Master & Servant

master-servant

Evan12 on the SoSuave forum has an interesting observation:

I’ve noticed in many lesbian couples the submissive woman in the relationship is not embarrassed from that , and she showed her love and submissiveness to her partner without shame. For example they write on their facebook “I want to worship you” or “you are my goddess ” etc.

Also in real life they took some clear orders from their dominant partner, that if a man would’ve ordered a woman in-front of others they would consider it degrading to them .

In the workplace, I find women submit to other female managers very easily and sometimes even voluntarily, but when a man is manager they play a lot of power games to challenge/question his authority.

Is this because of public shaming from the figure of woman following a man, so women feel more free to show her submissive side when it is toward a woman and not a man ?

The inimitable Burroughs (who is cordially invited to comment more on this blog) then picks up the next salient point:

The next time you switch on the television, count how many programs have the token ‘stupid boyfriend’ or ‘abusive husband’ or ‘paedophilic father’ figure.

Switch over to a children’s channel / time window and watch how many cartoons or programs reflect ‘silly daddy’ characters or ‘bullying big brother’.

Don’t forget, of course, nearly all the women in these same programs will be smart, sexy, sassy and full of beans, capable of juggling a career lifestyle with children, a husband and a social circle

– let’s not forget that she’s undoubtedly a wonderful cook and always remembers everybody’s birthdays.

If these images are being constantly spread out over our airwaves, what does that tell our children who are growing up watching & learning daily, hourly, that men are just so stupid, abusive and … well, useless?

I addressed a good portion of Evan’s observation in Sexual Fluidity:

Ironically—or not, as some might argue—it is certain “masculine” qualities that draw many straight-labeled women to female partners; that, in combination with emotional connection, intimacy, and intensity.

“Men can’t understand why I want to be with Jack, a lesbian, when I could be with a biological man,” says Gomez-Barris. “And at first I thought it would be threatening, but I have a rebellious spirit. He’s powerful, accomplished, and appealing. And in some ways, the experience is better than in heterosexual sex.

So what are we seeing here? Heterosexual women, still crave the masculine dominance that men cannot or will not provide her. Thus, we see condition dictate response.

Burroughs accurately notes the social symptoms of the dynamic. It’s not difficult to outline how the institutionalized social feminization (via mass media ridicule and shaming of masculinity) of men over the past 60 years has greatly contributed to men uncomfortable in their innate masculine predispositions. However, by the same means, the other side of the story is women’s fem-centric conditioning predisposes them not to expect masculinity to be anything other than negative when coming from a human being born with a penis. Masculinity paired with a vagina however is the only legitimate form of masculinity acknowledged.

It takes a feminized society of millions and half a lifetime of institutionalized feminization conditioning to repress the male definition of masculinity in a man. As I’ve noted before, feminization seeks to redefine masculinity to better fit with an egalitarian equalist doctrine, but what thwarts the effort is men’s biological, and in-born psychological, bent to manifest a uniquely male defined masculinity.

Hypergamy’s Doms & Subs

This is only one half of the dynamic though. The other half being women’s innate desire, through natural hypergamy, to be submissive to that male-defined masculinity; but only to the man who is dominant enough to satisfy a woman’s hypergamy.

In an era when Hypergamy has been given free reign, it is no longer men’s provisioning that dictates her predisposition to want to be a submissive partner in their relationships. To an increasingly larger degree women no longer depend upon men for the provisioning, security and emotional support that used to insure against their innate Hypergamous impulses. What’s left is a society of women using the satisfaction of Hypergamy as their only benchmark for relational gratification.

Men with the (Alpha) capacity to meet the raw, feral, demands of women’s Hypergamy are increasingly rare, and thanks to the incessant progress of feminization are being further pushed to marginalization. The demand for Men who meet women’s increasingly over-estimated sense of Hypergamic worth makes the men women could submit to a precious commodity, and increases further stress the modern sexual market place.

But women want to be submissive –preferably to the dominant Man qualified to quell her Hypergamy, but in his absence (thanks to mass feminization) substitutes needed to be created. One of the most important points doubters of the Feminine Imperative need to understand is that every social dynamic must work to the benefit of the feminine. When we observe modern social variances on traditional themes, understand that these are modification intended to ‘re-provide’ women with a previous benefit lost due to the distortion of feminine primacy. No men around to provide that masculine dominance? Turn women into men.

Enter the Hyenas

One thing you’ll notice amongst the majority of homosexual couples is an inherent hierarchy of dominance. With all the debate about gay marriage and civil rights these days, I find it fascinating that a subculture founded on non-traditional values, to the point of  subverting them, would demand with such fervor to participate in one of “traditional society’s” most traditional institutions – marriage. Even homosexuals want that heterosexual, interpersonal social structure.

For all of the sermonizing about the want for egalitarian equality, the observable establishing dynamic is still one of a dominant and a submissive partner in a monogamous framework. As our collective gender identities become more homogenized, the role of whom will play the part of dom and sub becomes based upon who better has the stronger personality to live that role out.

Combine this with a collective social consciousness that, by default, puts men into a position of masculine ridicule, and you get the now stereotypical ‘whipped’ husband seeking his dominant wife’s permission as part of his internalized sense of identity. You also see the homosexual woman ‘worshiping’ her dominant partner – a partner more hypergamy-satisfyingly masculine than any man she’s ever encountered, or ever had the capacity to attract. We see the ‘tough bitch’ fearlessly making demands of her female (and male) subordinates that would be grounds for harassment were a man to issue them.

The Meta-Shit Test

We have a society based on presupposed male incompetence, but women still want the hypergamic satisfaction of submissiveness that men should provide for them. It’s in their fantasies. Women’s literature from classical antiquity to modernity is characterized by a want for masculine dominance.

This is the great social shit test of our time. In spite of a world arrayed against him, a Man needs the fearlessness of purpose to pass what has become a meta-scale test of hypergamy. The provisioning, support, emotional investment, and security a man could establish that used to buffer Hypergamy are all ancillary to satisfying Hypergamy now. Feminization has seen to it that in defying its purpose you are identified as being less than a man, but still challenges men to be Men by defying it.

107 comments

  1. Interesting post. I’d like to share that the girl I successfully gamed is a tall, sexy ballerina. She regularly tells me “I want someone strong” and loves being totally dominated despite her otherwise sweet, girly public persona.

    But over the last 2 weeks I was sick and tired from my trials.

    She wanted to come over and made that clear.

    I said, “You take too much energy right now….” and basically went home without banging her.

    The power of NOT banging a girl, is more intense than the power of dominating her in bed.

    She now cannot wait to meet up with me again….

    This idea that women want to be dominated is absolutely true, but they want to be dominated by someone they see as higher value.

    Being able to walk away from a bang…is power.

  2. Man THIS is HOT FIRE. Unique hidden truths exposed and explained. This is what we need in the world.

    NOT Postmasculine, that is a complete regression for the manosphere. We should actively attempt to distance ourselves from those foolish idealists on that website.

  3. Not related to this post, but from an old one of yours I came across the film Blue Valentine…my god the red pill is hard to swallow.

    Still, just wanted thanks for all your writings Rollo, so glad that I’ve found them/the community and am finally on the road to unplugging before I got myself into a relationship doomed to fail.

    Keep up the goof work man, probably the most insightful, well written and intelligent blog I read.

  4. Another thing to remember about gays and lesbians is because they’ve hit the reset button on their sexuality, it’s easier for them to then take up Dom or Fem positions as they like without fear the judgement of society. Anybody who would judge that choice is going to disapprove of their lifestyle anyway, so their opinion is dismissed out of hand.

    As you point out, for this reason, gays and lesbians often understand traditional gender roles better than many breeders because they’ve essetionally escaped societies gender defining and their hind brains are now back to a natural state instead of a falsely imposed one.

    I see some gay dudes that are much more masculine than the average straight men because their culture encourages the choice of Male Dominance.

  5. Fantastic post.

    We see the ‘tough bitch’ fearlessly making demands of her female (and male) subordinates that would be grounds for harassment were a man to issue them.

    Because the ‘tough bitch’ literally has no fear, that is to say no need to fear. A woman in that situation is 99.99% legally immune, hence the fearlessness, which just further reinforces the dominance. Conversely, an insufficiently alpha (YMMV) man is 99.99% legally precarious.

    a Man needs the fearlessness of purpose to pass what has become a meta-scale test of hypergamy. The provisioning, support, emotional investment, and security a man could establish that used to buffer Hypergamy are all ancillary to satisfying Hypergamy now.

    Given the loss of the above buffers’ power to restrain hypergamy, the only restraint is now alpha (fearlessness combined with attractiveness). The problem is that no one is ever 100% alpha, 100% of the time, which means that you are potentially playing Russian Roulette. You may get lucky, and you can definitely game the odds in your favor, but there is also a bullet waiting in a chamber for around half of all average married chumps.

    Calling Mark Minter…

  6. I was thinking something very similar to HHH’s observation: Women are trained to reject and fear men’s dominance on the conscious level (what passes for thought in so many) but crave the dynamic in every other aspect of their being. Having refused themselves the usual natural source of satisfaction, they must find it elsewhere. As usual, the irony escapes them at every level.

  7. You’re partially ignoring the original question. Or maybe just breaking it down into men vs women dynamics instead of women with women.

    To this part of his question:
    “In the workplace, I find women submit to other female managers very easily and sometimes even voluntarily, but when a man is manager they play a lot of power games to challenge/question his authority.”

    To which you said:
    Masculinity paired with a vagina however is the only legitimate form of masculinity acknowledged.

    and this
    When we observe modern social variances on traditional themes, understand that these are modification intended to ‘re-provide’ women with a previous benefit lost due to the distortion of feminine primacy. No men around to provide that masculine dominance? Turn women into men.

    It’s also interesting that you say, “Women’s literature from classical antiquity to modernity is characterized by a want for masculine dominance.”

