Articles from January 2014

Secret of the Sperm Bank

Sperm Sample

Over on Dalrock’s blog Anonymous Reader had an interesting insight about the Alpha Fucks – Beta Bucks dichotomy:

Turning to the Missouri sperm donor case, I got to thinking about the whole notion of a sperm bank. Without bothering to search, they seem to be an invention of the 1960′s. I recall reading about the concept in high school biology, and the original justification was to provide infertile married couples with the chance for the wife to bear a child into the marriage. A couple of the matriarchs of my family were absolutely shocked when sperm banks started serving, or perhaps servicing, unmarried women. That was immoral, in their eyes. Looking backwards it should be no surprise that in some progressive, coastal venues men began providing turkey-baster filling for lesbian couples in the 1990′s – it’s not that big a step from “woman goes to specialized OB/GYN for syringe of semen” to “woman and her partner get together with male friend and turkey baster”. Bonus points in some quarters if the man is gay…but I digress.

Let’s look at this abstractly. Man and woman marry, find that she isn’t getting pregnant, determine from medical testing that his swimmers aren’t winning the race. So they pay for another man to impregnate her, although via a medical go-between. The original sperm banks screened donors and pretty much limited them to med students and other college men.

This is “Alpha Sperm, Beta Provisioning”, and nothing less. Putting a tech or a doctor in the middle wearing gloves and a lab coat, and injecting semen with a syringe rather than the usual method doesn’t change that. Sperm banks are therefore a clinical version of AF-BB, and as such clearly serve the Female Imperative in the same manner as a married woman having an affair while she’s ovulating – except that the latter is still sorta frowned upon, while the former has been a part of US culture for 40-50 or more years. I wonder what the time line is – did sperm banks show up about the same time as hormonal contraception, for example?

Now turning back to the sucker in Missouri: what’s his real crime? Sperm donor without a license, I guess, his lesbian friends failed to use the medical go-between, and his ignorance left him liable. But in terms of the Female Imperative, perhaps he wasn’t alpha enough – they could find him – or perhaps he was alpha enough for breeding purposes (paging Mary Daly…) but beta enough for provisioning as well? I have to ponder this one more.

But the sperm bank? That’s obvious now that I wear the glasses, but it’s still kind of startling to realize that it just hit me last night that the whole idea of a sperm bank is a clear, medicalized, fully legal example of the Female Imperative of AF-BB and it’s been right out in the open for at least two generations. And it is totally normal. In fact it was apparently not all that controversial even at the start. Certainly today we all accept it because teh wimmenz deserve their own bay-bee if they want one (or more), no matter the cost to anyone else.

Another case of the Female Imperative hiding in plain sight. Someone alert Rollo.

On virtually any post I’ve made about feminism directly or where the topic of the Feminine Imperative gets redirected to one of how feminism (and previously chivalry) are social structure arms of the Feminine Imperative, one or more commenters invariably post the youtube video about how feminism was conceived to destabilize western society (by the Rockefellers?). I’m not going to speculate about some conspiracy to use the “Women’s Movement” as a premeditated social influence (there are better resources than RM for this if you’re really interested), however the fact that sperm banks were an unheard of development prior to the sexual revolution does give me pause to think that they were a need anticipated to better facilitate and perpetuate a future feminine-primary society.

It’s interesting to note that at the time of their institution, a sperm bank was a shocking development for the culture of that era. Now, a repository of men’s (presumably the best of men) genetic material can be had by any woman seeking to have a child is just part of our social scenery. The inherent hypergamic influence in this long since normalized institution can’t be ignored – just from a pragmatic standpoint hypergamy is going to dictate that women will seek out the best genetic potential for their offspring, whether artificially inseminated or by the ‘traditional’ means.

Institutionalized “Alpha” Fucks

The fact that sperm banks’ existence have been practically ubiquitous for well over 60 years now brings up some interesting social and biological dynamics.

The first of course being what Anonymous Reader observes; the fact that a repository of ‘Elite’ men’s genetic material would exist at all is the final indictment of the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks dynamic (case closed). Presumably the bank, uniquely instituted to fulfill only women genetic imperatives, would be interested in superior male specimens. What constitutes ‘superior’ or at least good quality stock is determined by a particular bank’s standards, but one might assume they would filter for overall health and viability of a man’s sperm.

