas in nearly every way. So, in effect, as alpha as Petraeus may be, he’s a beta.

    It’s all about the tingle. You don’t produce it in women, you ain’t shit.

    But, as Vox said recently, “It will be interesting to see how long a society full of women’s study majors, lawyers, and social workers will be able to survive on the wealth produced by men who are players, thugs, and videogame junkies. “

  11. @Aleph

    Being alpha is a state of mind

    Tiger was too much of a beta to own up to his sexual escapades.
    Had he set the frame that he was a player from the start then I doubt there would have been as much of a backlash. Granted, if he was a player he wouldn’t have gotten married so young and thus his ordeal would not have occurred.

  12. I think the untold story of this saga is the woman. How A-typical her actions are and how utterly disgusting they are. This woman had what many women would consider a 5 star catch. Her husband was a rich doctor. An hoenest guy. The father of her two young children. The king provider who gave her the resources to go off and write these stupid books. But she risked it all for a shot with King Alpha…CIA Director. It is an amazing testament to the power of Hypergamey and to to the self centered motives of the modern woman. I think a better analysis of this saga would be to tie in how “Marriage is no escape from the sexual market place” and how this is just one more big example of how “Hypergamey Doesn’t Care.”

    Now her poor little kids have to go to school for the rest of their lives and listen to kids make fun of them by telling them how big of a whore their mom is and how she boned the CIA Director.

    What an utterlly selfish act. But one that is totally predictiable if you are an avid reader of this blog.

    [Hypergamy doesn’t care about Relational Equity]

  13. @immoralgables

    So because he wanted to protect his children from the public image of their father as a man who humiliates their mother, that makes him beta? Despite the fact that he’s having sex, probably just by showing up in some places, with multiple women?

    The fact that he probably wouldn’t make nearly as much money or have anywhere near as much power with the player-vibe attached to him means he’s a beta male for trying to hide it?

    Realize that the vast majority of the public does not respond positively to a sexually liberated male who pursues his options. You are still living in a feminized society where Tiger’s behavior is seen as a threat both to women and less-desirable men who fear alpha males coming along and cuckolding them.

    There is no such thing as a “sexual alpha.” There are alpha males, period. Those are the men that women want. Whether or not the men are able to realize this and capitalize on it is their own personal problem.

  14. @Rollo

    I don’t see how context is of any importance here. Like I said before, Petraeus is/was an alpha male by the measure of damn near every other man on this planet. There are probably only a couple hundred men, if that, walking this earth who could claim to wield more power than he did just last week.

    Power makes an alpha male. The fact that he is, from as far as we can tell, sexually oblivious, does not detract from that cred. We could drop him in any social setting and he could probably have his pick of the feminine bounties by virtue of his fame and power.

    I understand what you’re saying: drop the biggest fish in the pond into an ocean with sharks and he’s suddenly a beta. That’s true, that can happen, but Petraeus is the largest, most vicious shark swimming the world’s seas. It doesn’t get bigger than him. That’s why I revolt when I see you calling these types of men beta males.

  15. Alpha is a function of power. Women wanting to bang you is a form of power. Being able to order men to their deaths is a form of power.

    Harry Truman was the apex political alpha of his day, ordering the dropping ot 2 atom bombs, but in regards to his wife he was downright omega.

    A few months back there were a few articles about some schlub who couldn’t keep a job at a car wash but who had something like 30 kids with 25 different women.

    Obviously a far more consequential man that Harry Truman.

  16. You’re defining Alpha from a male, social-specific perspective. Alpha is a state of mind, not a demographic. There are convicted murderers on death row who have women waiting in line for conjugal visits, and there are unsigned up and coming rockstars who get more ass than any ‘leader of men’.

    Most men would like to define Alpha in terms of how it serves men’s imperatives. Men define Alpha in terms of what they think women should appreciate about men, because they can appreciate those traits.

    For women, defining Alpha doesn’t even occur to them – they feel Alpha. They reflexively react to Alpha ambience. Instincts they’re not even conscious of cue them to Alpha behaviors, confidence, dominance, etc. whether a man is a criminal or the director of the CIA.

  17. Rollo, you’re entirely correct within the context of today’s matriarchy. What She wants, She gets. Hypergamy’s tingle is king.

    But under a patriarchy, not so much. She might fantasize about the gardener 24/7, but men in a partiarchy determine men’s worth. And if she boinks the gardener and gets caught, she’s toast.

    Hypergamy has always been with us, but it’s only been since feminism that she’s been crowned king. Before that she had to cooperate with how it “served men’s imperatives”.

    Today, you’re right, Petraeus is a beta and Mystery’s an alpha.

    But back then, Truman was an alpha no matter how badly his ugly wife treated him.

    But that’s only because Man failed the shit-test of feminism.

  18. “That’s what really gets me skeptical of the “power” of game in general. You are calling guys like Tiger Woods beta males, despite the fact that they are having more sex than your neighborhood alpha male and are swimming in sexual abundance. How is it even remotely possible that these men are betas? That’s like calling a warm-blooded, furry creature a fish because it swims in water.”

    I’d call Petraeus and Woods rapidly promoted alphas, those who are at some point thrust into the swirling feminine darkness of apex alphadom after living what were probably rather austere beta lives. Lack of experience with the new setting then did them in.

  19. “There are probably only a couple hundred men, if that, walking this earth who could claim to wield more power than he did just last week.”

    If he’s that alpha how can all his power be taken away in a week by an affair?

    Answer: He was never that alpha. All of his power rested on the fact that he behaved a certain way and used his power the way others wanted.


    I just watched the whole of the John Stewart interview of Broadwell from January of this year, and all I can say is wow. If you ever wanted a better illustration of hypergamy in action you wont find it. In light of her affair and everything that’s come to Petraeus resignation it’s just incredible to watch her composure when you know what she knows in her own head. She is a shining example of how deftly an attractive woman can keep her secrets.

    Only a woman can cognitively distance herself from reality in so perfected a fashion that she can go on a national stage, with her husband in the audience, and accept a joking compliment about her integrity with regards to Petraeus aspirations for the presidency. Bravo, Mrs. Broadwell. Bravo! You are a credit to your gender’s fluid and flawless duplicity.

  21. The basics of this story are so easy to read.

    You have a girl who can’t control her hypergamey instinct who is probably married to a beta man who doesn’t understand the self-centered ways of women and therefore can’t control his flock.

    You have a CIA Director married to a butt ass ugly wife who probably hasn’t boned him in years who has developed an aswesome power and aura to himself through years of professional hard work.

    These two meet. His busted ex wife and lack of sex mix with her unchecked hypergamey instinct and beta husband and BAM they start banging under his desk in less than a month.

    So easy to see it’s almost laughable.

    Now the remifications set in. she is totally screwed because her reputation has been destoryed. Her family life will be in ruins and her husband should just divorce her because he will never measure up.

    His professional career is over and now he ponders a life with his busted ass unsexual wife or final days on this earth banging the most choice pieces of ass he has ever seen and dreamed off.

    I predict:

    She gets a divorce from her husband. Bones a few perceived alphas who are closet betas….years from Patreaus who wants nothing to do with her because she is a reminder of an inner failure. She then hits the wall about 47 and realizes what a shit show her life is, but never recovers

    He, sticks it out with is ugly ass wife for a few more years out of a sense of loyalty and honesty which is conditioned by this bullshit fem-centric society. Then he leaves her and bangs some 30 year old cocktail waitress and never gets married again.

  22. @Aleph

    I get what you’re saying and I’ll try to be flexible here but I think Glengarry summed it up best below your recent comment.

    What do you think of Tiger going to the sex addiction center? Of apologizing to everyone? Of getting chased out of his house by his golf-club wielding wife?

  23. General Patreaus isn’t beta, he’s just doesn’t have an intellectual understanding of game. Bill Burr has a good routine about how men aren’t prepared for the female attention and societal consequences of promotion into a super alpha position.

    Commenting on his wife and his alphaness doesn’t really work for the military. The only men in the military that are married to hot women either knock them up every deployment, are not workaholics and spend every moment away from work with their families, or get cheated on.

  24. Character, the only trait that can never be taken…just surrendered!
    A low life is a low life, no matter how fancy you dress them up!

  25. Buck, people are as faithful as their options. A beautiful women gained entry to his inner circle, and he succumbed to temptation. This doesn’t negate the massive amount of service he has given our country and its people. Even the husband of the woman he was having an affair with acknowledged his qualities of leadership.