    What you’re ignoring is that women have always had a hierarchy within their own groups, which is what the original question was asking about. Within classical literature you see this hierarchy again and again. Circe has her servants that listen solely to Circe. Penelope has servants that are loyal to herself, except for those seduced away by the male suitors. Helen of Troy has women that answer to her, and Helen answers to Hector’s wife who answers to Priams.

    This can also be seen in modern day culture. Women in the work force. Friend groups. Even, no -ESPECIALLY- feminism and feminists.

    In the absence of a male, the female sorting of hierarchy springs up. When applicable, it is almost always determined by the male hierarchy. When not applicably, women create their own. They primarily will create the hierarchy through the use of women’s powerful social tools, not men’s (exceptions in corporate culture are exceptions, not the rule, and are usually all too eager to drop the facade of men’s direct tools to use women’s indrect ones). There’s a large difference in how women treat a female hierarchy than a male one once it’s in place. They won’t challenge it nearly as often as they challenge a man, and will follow ‘the herd/sisterhood’ instincts noted here and on other blogs numerous times. I suspect that women’s behavior has evolved to where their subconscious suspects that such a female hierarchy will only last until a male comes along to pick up the reigns. Circe tried to get Odysseus, Penelope succeeded – and when Odysseus got the reigns back there was a massive purging of all outside the hierarchy women. When Helen is alone, she’s in charge, then she defers power to the other wives, or to the males when they return.

    They merely hold the reigns in waiting for the hands of a male.

    As a side note – in many ways the non-challenges of women groups resembles the same of male groups.when a hierarchy is established. Only drastic change to an individual/the group will provoke actual hierarchal struggles (exception being long term scheming). The major and most common reason for any struggling is sexual competition when the opposite sex comes directly into play. At this point you’ll see both men and women throw each other under the bus often – with rarer individuals assist friends in achieving their sexual goals (from a biological perspective. Enter the female cockblock, forcing men to double down on resources, met by the male wing man, smoothly taking a Puggsly for the team or at least getting her outside or buying her a drink.

    Lesbians, from my experience, are a damn weird amalgamation of all of the above, with MANY variances depending on the lesbian. They can be anything from the woman who loves being the dom, to the woman who actively enjoys a sub position to a woman but not a man, to a woman confused by society because she loves a sub position, but hasn’t found a man yet so she searches for it in a woman (mistaking her own sexual preferences due to the confusion). Room for everything in between.

    Never assume a damn thing with lesbians; it will get you in dire social straights every damn time as they alternate between feminine and masculine forms of attack if you’ve offended them (which you will) that they’ve mastered more than most men simply with speed rather than any actual skill at the attacks.

  8. Another awesome post.

    One question, or should I say a humble request if you find the time: You keep talking about the demise of the alpha in some sort. Maybe you could write a longer post about how us men could behave more like we “should” or really want to be?

  9. Male fantasies notwithstanding, a solid majority of the lesbians I’ve known are fucked in the head to one extent or another, and their relationships tend to look really abusive/psycho to an outsider. .

  10. This dom/sub division comes out in parenting done by stable gay couples. Over time one partner NATURALLY assumes the nurturing (maternal) role; the other takes on the disciplinary (male) role. Prof. David Popenoe of Rutgers first discovered it (“Life Without Father”). Living in a place with a large gay-coupled population, I can confirm with my own eyes this is what I’ve seen over the years.

    I will venture a different prediction: as gay marrieds start to divorce for the same stupid reasons we straights do, look for more cases of divorce being filed due to “gendered role oppression”, where the butch one is too butch/too overbearing for the other “nurturing” one! This is already happening in the highly contested cases. Look for it to spread, especially amoong couples with the money to wage the fight over it.

  11. Nicely exposed hypocrisy.

    It takes a concerted effort to swim against the current. Society openly wants to make us its bitches, and women secretly want us to make them ours.

    Both dynamics require energy.

    I’ve experienced similar, wala. What some women in relationships don’t seem to realize – when they seem bent on prodding and shit-testing a guy like me who has been pretty thoroughly gutted in the past – is that at some point, I just don’t give a fuck any more.

  12. We haven’t had a very collective notion of, these are our children. We have to break through our private idea that children belong to their parents, or children belong to their families, and recognize that children belong to whole communities.

    This (out of context) quote was from Melissa Harris-Perry. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with her on differing points, but this concept is a perfect example of what I was getting at in this post. The media is already making hay about it as some socialist under-message, but that’s the easy-to-digest answer.

    The greater proposition is exactly what I’ve addressed in this post – raising boys into feminized men is a societal effort.

  13. You mean commercials like this are teaching our children that men are stupid and useless? I’m not buying it….

    The shorter version of this plays all day long on what seems like every channel on Directtv and is essentially all of the “dad is an idiot” bits condensed into 30 seconds.

    Lets count how many jabs can be taken at men or masculinity in the course of a minute:

    :10- dad is a fatass
    :13- dad doesn’t know how to communicate (subtext- female genie really does understand but she is taunting him, dad is the punchline)
    :17- even the squirrels think dad is an idiot
    :32- dad is the punchline again
    :43- wife and kids are now metaphorically “on the side of the genie”
    :44- once again, dad doesn’t know how to communicate (more “misunderstanding”, again he becomes the punchline)
    :50- fatass dad is the final punchline

    Gotta love the genie’s color coordinated shit dog, mom getting exactly what she wants without being taunted and led around like a tool, daughter being granted her princess wish (apparently even 8 yr old princesses also strong and independent enough tolead armies these days).

    Did I miss anything?

  14. Back when I owned a retail store we had more than our fair share of lesbian couples come through the door.

    I always got a kick out of the couples where the “man” of the relationship thought he was a street thug with a buzz cut, taped up tits and neck tattoo. And every now and then the girly lesbo was reasonably feminine and attractive.

  15. Rollo,

    “egalitarian equalist doctrine” = The Athena Doctrine.

    “In the workplace, I find women submit to other female managers very easily and sometimes even voluntarily, but when a man is manager they play a lot of power games to challenge/question his authority.

    Is this because of public shaming from the figure of woman following a man, so women feel more free to show her submissive side when it is toward a woman and not a man ?” -Burroughs

    I have seen this in the past, never really made note of it until this post.

    It is interesting because this is a conscious decision based upon fear, and societal pressure. But what happens when hypergamy takes hold, how would she behave in front of both her fellow employees and her significant at the same time?

    Sometimes I feel women are more afraid of the world than I give them credit for.

  16. Entirely underwrite what BC stated.

    The guy’s observation or hypothesis “In the workplace, I find women submit to other female managers very easily and sometimes even voluntarily, but when a man is manager they play a lot of power games to challenge/question his authority.” struck a false note with me, though.
    Quite the contrary, I have only seen the most epic rucks for unmerited status when women are under a (competent) female boss.

    One memorable one: a project (technical) was funding-sourced, research-designed and set up by a longtime female colleague (with a face like the back end of a bus, and nearly spherical, but a good friend to the guys in the teams we’d worked in, and could hold her beer and always got her round in). There were blokes who’d previously been her boss answering to her, she’d recruited them away because she realised she was doomed without their mad skillz and general take-no-shit robustness, and young grads, both male and female at the coalface. Lovely jubbly, all went swimmingly.
    Two years in, some older women from the professional circuit were taken on partly because they had no proper work coming in and partly because they too were former colleagues and pals from (male-boss and lieutenants) projects.
    One was even a former serious squeeze of mine, so we thought great, no figuring out if they’re up to snuff and not arseholes, like with new bugs, even though that relationship had ended with some mess.

    Faaaark.
    Could not have been more wrong. After a week her and her clique of (barrelling towards The Wall) women were agitating for one of their number (not the ex) to be installed as head of the feckin project“, and the founder deposed.

    WTeverlovin’F?? Ex-squeeze was detailed to get on my case (as a male “officer”) and nag the living shit out of me to get BossLady Director to just .. step down.
    Sometimes it would be her and her pal, the one who wanted the top spot, giving me both barrels.
    Naturally I started out openly questioning their sanity, and after a fortnight I’d had enough and let them have it, detailing their lack of experience, of intellectual firepower, woeful lack of qualifications, flaky, abrasive personalities (ensuring mutiny from the young’uns if they ever got any authority over them) and worst of all, truly abject laziness.
    Which was why they were .. where they were. Simples.

    Did this deflect them? Not a bit of it. They simply barracked me for (you guessed it!) “sexism”.
    LOLWUT? I mean BossLady Director was not much to look at, but still a (very single) woman and relatively as smart as a whip. And it was her friggin’ baby.
    They remained unimpressed. Justice, and Feminism (I know, don’t ask!) demanded her head, and LazyDimGirl in her stead to crack the whip over us, despite being as thick as pigshit and twice as nasty.

    And they continued to agitate among the other male sidekicks of BossLady, who knowing them of old weren’t having any of it, and told them to take a hike too. They tried to disaffect the young’uns, but it simply baffled and alarmed them. Oh noes my first real job and it’s going down in flames …
    Eventually one of the other hierarchy guys got on my case about ex-squeeze, can’t you tell her to STFU, and make LDGirl and her Coven stop all this crap too? You know her best, you were nearly married FFS.
    Look mate sez I, #1 she dumped me (hard! there was an abortion) and #2 she’s as mad as a box of frogs, even if she’s a good worker. BossLady invited those cunts on board, I wouldn’t have, sua problemo old son. That’ll teach her to advance the feminist cause (it actually was one of the stated reasons).

    I had a think and in the end decided the only thing left was to risk upsetting BossLady. As far as she was concerned it was all great mates together, and the project was humming along like a maglev train with the help of the old friends she’d hired after the fact.
    So I took her for a quiet drink out of the way and spilled my guts, look pet, you’re going to have to sack these bastards, they’re fucking nuts, and they’re after your job. Exhibits A, B, C thru Z.