I’m no expert, but I would think screening for a family history of genetic diseases, cancer, mental stability and of course HIV are on the list. I may be mistaken, but I’d also guess that a bank would screen for relatively younger men with more fertilization-viable sperm, since there is evidence that a man’s quality of sperm does in fact decay into his later years.

Beyond the biological aspects I suspect women would want a child with at least an imagined potential for future success in life so a personal background would most likely be a part of that screening process. Granted, that may be subjective depending on the demographic of women seeking (and can afford) fertilization, but I think it’s safe to assume that ethnicity, socio-economic, educational and personal success all factor into this assessment. Long story short, hypergamy, at least in the breeding aspect of it, dictates the selection process for women. As Anonymous points out, the original intent of a sperm bank / fertility clinic was to provide a woman (presumably wife) with the sperm of a viable man when her husband’s sperm was inviable – in essence, in vitro cuckolding.

If all this reads as an institutionalization of the Alpha Fucks side of women sexual pluralism (hypergamy) you’re not too far from the mark. It’s really an institutionalized form of selective breeding, entirely beholden to feminine hypergamous interests. But before I go off the deep end here, let me state that I fully realize that there’s never been some mass influx of women making ‘runs on the sperm bank’ to wantonly get themselves pregnant. Given the option, I’m sure most women would rather go with the holistic approach to impregnation (and long term private support), but the operative here is that the concept and institution of a sperm bank available to facilitate women’s biological imperative (at as optimized hypergamy as reasonable) is a normalized, almost ubiquitous social concept for modern culture.

There is really no parallel to this degree of institutionalized sexual selection for men. While there are fertility clinics for couples who may purchase donor eggs, there are no commercial ‘egg banks’, nor are there commercially available volunteer women eager to gestate and birth children to exclusively facilitate men’s biological imperatives. That isn’t to discount surrogate mothers gestating the fetuses of a sponsor couple (another extension of fulfilling the feminine biological imperative), but a man uniquely looking for a donor egg to inseminate and/or a surrogate mother to birth the child for him is all but unheard of.

And really, even if he was so predisposed to it, why would a man go to the trouble and expense? Suspending disbelief, even if he did father the child, the mother could still have exclusive rights to custody with the child if it were pressing enough for her.

From a social perspective it’s interesting to note the era in which sperm banks became normalized in society; immediately after the sexual revolution. Almost as if in anticipation for the unfettering of women’s hypergamy, the facility of insuring a woman’s best optimized hypergamy was institutionalized and normalized. This may sound like conjecture (since the socially proposed purpose was to facilitate pregnancy for an infertile man), but the utility of sperm banks quickly shifted to facilitating the pregnancy of women who wouldn’t be married or had no intention of marrying to start a family.

This was the first institution, legalized and normalized that laid bare feminism latent purpose – strong independent women® could remove the man from the equation of effecting an optimal hypergamy, while at the same time effecting future legislation and social engineering to enlist men (either publicly or privately) in the provisioning of this new breed of motherhood. And with every guy dutifully jerking off into a petrie dish, they effectually contribute one more element to institutionalized Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.

Suck It Up

suck-it-up

Recently Marellus from Just Four Guys brought this to my attention:

Did you see how the womyn tore apart a commenter, by the name of Redlum, on Jezebel ?

Just because he said this :

Why does feminism have to antagonize and mock men all the time? Men are expected to have no vulnerabilities, this is an oppressive gender role. When men’s vulnerabilities are exposed, such as feeling emasculated or being insecure about women making them “obsolete”, that is a human emotion and gloating over it and mocking it is not only terrible, but also one of the big things giving feminism a bad name.

The top reply was this :

If being in a relationship with a woman who makes more money than you and/or has a higher position than you makes you feel that you are becoming obsolete, maybe you should be mocked for being silly, immature, and sexist. So now, on top of everything else that women have to deal with, we have to comfort men for freaking out whenever a woman surpasses them at something? I’m sorry – if you are in a group that has been privileged over/oppressive of other groups, you don’t get an apology and a reassuring hug every time we get a millimeter closer to some semblance of fairness and equality. Men need to suck it up and deal with life on more equitable terms like adults, without those who do just that expecting a medal for it.