  26. Hmmmm, there’s another possibility that I don’t hear anyone addressing:

    Perhaps she was an intellectual gold digger. By which I mean, what better way to get the juicy scoop and insider secrets from this guy but to get him all wrapped up in a hopeless case of oneitis? He sent her “thousands” of emails? She probably knew what she was doing the whole time and methodically played him like a mark in the long con game. She’s probably just another soulless career woman, who’ll do whatever it takes to advance her agenda. She perceived his inner beta right off and then schemed to capitalize on it. She might’ve even leaked the story on purpose for publicity. You guys aren’t thinking diabolically enough…

  27. @Nick
    “…it’s also an indication of how bureaucratic “managers” can reach positions of supreme authority. There was a time when men of such stature had combat experience and mighty deeds to their name, no more.”

    Stanley McChrystal fit that profile. Not only did he have combat experience, but he took part in dangerous special ops missions *while* he was a general. But alas, he was fired for calling Obama names. Apparently, he was too alpha.

  28. While I don’t like the overanalysis of what’s alpha and wha’ts beta, I think the “leader of men” thing needs to be addressed. This guy is a “leader of men” because essentially we’re told he’s a leader of men and other men are there to enforce it. (i.e. you know that if you don’t obey his command as a subordinate that you will physically be dealt with by enforcement elements). The “alpha” with regard to sex is a leader of men as well as women, but he doesn’t need some position ordained by others to verify this, people (men and women) will just gravitate naturally. Yes you may not see other men saluting this guy, they might even hate on him, but they still respect him whether they admit it or not. Respect has roots in fear. Hence why it’s better to be feared than loved. I’ve heard guys say they don’t respect Mike Tyson. Bullshit. If you met him in an alley you’d be shaking in your boots. That’s respect. What if John McCain in the present met you in an alley. On paper, he’s more this “leader of men” type of Alpha, but you wouldn’t be scared of him. The male imperative is to place the term “respect” upon guys whom are the least threatening to them (especially if they are helpful to them). It’s an attempt to marginalize men that guys see as competitors. There’s a reason the “asshole” gets the love. They command genuine respect (i.e. fear). An ugly truth amongst ugly truths.

    While Patraeus might be this guy as well, it’s not looking like it.

  29. You guys haven’t convinced me. All because X has more sex despite lower status does not mean he has greater alpha credentials than Y. It does not mean that if X and Y were in a head-to-head competition for mating privileges that X would win by virtue of the fact that he’s had more sex than Y. I cannot have special appreciation for X because he gets more fucks than Y.


    This is like calling the POTUS a beta because he gives up his seat after two terms. At the end of the day, you must respect the fact that a group of betas can and usually will band together to take on alpha males.


    Going to a sex addiction center and refraining from beating his wife does not make him a beta. Again, when you’re a public figure worth a billion dollars there are certain PR duties that you must fulfill to keep the money (and power) rolling in.

  30. ‘There’s a reason the “asshole” gets the love. They command genuine respect (i.e. fear). An ugly truth amongst ugly truths.’

    I don’t know about ‘assholes’ getting love. Well the guys that don’t deserve to act like that anyway. I know a lot of douches that are scrawny and that if it were in a less feminized time would get their head stomped in when they tried to be arrogant to other guys that are objectively better than they are.

    I believe that in modern times in the middle class and up you can act like a douchebag/asshole and get away with it due to being an enormous cost to fucking this guy up. I believe that’s the evolutionary reason for ‘asshole’ being so attractive because only the big chief can get away being a douche other men without ending up as a greasespot. It’s just that these scrawny punks have figured out that they have the alpha proxies by way of the police behind them to protect them and are free to exploit this.

  31. Its amusing and possibly wickedly satisfying to witness the trajectory of the pseudo alpha crash and burn and then ultimately wallow in the sticky mess at the end.
    Where better to observe variations of this story unfold then in mixed work places (I am sure anywhere in the world) with the contextual, situational alpha male, hypergamy and a female underling.
    I have witnessed the male manager who benefits from the purely coincidental circumstances of alpha projection upon him by a female or females (usually of the more emotional riding types) in many a work place.
    The form of this can be from the degree of attention their receive right up to affairs and the after-math. If you are sensitive to these details and concepts they are quite obvious to you where as they are totally lost on others. The managers may come and go but the same women remain and what happens is the same. Time is the ultimate test together with the degree of beataness of the male and what the female wants from the situation on how the story concludes.
    Put a true natural alpha in this situation and he can benefit from it and successfully brush off the consequences ( I have only seen one do it so far). A beta at heart crashes and burns and I am sure wonders afterwards where it all went wrong.
    This is not to say every male manager and female underling behave in this manner but it is easy to notice it when it happens and know of reasons why it happens.

  32. @furiousferret,

    I completely agree. ‘Status’, like being able to get away with assholeness, use to be established with violence and only violence. You’ll never hear me tell a guy that size, muslce, and going to the gym aren’t important. I hear guys complain about what girls get away with due to societal enforcement “Alpha Proxies”. The irony is that guys can “game” because of these same things. Six years ago I moved to a large military area and let me tell you, if you try to “AMOG” some guy here you better have the physical tools to back it up because it will end in confrontation. Needless to say women here love it.

  33. Just noticing that as this thing has played out I’ve thought much of rationalmale & this discussion community, and i’ve felt like I could see right through the smoke straight to what’s really at play, even to the point of instinctively anticipating which smoke bomb would be tossed next. It’s with both sadness & satisfaction that I can say, minor disagreements over first and 2nd definitions of alpha not withstanding, we all seem to have seen the same source code and recognized the same pattern.

    A sociologist could separate us, feed us small details, let us make predictions independently about what comes next or what’s behind the curtain … we’d all make the same predictions, and we’d all be right. Rollo found a skeleton key in the attic and now we all hold it. What do we, or can we do?

  34. I realize that’s going to come off as presumptuous on my part, and possibly offensive, but I’m making this assessment based on history and behaviors here.

    So. You take as definitive a third-hand account as reported by an unsourced Fleet Street tabloid over the incontrovertible facts of his heroism in battle, grace under fire, leadership of men, and record as the first general in American history to win two wars. Because the former comports to your easy-breezy speculations on an almost totally tangential issue: bitches.

    When all you have is a hammer (game theory), everything looks like a nail. There is nothing in this first-hand account of Petraeus’s personality and accomplishment that corroborates the beta cowardice you regard as dispositive.

    Not that your speculations are impossible or even improbable, but the psychoanalysis from afar based on one quirky reported fact is not just unreliable and tasteless, it is also out of proportion to the far larger body of evidence over decades of an illustrious career that achieved him singular historical status. “Thousands of emails over the last few months” would average, at the most modest estimate, some 29 per day. While he was getting up to speed as the new DCI. That doesn’t pass the smell test.

    Men have succumbed to honey traps since Eve tempted Adam. It is only applicable to game theory by blowing one highly questionable fact so far out of proportion that it overshadows four stars and two chestfuls of ribbons.

    I in fact am a “reader [who] subscrib[es] to the ‘Leaders of Men’ definition of Alpha” not just because it is the more comprehensive definition but also because your definition is derivative of it. Which is fine, insofar as you stick to narrowly applying a narrow synecdoche to any particular circumstance. But this is unsatisfying for you, and so you seek to reverse-define the term according to your idiosyncratic needs, leading you to the preposterous conclusion that mimicry is more salient than the genuine article. Ass backwards.


    [You may want to read AD’s breakdown about Petraeus before you deify him any further.]

  35. Another note.
    was listening to an interview earlier on NPR about this. A lot of good stuff but most noteworthy was that after a highly sympathetic interview by interviewer, interviewee and callers alike a woman identifying as a “military wife” called in during the last minute to rail on about how she and all these other military wives are in agreement that he has no integrity and none of his accomplishments matter and he’ll go down in history as a failed man for all of this.

    So much so much. The sisterhood defending its own. Feminized matrix consuming its producers. And of course, where is her (and their!) furious aprobation when young military wives cheat on their deployed husbands, take their kids and then demand child support on their return from tours of duty?
    oh,guess that wasn’t a priority.

  36. The rush to overinterpret the smallest indicators is worse than confirmation bias. It is a positive threat to the applicability of your general theory. Which leads credulous, average, frustrated readers to pretend a world exists where Corey Worthington is somehow more “alpha” than the most decorated general in modern American history. But because you saw a picture of the general’s body language, you’ve uncracked the code, you know what the real story is. Please.

    The echo chamber no longer rings in your ears because you have become deaf from it.