    She was very tearful for a bit, shock mainly. But she was a game old bird, and once she’d verified my deposition with some of the equally longtime guy friends and erstwhile (and future; it’s like that) bosses working for her, she pulled the chain on the Coven. Very quietly and apologetically, like she was the guilty one. Herd betrayal or something??
    Fucked if I know. I was so pissed at being the lightning-conductor for this shit I may have at one point soberly and convincingly offered BossLady my resignation if she wouldn’t take action, so I could be free to break the conspirators’ backs and rip their lungs out through their arses, as I was losing the will to live, what with their constant vicious hissing bullshit, undermining everything we’d worked for.

    But she “manned up” LOL as far as she could, with our very firm and promised support, if necessary (although I was begged not to flip out on them; decided to take a walk round town getting fancy cakes and other treats for the junior boys&girls instead, as a reward for keeping shtum and not freaking out under the constant demented pressure from what (to them) seemed like Senior Team wimminzfolk. They never found out that I’d grassed up the Coven to BossLady, we wanted it to appear part of her ESP BossPowers, and not demoralize them by revealing that she was “a weak and feeble woman, but with the heart and stomach of a geek!”).
    She did The Right Thing, and then we senior peeps (some were girls too, it’s complicated) plus BossLady all went out together on an epic and thoroughly disgraceful bender, before returning on Monday stone-cold and itching to get at the job, as though they’d never existed.

    I’ve always got along well with female bosses, mainly because they were, in the past, simply Geeks with Norks, and normal rational human beanz, if a more than a bit homely and predestined to Shiraz and cats.

    This absurd “I’m as good as Her, why can’t I have Her job?” BS has occurred maybe thrice in my life. That was the worst. And you can yell “NO you fuckin’ ain’t!!”, with appended proofs in triplicate, for a week, and they look at you like you shat in their handbag and wiped yourself off with their hair.

    It just doesn’t compute. Ordinary women genuinely appear to think that being a Boss is simply a matter of acting Like A Boss and ordering the little people around.
    “Go on, hop to it, I don’t know what you do, or how to do it, but I AM The Bawsss and there’ll be hell to pay!”
    To which the only answer, obviously, is “fuckit, you do it then. I’m off down the boozer, cunt”.
    Even if you have to live on Pot Noodle and Grafenwalder for a month (or six!). There is no other way.

    Right, that reminds me, it’s Friday, and it’s Beer o’Clock, in this timezone.

  17. Aries, I used to follow Post-Masculine, but I left not because of its rejection of the Red Pill, but because his articles are entirely mental masturbation.

    At least Rollo’s posts are based on observation, things he sees. Mark’s posts are based on cribbing the work of others and passing it off as his own.

  18. Gays have validated confidence just like races other than white people have externally validated confidence. The most useful tool the left has is pretending the straight, white male power structure still exists.

  19. Finally realized this when watching an episode of Oprah, about married women had had affairs with a woman (Jackie) who owned the gym they used.

    What i first noticed was Jackie’s appearance and the appearance of the husband of one of her lovers, she was fit whie the husband was dumpy.

    One of the woman who had an affair with Jackie was on the show with her husband, and she told Oprah what drew her to Jackie.
    Those qualities were what woman look for in a man.

    I finally got it when Jackie said this about woman being attracted to her “I have to think because i sort of am on the cusp there. I have the right balance of masculinity and femininity that is appealing to straight woman.”

  20. I’ve recently experienced the craziness of this world we live in. Just broken up with my girlfriend of 3 years. Her behaviour towards the end was just unbearable; I eventually broke up with her after her coming on a night out and getting all angry with me and storming off for no reason at the time, only to ‘apologise’ next day saying it was because She felt se did all the chasing and because I wasn’t facilitating her moving out of her family home by wanting to move in with her. I’m 26 and have worked hard on having my own plan in life and being the dominant male, but I just got no end of shit tests, creation of arguments, refusals to ever apologise or take responsibility when in the wrong etc. when I broke up with her she then told me she thought our relationship was great and was surprised I wanted to leave. I’ve since had all the vitriol of being told I was appalling and cowardly despite breaking up face to face.

    26 and already sick of this shit!

  21. Treize,

    It gets easier the more alpha you get. In your very next relationship, state up front and make it clear that you call the shots, you are the man and she is the woman, and that you lead, she follows. If she can’t hack it, she can walk.

    No need to be rude, just say it straight and mean it. Treat it exactly like a job application, as that’s precisely what a relationship is. If she fucks up, ‘next’ her without a second thought. If she can’t handle this, break it off and find another girl on the girl tree.

    A few things happen when you begin to do this: you become desensitized to getting exaclty what you want and not kowtowing to a woman; your standards go higher as you realize you don’t have to put up with any shit; your game gets tighter as the shift occurs from you pleasing them to them having to please you.

    What’s more, you may find that one of them, a doey-eyed beauty of nice proportions, actually looks up at you in shock at finally finding a discerning, real man, and mumbles, “ok.”

    THEN you have to have a plan for when THAT happens; but get to that point first.

  22. “At least Rollo’s posts are based on observation, things he sees. Mark’s posts are based on cribbing the work of others and passing it off as his own.”

    He claims he was the first PUA to teach the vulnverability concept he talks about all the time yet Juggler (Wayne Elise) and the Auhtentic Man Programe have been teaching that since at least 2006 and in the case of Juggler, probably before. At his old forum Juggler had Alpha is not being afraid to be weak or something along those lines permanently written underneath his posts (what is it called in English when you have something written like that?). He also advocating freely admitting any weakness or emotional vulnerability without any fear and jokingly said that if she knew what was wrong with you going in she couldn`t complain later. His teachings always centered arround honestly expressing what you felt and what was true for you. A Danish coach he had had “be naked and she will follow” written permanently beneath his posts which revealed the same attitude.

    Authentic Man Program even uses the term vulnerability itself a lot and they have been teaching it since 2006.

    So, I also find it anoying the way he tries to make himself out to be the one that first came up with stuff people have been doing for years. Just about every critique of pickup I have seen him make I saw discussed time and time again on PUA forums arround 2004-2006 and much more so in the later years.

  23. @ Sherlock

    Will do.

    On your note of vulnerability and the classics – I was captivated by how…. alive within their emotions, men and women were in Iliad and Odyssey. Men opening weeping. Raging. Praising. Cursing.

    These men LIVED. In every sense. They let emotions pass through them and then forgot about them. The only time they would hold on to something is if their honor or that of their brotherhood, tribe, nation, were slighted. Even then, holding on to revenge for too long quickly became feminine or something to be blamed on the Gods.

    A man was certainly never to hold on to his emotions.

    Anyways, your comments on vulnerability and more…. passive, game; usually remind me of this. Thought I’d let you know how they’re resonating with where I’m at.

  24. @feral1404

    Thanks man. It may not have ended well but the value of being able to discern what is acceptable behaviour to me in future relationships now is priceless. Onwards and upwards it is.

  25. Females of many animals form into all-female herds – and the herd has a natural hierarchy.

    Horses have the dominant mare. Chickens have their well-known pecking order. Prisons always have a queen bee.

    Women are not so much looking for a man to be submissive to, but a hierarchy to slot into. Once they find their place, they’re usually content with it – it is their very identity.

    Schopenhauer summed it up nicely when he described ‘ladies of rank’, observing how insufferably rude they were in dealing with their female inferiors. There was none of that affable show of equality that men show their subordinates.

  26. Rollo Tomassi

    We haven’t had a very collective notion of, these are our children. We have to break through our private idea that children belong to their parents, or children belong to their families, and recognize that children belong to whole communities.

    This (out of context) quote was from Melissa Harris-Perry.
    ————————————————————————–
    Never trust a black woman with 3 slave names.

  27. “With all the debate about gay marriage and civil rights these days, I find it fascinating that a subculture founded on non-traditional values, to the point of subverting them, would demand with such fervor to participate in one of “traditional society’s” most traditional institutions – marriage. Even homosexuals want that heterosexual, interpersonal social structure.”

    Everything else I agree with but not this bit. Perhaps some Gays do want marriage for that social structure but like “hate speech” laws it’s really not about the thing, but something else. “Hate Speech” laws really aren’t about protecting Gays, Women, or Muslims. More often they’ve become a way to silence criticism of these groups by other groups-mainly straight, white, Christians. Mark Steyn & Ezra Levant’s travails in Canada with the Canadian Human Rights Commission come foremost to mind. And that’s what I see with the Gay Marriage issue. If you don’t agree with Homosex marriage and see it as equally valid to and as worthy as a Heterosexual marriage, then you’re slimy, greasy Homophobe to be punished by the with the full force of the State.

    Perhaps I’ve read too much LGBQT/Queer Theory but I just don’t buy that most gays want to marry. Most of them seem entirely happy buggering and muff diving with various partners over their lifetimes. Yes, there is this dominant/submissive dynamic whether it’s a male/male or female/female combo. However, only a minority seem on mainstreaming themselves, the rest seem to be about some sexual orientation based totalitarianism and finding new sex partners when that novelty wears off cf Lesbian Bed Death.

    The rest of the post I totally agree with.

  28. “Feminization has seen to it that in defying its purpose you are identified as being less than a man, but still challenges men to be Men by defying it.”

    Damn, Rollo…DAMN! That’s mind blowing, but strikes a very true note.

  29. Lesbians have are literally screwed in the head. They have a dick firmly planted between their ears ~ “Dick Brain” ~ if you will, AND at the same time they hold the “ace in the hole” with a vagina between their legs. They are therefore aggressive and can inflict real damage. If you, a ‘bio-male’ retaliates effectively then they can call in the victim card and have you arrested as a ‘bio-woman’. Watch your back around them critters.