Write a post on what this guy did wrong, if possible.

Redlum’s mistake was twofold. His first error was to ever overtly look for sympathy from a woman (women). We already know women lack the capacity for empathizing with the male experience, but sympathy is another side of the equation. One grave error most blue pill plug-ins make in this respect is a presumption that women owe them sympathy or that women are predisposed to sympathizing with them.

This is usually due to having been conditioned by the feminine for so long to believe that “Open Communication®”, sharing his feelings and being vulnerable will make him the ideal man. This is an unfortunate outcome of the ‘get in touch with your feminine side’ curse of Jung: in a similar respect to the myth of Relational Equity where a man expects his sacrifices and investment in a relationship will be a buffer against women’s Hypergamy, the expectation is that women will appreciate his openness and vulnerabilities. He believes the feminine identity lie that “vulnerability is strength.”

It’s a very seductive fallacy for a dyed-in-the-wool plug-in to make. I’ve read Redlum’s comments before and he doesn’t impress me as a chump, so I believe his comment on Jezebel was really more of a symbolic appeal to feminine reason. What he illustrates here is a common misgiving most Beta blue pill men subscribe to – that they will be perceived as unique, “not like other guys” in his embracing feminine vulnerability. And as you can see from the top Jezebel reply he was met with the same hostility women have for “vulnerable” men.

Hypergamy psychologically predisposes women to hold either contempt or pity for male vulnerability on a limbic level. Even in the most ’emotionally evolved’ women, by order of degree, Hypergamy is always testing for male fitness in order to assess whom she will pair with either in short term breeding availability or long term provisioning availability. When a man overtly expresses an openness to vulnerability, on a subconscious level it telegraphs his insecurity to her Hypergamous nature. Thus, she filters him out, or if she’s paired with him prior to this expression she initiates the mental protocol to leave him for a better match.

The contempt expressed by the Jezebel authoress is a good example of this.

So now, on top of everything else that women have to deal with, we have to comfort men for freaking out whenever a woman surpasses them at something?

You’re a man, suck it up, you shouldn’t be vulnerable by virtue of your maleness. It’s a conflicting message in light of the touchy-feely feminine conditioning men endure in their upbringing, but it is an honest reaction, and one that men need to understand when sorting out the reality of women and their need to unplug.

I’m not gonna write you a love song, cause you asked for one,..

The second (symbolic?) mistake Redlum makes is making an appeal for sympathy. In Empathy I outlined women’s gut-level, evolutionarily selected-for, lack of empathizing with the male experience. I defined the difference between empathy and sympathy, and while women might lack the means for that empathy, they have a very strong sense of sympathy. However that sympathy comes with conditions.

Women involved with high SMV Alpha Men can be some of the most genuinely, organically sympathetic women you’ll ever encounter. Granted, that sympathy may facilitate her own Hypergamous interests, but more so because that Alpha never petitions her for her sympathy.

Women give their sympathies of their own accord, never as the result of a man petitioning it from her. A woman must be inspired to sympathy for a man, asking for it is negotiating for her desire to be sympathetic.

A man who is intentionally vulnerable smacks of a guy who is so in an effort to qualify for her intimacy. It’s similar to the dynamic found in Play Nice, that niceness, that vulnerability that’s supposed to be strength, is perceived as a ruse to better identify with the feminine and thus be more acceptable to it. If feminine Hypergamy is fine tuned for anything it’s genuineness. That’s not to say women wont turn it to their social and biological advantages, but Hypergamy is always testing for certainty and authenticity. I’ve stated before that there is nothing more satisfying for a woman than to believe she’s figured a guy out using her mythical feminine intuition, this is a direct satisfaction of Hypergamy’s need for certainty, but I should also add that there is nothing more mortifying, rage inducing and produces more bitter tears than a woman who’s had her Hypergamy fooled by an imposter. Not only does this deception involve a loss of investment and resources to her, but it’s also an insult to her ego that her capacity to filter for authenticity isn’t as effective as she believes her ‘intuition’ actually is.

Suck It Up

The bigger picture in this Jezebel exchange is really about one of the most basic and useful social conventions ever devised by the Feminine Imperative – The Male Catch 22:

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

This dualistic, conveniently conflicting, social convention is what defines a condition of ‘equality’ for today’s New Woman:

 Men need to suck it up and deal with life on more equitable terms like adults, without those who do just that expecting a medal for it.