  37. I second Petraeus being a beta.

    I just searched google images and in most photos the guy has a submissive-beta smile and weak body language.

    And to anyone that claims him to be a battle hardened alpha – that’s not true. Many a battle-hardened soldiers bit a bullet when they got the divorce papers.

    And his wife is a warpig. If i were him, I would have the press quote me saying “have you seen my wife?!”

  38. @ King

    “Which leads credulous, average, frustrated readers to pretend a world exists where Corey Worthington is somehow more “alpha” than the most decorated general in modern American history.”

    This is precisely the fantasy that most game bloggers play up to hawk products and obtain e-fame.

  39. “This is precisely the fantasy that most game bloggers play up to hawk products and obtain e-fame.”

    What’s the point of achieving all the great things in life and having that prestige and power when you are enslaved in beta mentality to women?

    It means nothing if you achieve professional success and then live in a personal hell at home.

  40. Honestly Rollo,

    You are right. However, you’re only right, I think, due to the femeninised and shallow society we live in.

    If you marry your college/high school sweetheart, she stands by you all of your life, gives you children, acts decently, and what not, then, her declining SMV would be so much awfull? No.

    You got my drift.
    But don’t bother answering back for I have already said that, in this real society we live in, you are undoubtedly right.

    Hate the game, don’t hate the player.
    [It’s less about society and more about simple pragmatism. This is your ‘quality woman’ at 19. This is your asexual ‘quality woman’ at 58. And after 37 years of never having experienced sex with another woman, and quite likely not even having had sex for the last decade, THIS is the woman who actively wants to ride your cock. As I stated in Adam’s Lament, biology trumps conviction.]

  41. Guys, given a random word in the dictionary there is first, second, third, etc definitions, all true.
    this argument is as much as arguing about which definition is THE true definition. It doesn’t matter. No one argues Petraeus is/was a contextual alpha. Does it change much one way or the other if he was a sexual alpha?

    IMO all of this preoccupation with whether or not Petraeus is alpha gets away from the broader social points of this article, i.e.:

    ” Have a look at the context and reporters uncovering this story. There is no male perspective, there is no male insight, only the reactions of a female perspective in accordance with the feminine specific understanding of the SMV and the social failsafes instituted by fem-centrism.”

    That the media, hypercanvasing this issue, has NOTHING to say about male insight here and a priori assumes female perspective, and of such a great and important man no less, that is far more important than Petraeus’s sexual alpha status.

  42. Making it your life’s work specifically to eventually “cash in” and please women rings more of enslavement to me than Petraeus sending emails.

    Another point about this email issue: it was most likely an exchange of emails and not the one-way river-of-text that you guys are making it out to be. The man was fucking a hot, famous author with elite academic credentials under his desk and you fools are still calling him an enslaved beta.

    If you think this is beta, then count the number of text messages you’ve sent back and forth to a love interest. It’s probably easily over 25 a day, probably more.

  43. Rollo,

    Go read USAToday. com. They just changed their format and it is an example of perfect design that will function well in the coming Tablet Age. When you are in a story, you scroll up and down like normal, but there are arrow keys for left and right to go to the next story, within a section like turning a page in the newpaper.

    And they imbed suggested readings right in the middle of the story. The change the font and indentation so you know it is not part of the story but usually the reading is pertinent.

    I like how you hypertext within the blog, but using this suggested reading thingy can give you a mechanism for description of the thing, the topic that you recommend. And why the reader should go there.

    The front page is very good. A big eye catching graphic and then the key headlines to the right of the graphic. It has a menu across the top with the traditional sections that are the same as the print edition.

    Down “below the fold”, there are thumbnails with direct access to the stories that are so common now in most newsy type web pages. So it is a good combination of being both section driven and then direct access also.

    But once you are in a story then the arrow keys, move within the section.

    Check it out, though. It is a very good example of good web page design.

  44. Given Patreus’ age, it’s not surprising at all that he’s got at least some beta in him. After all, he was probably raised that way. Resigning suggests total blue pill immersion. That said, he’s alpha in so many other ways, I’d call him alpha.

    AFAIK, here’s the alpha breakdown
    — Leader of men
    — Excelled at use of force
    — Cheated and admitted it…wife sticks by him
    — Made a high value woman tingle

    The only thing that could make this guy more alpha is if he could keep mistress’ tingles up. Assuming a blue pill upbringing, no wonder he didn’t. Still more alpha than about 90% of guys.

    If I don’t hear women pan the mistress in all of this, they will have lost all moral high ground to me. They were both married. Both cheated. And only the man is supposed to have a hit to his career?

  45. Several weeks ago GeishaKate concluded a fawning post to King A with the following:

    “PS you’ve got mail :-)”

    Next up: the tabloids expose the illicit, steamy, verbose and saccharine email correspondence between “GeishaKate” and “King A (Matthew King).”

    Come on, Matt….share a few of your emails to and from Kate! Educate all of us poor, doomed, damned PUA wannabees on how a real Alpha runs email game.

  46. “Alpha really isn’t about your status—it’s a mindset. It’s an inherent belief in the necessity, righteousness and beauty of maleness. If you haven’t embraced your masculinity and thrown off the shackles of the gynocracy that seeks to poison and destroy your manhood, then it doesn’t matter how accomplished, high-status, wealthy and famous you are. You really are just another chump.”

    “The pervasive phenomenon of male ego investments slaved to gynocentrism is one of few places where many alphas & betas are in the exact same place.”

    “What’s important to remember about Tiger is that he’s a beta chump at heart who was thrust into an alpha’s life by dint of his talent and physical skill set. The guy was nerd and a beta his entire life and basically woke up one morning to fame, wealth and hos. Yes, he leaned to talk the talk and fuck the fuck. But he never shed the beta thought processes that had defined his mindset up until that point, and so reverted to it at the first sign of true & sustained psychosexual adversity.”

  47. I would only add that it is likely fitting and proper for Petraeus to resign in light of the affair. He is the head of a clandestine service, and something like this—if found out by US adversaries—could be used to blackmail or otherwise wreak injury upon US interests. It also a potentially highly disruptive breach of discipline.

    Otherwise a great, great post.

  48. There is a key fact here. Patraeus started his career in the mid-70s. If you were in the military in the mid-70s or early 80s, then you were dirt as far as women were concerned. Soldiers at that time just looked so weird compared to normal society with their short hair and they looked entirely out of place in the fashion of the day. And they were hated in the military towns where the Marines and the Army are located. Fort Bragg is a horrible place. So is Benning in Georgia. Jacksonville, NC for the Marines is as bad, maybe worse. Here you are in the town of 50,000 locals, maybe, and there 50,000 18-22 year old oversexed boys with little or no contact with women to learn any social skills in terms of dealing with them. And the woman are so pestered by men, their bitch shields are high, and the “sensitive” gentleman soldiers revert to extreme beta behavior in trying to be “Different from those other soldiers”. Then if you go back home to marry Suzy Rottencrotch and bring her back to the base then they usually go into these extreme beta Mate Guarding routines and the first deployment the guy gets sent on, the bitch cheats.

    And if you project Patraeus back to what he looked like at 22 with those ears and that smallish size for a soldier, he was most definitely a sexual beta, probably for like forever until at least he got to be a Colonel and was in his late 40s. He was probably a Major with a chip on his shoulder because of his looks and size.

    He almost had to marry his high school sweetie. There are few women to be had. It’s probably better for officers, grads of West Point, but I am sure Patraeus was down on the pecking order in comparison to the other young officers Tom Cruise looking officers. So he would spend all year at West Point, with men, few women, then he would get a few weeks leave to head back to where ever he was from. And there was that plain ass looking woman, with few local options, looking to up her status by marrying an officer. So he had to marry this woman because she was probably the only option he had. And today she looks a version of some kind of Dana Carvey character on SNL.

    So I searched for photos of Broadwell and one of the photos in Google Images had “Babe Alert” in bold letters over it. And I am sure she looked much hotter even a few years ago. The poor sucker never had a chance.

    I am not surprised to see your post on this subject today. But I am surprised at the theme. I had kind of seen this as a another woman throwing herself at Alpha. I figured her for the predator and at least a willing participant in all of this. The way the story was first told, these emails that the FBI started to investigate were made to look like they came from Broadwell to a potential competitor and she was looking “to cut a bitch” if she fucked with her man. I didn’t know that the general sent all these emails and was being dumped.

    I figured your theme would be woman chasing alphas.