  30. I guess that could have been written more clear – if you as a bio-male retaliate effectively to the dick brain lesbo, then she, as a bio-woman can call in the victim card and have you arrested for assaulting a woman…

  31. This is the best article you have ever thrown down. This is exactly what I needed to hear tonight. Thank you!!!

  32. I’m reading The Rational Male for about a year now, and I’m still very taken by the intelligent discourse on the matter of inter- and intragender relations presented here. It has opened my eyes, and continues to do so.

    While modern academia promotes itself as the sole bastion of truth, objectivity, and rationality, you would be hard pressed to find anyone in those feminine imperative-serving ivory towers to discuss these topics in an objective, scientific way. Instead, it has utterly degraded, granting tenure to people like Hugo Schwyzer, and giving them expert status on the matter. What a charade it has become.

  33. “For all of the sermonizing about the want for egalitarian equality, the observable establishing dynamic is still one of a dominant and a submissive partner in a monogamous framework. As our collective gender identities become more homogenized, the role of whom will play the part of dom and sub becomes based upon who better has the stronger personality to live that role out.”

    This is brilliant I must say. Hadn’t realy given much thought to the implications of roles in homosexual relationships before.

    But this (and I realize it’s quoted):

    “In the workplace, I find women submit to other female managers very easily and sometimes even voluntarily, but when a man is manager they play a lot of power games to challenge/question his authority.

    Is this because of public shaming from the figure of woman following a man, so women feel more free to show her submissive side when it is toward a woman and not a man ?”

    I don’t know how much time this fellow spent in the workplace. I can’t agree at all. Women can work together well sometimes (and I’ve certainly seen this). However, the term “cattiness” just isn’t a concept you have to deal with in male/male or male/female interactions… Generally, I haven’t seen women take well to domineering female bosses at all, and the frequent alternative of passive aggressiveness causes its own problems. I find men are better programmed to deal with hierarchy generally.

  34. Amazing post, Rollo.

    Regarding PostMasculine, I read a good amount of articles on there and found the guy’s perspective to be highly femcentric. It’s no wonder that Susan tends to refer to his stuff and uses him as an example of “that one PUA who saw the emptiness of being a PUA”.

  35. While watching Wall-E the other day I was thinking the same thing. Powerful female, clueless male.

  36. “Feminization has seen to it that in defying its purpose you are identified as being less than a man, but still challenges men to be Men by defying it.”

    This is just another variation of “I want a nice guy but I will only fuck bad boys”. The core of the red pill. Basically the only insight you will ever get from the feminine perspective is how to be a beta and get further stuck in the matrix. When I listen to women and their man-up shaming tactics nowadays all I hear is “dominate me, dominate me, please please dominate me”.

  37. Everything about women — from their appearance to what comes out of their mouths — is a giant shit test designed to measure your dominance and suitability as a sperm donor. And it’s an uphill battle because nowadays society is in on it, too. Everyday I wake up and feel like one lucky s.o.b for discovering game and the manosphere at the age of 26.

  38. I would argue that men are being given a no-solution problem to solve. If we accept that women prefer to be dominated by true masculinity, then we have to accept that socio-economic equality of the sexes is nonsense on its face.

    In order to be dominant, you have to have more resources, options, capabilities, ambition, intelligence, etc… than that which you are dominating. In order to have true social *equality* between male and female, all of that “inequality” must go away. The argument that men are being given a societal shit-test is incompatible with the notion that the sexes should be equal. The argument that women want equality is incompatible with hypergamy.

  39. Part of the feminine imperative is to pander to women’s fragile sense of self-worth. There have been a few articles in the manopshere about the modern female’s inflated sense of self-esteem, but i suspect this self-esteem doesn’t run very deep. They know on some level that society panders to them, compliments them on trivial shit etc, simply because they’re female and need that extra boost.

    Uncomfortable red pill thought:

    Females often feel inadequate to males in general.

    Offensive red pill thought:

    You know how parents overly compliment their children when they bring home some ugly art from school? And then hang it on the refrigerator? That’s kind of how we treat females.

  40. Oh, and great post as usual Rollo (and that’s not pandering lol). So many quotable sentences and paragraphs. Like:

    “Feminization has seen to it that in defying its purpose you are identified as being less than a man, but still challenges men to be Men by defying it.”

    A man is freed from that Catch-22 by liberating himself from the feminine imperative mentally and emotionally. Guilt is one of their primary weapons. That you should feel a generalized guilt simply for being a man. Your existence in itself is sexist until you prove otherwise by being obedient to the FI.

    It’s quite a weight off and burden to cleanse all traces of that male-guilt and give a cheerful (and not bitter) middle finger to the feminine imperative and all blue pillers

  41. @Tam,

    How do you achieve dominance over that which you are trying to be equal to?

    That which is greater than cannot be equal to, they are mutually exclusive conditions. You can be greater than OR equal to, but not greater than AND equal to.

  42. The provisioning, support, emotional investment, and security a man could establish that used to buffer Hypergamy are all ancillary to satisfying Hypergamy now.

    By what metric were these things simply “buffers?” What is your definition of “hypergamy” and “alpha”?

    ———–

    The argument that men are being given a societal shit-test is incompatible with the notion that the sexes should be equal. The argument that women want equality is incompatible with hypergamy.

    Correct. Consider that the “egalitarian doctrine” is simply marketing for what those ideologies actually create.

    Again, a revaluation of “hypergamy.”

  43. Reblogged this on Notes Of Man and commented:
    Interesting observation and very true. Strong critical points also made. Remember, although most women say they do not want a dominant head strong man, it is a lie. Do not be afraid to stick with your manhood. Remain strong.

  44. This is from the BBC.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22076692

    “The University of Colorado team discovered that many breast cancers possess androgen receptors on their surface, and that male hormones like testosterone fuel the tumour’s growth.

    Drugs to block these receptors could offer another way to fight the disease, a meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research heard. ”

    I mentioned this on this blog. That modern life was fueling an increase in testosterone in women, and possibly researchers would make connection between increased testosterone and breast cancer. And two weeks later, here it is.

    Researchers finding that all cancer is caused by inflammation and immune system deficiencies. I promise that it is going to come out, that women not acting like women is going to have serious health issues for them. Women do not have an immune system that can work to suppress threats AND also deal with the immunosuppresant threats of Testosterone. And they think its because they wear makeup that the chemicals might be causing the cancer. Fuck no. It’s the testosterone.

    Men just didn’t arbitrarily wake up one day, see a Vogue cover, and say “Oh, hey, That’s my ideal woman. The culture made me do it.” It is beyond your control. You like feminine women because they are feminine, because they have no testosterone, have a functioning immune system because of it, and just might be able to both, carry your offspring to full term, and live long enough to raise it until it can fend for itself. This shit is not conscious choices. It is too fucking important and nature doesn’t leave shit that important up to some trend in jeans or haircuts or conscious whims.

    You don’t fuck with mother nature. You don’t, overnight, decide that 70,000 years of societal evolution was because all of those people that came before were fucking stupid, and now, we suddenly got smart.

    These chickens are coming home to roost. And they are coming home very close to me.

    I found out my only son has a genetic form of juvenile arthritis, crushing news. Guess who gave him the gene? Guess who has enough testosterone running through her body to bite a nail in half? Guess who was trading natural gas, kind of Wall street Buy/sell shit while pregnant, with massive amounts of stress?

    She took a position during the third trimester while carrying him that assumed gas would fall in price. That afternoon, that same day, after buying the option, a major category 5 popped the coast of Africa and started to make bee line for the Henry Hub in the Gulf of Mexico, the primary point of entry for natural gas into the United States from Gulf of Mexico rigs. She worked on commission and stood to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. It would have destroyed us financially for at least a year. I would wake in the middle of the night and go down to the internet and track that hurricane. And it was far worse for her. She was an inconsolable bitch stressed to the max. I pulled down some NOAA program and researched every hurricane since 1900. I said, “It’s not going to the Henry Hub. It’s going to Mississippi.” She screamed, literally screamed “Who fucking died and left you as Frank Fields” (This famous hurricane expert back in the 90s). Guess where the hurricane went. Mississippi. She ended up making out, the prices began to tumble the morning the option came due because everyone had overbought in fear of where the hurricane might land. That afternoon she sold it at a massive profit and looked like a genius, but the stress during the two weeks during a key time in the development of the baby could not be undone.

    Then 13 years later, guess who put him under massive stress by bringing another man into the house at the point of the beginning of puberty and stressed those alleles to activate the chromosomes to bring on the disease.

    So yeah, women are harming themselves and more than only themselves by not acting like women.

    And it’s very personal now.

  45. The thing about lesbians (and a fair number of gay relationships) is that there is a marked difference, as we would expect, depending on the “role”. That is, generally the “tops” or “doms” have attractional vectors like straight men (i.e., initially appearance based), while the “subs” have attractional vectors that are like straight women (i.e., initially persona based). This isn’t really reflected in a similar way in gay male couples.

    If you talk to a butch lesbian, she’ll tell you that she is attracted to women visually first, very much the way a man is. She wants to own their bodies, she wants to dominate them physically, provided they are hot enough to draw the attention, relative to what the butch is able herself to attract. The femme “lesbians” tend to be more bisexual than lesbian, and this is where the “fluidity” tends to play itself out –> they are attracted emotionally and persona-wise to the strong butch (her masculinity), and are at least not *repulsed* by the idea of her physicality, or by having sex with another women (most women are not viscerally repulsed by the concept of same sex activity for themselves as the typical straight man is). This, coupled with the cultural blaring of lesbian chic, the phenomenon of lesbian “experimentation” in colleges, and the general “where are the good men” issue, leads to more women being open to a relationship with a woman as the sub/bottom/femme partner than would otherwise be the case. So, yes, I think you are right that this is, in part, due to the need to satisfy relationship hypergamy and the thirst for masculine dominance — but only for the femmes/subs. The doms/butches –> those are the real lesbians. The femmes are — many of them at least, not all of them — one type of bisexual or another (as are most women, operationally in potential, even if not generally in practice).