In other words suck it up when convenient and sack up when necessary. In a sense she’s not wrong– an intrinsic part of the male experience is not to complain about adversity, not to complain about pain and not to complain about suffering – in other words, Man Up, be strong and don’t let on to any vulnerability. If that sounds contradictory to a lifetime of feminine sensitivity training for men it should, but only because it’s half of the usefulness of the Male Catch 22. Where our Jezebeler drops the ball is the other half of the con – Man up and be useful, to women, to the Feminine Imperative. The problem is that equality only applies to what benefits the feminine, anything else that constitutes a man, constitutes masculinity, is a liability.

If being in a relationship with a woman who makes more money than you and/or has a higher position than you makes you feel that you are becoming obsolete, maybe you should be mocked for being silly, immature, and sexist.

There is also the option that Men may simply opt out of involving themselves in a relationship with said woman. In this case the Male Catch 22 is used to shame him for his insecurities not only by women for not participating in their potential provisioning, but also by a chorus of plugged in men ready to mock him for his lack of manhood (also in order to convince the feminine of their unique dedication to the imperative and hopefully get laid as a result of it). It’s at this point he’s derided for his ‘fragile ego’ and his ‘being threatened by strong independent women®.”

By virtue of his maleness, he literally cannot win, and any expression of this condition, even the questioning of this situation is then perceived as his complaining about it – and overt confession of vulnerability. What I’m describing here is the core issue blue pill, plugged in men have with Game and the red pill – just asking a question or making a critical observation about the feminine with regard to the male condition is always conflated with men complaining – something men aren’t allowed to do. It comes off as “poor men”, just as our Jezebeler recounts, but it distracts and discourages real discourse about those conditions.

That is how effective the Male Catch 22 is, it kills all critical inquiry before the questions can even be asked.

The Second Set of Books

books

One of the cornerstones of red pill truth is in men coming to terms with what amounts to (in most cases) half a lifetime of feminine conditioning. It’s interesting to consider that there was a time (pre-sexual revolution) when a man wasn’t in someway socialized and acculturated in his upbringing to give deference to the feminine or to become more feminine-identifying. There are plenty of other manosphere bloggers who’ll run down in detail all of the many ways boys are now raised and educated to be what a feminine-primary world would like them to be, but at the heart of it is a presumption that boys should be raised and conditioned to be more like girls; conditioned from their earliest memories to be better providers for what women believe they will eventually want them to be as adult ‘men’.

For men who’ve become aware of this conditioning through some trauma or personal crisis that prompted him to seek answers for his condition, we call this period our blue pill days. I think it’s important to make a distinction about this time – whether or not a man is Alpha or Beta doesn’t necessarily exclude him from the consequences of a blue pill conditioning. That isn’t to say that a more natural Alpha Man can’t see the world in a red pill perspective by his own means, but rather that his feminine-primary upbringing doesn’t necessarily make a man Alpha or Beta.

The Blue Pill Alpha

I’m making this distinction because there is school of thought that being blue pill (unaware of one’s conditioning) necessitates him being more Beta. To be sure, feminine-primary conditioning would raise a boy into a more feminine-pliable man – ready to serve as the good Beta provider when a woman’s SMV declines and she’s less able to compete with her younger sexual competitors.

However, there exist more Alpha Men also conditioned to be servants of the Feminine Imperative. These men make for some of the most self-evincing White Knights you’ll ever meet and are usually the first men to “defend the honor” of the feminine and women for whom they lack a real awareness of. Binary absolutism and an upbringing steeped in feminization makes for a potent sense of self-righteousness. Blue pill Alphas live for the opportunity to defend everything their conditioning has taught them. To the blue pill Alpha all women are victims by default, all women share a common historic suffrage and any man (his sexual competitors) critical of the feminine are simply an opportunity to prove his worth to any woman in earshot who might at all find his zealousness attractive.