    But your explanation explains why so many men of status fall into situations like these. Both Roosh and Roissy have written about doctors and lawyers are often betas. They are bookish characters with little or no social skills with women. And you can add military officers to that list merely because of the environment they grow up in where women are so scarce. So this theme could explain why so many go this route once they gain social power via contextual status and react so badly to the situation.

    I swear you need to get that book written. Imagine how important this theme is and how many men fall prey to it.

    And also, I tried to explain this story to another woman using a version of your words, and she more or less rejected it. Men are pigs. They cheat. Powerful mean are especially pigs. She didn’t want to hear any of the background psychological dynamic.

    So that’s why you need to finish the book. I can’t explain it as well as you do. At least not in the few minutes I can keep a woman’s attention before she shuts me out and dismisses what I say.

    I put this theme into the Rollo Top 5. But it is getting to be a very crowded top 5 with 6 through 10 jumbled in a crowd screaming with good reason about why each should be in the top 5.

    Very good insight. Thanks. When I find that time machine and I go back to tell my younger myself to “RUN” when I meet a girl named Suzanne from New York, I will also put a copy of your book in young self’s hands.

    So hurry the fuck up already.

  49. Men are not Alpha or Beta, its their behavior at any given time that can be perceived as Alpha or Beta by the observer.

    A man may behave mostly Alpha but that can easily change depending on the situation he finds himself in. He may have to apologize like a Beta to prevent loss.

    In a matriarchal society as ours, it does not matter how Alpha one thinks he is, one wrong move and he can always be bought down on the whim of a woman/group of Betas (who btw are convinced they are Alphas).

    I thinking in terms of Alpha/Beta does more harm than good. A man should do what he thinks he needs to do to ensure the best outcome for himself.

  50. “A man should do what he thinks he needs to do to ensure the best outcome for himself.”

    This is a win. I’d add that they need to be honest with themselves as to what they really want as well.

  51. @Mark Minter

    This idea that Petraeus is a former beta who somehow clawed his way to the top from the cesspool of grunts is factually incorrect. The man has been in elite academies and universities his entire life. He’s always been a top competitor and leader.
    [I can think of more aspie STEM nerds who graduated in similar fashions, and hold positions of leadership in their particular realms.]

    Perhaps the only thing he is guilty of is strict adherence to the idyllic fantasy of the military’s virtuousness and the inevitable reflection that (silly) discipline would have on his love life.

    And this idea that Petraeus was more in thrall of the person who was writing his biography than the biographer was in thrall of him is ridiculous. Broadwell has a husband, two kids, and a career. All of that is worth more than getting pumped under a desk by Petraeus every other week. This idea that she was dumping some simpering beta who never got over the supposed sexual undesirability of his youth doesn’t work here.

  52. I don’t understand why the concept that man can be alpha in terms of making money, being physically dominant, and socially dominant with society particularly with men and still be a total beta in terms of romantic relations with women.

    According to this link:

    Carl Jung observed that American men where absolutely ruthless and sharks in business and industry while at the same time being submissive pussies in relationships with their wives.

    Given the information it seems like Petraeus was a beta in his dealings with this Broadwell chick. Nothing new is under the sun.

    You ever hear that other great fearless general that went by the name of Marc Antony? Why did he fall in spectucular flames? This fucking bulldog of man that tore through countless battles with Barbarians and the Roman army was brought down by a woman, Cleopatra who totally mind fucked him into denouncing the Roman way which was ruined his reputation and led to his army being crushed by Octavian.

  53. It could be said that Petraeus is alpha in his ability to attract women but beta in his handling of them, similar to Tiger Woods and Robert Pattinson.
    [,..and Mystery.]

  54. The alpha/beta argument has been played out for at least a couple of years now so I’m not going to waste my time typing up another long winded breakdown of why the PUA definition of alpha is inherently flawed, but I will say that most guys who would call a high powered military general a beta would probably be surprised to know just how much “beta” behavior the average “alpha” engages in on a weekly basis.

    This superman pussy magnet who utters only alpha words (unless he is consciously mimicking beta behaviors in order to score some pussy, of course!) and projects only alpha body language 24/7 is an idealized figment of every PUA wannabe’s imagination.

  55. Thought I’d copy paste this from what someone posted earlier (regarding this topic):

    Anonymous on November 13, 2012 at 1:34 am said:
    This was in response to an article at huffington post ( but the comment was too long to be posted there, so I’m posting it here. Thanks.

    Take your time. It will certainly come off as pretentious ambivalence, though beyond the wordiness this is only one aspect of the many fallacies we’re beyond a doubt taught to adhere to in this “Country”. This has become longer than expected. I could add sources to any claim made below, however that’s unnecessary for those who understand how things work. Though most who can claim such an understanding have probably reached a point of dissatisfaction with the little relevance that exists in knowing such honest conclusions, the truth is not something which should be so improperly navigated by the masses en large. Much of it is semantics, though most of it is simply how humans are: inconsistent & unable to comprehend realities extending beyond their immediate surroundings without significant visionary [in]sight or ability to navigate such constellatory ruminations, including that of the imagination. This would fall under the realm of Da’at. And no, I’m not Jewish, though what’s implied below is certainly of a mystically inclined individual’s perceptive notation.

    Someone commented “no wonder men think women are easily distracted by shiny things,” [I write in response to such a typical female quip] & further digressed into cultivating the notion that these very women profess on a daily victimized routine’s basis: that ‘women aren’t like that, it’s men who are wrong!’. When, I haven’t met a single woman who likes what shiny objects she’s given unless craved for by someone she doesn’t have power over emotionally yet, typically engaging in a giving schematic of offering what the intended suitor doesn’t have as per what’s perceived in his having (typically in reaction to what her admitted Other doesn’t offer at that time) by her choice to branch outside of the realm of what ‘relationship’ she professes to existing concurrently in, until of course said suitor offers what it is she projected wanting in physically, mentally, emotionally, etc…ways that he’s typically led to believe; until what is in having given it, accepted by her & offered freely with pleasure by his learned conception of Love taken away by her, destroyed, or made of lesser value than originally preferred by the one who in question will deny having wanted what they did in the first place.

    I will never forget doing the right thing alongside what was wrong with a girl who confirmed every bias I sought to displace, saying literally “[She] likes ‘shinies’,” in reference to Shiny Objects. A truth that only in experience & by record I may in having preserved admit it’s actuality. In not giving her any “shiny object’s” she offered herself to me sexually, frequently, without reason beyond my not indulging in being as she originally intended inspect & suspect I may have been – the delight of the pushover, in being one who the girl believes she’s getting something from for no return, which apparently I am inapt to become though in not being one often am seen by those who think they aren’t that I am (this would be phenomenological exegesis, in as hermetic of a fashion one can blatantly observe); relationships are typically & exuberantly pre-occupied economical facsimiles to the mass of individuals who lack the competency to both experience emotional certitude & verily enjoy discerned pleasure with another of similar ilk. And were I to expand your periphery beyond a simple & briefly conjoined entities interaction which proved effectively to remove the mundane redundance of her life for some time available, I’d not be believed nor accepted, as often such rejection as I’ve known is in response to what becomes known about who I am or what I’ve done; once the Mystery’s absolved, as transparency know’s best it isn’t, those seeking such masked individuals as they themselves are prominently apt to find, halt desiring the very Truth they knew within themselves was important before the notion of it’s existence proved apparent & welcomed by other’s of the same distinction, for said time being what way one chose to half-heartedly enact becoming similar to.