    The situation is a bit different with the gay guys, because men are less sexually fluid than women are by a substantial, if not downright huge, degree. The gay tops are similar to straight men in that they are visually attracted, but are different in that the object of their attraction is male and not female. The gay bottoms are dissimilar from straight men in that their desire is for a dominant persona to dominate them sexually (as in penetrating them sexually in various ways), which is not typical among straight men, regardless of what the ladies of Jezebel and Hugo Schwyzer would have us believe. So, on average, the typical gay male coupling has a dynamic that is fairly different, in terms of both actors in it, than the typical lesbian coupling, which more closely apes the heterosexual coupling because the femme/bottom is likely at best bisexual, and her attractional vectors aren’t really very different from that of a typical straight woman, which isn’t the case for *either* of the guys in a male homosexual pairing. In a small number of cases, the male top in a gay male pairing is bisexual, but this is not common because men are not nearly as sexually fluid as women, and so his sexuality isn’t really the mirror image “flip” of the femme/sub in a lesbian pairing, even though it seems to be. The male “top” is quite a bit more different from the typical straight guy than the female sub/femme is from the typical straight woman (probably because not a few of them go back and forth between lesbian and straight relationships, whereas this is not common at all for gay male tops).

  46. I would argue that men are being given a no-solution problem to solve. If we accept that women prefer to be dominated by true masculinity, then we have to accept that socio-economic equality of the sexes is nonsense on its face.
    In order to be dominant, you have to have more resources, options, capabilities, ambition, intelligence, etc… than that which you are dominating. In order to have true social *equality* between male and female, all of that “inequality” must go away. The argument that men are being given a societal shit-test is incompatible with the notion that the sexes should be equal. The argument that women want equality is incompatible with hypergamy.

    The way that “equality” and “hypergamy” hang together is that hypergamy is the relationship between women and the men who are “really” dominant, while equality (at best) is the relationship between women and the rest of the men (the average guys). Men are not all equally dominant, and never have been. Women likely *never* liked submitting to men who were being themselves dominated by other men, but they put up with this because they had no better alternative. Harnessing the work-power, provision and protection, even of lesser men, was preferable to starving, and certainly preferable to her father of her remaining a mouth to feed.

    What has changed in recent decades is that the pill and feminism and so on have made those functions provided previously by the lesser/average men to be obsolete in many ways, creating a situation of equality between the average men and most women in economic terms, while subordinating lesser men to women in social and sexual terms (which is why I call it “equality at best” because it’s really only equality in an economic sense for most cases). The emergent order is one of rough economic parity, at best, between most men and most women (with more male outliers, because there are more male outliers in everything including drive and ambition) — that’s your “equality” — coupled with a new socio-sexual hierarchy which has dominant men at the top, followed by most women (ones who are passably sexually attractive), followed by the rest of the men and the relatively unattractive women at the bottom of the hierarchy in gradations. That’s hypergamy — that’s the social order that it creates. And it can only really be created by taking away the need for females to get protection/provision from average men and replacing that with self-sufficiency (making the average woman and the average man equal in this specific way) and by doing so thereby freeing up hypergamy to operate based on its own unfettered principles, thereby ushering in the new hypergamic social order. In this real way, hypergamy and equality paradoxically feed on each other, and, in fact, the former relies very heavily on the latter in order to come into its own full bloom. In order to understand the persistence of the paradox, one must only understand that the two relationships between women and men here (equality and hypergamy) are respectively descriptive of the relationship of women with different parts of the male population: equality, in economic terms, with the average, “lesser” men, and hypergamic attraction free of those concerns to, and sexual and other engagement with, the most dominant men.

    Yes, this is also exacerbated and exaggerated by the increasing feminization of men, which decreases the number of dominant men. But that is an exacerbating factor. Not all men are dominant, nor was this ever the case. The difference is wider now, due to feminization among men, and masculinization among women, that ‘s without a doubt true. But the effect would be observed even if this gap had not widened, simply because of the “freeing up” impact that economic leveling between woman and average men would nevertheless have on unleashing hypergamy in full bloom.

  47. @NS

    Could you offer a definition of “hypergamy?”

    Is this a close approximation of your definition:

    Hypergamy states that exclusively females seek to mate across and up a single hierarchy of (an unrigorous amalgamation of behaviors which indicate the possession of certain qualities referred to as) social dominance.

  48. One thing: Lesbians are the corporate gold of the workplace these days. Most women want to check out and raise kids as soon as possible, especially after getting a decade or so taste of the workplace. Lesbians however fill two slots for companies: female and gay. Plus as they don’t have kids, they’re ripe for a promotion. A big company can proudly claim it has a certain percentage of female and gay managers. Of course, what they don’t say is that it’s the same person.

  49. That’s a top notch pair of comments, Novaseeker. I have observed similar butch/femme dynamics in lesbian couples, and you hit it out of the park with that description.

    I get the sense that back-and-forth between men and women is at some places and some circles so toxic that at times there’s less friction to develop an outlet for your sexual drive through a same-sex partner than through a healthy heterosexual model. Nerd/loser homophilia would be the male manifestation of this effect.

  50. The way that “equality” and “hypergamy” hang together is that hypergamy is the relationship between women and the men who are “really” dominant, while equality (at best) is the relationship between women and the rest of the men (the average guys). Men are not all equally dominant, and never have been.

    That’s a great comment. I’m left with this next sentence:

    Women likely *never* liked submitting to men who were being themselves dominated by other men, but they put up with this because they had no better alternative.

    … stuck in my brain. What you are essentially saying is that the female reproductive strategy (that is, to always seek the most dominant male to reproduce with) is destructive to any species seeking to increase in population. Population saves species from going extinct, it saved humans once before (barely) during a previous ice-age, it will likely save us again during the next one.

  51. Madvillain,

    Adhering to an autonomosly chosen objective moral standard that is not influenced by the FI makes one impervious to that guilt. Why should I feel guilty about something I don’t think is objectively blameworthy? The problem is that Christian men have had their doctrine corrupted by the influence of the FI. Red pill men who have defined their morality based solely on Christianity feel they have nowhere to turn but nihilism when made aware of female nature.

    Mark Minter,

    Brilliant observation with regards to the negative health effects of testosterone in women. I hope your son is coping well. Your ex’s actions were selfish, short-sighted and inconsistent with human well-being.

    Moreover, I am wondering if the recent spike in life-threatening allergies might also be the result of increased testosterone levels in pregnant women. Have you heard anything about this?

  52. What you are essentially saying is that the female reproductive strategy (that is, to always seek the most dominant male to reproduce with) is destructive to any species seeking to increase in population. Population saves species from going extinct, it saved humans once before (barely) during a previous ice-age, it will likely save us again during the next one.

    In some ways, yes, but one important thing to keep in mind is that the expression of hypergamy we see today isn’t really “natural”, but is hyper-hypergamy fueled by technological advancements that both removed (or largely mitigated/made a question of choice) the consequences of sex for women while roughly around the same time making a huge number of service/non-heavy-physical-labor jobs available for women to support themseves economically. This double whammy has led to an expression of hypergamy that is relatively unchecked, and certainly no longer subject to the natural checks of either (1) needing to be dependent on being married/bonded to a specific man to secure protection/provision (or a significant part of provision) and the related point of (2) not being able to be supported (either by oneself or the state) for having babies with an itinerant yet sexy loverboy. A woman had no choice in the matter — bastardy was condemned, women could not realistically support themselves (at least not MOST of them … some were indeed resourceful, and some were canny (there have always been courtesans, for example, who transformed their looks into significant cash, yet they too remained dependent) and therefore hypergamy, in its expression (not in its desire) was contained — naturally, more or less. The current technological innovations that have spurred the social changes of the past few decades (sexual revolution, female economic independence both resulting from the conflux of control over reproduction and the rise of non-physical labor to the forefront of the economy) have provided potent fuel for the rise of a hyper version of hypergamy. Hypergamy on steroids.

    So I think that the female reproductive strategy is fine when it is subject to its natural checks. The issue is that the natural checks have been removed by technology. So, contrary to what some guys think, I don’t think what we are seeing now is natural female behavior, but rather the behavior that results from having the natural checks on the most extreme expression of that behavior from being expressed. Peak Hypergamy, essentially.

    Could you offer a definition of “hypergamy?”
    Is this a close approximation of your definition:
    Hypergamy states that exclusively females seek to mate across and up a single hierarchy of (an unrigorous amalgamation of behaviors which indicate the possession of certain qualities referred to as) social dominance.

    Eh, I think Rollo has defined it somewhere here — I’m sure he has. I’d rather not get into a definitional discussion about it, as it is rehashing old ground that has been hashed and rehashed on many blogs by now.

  53. Novaseeker, as usual, nails it. When a feminist woman rambles about equality, it means “I want to be equal to every man except the ones I want to mate, which must be better than me” (this is usually phrased as “I need to admire a man to be attracted to him”).IOW, equality for the beta but not for the alpha. For the alpha, hypergamy.

    So I think that the female reproductive strategy is fine when it is subject to its natural checks. The issue is that the natural checks have been removed by technology.

    Yes and, as Rollo has commented, this is a depressing truth for men. The fact that that most men in history have been able to have a wife only because women couldn’t support themselves so they needed a man’s money is true but it is hard to swallow. No man wants to be only a tool for the feminine imperative. Men love selflessly and want to be loved that way.

    Men love for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically

    Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
    Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.

    And this is the main beef I have with the manosphere. When I was a kid, my country was in the so-called patriarchy. And I have first-hand evidence that it is much better for a man to be alone than to be married to a wife because women cannot support themselves.

  54. GLPiggy had a post that was inferential about this. He cited a study that compared Karelia and Finland. Karelia is the region of Russia that borders Finland. The populations are genetically similar, Nordics. But the nature of both the terrain, and that xenophobic nature of Russian society for like forever, had lead to separation of the two groups since probably 1500 ad. Finland has like 10 times more type 1 diabetes which leads to the immune system attacking itself and leading to allergies.