The Second Set of Books

On June 15th, 2011, Thomas Ball set himself on fire in front of Cheshire Superior Court in New Hampshire. While I strongly disagree with his decision to self-immolate, I understand his sentiment. In last week’s Possession, Living Tree attempted to call me to the carpet about how a man might come to the conclusion of suicide or murder once he’d become confronted with a total loss of all his personal and emotional investment in life:

But Rollo, you just justified murder as “logical”, by illustrating that insecurity is the prime motivator for this man’s life (and many others, I’d imagine). The decision may have be understandable in an empathetic sense, and he might have seen it as logical at the time, but there is nothing logical about it. You are making extreme beta-ism seem more and more like a mental disorder.

Just for the record, I’d argue that ONEitis, however extreme, is in fact a mental disorder.

I haven’t justified anything, murder or suicide, I’ve simply outlined the deductive process men use when confronting the actualized loss of their most important investment (or perceptually so) in life. They are convinced and conditioned to believe that women are playing by a set of rules and will honor the terms of those rules, only to find that after ego-investing themselves for a lifetime in the correctness and appropriateness of those rules does he discover in cruel and harsh terms that women are playing by another set of rules and wonder at how stupid he could be to have ever believed in the rules he was conditioned to expect everyone would abide by.

Suicide or murder is certainly a deductive and pragmatic end for some men, but by no means is it justified. Thomas Ball, for all of his due diligence in uncovering the ugly processes of the American divorce industry, was far more useful alive than dead in some symbolic suicide. He wasn’t the martyr he probably expected he’d be, he’s just a footnote.

For all of that, Thomas Ball and his last message to humanity serves as an excellent illustration of a man coming to terms with his own conditioning. In his message Ball makes a very important observation about his legal ordeals. He comes to understand that there are two sets of books rather than the one he’d been lead to believe that everyone understood as ‘the rules’ everyone should play by.

The confusion you have with them is you both are using different sets of books. You are using the old First Set of Books- the Constitution, the general laws or statutes and the court ruling sometime call Common Law. They are using the newer Second Set of Books. That is the collection of the policy, procedures and protocols. Once you know what set of books everyone is using, then everything they do looks logical and upright.

Ball was of course making a political statement in his account of going through the legal system and the cruel education he got in the process, but when men transition from their comfortable blue pill perspective into the harsh reality that the red pill represents, the experience is a lot like Ball discovering that the set of books (the set of rules) he’d believed everyone was using wasn’t so. Likewise, men who’ve been conditioned since birth to believe that women were using a common set of rules – a set where certain expectations and mutual exchange were understood – were in fact using their own set. Furthermore these men ‘just didn’t get it’ that they should’ve known all along that women, as well as men’s feminization conditioning, were founded in a second set of books.

In and of itself, this is a difficult lesson for young men to learn and disabuse themselves of before they’ve invested their most productive years into what their blue pill conditioning has convinced them they can expect from life and women. However, when a mature man, who’s based the better part of his life and invested his future into the hope that the first set of books is actually legitimate set is disenfranchised by the second set of books, by the actual set of rules he’s been playing with, that’s when all of the equity he believed he’d established under the first set of books counts for nothing. Literally his life (up to that point) counted for nothing.

When faced with the prospect of rebuilding himself after living so long under false pretenses, after having all he believed he was building turn up to be a lifetime of wasted effort, he’s faced with two real options. Recreate himself or destroy himself. Needless to say suicide statistics among men are a strong indication that the majority of men (Betas) simply don’t have the personal strength to recreate themselves. Thomas Ball didn’t.

There’s usually a lot of disillusionment that comes with making the transition to Red Pill awareness. I’ve written more than a few posts about the stages of grief and acceptance that come along with that transition. Guy’s get upset that what they now see was really there all along, but it’s not so much the harshness of seeing red pill dynamics in women or a feminized society play out with such predictability, it’s the loss of investment that cause the real sense of nihilism. When I wrote Anger Management, the overarching reason most men experienced what they called a righteous anger, wasn’t at how the second set of books had been dictating their lives for so long, but rather it was anger at having invested so much of themselves in the first set of books and losing that very long term investment.

The good news is you can rebuild yourself. A lot gets written about how nihilistic the red pill is, but this is for a lack of understanding that you can recreate yourself for the positive with the knowledge of both sets of rules. One common thread I see come up often on the Red Pill Reddit forum is how Game-awareness has completely destroyed a guy’s world view. I get it, I realize it’s a hard realization, but their depression is only for a lack of realizing that they can become even better in this new understanding than they were in their blue pill ignorance.