    When an interest was expressed in the actual reception of such a shiny object as a gift with the possibility of being given, one would think one would offer it to the one expressing interest in what was admittedly desired; then she claimed I raped her. We hadn’t slept together yet. Though her numerous throw-away attempts at engaging intimately with me weren’t denied without a sense of maturity, they certainly were clearly desired by both of us, and later to be engaged in, pragmatically by her own prostrations. Then she actually had sex with me after I told her I didn’t rape her, as she was naked in my bed trying to hook up with me (which I of course expected she’d attempt, though did not ask for nor make any judgmental assertions about), and I fell asleep: so I clearly couldn’t have been capable of the act she was then claimed denying having threatened me with apologetically. It wasn’t until she recognized my own capacity for what seemingly bewildering absolution of easily identifiable & undeniably true actualities that her mind re-wrapped itself around what logical ineptitude was being claimed in her own projection of what desire she had that wasn’t participated in on my part that singular evening in due mention. Had I been the typically portrayed American, I would’ve probably been absconded, absorbed amongst, demanded faith within, controlled in condescending reprimand, & actively eradicated socially, by the lack of what just “Justice” system pretends to exist, hiding behind concrete cells holding masses of individuals deprived of their rights, starved of their freedom, and paid for by those whose Fear of the world outside of their own “deserved” existence promotes as being Truly Excellent according to His Highest Magistrate the Average President of the Silent State’s unequivocally to be reckoned with in a seemingly White & passive-aggressive fashion typical to Your Time of promised alteration denying the inevitability of real change, & brought to court where prodded I mentioned before, for such an action as was claimed to be denied which I did not condone nor attempt enact; though instead by upholding what truth I knew existed she further desired my intimacy & operated from that pleasure-drive to ensure she’d follow through with her primally presumptive-drive to do so. And she’s not the only little girl of woman’s age (meritoriously I couldn’t even hook up with girls a year younger than me when in high-school, though now through college & the outside unsanctioned realms, I’ve experienced that women, 18 or 22 or 25 or 29 or 33 or 41 or 0-100….the statistically developed majority of mine experience, are obstinately the same, & though in complaint existing, as men too, change nothing, though became such a way unfortunately by who they’ve been with previously and who they were in absence of choice raised to be like – and I’m likely younger than most of you), I’ve met with such an independent complex of being the victim for making what choices she made in relation to me, or other men. I don’t know a single “man” who has cheated, though I know many who so easily would were there an ability to not be controlled by what ideas they profess knowing nothing about, typically religiously. I believe in G-d, by the Way. I know countless women who have, with me or on me. So it’s not a gender dynamic, it’s a human conundrum of indecisively promoting the continual “need” to be “happy” when all that happiness is is the observation of one’s self doing what one need do in relation to their given environment, as per a respectful consideration of those who may exist in relation to one’s perception of it. But this, again, is being a “nice guy” which actually are viewed as the “assholes” by women, whom they choose to be with until a real asshole shows up, that’s incapable of discerning between a dog & a cat the difference of perpetual immunities in certain perceptual capabilities.

    But I don’t consider it cheating, as verifiably I’m not “with” them, and when we “weren’t together” I certainly was with other women as well. Though it hurt once when I was of the belief I was “with” one of them, until I realized I was only with her as much as (anyone is this way) she desired to be with me, in relation to what other cohorts of hers were available or chosen to be ignored in reflexive behavior to what I wanted, & what she would at the time convince herself she wanted to. Most guys learn that what they were taught to want from women is incapable of being achieved, thus end up becoming what’s conceived of by those who want what they believe they witnessed or experienced in the past or were taught was right as being wrongdoings committed by the ‘bad’ people to not be like who are ‘cheating’, when in all actuality it’s highly likely that given the proper circumstances, as timelessly observed, women will never adhere to what’s best for another person (who views them as perpetually harboring some value greater than the next) but instead strive to achieve what’s best for themselves. Though, said function of emotive reasoning is one aspect of keeping both men on guard & in check; removing after experience the insignificant proportion of a praetor-intuitive perceived quality to a realized acceptance of what actual quality women are & how to go about ensuring the mutual benefits of establishing a relationship with one; in that the greatest of them learn from both experience & operative observation that ‘dignity’ is only a word those who believe it can exist adhere to, & if one wants to get laid, it’s the indignant truth that: what’s found is what’s offered, which few can readily accept – as what’s sought is what’s one’s reward for peering through said veil of existence, and learning that in knowing the Truth one’s easily beyond the norm of socially accepted ability, as then one knows beforehand the very path another will take, & can bypass any insecurity or warm illusion of embrace that may be presented, seeing beyond the duplicitous solipsism of said generic-gender-qualm’s always obfuscated presentation – by those hurt or hurting & those who caused said disturbance or can’t accept their own active participation in it.

    Bypass the gender differences, forgo the inept ‘equality’ promoted by those with variable financial assets (or those in ‘power’ who utilize the very teachings they deem improper to live their lives & make said money governing their power), employ the exacting formulaic presentation of incentives, cut out the bullshit, and what you’re left with are men balking in being blamed for what inaction they took for what behaviors the women their interests lie in manufactured – typically in response to such stimuli as presented to them for the monetary gain of one individual over the loss of personal freedom of choice of said newfound’ customer buying the non-sense marketed to them.

    In other words, women do like shiny objects. So do men. Women like ones that signify their value in the eyes of a man whom they believe for what time they choose to has it. Men like those that are capable of some functionality, or at least may engender some sense of spirited & earned endowment, or offer reprieve from the daily grievances of having to work for said earned materials in so desiring them.

    Women cheat more than men simply because they are incapable of knowing what it means to be loyal, seeing as they live in a world perceived as given rather than gained, where opportunity abounds & the next one will always prove more effectively better than the previous ‘how-many’ she’d rather not admit to having offered herself to. In love men become weak toys to be used by the women who see themselves as holy goddesses capable of achieving a seminal state of perfected beauty for what lifetime isn’t their’s to offer – as it’s one taking from the lives of those who actually may offer what they are given. It’s simply how it is. Because men don’t change, women won’t either. Because women can’t change, men won’t grow out of what notions of their desires they are taught by the previous batch of controlled birth’s sanctioned by the moderate elite who manage to uphold nobility as an exquisite prerequisite to the orphan’s born unto the single-mother-seperated-father-home’s they’re raised in, passed freely from one idealogical household to the next, until a second generation of better-raised children replace the first-borns in groves, as drones driven to reproduce what equality they percieved existed in the second-attempt upbringings they experienced, as per what I’ve witnessed. Yet it’s the first-borns who are looked up to by those who came after them, and the first-borns who learn to mediate the message cast between the parental unit & the brother/sisterhood below them, meanwhile indulging in what freedoms weren’t allotted as a child.

    Once, and as men now, continue to understand this process of entitlement most women (typical of their generation, as per what was taught & reinforced in opposition to men of the same time, by women and men who supported them of previous era’s, cyclically evolving stagnantly on par course with those who in power by money may operate schematically to produce & reproduce that which continues to satisfy their desire to remain forever elite – not conspiratorially, as it’s learned & earned by the majority of them), living thusly as they choose to & desire; as women have absconded in blaming men for not doing for so long it became avoided acting otherwise (as the men who the women are fucking do), thus women will soon, as many slowly are (being taught by those of us who came first) to wake up to the fact that though our rationale & reasoning stems from a place of typically warm-hearted endeavor, and that it’s nuanced behavior enacted by women who have been placated to their entire lives that bother those who’ve seen & experienced the multitude of what “women” crying for freedom (from “men who cheat” that “are assholes” and “just don’t get it” who they recently gagged on thanks to witnessing an oval office blow-job as being a presidential estate vs. the mouth of a woman choosing to do what no man dare deny in what position’s similar to what his was – one moment of relief for an entire nation’s caught-up belief in there not existing outside of the bedroom what’s proactively sought for within it, married or not) & are in not being able to respect men’s own misgivings misinterpreting & furthering the very core issues which they (as what’s presented by the media) claim they want vs. what they actually do (always in conflict with what’s actively seen; whereby it’s the typical man’s grievance that in eschewing privcay for certain ethical beliefs one learns teaching it promotes secretive behavior that exploits ones ability to actually be hidden from what crimes one’s committing, and furthermore promote’s the stupidity of men who think they can get away with things vs. the naturally inclined intelligence of women who know they will be supported by men & women for what they wanted to do if they are even reprimanded for being caught ‘being hurt’ by their own choices; men admit to fault’s, women avoid recognizing their latent purpose & existence even when blatantly evidenced) – whether that’s with a shiny ring on their finger or a shiny car worth more than they know in which they reside as the man drives them where he knows it’s best to be going.

    Women offer what men want, as men offer what women want. The same can’t, of course, be said for men raised feminized, or women raised masculine, though that’s a choice of the bred & the breeder’s themselves – as that’s all we are in an intellectual standpoint to every person we interact with: who’s multifarious interface is determined by the way those of us who choose to act as we do around them…do.

    Most things boil down to one persons decision to envisage another person in relation to them as being or not-being what it is they want or don’t in that given moment. We’re all at fault for raising ourselves how we have, and passing on said confusion to generations who will doubtlessly revolt against it. And so the cycle continues.

  56. Alpha is all about context. There’s plenty of guys who are good with women but absolutely suck in the economic world. Charisma’s only useful if you have the skills to back it up. Likewise, there’s plenty of guys who are great leaders of men and great problem solvers who, for whatever reason, never learn to talk to women.