    The key assumption was that Karelia is a farm district and the population is exposed to germ laden dirt far more regularly than the Finns. And the Karelians have none of the obsession with cleanliness, the obsessive housecleaning so common in the west, especially among northern Europeans and Protestant Americans.

    The study went on to site other farming places that had low levels of allergies. So the key was “germy dirt”.

    Over time, the inhabitants develop through natural selection a heightened immune system to resist the parasite load of the environment.

    But they didn’t make that base connection I do, testosterone and the lack of it as key traits of male and female attractiveness due to immunocompetency that signals males having it or females not having it as I do.

    And if you read the article. Notice the researchers didn’t say “well, quit acting like men.” They mentioned some “medicines” to block the receptors and stunt the growth of the tumor.

    My shit is even getting crazier. I now say that those isolated farm places or places very recently that the population came from farms have women that are less bitchy, less man-hating, less beta-hating, better looking, and more feminine that those that come from people that are from more urban or less isolated regions. And it is not because they are more simple, more naive. They just don’t have the beta hating genetics to be have revulsion to lack of testosterone signals that city women do. Because they haven’t come from a genetic stock that needed super evolved immunity other than that which can resist the local germs. While a long time city dweller or western European has been exposed to massive epidemics forever.

    My examples are Ukraine, Poland, Colombia, particularly Cali vs Bogota. The women in Bogota are feminist and difficult. The women in Cali are feminine and almost anti-feminist. The two different groups think the others are idiots. The Bogota women think the Cali are backward and are stupid for wanting to marry, get implants, wear sexy clothes. The Cali women think the Bogota women are idiots. Who would ever want to work when all you have to do is get a boob job, wear some tight clothes and wrap a man around your finger? Who has time to work when you could be shopping?

    And here is even a weird connection. Some forum was talking about where it was good and bad for women in America, where they were bitchier. And this one commenter just jumped and swore that Des Moines, Iowa is the spot. Cute girls that are nice.

    I am way older than you. I can remember things like in gym class, they didn’t want women to run. The only sport available was volleyball. There was basketball or softball then. They played badminton in gym class. Four square. Mostly the fucked around for an hour. For the guys it was almost impossible not to dress. I had a broken collarbone but still dressed. I got held out of some stuff, wrestling. But I was line to go and was about to wrestle and someone pointed it out, so the coach said “Well then I guess he better not”. Over 1/3 of the girls were usually “sick, lame, or lazy on any day”. There issues with ACL injuries with women, but mostly it just this old sort of acceptance, “Women shouldn’t run”. And the women said it as much as the men. More. The men and boys were like “Why not?” and they would reply “women reasons, silly boy”.

  55. I would also add “where in South America is feminism the strongest and is catching on more readily?”

    Brazil and Argentina.

    What do those places have that Colombia, Peru, Ecuador do not in their history?

    Massive amounts of immigration from Western Europe. Argentina was close second to America. Brazil, from Rio on south is almost entirely European.

    Both have had massive contact with Europe in the form of trade and investment. European investors came to both in the late 19th and early 20th centuries for both agricultural and raw material investments.

    And both have huge cities. Both Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo are in the top 20 cities in population in the world.

    Yes, you could say it is entirely cultural, economics. But I say there is a genetic component that is related to immunocompetency that causes women to despise beta men, and to be entirely more feminist because of that revulsion towards beta men.

  56. And this is the main beef I have with the manosphere. When I was a kid, my country was in the so-called patriarchy. And I have first-hand evidence that it is much better for a man to be alone than to be married to a wife because women cannot support themselves.

    For an individual man and woman, sure. But that isn’t the real question.

    Well, there are two questions, really. The first is “what is the best for me personally?”, and the second is “what is the best for the society/civilization/future?”.

    We have control over ourselves to a much greater degree than we do ov er the society, the civilization or the future, so it is rational to base decisions on the former rather than the latter. But that doesn’t mean that the second question is irrelevant, even if it isn’t subject to being very much influenced by our personal decisions.

    To me, that’s why I prefer to take a two-track approach, behaving rationally personally, while advocating (at least here) substantial change (or at least critiquing current stupidities as being frankly fucking stupid, even as I adapt to them for pragmatic reasons). Works for me.

  57. I remember when I watched, very briefly, situational comedies on television. They were awful. The first step to humor is understanding (hence why you “get” a joke). I did not understand that these were supposed to be hard-hitting, feminist, egalitarian idealizations until much later as, to me, the premise was changing, and exaggerating, the generally accepted roles (take for example how funny the idea sounds that lab mice were actually experimenting on the scientists, or really wanted to rule the world!) Which, in itself, I understood; but I wasn’t laughing more than I was groaning because the gag had long outstayed its welcome.

    Had I not understood the premise of mutating roles first instead of the other premise of the idealizations, I would be white-knighting right now as I type. As far as I’m concerned, I will do as I would do in spite of external thoughts, opinions, will and force; and so will most portions of humanity. Understanding as I did the changing of roles permitted me to be immune to the indoctrination of this form of media; but not to other human beings.

    (As a side note, role-reversal doesn’t apply because it is not the mutual exchange of roles)

    Anyway, as this is my first post here and I wish to share a long summary of most of my story:

    I did fall prey to mimicking other people’s behaviors and idealizations towards women, and, originally, I was very much an omega. It was the worst period of my life; and I am all the better a man today because of it. It put me in a rather protective mindset to stay away from women, because I was highly aware, albeit unconsciously, of the contradictions omega thinking had versus reality. I didn’t know up from down; left from right; or honesty from exploitation; disney-esque idealizations of falling in love, negotiating relationships, and keeping a moral high ground of “I’m a great man for not wanting to fuck your brains out!” from the realization that men romanticize and women hypergamize. This was how confused I was then, so I mostly stayed out of the game.

    Then, these inconsistencies of “Just be yourself!” (This one enrages me off the most, because after this is stated it comes with a caveat of “Except for…”. So, whenever I hear this I immediately think “be who i want you to be”) or “All men ever want is sex, I want a man who likes me for me” (attraction != arousal. I distinctly remember pointing this out in my mind when I was a budding teenager but it didn’t fit the disney-esque idealizations that I was born/trained into) “Get in touch with your feminine side” (again, JBY! … I mean, BWIWYTB) “Men are pigs” (??? The logic of this has always baffled me, but women do not think like men. If I were to agree with this I would immediately lower my SMV because, not only have I allowed feminism’s ideals dominated my thinking, I think of myself as a lesser being to her in the context of she’s talking to a me, a man) et cetera, et cetera…

    Moving into my later teenage years, the peak of these ideas had been reached and my inner self was pushing out against them more aggressively. At first, I attempted to do what I, the well-feminized man, would do: act indirectly and covertly avoiding all confrontation and fear. This inevitably failed catastrophically because the men and women in my life expected overt communication from me, but it made conscious a very important understanding: do. To seek the change I wanted in myself, it had to be done, and not just feel entitled for constantly.

    I went to therapy (The 5th long-term counselor I’ve been with in my short life) and tried medication for a year. The medication did not work at all, but it, too, gave me an even greater understanding: I do. The medicine didn’t help me do anything, in fact it made me more miserable, I was the one doing the change I so desired. Nobody else and nothing else could do it for me.

    I’m going to take a short break from the linear list of events and talk about something else that aided my understanding I have now: when I was young boy I was very romantically interested in girls. This was partially what helped, aside from existing societal standards, me become so omega and so distant from women for my teenage years. I got rejected with indifference consistently, so I gave up on chasing tail before I even hit puberty. I never connected the dots (and never followed through on what might have been some fun sexual encounters) but women, and men, were attracted to, and intimidated by, me because I shielded myself with “indifference.” I had unwittingly become desirable and enviable by trying to make myself appear as if I was doing as I would. (Of course, some people saw through this easily; not everybody)

    Back to the list. While on medication I had an LDR (a very creepy one, at that. I’m not going to go into the details) which exploded before we could meet. What happened? Well, she became indifferent to me. Why did she become indifferent to me? Because I was desperate for her. I had no value to her, I needed her, my purpose was for her.

    From this experience in a more cognizant stage of my life, I obtain a machete I will later use to cut through the thick jungle of propaganda and my own self. I didn’t know how to use this machete yet, but I had it. So, I continue thinking my ideas are not entirely false, but now I can clearly make out the shaky foundation they lay on because of just one short-lived experience. I realize I have the power to get romantically involved with women if I so desire, but not sexually. This is essentially what I would consider my beta stage. Now my understanding is: I do what I will, but I will subject myself to the will of women. (the machete is my will, if the metaphor wasn’t clear.)

    Later on, another situation arises (not going into the details) and I have my first sexual encounter with a woman. Basically, I was shocked by the whole situation and my previous values of sex changed afterwards. My desire for sex hadn’t died- just my fantastical idealization of it. It was something that was obtainable now, not some fantasy. Now my understanding is: I do what I will, including sex, but I’m still subject to women being the primary selectors of mates. (This, in retrospect, makes me laugh. I realized, for most of my life, this idea exactly, but I’ve never been able to say it so eloquenty.)

    Okay, so sex is palpable. But, now, because I can only filter out quality women, but it’s up to them to make the final decision, I’m still powerless. I’m still clinging to the need for a LTR but the woman is the one who holds the key, owns the house, and is the gateway to my life-long happiness! Then I enter a new realm of thinking with some powerful philosophers and pragmatists to solidify the idea: I will do as I would.