Possession

possession

In my essay Casualties I described the situation of my sister-in-law and her first husband committing suicide.

The first guy I knew to commit suicide over a woman was my brother-in-law. I don’t like to go into too much detail about it as critics may think it’s my casus belli for getting involved in the manosphere, but suffice to say it was after a 20 year marriage and 2 children. My sister-in-law promptly married the millionaire she was seeing less than a year after he was in the ground. This is a real point of contention her family and I have with her, but it was his terminal  beta-ness / ONEitis conditioning that greatly contributed to his hanging himself. The psychologist in me knows there are plenty of imbalances that dispose a person to suicide, but I also know there are plenty of external prompts that make taking action more probable.

My brother-in-law hung himself as a response to having the unthinkable happen to him; his ONE, his soulmate, a woman he was very posessive of, was leaving him after 20 years of marriage (for a millionaire we discovered later). She was the ONLY woman he’d ever had sex with and had been (to the best of my knowledge) a faithful and dependable husband and father since they married at 18 and 19. He did the ‘right thing’ and married her when he’d gotten her pregnant at 17 and stuck by her, sacrificed any ambition he had and worked his ass off to send both his kids to college – an advantage he’d never achieve. He wasn’t a saint by any means, and I’m not going to argue my sister-in-law’s motivations, since those aren’t my point; my point is that he was an AFC who never came to terms with it and believed his life was only completed with his ONE. He literally couldn’t go on without her.

He couldn’t kill the beta (if he was even aware of it), so he killed himself.

This was back in 2003 and I’ll admit the trauma of this experience and the behavior and consequent mindset of my wife’s sister was a catalyst in waking me up to a much broader definition of feminine hypergamy. No longer was this curious term just about “the tendency of women to ‘marry up’ in status with men”, it was about an entire psycho-social dynamic written into women’s psychological firmware since birth. It was this experience that made me aware that hypergamy was an overriding psychological imperative based on a constant condition of doubt and uncertainty about how well she might optimize this hypergamy in measure with her capacity to attract men of equal or greater SMV than her own.

I’ll also admit this episode in my life was personally jarring for me when I considered that my own wife would necessarily be prone to the same predispositions. Her sister, a God-fearing evangelical ‘good girl’, had gone feral on the husband who’d done the right thing after knocking her up at 17 and married her and set about working his ass off for the next 20 years. She was already in the process of divorcing him when he decided a noose and a tree were a better option than living in a world where he had to see his still gorgeous ex-wife with the millionaire she’d met (and later married). So why not Mrs. Tomassi too, right?

I can list any number of reasons as to why I trust Mrs. Tomassi, all of which I’ve read from every blue pill married chump in my time in the manosphere, but I’m not so naive as to think that certain circumstances and conditions ‘could’ change and she could also go feral. This is what my brother-in-law never could grasp. His world literally revolved around his wife.

He was by no means a saint, and for all of his dedication to his family and wife, his main fault was his possessiveness. My brother-in-law controlled the frame of his marriage, but this frame control was rooted in an insecure possessiveness bordering on the obsessive. On some level of consciousness he knew, by happenstance, an unplanned pregnancy and an early marriage, that he’d married well above what his realized SMV would’ve normally merited.

Possessiveness

I’ve seen this type of possessiveness in other men as well, but the common thread among them is usually an underlying, subconscious sense that the guy doesn’t deserve the woman he’s locked down in one way or another. A lot of them would be counted amongst the same Betas who subscribe to the Leagues mentality, only much more pronounced – it’s as if through luck or circumstance, or maybe due to a natural Alpha dominance that they don’t really understand they manifest, they get into an LTR with a woman they would otherwise consider “out of their league.”

Just this possessiveness might seem bad enough, but when it’s combined with ONEitis (the soul-mate myth), a Scarcity Mentality, a subscribing to the myth of Relational Equity or especially a self-righteous dedication to his feminine conditioning and White Knighting, then you’ve got a volatile mix of psychoses and a recipe for suicide or murder-suicide. When possessiveness is a man’s ego-investment and his worst fears of losing the “best thing he’ll ever have”, the relationship he subconsciously believes he didn’t deserve, comes to actuality, he may cease to exist because that former reality ceases to exist. What’s worth living for when you’ve already experienced the best you never merited to begin with?

A lot of my readers got irate with me when I suggested that if their girlfriends or wives wanted to head out with the girls for a GNO they should, as indifferently as possible, let them go. Granted, I attached more than a few caveats as to how to go about it, but the operative behind this indifference is really a test of your own possessiveness.

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

There is always going to be a naturalistic side to male possessiveness. For very good reason evolution selected-for men with a honed sense of suspicion – men want a certainty that their parental investment (or potential for it) will be worth the exchange of resources with a woman who will facilitate it. In other words evolution selected-for men with an internalized, hardwired understanding of women’s biological directive for optimized hypergamy. When a man’s sexual strategy and sexual optimization has to be sacrificed for women’s optimized hypergamous and pluralistic (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) sexual strategy in order to breed, monogamy becomes a one-sided risk for him.

Sunshine Mary had a recent post with more than a few loose premises about the nature of women. The first of which was this:

1. Women were not designed by either God / evolution to be traded around among men.  There are few (or no?) societies in human history in which human females were heavily sexually promiscuous, and marriage has existed in some form in nearly every culture.

I’m not drawing attention to SSM to run her up the flagpole for this assumption, but it does illustrate a very visceral point about the possessiveness dynamic we’re exploring today. I responded to Mary with this:

In human male sperm there are 3 heteromorphic types: Killers, Defenders and Runners (fertilizers).

Killers destroy opposing sperm, Defenders encircle the ovum and provide a barrier against opposing sperm’s runners, and Runners specialize in ovum penetration and fertilization.

The only logical purpose for the evolution (or intelligent design if you prefer) of these type-specific sperm adaptations would be to optimize a competitive advantage in female fertilization of promiscuous human females possessing secretive ovulation.

Even the shape of a male penis is “designed” to maximize insertion depth to the uterus and simultaneously shovel out competing sperm from the vagina.

If women weren’t promiscuous, if women’s biological imperative wasn’t dictated by hypergamy, would these biological phenomenon have been a necessary evolution for human males? The predominant state of sexual competition, rooted in the dualistic, cuckolding, sexual strategies of human females, necessitated not only an evolved, male, psychological predilection for sexual fidelity suspicion, but an evolution of three types of purpose-specific sperm cells to maximize passing a man’s genetic legacy under conditions of uncertainty.

The Possessive Difference

Back in his earlier work Roissy had an interesting post about the behavioral manifestations displayed between Alpha men and Beta men. Really he likened the behaviors to more animalistic tendencies, but whether or not you acknowledge similar behaviors in people, the reasoning behind these actions make a lot of sense. Alpha men are slow to respond to sudden stimuli (such as loud noises or boisterous taunts) because they are so unused to any significant challenge – in other words, they’re not jumpy Betas used to opting for flight instead of fight. Their posture and body language convey confidence, but only because this Alpha posture is behaviorally associated with what Alphas do.

This is an important dynamic to understand when we consider possessiveness. A man with an Alpha disposition would be less possessive, and therefore display an indifference to possessing any particular woman due to his condition of (relative) sexual abundance. Possessiveness, or certainly an overly pronounced manifestation of possessiveness is the behavior of a Beta unused to sexual abundance and more likely accustomed sexual rejection.

It’s important to bear in mind that possessiveness is conveyed in a set of behaviors, attitudes and beliefs communicated in many ways. It’s not that possessiveness necessarily makes a man unattractive to a woman; on the contrary, it’s almost a universal female fantasy to be possessed by a so deserving and desirably dominant Alpha Man. It’s a visceral endorsement of the status of a woman’s superior desirability among her peers to be the object of such an Alpha Man’s possession; but likewise this is so common a (romance novel) feminine fantasy because of Alpha Men’s general indifference to possessiveness that makes it so tempting for women.

When self-deprecating, undeserving Beta men overtly display possessiveness, women read the behavior for what it is. Beta possessiveness is almost universally a death sentence (often literally) for an LTR. Nothing demonstrates lower value and confirms a lack of hypergamous suitability for a woman than a Beta preoccupied to the brink of obsession with controlling her behaviors. This isn’t to discount the very real reasons an Alpha or a Beta might have concern for a woman’s behaviors, it’s that his own possessiveness conveys a lack of confidence in himself.