  57. @Kleyau,

    I didn’t identify which one I was addressing with my character quip, interesting that you jump to defend Petraeus, I was actually thinking of the adultress.

    But, that said, you are inferring that an efficient leader, good manager, technically expert person is, by demonstration of a particular skill set, not eligible to be a low life…

    I have no ax to grind with Petraeus but lets face certain uncomfortable revelations;
    1) cheating on the wife when you are in such a public position
    Can we say serious lack of judgement?!?!

    2) Banging your biographer
    You are kidding, right?

    3) sending a 1000+ graphic e-mails
    You are kidding, right?
    [Lets not forget they were from his gmail account]

    4) trysting under the desk in your office
    You are kidding, right?

    5) as CIA director and an officer in high position, surely he knows that extensive background investigations are standard procedure…did this slip his mind?

    6) the whore is cheating on her husband, did he think he is somehow special?

    As an aside, I wonder how many junior officers he disciplined, as a General, for similar infractions?

  58. Posted earlier, didn’t seem to go through. I read this post when it came out earlier Rollo, and it took me some time to mull over. I think you’re spot on about Petraeus being a beta in his personal life. The way he poses, his actions, everything results in that being the logical point.

    One of the biggest ways the Manosphere has affected my thinking is SMV.

    With all this said though… Petraus never would have reached the heights he would without his wife’s devotion and undoubtedly massive share of raising their kids while he was focused on the military.

  59. Could it just be Gchat messages when they refer to ‘thousands of emails’. Instant messaging could rack up that number quick.

  60. Curiouser and curiouser.

    First Petraeus, now Allen:

    The official said the investigation involved some 20,000 to 30,000 pages of material, mostly emails, which were sent from 2010 to 2012.

    When I wrote Casualties, and outlined the life-or-death importance of learning Game, I now think this was too individually specific. I need to expand that importance to a larger meta-scale. When you have men in positions of this kind of authority and with this kind of necessity to the security of the most powerful nation on earth, a feminized beta mindset is a liability with implications that go far beyond their inability to inspire ‘gina tingles.

    Congratulations feminism , the feminized Beta mindset is now an issue of national security.

  61. The alpha/beta distinction in useful shorthand, but always ends up in endless debates about whether so-and-so in alpha or beta. It would be more useful to just say that certain things are attractive to women (making money, being physically dominant, and socially dominant, social proof, high-status, fame, non-supplicating, and the rest of the endless list) and other things aren’t. This endless list can be combined in an infinite variety of ways in individual men. You don’t have to have all of them to attract a woman, just a few will usually do, especially if you have one or two to a extremely high degree (CIA director).

  62. Rollo suggested:

    You may want to read AD’s breakdown about Petraeus before you deify him any further.

    Not knowing who “AD” is or why anyone should pay attention to his opinion, I did read his “breakdown.” What is your point? Direct me to specific revelations that are relevant to your judgment or mitigate its overreach.

    I am not “deify[ing]” Petraeus. I am correcting your misimpression that he is an ipso-facto beta male based on a single highly questionable factoid (“bombarding her with thousands of messages even after she had broken off the affair”).

    The official said the investigation involved some 20,000 to 30,000 pages of material, mostly emails, which were sent from 2010 to 2012.

    Now you are mischaracterizing basic facts. This shockingly high number includes the total electronic correspondence of the ISAF commander over a three-year period. It also seems high because of the cost-free copying nature of the internet: if you printed out your blog and all the replies, or your entire email inbox for three years, how many “pages” would that be? Further, how much of this correspondence was directed toward his extramarital affair (which is a crime under the UCMJ). Finally, none of this innuendo has to do with Petraeus.

    Let’s live in your theoretical world for a moment. How would you shape the military careers of our senior generals? Bang everything that moves, really get their PUA on while they are scaling the ranks, and then settle down at 40? The point is: have the discernment to understand where your contextual wisdom does or doesn’t apply.

    The news flash you bring us is: Petraeus never fully explored the sexual advantage he acquired by virtue of his stature, perhaps by design, perhaps out of fidelity to the mother of his children, perhaps because he had better things to do, like leading men and winning wars. For this he is a “beta male” at his core, and skank-trolling crossdressers like Erik von Markovik are the essence of the “sexual alpha.”

    Commenter Aleph puts it well:

    There is no such thing as a “sexual alpha.” There are alpha males, period. Those are the men that women want. Whether or not the men are able to realize this and capitalize on it is their own personal problem [or consciously-chosen advantage — MK].

    Sometimes great men have better things to do than “capitalize on” their stature by banging 500 club rats, and this is even before adjusting for the positive obstacle such a self-centered and short-sighted lifestyle. Living through one’s prime as Tucker Max precludes the achievement of great projects, which by their very nature, require focus, investment, and manly dedication.

    The incontrovertible facts are these: a leader of men in one of the very highest positions in the world banged a good-looking slut 20+ years his junior, who was aggressively throwing herself at him. Ho hum. But rather than pay attention to these basics, you spin out a silly theory of his essential betaness out of a single, improbable factoid from a tabloid rag which still hasn’t been corroborated by a second source.

    If Petraeus was such a beta weakling at heart, how could he accidentally induce a high-quality woman like Broadwell to betray her “contextual alpha” husband, then bang her, and then keep her on the hook for eight months without ever reading The Mystery Method? Severe cognitive dissonance.

    You and “the community” are so hyperfocused on appearances — how alphas dress, what’s their body language, how they hold their drink, do they put their hands in their pockets? — that you now think such superficial signs trump essence and deed. You are so in the weeds with the project of turning betas into alpha-mimics that you permit good tips for chumps to become the universal standards of manliness. That leads you to a preference for actors who look the part over naturals who define the part. The reform-school-for-chumps tail is wagging the alpha male dog.

    Game theory has jumped the shark.


  63. Rollo concludes:

    When you have men in positions of this kind of authority and with this kind of necessity to the security of the most powerful nation on earth, a feminized beta mindset is a liability with implications that go far beyond their inability to inspire ‘gina tingles.

    Congratulations feminism, the feminized Beta mindset is now an issue of national security.

    You now “need to expand [the] importance [of game] to a larger meta-scale”? Considering your stumbling start and tunnel-visioned confirmation bias, I predict disaster.

    Please direct us to hard evidence of the “feminized beta mindset” of Generals Petraeus and Allen, beyond your fourth-order extrapolations of factoids and gossip. As one of the few thinkers in this community who at least openly acknowledges the need to expand the wisdom of game beyond dick friction, you are bungling this badly.

    These men are alphas and they were caught fucking like alphas. The damning beta aftermath of their affairs, based on the breathless speculation of TMZ- and Perez-Hilton-style “reporters” who know nothing of the true sexual dynamic, is all in your head.

    There are no “feminized Beta mindset” lessons to be learned about men in high places getting caught in honey traps. If anything such scandals are further proof of alpha, known from time immemorial. After a life of conquering and rapine that brought the Roman Empire close to total collapse, Atilla the Hun was murdered by his wife in their honeymoon bed. Are we to conclude that he is a beta?


  64. The hypocrisy that everyone focuses ON THE MALE, yet she had a family too should not go unnoticed.

    [Agreed, but Petraeus seduced himself.]

  65. Matt, it’s interesting how readily you’ll embrace my estimation of Mystery as a Paper Alpha for basically the same reasons I’m detailing in my post here, yet when I make the same comparisons with a “Leader of Men®” you happen to have an affinity for it’s absolutist apoplexy on your part.

    It’s not hard to find romanticized examples of great men in history who were “brought low by the wiles of women”, but the fairytale we’d like to believe is that they lost a control they never really possessed. For all of their accomplishments they still lacked the experience fundamental to a full understanding about women and it led to their own downfall, and sometimes death.

    Petraeus’ is an extreme example of exactly what I warned Alfonso of in Adam’s Lament:

    @Alfonso, I think I’ve enumerated the personal/professional reasons for a man needing to put off monogamy until he’s begun to actualize for himself what his SMV means in the long term for women.
    What I don’t think you’re grasping is the necessity for a man to experience a variety of women, and how that relates to his overall mastery of women and himself, but also how essential it is for him to truly judge a woman’s character if and when he is ready to become monogamous.

    As you’re probably aware, most men are Betas and by that definition do not have access to the variety of women which would provide him with this needed experience. For the greater part, they suffer from a Scarcity Mentality due to this, thus any woman who comes along represents an end to his loneliness/sexlessness and most time’s he’ll imbue her with some divine destiny association since sexual abundance is so foreign an idea to him.