    I appreciate you for reading this far as I’ve been aching to get some of this off of my chest. Now, these are just a few highlights and, for the most part, I’ve always had an understanding of not letting myself get pushed around by authority, act upon my own thoughts, et cetera. The conflict has mostly fluctuated (the fact that “act upon my own thoughts” and “get in touch with your feminine side” existed together in my mind is a wonderful example of why I call it “conflict”) and memories blur from rampant rationalizations and the ego-invested rewriting I did to convince myself things were OK. I’ve also had an understanding of the massive double standard between women and men. There are a lot of factors to quantify.

    Since I’ve started reading this blog a week ago, I get it, now. It isn’t about “being alpha,” or “being beta,” or “not being subject” to other’s will (constantly fighting or avoiding enslaving forces makes you a slave to it indirectly), using Game, clinging to ego-investments, et cetera. It’s self-actualization, improving upon one’s self and putting control of your life back into your hands; and things like Game are tools you collect in your toolbox of improvement. I am way too young still (barely a couple months into 21 as I type), not attached to any one woman, not having to desperately scrape up income to provide for children, and have my whole life ahead of me.

    I will do as I would, and I’m damned proud of it!

  58. @NS

    So, contrary to what some guys think, I don’t think what we are seeing now is natural female behavior, but rather the behavior that results from having the natural checks on the most extreme expression of that behavior removed.

    The spirit of your post is excellent.

    Eh, I think Rollo has defined it somewhere here — I’m sure he has. I’d rather not get into a definitional discussion about it, as it is rehashing old ground that has been hashed and rehashed on many blogs by now.

    Consider that the definition used is vital to the integrity and predictive power of the model. From what can be gathered and implied, the current definition (or lack thereof) only applies to a very short period of history. Considering “hypergamy” is supposed to be a “biological dynamic,” the manosphere has willingly bastardized one of its core concepts.

  59. Consider that the definition used is vital to the integrity and predictive power of the model. From what can be gathered and implied, the current definition (or lack thereof) only applies to a very short period of history. Considering “hypergamy” is supposed to be a “biological dynamic,” the manosphere has willingly bastardized one of its core concepts.

    Not really, no.

    Pointing out that the momentum of a car will take it further than it did yesterday because today there is no wall blocking it from doing so does not undermine the idea that momentum existed yesterday as much a today, but was simply blocked and impeded by a wall yesterday where today there is none.

  60. My girl used to work with a lesbian couple (at least, we’re pretty sure) and is still faceborg friends with them. First one is a big woman (in height, big boned, and fairly overweight) but dresses feminine and long straight hair and has a reserved personality, she is quiet about the whole thing. The other is more conventionally pretty though only really a 5 or maybe 6, a little more outgoing but still not really extraverted, still dresses feminine in flowery blouses but wears pants, really curly shoulder length hair, she posts all kinds of inside jokes about narwhales and shit on the former’s FB wall, and my wife says the latter calls the former wifey. So I’m kind of an armchair personality psychology buff and trying to decide who’s the dominant one and can’t really decide. They don’t seem too power-polarized in public but I’ve absorbed the lesson that no relationship is really 50/50. Thoughts?

  61. @Tam the Bam.

    IGreat story.

    *****************************************************************************************
    @Learning-as-I-go

    Good luck with everything.

    *****************************************************************************************

    @Mark Minter

    From this book :

    The female chacma about to give birth often separated herself from the troop and selected some secluded spot for the purpose. We noticed on several occasions that where she was accompanied by an independent older offspring she would persistently and often cruelly drive it away from her a few days previously. This always served as a pure indication that the birth was about to take place.

    The degree of pain accompanying birth varied greatly. In some individuals – even a first pregnancy – the infant made its appearance with ease and celerity and a minimum of trouble and pain, comparable to the more happy condition of the lower mammals. In other cases there was deep maternal suffering quite human-like in its intensity and its methods of expression. It seems, however, quite beyond doubt that birth-pain is more severe in the chacma than in any other mammal outside the order of the primates. Some degree of pain apparently always exists in vertebrate production; but there seems to be a gradual increase in intensity for the higher mammals through the lower primates to man.

    It is hardly possible to consider these facts without coming to the puzzling question of origin. Why should pain have been selected at all in connection with this supreme function of organic existence ? What benefit was there to the individual or the race ? There can be little doubt that in lower forms of organic beings the process of reproduction is as simple as it is painless. Where, for instance, the expulsion of the ova takes place as simply and with as little accentuation in behavior as any ordinary vital process, the presence of any sensation approximating pain is hardly conceivable.

    And it is in these cases where reproduction is unaccompanied by any manifestation of pain – where even fertilization of the ova is left to chance – that there is also an entire absence of maternal instinct. The fate of the embryo is left to the tender mercies of its natural environment and the device of producing vast numbers has generally been selected, in place of the lower-evolved maternal care, to ensure the continuation of the species. It is only in higher forms, with a greatly reduced birth-rate, that the first inclinations of birth-pain are met, and as a sure and proportionate accompaniment there is always the care of the immature young by the mother.

    It seems safe to say that among species under natural conditions the greater the birth-pain, the higher becomes the maternal instinct.

    Now, it is a rule in nature, which will be familiar to every student of comparative psychology, that that every hereditary instinct needs an outward suggestion or stimulus to bring it into operation. The stronger this suggestion is, the more potent is the reaction of the instinct. This is especially so with instincts which become active in the mammalia only at a late stage of development, such as those connected with the procuring of food and the sexual sense. These cannot originally become operative except in response to a stimulus from without.

    This seems to me the selective purpose of birth-pain among higher organic forms. It serves to call into instant activity the maternal instinct. It seems reasonable to assume that in order to ensure the safety of the offspring – a thing of supreme importance to the race – an appeal should be selected to the most compelling sensation of which the higher organisms are capable, and that this compelling sensation should serve the purpose of fixing the mother’s attention on her helpless offspring and calling into being the complex of emotions constituting the maternal instinct.

    The connection of birth-pain and maternal love is apparent as a dimly conscious idea in the human soul. In the first ‘yearning’ over her newborn babe, I suggest, there is often strongly present in the mind of the human mother a conviction that the love and tenderness she feels has some sure but dimly understood relation to the agony she has endured. The literature of all peoples and all times bears witness to this association of ideas.

    At different times we observed and recorded several facts about mammalian reproduction which tended to corroborate this interpretation of the phenomenon of birth-pain. For instance, one season we kept under observation a herd of cattle and a flock of sheep in which the ‘casting away’ of calves and lambs were prevalent. The majority of the mothers who obstinately refused to receive or recognize their offspring were among those which we had classified as having an ‘easy and painless birth’.

    Those with strong and correctly directed maternal instinct were invariably individuals which had shown suffering during parturition. It seemed as if in these cases the strength of the evoked instinct was in proportion to the degree of pain suffered.

    Mark, I have always wondered whether the rise of feminism had something to do with a wholesale decline in maternal instincts due to “easier births” for women.

    Any thoughts ?

  62. First off I have to say I am very saddened and dismayed by the terrible crime in Boston today.
    I’m following it on the radio, and am very struck by the calm and serious demeanour of the citizens being jumped by reporters on the street, and how organized the reaction seems to be. The higher officials sound slightly stressed, but that’s understandable.
    A horrible crime.

    Marcellus, I know, “Cool story bro”, tl;dr.

    I felt like spewing a load of verite up because to this day I still have no fucking clue as to what the hell happened there (or the other two less creepy times).
    I was thinking if I gave chapter and ball-aching verse, somebody smarter then me could show me where the wires were.

    I thought I knew these women inside out (almost literally), and what they did defies any rational explanation. I mean WTF did they think would happen? It was at that time that I realised that the normal rules of reality simply do not apply to (to me) very attractive, fit women. We’d be in our early 30’s at the time mostly, apart from the new guys. A detail is that the main instigator who wanted the top spot had recently gotten married.

    Any clues, folks? Or do bitchez just be crayzee?
    As well as not accepting a female hierarchy not of the herd’s devising???

  63. @NS

    Can you state a definition? Is the one given here a close approximation?

    You make an analogy without stating the definition of the concept being discussed.

  64. Tam the Bam,

    Years ago I read a book where the author said, that some of the most vicious plotting occurs between women in fashion magazines. When there’s a new editor, you can bet that there will be overhaul of senior positions as well.

    From your story, it seems that this is not limited to that world.

  65. Novaseeker
    The current technological innovations that have spurred the social changes of the past few decades (sexual revolution, female economic independence both resulting from the conflux of control over reproduction and the rise of non-physical labor to the forefront of the economy) have provided potent fuel for the rise of a hyper version of hypergamy. Hypergamy on steroids.””””””””

    dude if there was no welfare it would be an entirely different ballgame.

  66. @ gunslingergregi

    Welfare, deficit spending, artificially low interest rates, imported cheap labor, cheap imported goods, labor law, labor structure (rise of Bureaucracy) and a number of other things.

    But for now, can you let NS stay on the definition point?

  67. In an era when Hypergamy has been given free reign, it is no longer men’s provisioning that dictates her predisposition to want to be a submissive partner in their relationships. To an increasingly larger degree women no longer depend upon men for the provisioning, security and emotional support that used to insure against their innate Hypergamous impulses. ””””””””””’

    there is no equality without the masssiiiivveeeeee transfer of wealth from men to woman
    we are not living in a place where it could actually be equal or where people have the same drawbacks to decisions they make
    just like a lot of female owned businesses for instance the woman gets her bills paid by someone else while she is able to do the business how is that equal?
    and yet still woman do depend on the provisioning of men in every facet of their lives
    go to any fast food place or look at the billions of shit jobs woman work

  68. This is the great social shit test of our time. In spite of a world arrayed against him, a Man needs the fearlessness of purpose to pass what has become a meta-scale test of hypergamy. ””””””’

    Take your que from the corporations and see what they get young nubile woman to do for them
    tons of woman out there playing the servant and doing it for peanuts
    our job as men is to make sure we at least get that much out of our woman he he he

  69. This might be off topic, but I couldn’t help sharing it with you Rational Males. This is more like a confession from an anonymous early 30s woman whose relationship status I ignore, and I came across in a popular site where girls ask guys questions:

    “I want to make love to him so bad that every time I see him or think of him I get butterflies.
    I want to please him so bad it’s driving me crazy.
    I need him, I want him to crave me.
    I’m just dying for him to touch me and kiss me. I want so bad to feel his tounge and his breath on my neck.
    I need him to hold me so tightly. I want to sit on him and show him how much I’ve needed him for months…I want him to feel, all my sadness, because it took us to long.
    All my pain ..cause my heart is dying cause we can’t be together.
    All the love…I have in store for him and all the passion, and excitement, all the anger. I want him to scream my name over and over and over..I want to let him feel it all ..I wanna make love to him, and I want him to get teary eyes. I want to hear him say he loves me. I want him to taste every inch of me..Smh..i need this man. I wanna make him so happy..I wanna be the one who makes him cry and wipe it away.. I want something new with him ..something real… I wanna protect him…rub his back after a hard day.. Make his meals when he’s hungry.. Make love to him when he need space to let go. I wanna know the right words to say to him to give him motivation… I wanna be his reason.. His comfort zone.. His home…I want to be his home.. His safe place…his living place.. This man smh…he has me want to be his world. He’s amazing to me.”

    Any thought will be truly appreciated.

  70. DrJohno“I want to sit on him … I want him to feel, all my sadness … All my pain … all the anger. I want him to scream … I want to let him feel it all … and I want him to get teary eyes … I wanna be the one who makes him cry …”

    Gott in Himmel! Walk away, slowly at first, then when he’s out of range of being brought down by a leap and a bite to the neck, run.
    Run like the wind.
    A passport would be handy.

    This woman would be well advised to seek out the *ahem* specialist clubs which cater to That Sort Of Thing.

    OK a naughty bit of editing maybe, but all that incontinent self-absorbed slavering and drooling made my blood run a teeny bit colder. Narsiz ..narsiss … nacisisest … what’s that word again?

  71. I don’t know why she’d want him to feel sadness and pain and make him cry (possibly he’s hurt her and she wants him to understand that and then forgive him), but the backrubs, meals, sex stuff isn’t bad, is it? Sounds to me like a woman in love with a married man 😦

  72. @DrJohno

    Sounds like a woman with oneitis to me. I don’t see a question there in that woman’s mental self-touching monologue. What was she expecting to gain from the men who answer?

  73. I don’t know why she’d want him to feel sadness and pain and make him cry

    because she’s a woman. she believes that the rollercoaster of emotions that she craves is what men crave as well.

  74. Kate:- “I don’t know why she’d want him to feel sadness and pain and make him cry (possibly he’s hurt her and she wants him to understand that and then forgive him)”

    So this (alpha widow?) wants to downgrade her obscure object of desire from the casually “cruel” and aloof (aka cheerfully oblivious) man who engendered all those desperate tingles, to a weeping, humiliated beta-minus?
    Who she then proposes to mother slightly, with a bit of ‘ow’s yer father, no doubt conditional on complete compliance. “Right words to give him motivation” indeed. What is he, like eight years old? Man is as man does, we don’t need no steenkin’ permission.

    Anybody fancy opening the betting on the subsequent duration of the attraction she fee-ee-eels?

    Unstable Mabel there just wants a nasty revenge-shag, to prove that she is truly worthy and that he just doesn’t know it, and to devalue him enough that (in her own mind) no other woman of her self-perceived quality will ever look at him again. Not that she can form those urges into coherent thought, of course.

    Creepy as all hell. Run, Forrest, run!
    Or P&D, then move to Uzbekistan. And hide your pet rabbit.

  75. different T is sooooo pissed that the imperative is being exposed you can taste it.

    See the issue sweetie, is that you cant leave a man to sit down and quantify a system or he will map it, exploit it, and profit given enough time.

    Now an alpha wont really share knowledge because its competitive, but the BOG’s that infect these sites …oh yeah they will. Delicious. the same men you despise as mates are helping each other change and recognizing the venus flytrap for what it is and it is the most frightening thing that can happen to womanhood.

    You had a good run baby girl, but all things come to an end.

  76. The feminine imperative exists because society is feminine.

    Have you noticed that the words society and social look the same? Have you noticed that women are far more social than men? Have you noticed that women are followers and men are leaders and loners? Have you noticed that religions attract more women than men? Have you noticed that liberals(feminine philosophy) live in the most dense cities, while the conservatives(masculine philosophy) live in the country?

    In regards to television/commercials/movies/books/ etc., these are all mediums of storytelling. And stories revolve around conflict. Good guy vs. bad guy, over and over and over again. But since the female brain is the nurturing egalitarian brain, it can’t bring itself to make the weaklings the butt of jokes and ridicule, because that would further the separation in value/judgement. Instead it tries to bring down the strong and elevate the weak, which it hopes will result in feel goods for the weak and empathy in the strong for the weak. See, now that we men are being ridiculed and called names and presumably feel bad about it, we should be able to empathize with all the weaklings we have beaten and made to feel inferior. And if we start to feel empathy for the losers and weaklings, we’ll be less likely leave the group, less likely to cause problems in the group, and less likely to take all the food for ourselves. (If the weaklings are males, then they fear we’ll take all the pussy for ourselves. This is why if you’ve ever been the alpha male of a group you’ll notice the beta’s will try to snipe at you. They’ll kiss your ass to get in with you and the access to pussy you provide, but once in the company of women they become bitter little bitches, desperately trying to hurl clever insults at you to knock you down and get attention for themselves. The funny thing is that women are more socially apt than men, and see the betas for what they are.)

  77. Rollo, I wanted to thank you for your insights, especially The “Operative Social Conventions” series.

    I come from the evopsych angle so it never occured to me that what I thought was self evident, were actually verbalized female instincts, which, by their very nature are designed to subjugate male mating instincts.

    That is actually beyond important to me, because if I had to choose between having pussy served on a platter and not knowing where it went horribly, horribly wrong and being celibate and understanding what is actually happening, I would choose the latter. *

    Now, on to follow Mark Minters lead on the neurochemistry of sexual attraction and pair bonding.

    *Blasphemy, I know. I am not a proper PUA.

  78. Arianna Pattek, a racist, man-hating feminist bitch
    http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums2/tabid/369/forumid/232/threadid/6149/scope/posts/Default.aspx

    In the above link, you will find evidence of her committing the CRIME of discrimination based on a man’s race.

    I have included her personal email, the email of her academic advisor, link to her Facebook account, link to her two blogs, and her pictures as well.

    I suggest you men write to her through her email, Facebook, and blogs, and tell her that you are reporting her for the CRIME of discrimination against men.

    American women are really evil bitches.

  79. @John Rambo

    Uh, the second paragraph of that ladies post, she essentially opens herself up to a major class-action discrimination lawsuit. How can that be real?

  80. Anyone remember the term “wifey”? I always thought of it as some diminutive or condescending term that Irish peasant men would call their wives. Today, few man would dare call any woman by that term, not even their actual wives.

    However, I have noticed that “wifey” is now a trendy term used by lesbians. Specifically, it is usually how the “butch” masculine partner refers to the “femme” submissive partner. They seem to enjoy borrowing nineteenth century working class male mannerisms for literal or ironic purposes.

  81. Pingback: Homosexuality |
  82. This is a very interesting post, and for the most part I agree completely with it, but I noticed you make no distinction between locations in the relationship, aka the public sphere of the world and the private sphere of the bedroom. Why is this? I’d think that there is a huge difference in how men and women act in their own homes vs at work/out.

    Example: I’m physically a female, but have gender dysphoria (though everyone just assumes I’m merely a tomboy). When doing things with my male FwB, I’m definitely in the dominant position even though he’s a hetero man. I decide what restaurant we’ll eat at, I pay for any and all receipt bills, I plan the entertainment and buy the tickets, I even give him little gifts of chocolates and other treats every week which he greatly enjoys. In the 8 years we’ve been friends and the 7 years we’ve been FwB, he hasn’t paid or planned a single thing…which I am happy with since I find much enjoyment in “spoiling” him.

    However, he likes to have bdsm sex in about 1/2 of our encounters, and I take the submissive role about 90% of the time…when we have “vanilla” sex it’s completely egalitarian as far as I can tell. Is this the same as the stereotype of the wealthy man who is a dominant caregiver when out in society, but can be found being bossed around by a dominatrix every weekend? Or do you believe that perhaps gender is fluid from one situation to the next?

  83. And another Question:

    Where do you get those – IMO stupid – ideas from?

    Sorry, but I know enough women who would give you a kick to the balls if you acted like some old fashioned macho kind of guy…and they would be right to do so.

    The only women that really want this kind of submissive being are those that have been brought up this way by their parents (I know a few of those, too – needy, insecure beings that surrender their very being to you and can’t be alone (if you leave them they latch on to someone else directly, as they hate/fear being alone!)…so bad IMO, I don’t want a sycophant as my GF, I want an EQUAL…I would never get on with the type of woman you see as totally normal)

    So I am – AGAIN – calling BS!

    greetings LAX
    ps: Why are you this radical? – I mean, I have had my share of encounters with women who think they are better than men (it started with teachers in primary school who would reward girls – who are without a doubt developing an adult mindset earlier, as with the start of puberty they are technically ready to have children – more then boys…even if the boys work was better, more detailed etc. (women tend to take emotions – like liking the student or not – more into account when it comes to grading (unless they have no choice, such as written tests without room for interpretation (maths), were as with languages (essays in german for example for me…it’s my native language after all) they interpret it in favour of their own gender mostly…), female friends I have (who are condescending towards men sometimes without realising it…like us men are in return, when making sexist jokes and observations) and even girls I dated), but I am not a woman-hater (or turned of the fairer sex (fairer my ass, they just look better because we are hardwired for them IMO) alltogether!)…

Speak your mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s