    However, the man who experiences the abundance of multiple intimate partners progressively develops his capacity to see past women’s beauty, his own sexual necessitousness, and become a better judge of women’s character after having moved beyond this beta desperation of sexual scarcity.

    Yes, sex is a part of this, but more important is the learning. True amused mastery is directly related to having been with enough women to know how they function, master them and be amused by the whole process. The more dangerous threat to most men (betas) isn’t his participating in the cock carousel, but rather in not being experienced enough with women to ruin his life dedicating it to the first attractive woman he simply lacked the experience to take a pass on.

    Read: Dream Killers

    I need to add one more thing here, and this is probably going to be contentious. I don’t believe men should feel they owe women much of anything, but you OWE it to your “Quality Woman” to have had enough experience with women to genuinely appreciate and admire her for any genuine exceptionality she may possess.

    When you lack that experience, and then praise your idealized woman for being a pearl amongst swine, your disingenuousness is only an insult to her.

    This is what led to Petraeus situation, and quite likely General Allen’s too.

  66. Queen – again, get lost. You have no business polluting this blog. Go find yourself a “brown woman” you so like to disparage

  67. Alpha or Beta, how do we know that the General didn’t get more p***y during those 37 years?
    Also, how could a general and director of CIA be so stupid as to have produced all those traceable emails? He should know better.

    [Hmm,..kind of like how a certain billionaire golf star should’ve known that a text message is archived on the receiving phone, and sometimes those receiving them don’t erase them no matter how they plead them to. Beta is as Beta does.]

  68. Don’t worry Rollo. Most people get the gist of what you’re sayin. It’s the same thing as the president of the company being a beta in his interactions with his wife and general mindset (“happy wife happy life”) even though he may be an alpha for the mere fact he can hire and fire people.

    My dad was one of those. I got to witness it first hand.

  69. And by their White Knightery will you know the Beta:

    The generals’ letters to the court — written in the past two months — supported a motion to overturn a ruling made nearly a year earlier by a judge who resoundingly denied custody to Khawam, because of serious reservations about her honesty and mental stability, court records show.

    Beware the Beta in a position of authority, he is a tool of the femocracy. Actively colluding with the fem-centric legal system to separate a father from his children. How do you like your Petraeus now Matt?

    The father, Grayson Wolfe, was unable to see the child for more than a year, according to court documents. The judge overseeing the case cited Khawam with “outrageous conduct,” “bad faith litigation tactics,” and “illogical thinking,” awarding full custody to the father and socking the mom with $350,000 in legal fees in 2011.

    The judge gave Wolfe sole custody of the couple’s son after finding that Khawam, a lawyer, repeatedly lied under oath and filed bogus domestic-violence and child-abuse claims against her husband after their one-year marriage began crumbling in 2009.

    That judge also found that Khawam routinely defied court orders to let the child see his dad and sent harassing e-mails to Wolfe’s friends and business partners that “excoriated Mr. Wolfe for being a horrible father and husband.”

    The judge blasted Khawam for giving false evidence, and noted that a court-ordered shrink had found her domestic-violence allegations to be “part of an ever-expanding set of sensational accusations . . . that are so numerous, so extraordinary and [so] distorted that they defy any common-sense view of reality.”

    The judge also noted that she “is a psychologically unstable person.”

  70. Some of you are assuming that Petraeus is alpha simply by virtue of reaching four star general rank.

    You’re forgetting that every senior officer, throughout his career, has spent just as much time taking orders as giving them.

  71. This doesn’t really belong here but I want to say this. I’ve been trying to get into game for a few months ever since I accidentally started using it a year ago. Still a recovering AFC but doing pretty good. A few days ago I saw some girl post on Facebook a picture about a real guy calls just to talk, texts you all the time, cries, ect. For what ever reason I called her on her illusion and fought her on it. I ended with the line ” I’ll bet you 5 dollars, a whole 5 dollars that the next guy to exhibit that behavior to you will get rejected.” Today she said she owes me 5 bucks.

    I felt a little proud. I’m starting to see this all for what it is. It’s not a lie in the way most think because most girls aren’t aware they are lying themselves. I like this outlook

  72. “Posted earlier, didn’t seem to go through. I read this post when it came out earlier Rollo, and it took me some time to mull over. I think you’re spot on about Petraeus being a beta in his personal life. The way he poses, his actions, everything results in that being the logical point. ”

    You have to understand that being beta is just like having a feminine mindset. It’s the exact same thing. Beta submit to their surroundings, they react, they never quite understand/identify something (lack of conceptualisation is a core element of female mind, something which you HAVE to understand if you want to understand the whole feminine psyche), they form their opinion based on other people’s opinions… Now, how would you call someone who’s doing exactly the opposite of all of this? A man, yeah.

    The key element on which the manosphere has not emphasised enough (or at all actually) yet is the inherent weakness of the feminine brain when it comes to conceptualisation. Conceptualising basically means identifying and understanding something in the world for what it is. It’s the basic subject (you)/object dichotomy. You are you, and this is this. Your mind has to conceptualise everything: from a chair to the concept of negs, game, everything. If you don’t understand something, if you’re not able to identify it, to fully comprehend it, it most likely has an influence on you which you’re not aware of (see feminism and modern men for instance). This is KEY.

    Now, you know how you feel when you’re about to understand something, but you’re not quite there yet? When you see that there is something logical, but you can’t put your finger on it? When the picture is still a bit blurry? That’s how women feel their ENTIRE life. The feminine brain doesn’t conceptualise very well at all. Everything is foggy, unclear, almost impossible to understand. In the “ideal” woman (the most feminine one), the subject/object dichotomy doesn’t exist. She is completely influenced by the environment. As a result, she has literally no free-will, she is formless. You can also watch any David Lynch movies and observe your own reaction as you’re trying to make sense off of it. This “what the hell?” moment is the feminine brain trying to conceptualise in a nutshell.

    Alpha male comes along. Can you see why he is going to CRUSH her? He is her EXACT opposite: great conceptualisation, which means total control over his environment, congruence, domination, he’s relaxed, witty… whatever your favorite alpha man quality is, it’s there. He is will in it’s purest form. He has an identity, he has form. As a result, formlessness will inevitably gravitate towards him. She will also crave for her will.

    You really need to understand how a girl experiences the world in her everyday life. You must understand that the way you see and understand the world is specifically masculine (unless you’re a girl or a feminine man). You must understand this crucial difference, and cultivate it. You’ll swallow the red pill the day you fully comprehend and embrace your own masculinity.

  73. It kind of bugs me that we’re starting to equate “alpha” as “good with women”, and “contextual alpha” as “AFC”. Let’s just call him an AFC and leave out the caveats about his otherwise successful life.

    What bugs me more is that this slut is a real camp follower, now there’s another general about to get taken out. Looks like she’d fuck anyone with a star on his shoulder and then dump him. Danny from 504 writes about this all the time, military guys are constant targets for this type of predatory chick behavior.

    AND, what bugs me even more is when you look at the comments on the MSM outlets, there’s hordes of blue pill dopes who are sitting here talking about conspiracy in the White House to take out Petraeus before he could testify on what happened in Benghazi. I can’t believe number of chumps out there who are still eager to suck Mit Romney’s limp dick.

  74. And the cruel irony is that feminism is represented by the most masculine women (their ability to conceptualise is better than the average girl’s precisely because they are manly, and this ability gives them the power to influence other women or betas, and thus to lead a political movement), fights for the emancipation of women as women, but it is only possible thanks to a purely MASCULINE characteristic. You see the crazy mindfuck they’re in, there?

  75. @Mark Minter

    “Here you are in the town of 50,000 locals, maybe, and there 50,000 18-22 year old oversexed boys with little or no contact with women to learn any social skills in terms of dealing with them.”

    Now that women are more common in the military there’s an interesting phenomenon seen with more and more frequency essentially called the ‘2-10-2’ rule. Women can go in the military rating a ‘2’ on the SMV but because of the scarcity of women in the military they become a ’10’. At least for the time they’re in the military. Upon leaving the military and going back to reality, they go back to being a lowly ‘2’ again. Some women may rate higher on the SMV but the phenomenon remains true.

    Sometimes the strategy of these women is to find some poor schlub to marry them after they’ve banged lots and lots staff sgts and other enlisted and thus stay on the teat of Uncle Sam. Other times they just get knocked up anyway and work Uncle Sam for other benefits. Uncle Sam’s now paying for a lot more knocked up enlisted single moms.

    I’ve met a fair amount of these ex-military gals and usually after they’ve been out of the military for several years they re-discover their low SMV value and become quite bitter over that reality so what you’re left with is a bitter woman with a used up pussy incapable of pair bonding with a man.

    Usually these women scream bitterness but if not their is another way to tell-a lot of them get tattoo’s so it should be far easier to identify the one’s you should stay away from or just fuck.

  76. Alpha is being the top dog. Beta is then only mating with one bitch. White Knighting is a beta tell, no matter how much gold braid you have on your uniform.

    Matt “After a life of conquering and rapine that brought the Roman Empire close to total collapse, Atilla the Hun was murdered by his wife in their honeymoon bed. Are we to conclude that he is a beta?”

    Yup. Honeymoon bed. All that conquering and rapine, and he still couldn’t Game her pants off.

  77. Matt said-

    That leads you to a preference for actors who look the part over naturals who define the part.

    The bastardization of the term “alpha” by the PUA community is less about having a preference for actors over naturals than it is about a bunch of guys who probably weren’t particularly good at much of anything growing up needing something to aspire to.

    In the PUA community there is no true definition of this term because alpha essentially means “whatever we deem to be good”. In their eyes a man can be an alpha even if he utilizes beta traits in order to get more sex, but ONLY if it helps him get laid. So beta is actually alpha, but ONLY if used to increase notch count.

    In other words, alpha is whatever they want it to be to make them feel better about themselves.

  78. Female lurker here. Just wanted to add a pretty important detail about Holly Knowlton Petraeus. She is not his high school sweetheart, but is the daughter of the commandant of West Point while Petraeus was attending the academy. Knowlton retired as a four-star. Her family is Big Army, influential and connected. General Petraeus was ambitious and smart, like West Pointers are, but he probably have not reached the heights he did without her family connections. He would not have received the same opportunities as a young officer.
    I’m sure Cadet Petraeus was in love, but he fell in love with the best possible choice for his career.

  79. (Here’s some thoughts on Oneitis, which Petraeus was clearly struggling with, so which gives me an excuse to post this):

    The One Exists….

    …for some.

    Tomassi, and others, are always going on about ‘oneitis’ and how it is practically a mental illness, or at least an aberration, an obsession over something which is basically illusory, etc. But in the spirit of objective inquiry, we must consider counterexamples.

    For interest, I will describe some famous examples; but I also want you to think of people you have known in your own life — perhaps your parents, or your grandparents, or an ancient aunt & uncle or other set of married relatives. The sort of thing we are looking for is married couples who had excellent, devoted, happy marriages — in which at least one partner considered the other to be The One — and got old, until finally one of them died. Perhaps you have personally known such a couple. ONLY marriages meeting these strict conditions count in this analysis!!! HAPPY (excluding misfortunes not caused by the marriage) AND AT LEAST ONE ‘ONE’ UNTIL DEATH.

    Hair-splitting: THE One, or A One? It is really a matter of statistics and individual differences. Some people are much more easily satisfied in relationships than others; for example, have you ever had a roommate who liked having a roommate, and was totally undisturbed by typical annoying-roommate scenarios? There are such lucky people in this world. On the other extreme there are people who absolutely cannot bear to live with another person, no matter how sexually active they may be, or devoted to a particular partner. Most other people lie at various points between these two extremes.

    In some absolute sense, it may be defensible to maintain that there is never such a person as The One. But what are we to do with people who are convinced that they have found The One — and remain so convinced until death? It depends on their personal interest in the matter.

    Consider Monica Lewinski, President Clinton’s intern squeeze. To this day she has never gotten over Clinton; she clearly has a bad case of ‘oneitis’, and it would be in her interest to convince herself that there is no such thing as The One and so move on with her life. But what about Joanne Woodward or Anne Bancroft (see below)? What interest had they in trying to convince themselves that there was no such thing as The One? They were both married to The One and were happily so until they predeceased their husbands.

    Same for any married man who is completely happy with his wife and considers her The One until the day he dies. Such cases are rare, but they exist. What do such men have to gain from realing that The One is illusory? A bit of psychological insurance, that’s all — which is perfectly useless until it’s needed — and if it’s never needed, who cares?

    Back to the world of chance: Consider how rare it is for two people to meet who have gears, so to speak, that mesh almost perfectly — and continue to mesh almost perfectly until the very end. Most people’s gears cannot mesh perfectly with anyone else’s; what is more, most people’s gears change their shape and configuration over the years. This analogy describes what we actually see in the real world. It is probably true that for most people, there really is no ‘The One’ — or even ‘A One’ — nor can there be.

    But it is not true for all people.

    Furthermore, there is no certain way of knowing what kind of lifelong gear-potential one has. The safe bet of course is to operate on an assumption that ‘The One’ or even ‘A One’ is a personal impossibility, because that reflects statistical reality. Irritatingly, however, there will always be people claiming to have found The One in each other — and even more irritatingly, a few of those couples will behave accordingly for the rest of their lives (famous examples below).

    How can you know for certain that such a thing could never happen to you? You can’t, because it DOES happen to real people, albeit very rarely. All you can do is be hardheaded about things: It is very very unlikely. But human beings like to gamble and take risks. Every mountain climber knows that the next climb may be his last. James Cameron knew he might not return from his dangerous trip to the deepest part of the ocean. Touring, struggling musicians, actors, etc. know that their chances of success in the arts are vanishingly small, yet they keep at it, often for years at a time, at great and cumulative personal cost. And so on. Marriage is a gamble, and the game is rigged very differently for each sex; nowadays, notoriously, the man risks much much more than the woman. You may say that gambling is for fools; I agree, but remember the words of the great Lemmy Kilmister, leader of Motorhead:

    I know I’m going to lose
    And gambling is for fools
    But that’s the way I like it baby
    I don’t want to live for ever….

    And don’t forget the Joker!

    The plain truth is, most people are foolish to various degrees, or at least about various things, and will remain so throughout most of their lives (this is another fact that can be verified to anyone’s satisfaction with plain old empirical observation).

    And now, examples of people from real life who were convinced they’d found The One, or A One:

    1. Charlie Chaplin and Oona O’Neill. Chaplin liked being married; he did it over and over again until he got it right. Nothing worked until he was 53 and he met the 17-year-old Oona O’Neill, daughter of famous playwright Eugene O’Neill, and already a famous beauty. Oona was already on record as saying she wanted to get a “really rich” husband, and had dated several famous men before she set her sights on Chaplin.

    That sounds like an inauspicious beginning, but the marriage went ahead about a year later, when Oona was 18 and Chaplin was 54; they proceeded to have eight children and a very happy and completely stable marriage by all accounts. Oona loved being married and loved being a wife and mother; she was devoted to Chaplin and to her children, and only one of the children ever expressed any reservations — she didn’t get along too well with her mother it seems. After Chaplin died, in his 80’s, the purpose went out of Oona’s life, and she declined, living another 16 years — but not very happily.

    Moral of the story — it might not be the wisest thing in the world to marry someone 36 years your elder, because of course they will die so many years before you; but that aside, Charlie was The One for Oona, and Oona was The (or A) One for Charlie. That is the only conclusion one may reach based on the actual evidence of their well-documented lives.

    2. Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft — Mel married famous actress Anne in 1964 and the marriage was a total success for over 40 years, until Bancroft’s death in 2005. Late in life, Bancroft said something once about how she was always impatient for Mel to get home “so that the party would start again.”

    Additional information: Mel Brooks is funny. He is not always trying to be funny; he simply is funny. He is funny the way a horse has hooves. This was no doubt of some help in maintaining his wife’s interest and attraction.

    3. Benjamin Disraeli and Mary Anne Lewis — the great 19th-century British politician, orator, and best-selling novelist married a woman 12 years his senior, for money it was believed, but in truth she was not very wealthy. They were completely, famously (and somewhat comically at times) happy with each other until the day she died, in her 80th year.

    4. There is a long list of Hollywood marriages that lasted 50 years in the following Wikipedia article. Without examining them all, I am willing to be that at least some of them met our strict conditions. One certain example is Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward.

    5. Prince Albert and Queen Victoria. Albert was The One for Vicky. (Later she had to make do with Mr. Brown.)

    You may all find your own examples, but remember the strict conditions.

    To conclude — The undeniable truth from observations of real life is the following: In a few undeniable cases, death closes long and happy relationships in which at least one member of the couple is convinced they have found The One. The truth or falsehood of their belief cannot be proved.

Leave a Reply to Aleph Cancel reply

%d bloggers like this: