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.

151 comments

  1. “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?”

    Great statement, its something that hang in my mind, but your logic cannot be refuted……..

  2. I don’t want to side-track too much from your essay, BUT since you linked to my essay, I’ll assume your response is fair game to discuss.

    Let’s start with the source you linked to when you left that quote on my blog. Here is your quote:

    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.

    And here is what the source you linked to says:

    A notion emerged in 1996 that in some species, including humans, a significant fraction of sperm specialize in a manner such that they cannot fertilize the egg but instead have the primary effect of stopping the sperm from other males from reaching the egg, e.g. by killing them with enzymes or by blocking their access. This type of sperm specialization became known popularly as “kamikaze sperm” or “killer sperm”, but most follow-up studies to this popularized notion have failed to confirm the initial papers on the matter.[37]

    Furthermore, almost everything in that source was talking about non-human animals.

    If you don’t mind, may I have a source please for your assertion that the shape of the human penis evolved to scoop out a competitors’ sperm? I’m not saying you are wrong; I just do not have the information to say one way or the other. I’ve heard this theory before but I have never looked into it carefully. It isn’t hard to imagine an alternative explanation for the shape. Off the top of my head (no pun intended), I would say that it probably evolved (was created by God) that way because the cervix dilates slightly just before and during ovulation; if the glans forms a seal where the vagina meets the cervix, more of the semen is likely to actually make it through the opening and into the uterus.

    Let us not get too off track with this, though. The general message of your essay, if I’ve correctly understood it, is this: possessiveness born of insecurity is unhealthy for men and unattractive to women. That seems quite wise and useful.

  3. A few words on this:
    “Women were not designed by either God / evolution to be traded around among men. ”

    Traditionally women were the spoils of war, they were taken as possessions by the winners for sex and work.

    Now, the woman can resist her captors, try to escape and risk her life. But from an evolutionary standpoint that would be a very bad move. Instead she should bear the kids of the winning Alpha males for obvious reasons. She should literally fall in love with her captors and have kids with them.

    And nature made sure this is what happens, today we call this “The Stockholm Syndrome”, but we know what it really is, “a survival mechanism”

  4. 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. is a trope most guys sell themselves, because it’s more about suspicion than jealousy

    I don’t argue the veracity of this statement. However, from personal experience and anecdotal observation, this trope is largely sold and perpetuated by women. But that Beta folk buy into it at all is a testament to all that you’ve said.

    On a random note, I do find peculiar, your repeated insistence (it did feel like you kept going back to it again and again) that your brother-in-law’s experience wasn’t a Red Pill trigger. In the end, ad hominem arguments shouldn’t matter to the authenticity of the claims and assertions of your essays. I just find it mildly amusing that you might be a tad bothered by such.

  5. Yes, Richard E, but women were not the spoils of war very often, and even so, many of them ended up with one man, even if part of a harem. Women now have N counts that used to be reserved for prostitutes.

    I am not saying that women were designed/evolved to be able to bond to ONLY one man ever in her life. I am aware that at all points in history, women may have had more than one sex partner, but it was generally one of two situations:

    1. Her husband died, and she remarried.
    2. She was taken captive in a conflict and reassigned to a new man.

    It would not be typical for this to happen to a woman 20 or 30 times. Compare that with a modern, sex-positive, feminist-influenced woman with her double-digit N and her Prozac prescription. Mental health and N are inversely related in women; google it and you’ll find studies that confirm my assertion. Things we evolved/were designed to do generally don’t cause our mental health to take a nosedive.

  6. sunshinemary, you only need to be killed once for your chances of passing your genes to the next generation to be zero. Either you had the genes to survive or you didn’t. Selection worked very effectively for this trait.

    I also think you are underestimating the level of violence/war/conflict in human history. If men and women are the result of what our ancestors needed to do to survive, our ancestors had a very violent and difficult life.

    And look around you, you may have rights as a woman and you may live in relative security but historically speaking, not long ago women didn’t have any rights and were just “possessions” of men, and they still are regarded as such in a large part of the worlds population.
    Even in today’s catholic marriage, “the woman is given to the man”

    This is also why becoming a man in today’s society is so difficult. Testosterone makes you want to solve every problem with violence and men get very little guidance in dealing with all these emotions which conflict with the values of today’s western society.

  7. 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?

    These lines really got to me. While I thought that I had done my best to squash the worst instincts of ONEitis, the notion of the “best thing he’ll ever have” made me realize a sneaky way it could work its way back in. Thanks Rollo for sharing the story, Hopefully we can learn from the tragedy.

  8. SSM, the scooping action can be observed. Maybe Rollo didnt want to get into that much detail. Just saying.

    What about the women, many married and monogomous, that express strong desires for bondage and 50 shades type sex? Is this her strong desire for a dom and for him to turn her into a full sub?

  9. Women like assholes not because they are assholes but because they CAN be assholes. There is a big difference.

    A man that CAN be an asshole and that CAN get away with it does so by being high enough value, at least in that woman’s perception.

    Their “higher value” comes from any combination of looks/physicality; status, money, earning potential, and available (real) options.
    In a simplistic way,the behavior of both men and women is largely determined by what they believe that they can get away with; based on the previous experience of social feedback and social conditioning.

    For example, a male acting like an asshole who hasn’t got enough clout to get away with it will get blasted in the face by another male; therefore receiving “negative social feedback”.

    Attractive women on the other hand tend to get far less negative social feedback from the majority of men because the majority of men will let her get away with shit , at least for as long as they think they have a chance of being liked by her and/or fucking her.

    By the way. Excellent work by The Rational Male once more.
    I can’t help but wonder why the millionaire, who you might assume by being a millionaire has options, would go for a widowed woman with kids.

  10. “A little advice from the enemy…..:)”

    Once again, Semi (at best) intelligent women (and one is a fattie) giving oversimplified advice that would only work for a man that is ALREADY high value and/or has preselection.

    Their solipsistic rationalization hamster spins and spins, bereft of any true insight or understanding.

  11. Thank you for sharing your story – it really was quite an eye-opener.

    I’d be curious whether you think the nature of female possessiveness is similar – women who, even early on in a relationship, feel the need to keep tabs on the man despite perhaps not allowing any such thing done unto themselves – as I have seen with male friends in ltr’s.
    Is this possessiveness a result of an imbalance of SMV within the relationship (after all, neither men or women are naturally 100% monogamous and could potentially stray), a naïve (and short-lived) form of female one-itis or maybe an unscrupulous evolutionary impulse to trap a mate until something better comes along i.e. have one’s cake and eat it (evolutionarily speaking)?

    For sure western culture indoctrinates young men with this idea of one-itis from an early age shaping their romantic expectations and thus exacerbating their insecurity and possessiveness and effectively has them constantly on the lookout for the one who can complete him.

    Also the idea that hypergamy be the engine for the evolution of certain male characteristics you mentioned is a really interesting one – very similar to an evolutionary arms race, but in this case pitting male desire to spread his seed far and wide against female Hypergamy – and the closer we look (even to the point of the actual chemical make-up of sperm), we see how guilefully war is waged by each side.
    Thanks again – a great read.

  12. Reading back I realise “have one’s cake and eat it” is misused. I guess it would be more along the lines of “not behave in a way you expect others to”.

  13. 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.

    So, women are (more) naturally pure and chaste (than men), because God/evolution made them that way? How is this different than what is widely taught in Churchianity and feminized society at large? Isn’t debunking this myth one of the main Red Pill truths?

    Really, SSM?

    I think you need to amend your premise to be something more like: Women are designed to be naturally promiscuous and seek sex from as many high quality men (tingle-inducing alphas) as possible, but the pursuit of this natural behavior has severe negative consequences for civilized society, so most religions and cultures have focused on (i.e., been built around) the subduing and prevention of said nature.

  14. “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.”

    Knowledge is power…although cold rational logic is going to have to be strong in order to overcome that type of emotional bullet to the heart.

    Perhaps the only way to go with women’s feral nature is indifference. It’s not like it should surprise a red pill man if it happens to the point that you would kill yourself…and if she keeps it under control consider yourself blessed.

    That’s how I’d go being in my single state dealing with women. How that works being married to one of them…now that is a much more dicey issue.

  15. Most men – due to a list of reasons – box above their weight with women in physical attractiveness scale. Being nice guys – as most men are – the likelihood is a man will get one shot at this “upgrading” facility. This predicament acts as a natural default for male jealousy, insecurity, desperation and possessiveness.

    As this process usually takes place when women are at their most attractive (hence hottest), men fail to take on board the depreciation of a woman’s worth, and her demands that consequently diminish with the slide.

    The below link will hopefully put more meat on the bones:

    http://www.vinaywcmd.com/2014/01/where-will-she-be-this-time-next-year.html

  16. Sobering post dude, but well done. Two questions:

    1) I echo this question: I can’t help but wonder why the millionaire, who you might assume by being a millionaire has options, would go for a widowed woman with kids.
    She wasn’t widowed at the time, but why did this millionaire pull a King David and take the only thing Uriah had?

    2) Did you ever do a post on why you decided to get married? And what it is about your wife that made you make this decision?

  17. “Perhaps the only way to go with women’s feral nature is indifference. It’s not like it should surprise a red pill man if it happens to the point that you would kill yourself…and if she keeps it under control consider yourself blessed.”

    There must be a balance, Indifference can be seen as acceptance of them going feral.

  18. Indifference may not be the best term…I’m not even sure amused mastery would work either.

    Anybody know a better term for not being surprised that it is happening on the outside…and still not liking it on the inside?

  19. Well, the first of the Ten Commandments is, “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.” That includes your wife/women/your marriage.

    So if as a man you think that your snowflake is incapable of dumping you because of hypergamy, think again.
    It’s the exact same response we have as men when women say, “My son/brother/boyfriend/husband isn’t like that!!!”

    Um,
    1) Does he have a dick?
    2) Does it work?

    ….then, yes he is.

  20. http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/another-turn-in-the-circular-matrix-of-socio-sexual-behavior/#comment-45610

    Here’s my comment to SSM in response to the “Women were not designed by either God / evolution to be traded around among men” observation that she made. The link is above to put the quote in its original context.

    Deti: “From a purely evolutionary biological standpoint, women are designed and have evolved for serial monogamy. Left to her own devices, and unconstrained by morality, law or custom, a woman unleashed onto the sexual marketplace sets about finding – and sexing – the best men she can get. Ultimately the goal is to extract commitment from the best man she can get and to keep that commitment until the man is dead or one of them leaves, or nowadays, for as long as she deems him “the best man she can get”. She will stay with that man until a better one appears, presents himself, or otherwise expresses sexual interest. .

    “Women weren’t really designed to be “traded around among men”. But they were designed by evolution to be with the best man they can get, in serial fashion. She stays with the best man she can get, until he is no longer “the best”, either through death, disability, or defeat.”

    SSM replied:

    “[ssm: I don’t disagree, but if we are looking at this from an evolutionary perspective, we need to remember that the average life span was much shorter…something like 40, I think? So how often did she get “traded”? Maybe twice? Three times at most? Compare that to modern young women accruing double-digit numbers of sex partners, none of whom she really bonds to because the encounters or “relationships” last such a short time; also, she never ends up having children with most of her sex partners, which would NOT have been normal in history.”

    The point of all this is that women weren’t designed for hard, lifetime monogamy (and men aren’t either, but that’s a different comment). Women are designed to mate with and stay with the best man she can get, whoever that man is at any given time. It just so happens that in roughly half of most mating circumstances, the man she ultimately selects for LTR or marriage sometime between ages 18 and 35 (or so) is, and remains, “the best man she can get” until one of them is dead, either through her subjective belief or objective reality.

    Of course, a woman is not designed for a number of lifetime sex partners getting to 5, 10, 20 and up. But at the same time, she’s not designed for lifetime monogamy either. Lifetime monogamy for women is reached through choice, circumstance, grace and mercy; not because biological hardwiring provides for it.

    See also: “War Brides” https://therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/

  21. SSM – You can also look to testicle size (as a proportion of body mass), womens’ mating preference shifts during ovulation (which Rollo has brought to bear in the past), instinctual mate guarding behaviour of males during their mates ovulation, the modern base rate of men raising children that aren’t theirs (around 2% or so) and really, the entire social contract of marriage as evidence of womens’ evolved (designed by God) trait of seeking opportunistic infidelity if sperm competition is too shaky to rest the hypothesis on.

    It’s the *lack of pair-bonding* in modern hook-up culture that is putting women that participate in it on edge, not the promiscuity itself IMO.

  22. It essentially boils down to the question of who has ‘hand’ in the relationship. When you get overcome by the scarcity mentality, through one-ites, league-ites or focusing to much on being a hoop-jumping provider drone, your fate will match that of the male drones in bee colonies – after fulfilling their function, they are forcefully evicted from the hive and left out in the cold to starve.

    On the other hand, when you are aware enough of game and the sexual market place dynamics, you will always be able to replace a partner who becomes too bitchy, demanding, prudish etc. When the pet becomes feral, it gets replaced. This abundance mentality affects your attitude in a relationship, where you won’t put up with bad behavior, which will keep your partner on her toes, and happy because of it

  23. Redpill –

    “Um,
    1) Does he have a dick?
    2) Does it work?

    ….then, yes he is.”

    +1

    as my buddy says, “Let me get the door for you. Wanna fuck?”

    My wife of 27 years still thinks I am the only man on the face of the planet that constantly wants to get laid! ROFL!

  24. Well, Earl, on the grounds that the Germans inevitably have a word for That Sort Of Thing, I cobbled a couple together (like they do). Gentleman, I offer you ..Höflichesduldsamkeit.

  25. Anybody know a better term for not being surprised that it is happening on the outside…and still not liking it on the inside?

    Awareness, insightful, intuitive, he’s a bad mother…( shut your mouth!) just talking about Shaft.

  26. Regarding SSMs point 1: there are two economic situations that humans find themselves in that trigger certain behaviors, with societies over time having different mixes of both. One is foraging, the other is farming. One aspect of foraging is less focus on stability and individual property ownership; people live communally. Communal societies tend to be matriarchal, and also tend to focus less on caring who the father of the child is. The society as a whole cares for the child, not any individual. High female promiscuity follows.

    Farmer societies are more focused on stability and thus property ownership. These societies are therefore more individualistic (farmers generally keep the food they make) due to the stability of individual property ownership and are more patriarchal. More property ownership means also owning other humans. Your wife and children are your property as well as your land and cattle.

    Obviously, farmers are capitalist societies, foragers are socialist societies. Of course no society in recent memory has been 100% capitalist or socialist. But here in the West, we are moving away from farmer-like society — with more job insecurity (young people rarely stay in the same job their entire life like our grandparents did) — and towards a forager society. Mate selection follows the economics.

  27. @ redpillsetmefree:

    Yes, the suicidal brother-in-law of Rollo’s post was guilty of breaking the First Commandment against idolatry (his ex-wife being the idol).

  28. Men and women have always had competing sexual strategies, but managed to compromise and create pair-bonds for the purpose of creating and raising the next generation. Human beings have had lots of ‘motivational help’ in creating and honoring these pair-bonds through the ages. Survival is a powerful motivator…survival of the individual, survival of the children, survival of the tribe, etc. Later came religion, law, and societal shame to reinforce this ‘motivation’ to honor the pair-bond commitment. Imperfect to be sure, but it worked well enough to grow the species and build civilization…for thousands and thousands of years.

    All that ‘motivational help’ has disappeared in just the last 50 years. Women are aware of this and have generally rejected their traditional roles and the nuclear family. Red pill men are aware of this, usually through great pain and loss. Blue pill men are not aware and believe in fairy tales of the past despite the dysfunction all around them. They also believe they need to conform to their traditional roles because they have no other way to define themselves as ‘men’. Blue pill men lose not only their children, property, and money, they lose their identity….and sometimes their lives.

    We are in a time of fundamental transition in the way our species pair-bonds and procreates. Traditional marriage will continue to exist, but will continue to lose ‘market share’ over time. I don’t know how it will look in another 50 years. Populations will decrease as birth rates fall. I know the institution of marriage and the laws surrounding it need to evolve or it will become obsolete and abandoned except for niche populations. Men are walking away because they see it is a suckers bet. Women are walking away because they have convinced themselves that the traditional roles of mother and wife are worthy of derision.

    Whatever the case, blue pill men need to WTFU

  29. Forgot to add: the matriarchy/patriarchy tendency for community/individualism is reflected in female/male behavior when both are given a romantic prime. When women are primed to think about mate selection, they are more likely to signal wanting to volunteer more (socialism). When men are primed to think about mate selection, they are more likely to signal how much money they have (capitalism): http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/118355.pdf

  30. @SSM, I’ll, uh, dig you up a link later today, however there’s also a hypothesis that the latent purpose of male circumcision was in fact to maximize the utilitarian advantage of a man’s “shape”.

    Kind of interesting when you consider the religious connotations of marking men as ‘God’s chosen’ people.

  31. Scarcity mindset (beta) vs abundance mindset (alpha). It’s amazing what happens when one applies that to other arenas of life. Contrast men dependent on corporate jobs vs entrepreneurs, for instance.

  32. Deti:

    The point of all this is that women weren’t designed for hard, lifetime monogamy (and men aren’t either, but that’s a different comment).

    I think it’s really important that people read what I wrote before they respond to it. What I wrote was:

    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 never wrote that women were designed for hard, lifetime monogamy…though I think she can do that – and prefers to do that – without effort IF her hypergamy is satisfied. If her hypergamy isn’t satisfied, she can only do that hard lifetime monogamy if there are societal controls in place on her behavior.

    Rollo

    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?

    Hypergamy ≠ promiscuity. Promiscuity, at least the evo.bio. definition means mating with multiple males and no male investment in the female or offspring. It’s hook up sex, basically, and it’s not evidenced much if at all in human history – some form of male investment has always been there in humans.

    Just from a sexual standpoint (taking out “love” and duty and bonding and all that), women prefer serial monogamy over lifetime monogamy as a means of satisfying their hypergamy, but they will only change partners IF a better one comes along. It would be an evolutionary disadvantage if we were too monogamous (as in One and Done monogamous) because in Ye Olden Days, our husbands had an inconvenient habit of dying on us while we were still fertile, and she who wastes fertile eggs is weeded out of the gene pool eventually.

    I hate to get off on this tangent. I think it’s very interesting, but I feel like everyone is going to miss the more important point from this post. Maybe we should table this part of the discussion? I feel like it’s so much less important than men talking about how not to KILL themselves over a woman, you know what I mean? I think I’m going to bow out and hope the conversation veers in that direction instead. Maybe we can take up the female monogamy/promiscuity discussion in a different thread?

    Consider this: I just googled it, and men are at a higher risk that women for suicide in general, and men’s risk of suicide increases significantly after a divorce. So Rollo’s brother-in-law exemplifies a serious societal problem that no one seems to care all that much about.

    If you’d like to feel sort of annoyed, read this quote:

    Another interesting finding is that while divorce and separation are linked to suicide risk in both sexes, divorced/separated men seem particularly vulnerable to suicidal “ideation” (thoughts and planning) and to suicide itself. This may make sense, since it’s been shown that men derive more mental and physical health benefits from marriage than do women (although it’s good for both sexes) – so the breakdown of a marriage could lead to more detrimental outcomes for men. That said, there’s still a lot of pressure on men to fill out the masculine husband role, whatever socioeconomic class one is in, and the reality is that today this classic role may be somewhat unrealistic. “There is a large and unbridgeable gap between the culturally authorised idea of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ and the reality of everyday survival for men in crisis,” write the authors. One way of taking back one’s own masculinity, they suggest, is to take one’s own life.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/09/24/the-gender-inequality-of-suicide-why-are-men-at-such-high-risk/

    So it’s because marriage is so darn good for you guys that you keep killing yourselves when we divorce you? Is it me, or is something a bit bass-ackwards in that quote?

    I’ll, uh, dig you up a link later today,

    Hey, I’m trying to eat lunch here! lol

  33. I just was watching “Raging Bull” and couldn’t help noticing how the protagonist was an Alpha in many ways but could not control his frame with his woman.

  34. @SSM, I’m well aware of the Sperm Wars controversy which is why I used the Wiki link rather than find some definitive ‘study’ that proved the theory or disproved it. The fact remains, it is an observable phenomenon – the latent purpose of it is still debatable.

    That said, there are many more behavioral and cultural manifestations that imply women’s natural state of promiscuity. We’ve discussed many of them before in fact; Mate Guarding, Menstrual shifts in hormones predisposing women to opportunistic breeding with an Alpha, etc. The fact that marriage (monogamously or polygamously) was ever a societal institution could be argued as a hedge against this natural promiscuity.

    We’ve also discussed on many occasions how the advent of unilaterally female, hormonal birth control and the resultant sexual revolution has removed the social buffers that had previously held the more predatory nature of women’s hypergamy in check. If serial monogamy was the order of hypergamy we would’ve seen it manifested in the general population of women for the past 60+ years. However, what we have seen, as you note, is not only a rise in female promiscuity, but an embracing, rewarding and reinforcement of women’s sexual natures.

    Is that a smoking gun pointing to women’s evolution for promiscuity? No, but it’s pretty damning evidence. And even if it isn’t, men have psychologically evolved to treat it like it is because their genetic bet to ensure their genetic legacy still rides on women’s duplicitous natures rooted in hypergamy. Evolution is pragmatic if nothing else.

    I would argue that men in the grip of a divorce, or men who’ve been betrayed by cuckoldry, or men who’s ego-invested possessive natures have their investment betrayed or disqualified, they face an existential crisis. All of the existential equity they build upon women’s assurances of appreciation of it, and sending their genetic legacy into the future, is all for nothing (sometimes over half a lifetime for nothing) so it’s as if he’d never existed at all. So is it any real surprise that a man would see ending his own existence (and possibly the existence of his betrayer) as a logical – not to mention easy – conclusion to a life that never had even a marginal significance?

  35. I do believe this existential reaction to is encoded into the firmware, it’s visceral. It manifests as a physical agony in the torso, perhaps most strongly in the upper solar plexus, and can become all consuming if you allow it to get the better of you. It does so very very quickly too, you can be eating and something can bubble up from your subconscious, perhaps a memory of an unsavoury fact about your woman’s past, or a little thing that stood out in the way she behaved in a public setting… your imagination can run with that, and your appetite can wrench to cold disgust in seconds.

    We absolutely need our higher reasoning skills to overcome this, and sometimes that means placing boundaries within our own psyches, regarding the speed and extent in which we allow ourselves to form bonds. It is absolutely healthy to remain, at least in some corner of your psyche, a cynic and a skeptic with regards to women, both in general and individually. Toss that away and you flirt with madness. Women, consciously or not, are natural masters at peering into the hearts of men, seeing which parts of himself he does not know, and setting the hooks there.

    There is no woman in this day and age, who is physically beautiful, who has no history at all, who will be completely devoted to you through to her core, and never size you up, and who has zero imagination when it comes to other men. Not with the way they’re wired, and certainly not with the encouragement they get from the culture at large.

    There is no possessing them. Great men have come undone in the attempt. Possess yourself and you’ll come out OK.

  36. @ D-man. SUPERB post. I haven´t seen anything coming close to it in months here. Pure, cold, truth.

    “Women, consciously or not, are natural masters at peering into the hearts of men, seeing WHICH PARTS OF HIMSELF HE DOES NOT KNOW, and setting the hooks there.”

    I am trying to tell the same but I am not able to put it so clearly.
    POSSESS yourself, that is the answer. Then you have the power, the freedom and only than you can interact with women WITHOUT danger of enslavement.

    I partly disagree with “cynic” and “sceptic”. You just have to be realist and see women for what they are instead of what our stupid projections and hormones tell us about them.

    Then you know what precisely you can expect form them and they will NEVER, NEVER dissapoint you.

    If you want somebody to love and admire you unconditionally – turn to yourself, this task is up to you.
    If you want somebody to be loyal to you, turn to your dog, or your brother in arms in SEALS.
    If you want somebody to amuse you, now, our beloved ladies are waiting to do this for you. But beware…only tough and wise men are able to play with women in equal battle.

    Honest guys marry early, wise NEVER.

  37. Women come, women go, all women are fungible.

    In addition to the Sperm Wars “controversy” there is Sperm Heteromorphism. It occurs in other species, there is absolutely no reason why not humans.

    Humans as a species are very resistant to seeing ourselves as animals and examining ourselves like we examine animals. Psychologically we see ourselves as special – no, we are not special little snowflakes. There was a reason it evolved in animals and insects, therefore there is no “special” reason why it didn’t evolve in us.

    Regarding the Semen Displacement Theory: the author was Gordon Gallup of State University of New York at Albany. You can read a short Q&A interview here about this theory:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-misunderstood-pen us
    ——————————
    Special note for @SSM regarding the following question aka compliance demand (aka shit test): “If you don’t mind, may I have a source please for your assertion that the shape of the human penis evolved to scoop out a competitors’ sperm?”

    I do mind.

    In the future use your own initiative (ie stop asking men to do simple stuff for you) and do a Google search for “human penis scoop out semen” yourself. The Scientific American article above was the second result.

    With due regards to Roissy’s maxim “everything she does is cute” – there comes a point when incessant “why’s” are not cute and simply become wearing. You got fingers, you got a brain (presumably), so use ’em.

    Note that I am deliberately pointing this out, not (quite) trolling – rather, to illustrate to all men here:

    1/ the reflexive entitled mentality of even supposedly “aware” women

    2/ the reflexive conditioned habit for men to comply with a woman’s “requests” (aka shit tests) even when we are supposedly aware or becoming aware of them

    It’s a long, uphill battle.

    Thus: I purposefully fail your shit test, to illustrate to my fellow male readers your female dynamic. I’ll count this as an overall win for me.

  38. “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.”

    Interesting… in following that is that why I have seen 3 sep women cheat or leave their husbands, with their husbands being cool with them going out for the monthly / weekly GNO, the guys running their own businesses or being VP level guys?

  39. You know, I have a suspicion that one of the more difficult-to-swallow aspects of the red pill for many Christians is the fact that when one examines the reality of gender interactions and sexual strategies with eyes wide open, it becomes glaringly obvious that the precious little angels(and men) ARE acting on instinct no matter how many times you try to convince Christian women that godly traits are supposed to be sexy.

    It really seems like acknowledging this base, sexual reality that makes us seem like animals could be why many Christians spit the red pill back out. In other words, the implications regarding evolution seem to be where the issue lies. …..run along now, little blissful beta bible boy.

  40. “I would argue that men in the grip of a divorce, or men who’ve been betrayed by cuckoldry, or men who’s ego-invested possessive natures have their investment betrayed or disqualified, they face an existential crisis. All of the existential equity they build upon women’s assurances of appreciation of it, and sending their genetic legacy into the future, is all for nothing (sometimes over half a lifetime for nothing) so it’s as if he’d never existed at all. So is it any real surprise that a man would see ending his own existence (and possibly the existence of his betrayer) as a logical – not to mention easy – conclusion to a life that never had even a marginal significance?”

    THE very best thing you have ever written.

  41. Rollo
    Dissociative indifference is the term you’re looking for Earl

    Or perhaps situational indifference. A man who is in agony over his woman’s bad behavior can calm himself down quite a lot by running day game on women in coffee joints & other places, because in so doing he discovers or rediscovers that he has options. And a man with options cannot suffer from oneitis. A man with options can look at possible dissolution of an LTR or marriage with more aplomb; sure, it might be inconvenient to have to find another woman, but there will be another woman.

    And so in time will end any supplication, to be replaced by a trace of indifference towards her – possibly even a touch of Dread game. He doesn’t have to say anything, demonstration in any of several ways that he can rather easily replace her should suffice.

  42. ARLT -” you can’t eat steak every night. Now and then a plate of sphaghetti helps to keep your desire for steak alive” – Osho

  43. Wow. Every article opens my eyes even further. I just want to say how much all of this is helping me. Having taken the “red pill” 9 months ago, I’m just getting used to seeing women clearly. It’s interesting, I don’t get angry when the lion kills the wildebeast, and am no longer angry at women.

    I have an interesting story as I have an alpha disposition but was unconscious of game and also had the stupid romantic idea of love and male seflessness. So I would attract high status women over and over again but had no idea how to handle them. I also came from a physically abusive and otherwise dysfunctional household so I didn’t really know how to look out for myself until after my first marriage failed by the age of 30. I instinctively didn’t take shit from women after my first marriage but still could not maintain my frame on the relationship and instead of seeing the shit testing and manipulation for what it is, I would take it personally and probably killed several relationships that had real potential.

    Now at 51, I’ve woken up and seeing all this clearly is a truly a gift. The first step was the MRM and MGTOW but really, I’m not out to change the world or withdraw from it, I want to figure out how to live in it happily. Looking back on my life it all seems so clear now but wow, stumbling through the mess of relationships I had was so confusing.

    I think every young men should be educated in this stuff. Not to be a “PUA” but to be aware of how the game works. I am so grateful for this and can’t quite put into words how much this has helped me get right with myself and the world. THANKS ROLLO!!!

  44. Re: devotion. Although I think that, like female orgasm is vestigial, female eros (romatic love) is a faint echo of male eros, I think a woman can be devoted to, or adore, or be head-over-heels-in-love-with, however you want to term it, a particular man who doesn’t want her love. In accord with your relevant maxim, I no longer believe a woman is capable of truly loving a man who wants her true love. (But I know she could force herself to behave as if she so loved him.)

    Men tend to latch in pair bonds in romantic love, in a way that women do not latch. Women latch in maternal love instead. That is the reason that women view a man-in-love as a lesser being, because since he isn’t a woman then (from the point of view of a woman) he must be a child, by female projection. As universally remarked, an alpha male cannot be in love, cannot be infatuated, and retain his alphaness. It’s one or the other. So if you’re not in love, you may as well be alpha.

    Universal advice in the manosphere is for the man to avoid falling in love. I now think that’s sound advice, but it doesn’t help any man who is currently in love, like someone’s remark about “an Alpha in many ways but could not control his frame with his woman.” Here’s som eadvice that may help. In the same way that a wife OUGHT to act like she’s in love with her husband, i.e. infatuated, obsessed, etc., whether or not she is in love as a state of mind, a husband OUGHT to act like he’s not in love with his wife i.e. indifferent. Situational indifference as actual actions, not just as state of mind. I think really that’s all there is to it.

  45. Rollo: Many thanks for this article, which I have also read in conjunction with ‘Casualties’.
    Irrespective of the other excellent (but largely rarionalised) comments in this post, I am curious as to whether your sister-in-law feels any remorse about your brother-in-laws’ suicide (I suspect not), and also what your niece’s/nephew’s attitude and feelings are towards his/her mother regarding his/her late father’s death.
    I do not expect you to answer out of respect for the privacy of grief, but I raise the question to the extent that I do not think I could condone any conduct which so crushes another’s spirit that results in someone determining they have nothing left to live for – even taking into account that I believe that we are ultimately responsible for our own lives, despite our conditioning.

    Your blog is the best I have read of its type, and stands apart in that you write with compassion as well as with discipline (there is a lot of bitterness and rancour in the manosphere (perhaps understandably so, given some of the horror stories I have read)).

    That said, what happened to your brother-in-law is a tragedy and this is the takeaway for me.

    I interpret the messages of your articles and posts as follows:

    Neo: I can’t go back, can I?
    Morpheus: No, but even if you could, would you really want to?

  46. Possessiveness and jealousies are part of a deeper pathology of co-dependence where the co-dependent only gets joy from the validation of the girl.

  47. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesar_Millan#Personal_life

    Millan became a permanent resident of the U.S. in 2000, became a U.S. citizen in 2009, and lives in Santa Clarita, California. He married Ilusión Wilson in 1994, with whom he had two sons, André (b. 1995) and Calvin (b. 2001).

    In June 2010, Millan announced his divorce.[14] His wife, Ilusión Millan, filed for divorce, seeking primary physical custody of their children with visitation for Cesar, as well as spousal support.[15] The divorce agreement stipulates that Millan pay his ex-wife a single payment of US$400,000, a monthly spousal payment of US$23,000 and US$10,000 for monthly child support,[16] and that the parties respect specific confidentiality terms.[16] In May 2010, after his dog Daddy died in February and his wife filed for divorce in March, Millan attempted suicide.[17]

  48. Rollo said, “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.”

    I did exactly that in 2010. I let her go. I busted her having two affairs not long after that. In hindsight, my radar should have been up. If you notice a change in your wife’s behavior, then something is up.

    It sounds a bit extreme when I suggest that you randomly “check up” on your wife with the latest spy tech out there, but the woman you marry is capable of ruining your life, and you have the right to know when you have that much of an investment on the line. Just be prepared for the worst mentally, emotionally, and financially when the worst does happen.

    My wife immediately dropped contact with the men she was involved with, and I’m waiting until my youngest daughter graduates High School before I re-evaluate this situation. Marriage is a trap, and no amount of emotional bond or sex will ever make it worth it.

  49. I don’t think you even need a theory of hypergamy to explain why someone gets bored after 20 years of marriage.

  50. Interesting reference to César Millán’s attempted suicide in 2010 – this completely passed me by.
    Millán’s Dog Whisperer TV series met with international acclaim in the UK and Australia as well as in the US.
    I recall that Millán made mention that he had had to set-up one of his dog rehabilitation centres in the California countryside because his wife Ilusión was unhappy at the number of dogs in the house.
    Certainly, from his TV shows, it was very clear that Millán was dedicated to his family.
    There is a cruel (some might say predictable) irony that Ilusión Millán decided to file for divorce when César was at an apogee of fame and material success, and mourning the loss of his beloved dog, Daddy, kicking a man when he was down.

  51. Women’s total Internet activity synopsis:
    30% arguing on facebook with women about what other women said about other women
    30% looking at images of babies and cats
    40% window shopping for shoes

  52. Ugh. A life expectancy of 40 doesn’t mean everyone dies at 40. For example, the US’s low LE among developed countries is heavily influenced by child mortality, including the fact that we count the death of premies as deaths rather than stillbirths. Back to primitive societies: for each infant that dies before their first birthday, there might be one person that lives to 80, or two that live to 60, or one that lives to 20 and a second that lives to 80. Given saber-toothed tigers and poison mushrooms, a LE of 40 means that many adults had to live past 60.

  53. The source for different sperm morphology can be found in Robin Baker’s book Sperm Wars.
    Unfortunately, can’t find any material on the internet linking his videos or excerpts of his books. Used to be able to, but either removed due to copyright issues, or more sinisterly, by the PC brigade which does not want the “true nature” of women exposed ?

  54. “If you don’t mind, may I have a source please for your assertion that the shape of the human penis evolved to scoop out a competitors’ sperm?”

    Just watch a few “creampie gangbang” videos and the purpose of the ridge of the head becomes obvious. The lack of fossilized penii makes further examination of how it came be more difficult.

  55. jf12 – A slight adjustment, if I may to cater for an activity I think you may have missed:
    Women’s internet activity synopsis (revised):
    :: 35% arguing on facebook with women about what other women said about other women
    :: 30% looking at images of babies and cats
    :: 35 % window shopping for shoes
    :: 5% checking secret online dating profiles and messaging potential beta orbiters (aka ‘running a virus scan’)

    The Facebook book point you make was actually a cause of an employment grievance at one place where I worked.

    By the time I had bought my wife her second laptop (AFC that I am!) she was heavily involved in the other three activities:-)

  56. Oh hey jf12 & talorofs, the advent of Twitter has impacted the profile heavily.
    I’d sub out maybe 15% minimum of the “arguing with other women” with

    :: sitting on Twitter, relentlessly hunting down any D-list and above TV “celebrity”, cook, actor, journo, comedian/other assorted attention-whore.

    and yapping sycophantically along, in the hope of getting a “personalized reply” (i.e. included in the hashtag mess in the Famous Entity’s subsequent tweetery, or other acknowledgement).

    It’s like a personal Assumption for them, accessorizing the Personal Jesus of course, and gets shotgunned over every antisocial media channel available.
    Be envious, you little people!

  57. @talorofs
    I’ve been a network admin for my employees for decades. Although erotica may be women’s porn in print, I assure you shoes are women’s internet porn.

    Regarding jealousy, my wife is an artsy type and was doing photo editing and layouts for print shops when I married her. Anyway she has a lot of male followers on pinterest and elsewhere, in contrast to almost all other females. The resulting jealousy of many other females, including some of her close friends, is palpable, and they often block her for spite and then unblock her later. (This blocking and unblocking is yet another characteristically female cycle.) So, to ensure that her friends can continue to bask in her glory even during blocking, she has sockpuppet accounts to which her friends will be connected in which she pretends to heap some scorn on herself, in order that they can continue to see her real account’s activities. And they do see! Even after blocking her, they continue to third-party monitor her, and make comments about her to other women. It’s all so … so … girly.

  58. Re: scooping. It doesn’t do that great a job. If it evolved for that job then it has barely begun optimizing. It should be common knowledge that when a woman has sex with multiple men in a short period of time, all of their sperm are easily detectable, no matter what order they went in. If it is supposed to be not well known then I’ll cite a few examples. Moreover it has never been shown that last-in-first-fertilize. Never.

  59. @Lion

    “I did exactly that in 2010. I let her go. I busted her having two affairs not long after that. In hindsight, my radar should have been up. If you notice a change in your wife’s behavior, then something is up. ”

    Aye, context is key isn’t it? If the gal makes a annual/bi-annual night out with her friends whom you’ve known for years to go try a new sushi restaurant, ok, that’s cool. If the gal has never or rarely ever had GNO and then suddenly wants them, especially with a bunch of new “friends” she met at yoga/gym/work, then that should perk any man’s curiosity right up. Aplomb in that situation leads exactly where you ended up.

  60. I’m pretty sure the head of the penis took on the shape it did so your hand doesn’t slip off and hit you in the face while you’re masturbating.

    Speaking of possession, there was a movie called Possession by Andrzej Zulawski. If you want to see a fucked up possessive relationship, that one definitely fits the bill.

    My friend always tells me that he wishes he was still a virgin and never got involved with women at all, ever, period. He lost everything and his entire life was turned upside down because he focused on women instead of himself.

    There’s a saying that a man’s attraction to a beautiful woman is like a moth attracted to a flame; he sees this beautiful thing, and flies toward it thinking that he can get there, and in the end it burns him up and kills him.

    “When there are no enemies inside, the enemies outside can’t hurt you.”

    There are plenty of zen and Taoist stories that demonstrate how destructive and ultimately pointless possessiveness is. It all comes back to the delusion that temporary things can permanently satisfy you, which leads to the fear of losing those things. When you see that all they can offer in the long run are empty promises, there’s no more fear because there’s no reason to hold onto them anymore.

    It’s safe to go to the casino if you set a reasonable limit for yourself and stick to it. It’s safe to get involved with women if you know how much of yourself you can invest without running into problems, and then stick to that.

    Most of the time the problem is not being able to recognize when you’ve stopped meeting your own needs and are looking desperately to someone else to fulfill you.

    It’s very easy for me to apply these ways of thinking to my life because I don’t have sex and don’t get involved with women at all. The delusion can come back in a heartbeat, and if you’re not aware of what’s going on, you’re just a moth flying into the fire.

    On the positive side, we can give the love and nurturing we crave to ourselves, and when we do that, it allows us to interact with other people from a foundation of security instead of fear. And since your needs are taken care of, you won’t be willing to put up with other people trying to take advantage of you and manipulate you too, and that can spare you a lot of suffering.

  61. So many things to say about this article, I hardly know where to start, but the first of which is WELL DONE Rollo.

    Next up:
    “So is it any real surprise that a man would see ending his own existence (and possibly the existence of his betrayer) as a logical – not to mention easy – conclusion to a life that never had even a marginal significance?”

    An incredibly powerful point.

    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.

    I understand that to someone who suffers a general sense of meaningless in his/her life, that over-inflating the importance of the primary relationship is inevitable (I know sooo many men AND women who fit this description). Is inflicting that over-importance on another person fair, reasonable, or logical? It is neither. By doing so, you are placing an incomprehensible burden on the other person to be responsible for your happiness. How can you call this love?? Its nothing more than selfishness, “Love me! Make me feel valuable and important!” How little people know about love.

    And also:
    “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.”

    A god-fearing evangelical good girl who got pregnant at 17 out of wedlock, because that’s what “good girls” do I guess…and an honorable man that did the honorable thing only AFTER he fucked this evangelical christian good girl before marrying her, because that’s what “honorable men” do I guess. And they live happily ever after…

    And so goes the self-deluding fallacy of the entire world.

    People so very often romanticize their own lack of character, and then cover up the wound with a salve like marriage (so civilized!), all to avoid facing the shame of their own humanity. This, here, is exactly the kind of thing that makes marriages fail. Ah, the human condition.

  62. 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.

    I’d argue that ONEitis, however extreme, is in fact a mental disorder – but you’d know that if you took any time to read through this blog as I’ve repeatedly suggested you do.

    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 end, but I find it interesting that you’d think that in my explaining this process you (once again) presume my justifying it. And again, my assertion isn’t about your Women’s Studies ‘male insecurity’, but rather that the male experience is one of existential uncertainty. There are plenty of very secure Alpha Men who have their run of the male sexual strategy who are nonetheless still subject to existential uncertainty.

  63. Rollo, I would love to have the time and dedication to read every one of your articles, but you are a prolific writer, your articles are lengthy, complex, and full of links and jargon for the initiated, which I then have to research. Plus I have multiple other forums i participate in, some of which contradict yours, several books I’m reading, a demanding full time job, I run two households, I take courses, I’m an aspiring writer, and am starting a business. Humor me a little, would you? Sometimes I just have to figure it out as I go along. I read them as the need arises, but I’m not made of time, though I wish I was.

    Anyway, I rationally understand how over-investing can lead to desperation, I’ve been in existential crisis before myself, in fact I think I’m having one now and sometimes it seems like there’s no reason not to just… but I mean, since we’re mostly rational now, isn’t it apparent that a pathological tendency to over-invest deserves some psychiatric consideration? It’s no coincidence that men very often refuse to seek help from professionals. Why is this? Distrust? Fear of vulnerability? Stubborn denial? I’ve always wondered about this.

  64. LT wants you to know—-Look at me. I’m soo special and important. Truth takes too long. I know how I FEEL about this anyway. Bye for now new and future orbiters…..

    Example of everything that’s wrong

    (also for fun and insight count her “I” usage)

  65. Jack of all trades, master of none. When one spreads themselves thin there will be places which are weak and unsupported. Knowledge is not power when knowledge is sparse, lacking or limited. A strong argument is built with time focused and devoted to understanding the subject, not just another chip added to a collection of hobbies. It wouldn’t be a good thing to be operated on by a doctor who had insufficient knowledge of the procedure because his time was diverted by other interests. Or one could hope he’s good at figuring it out as he goes along.

  66. LT: “Professionals” have basically become idols — icons for mindless worship. Modern medical tests are based around what pharmaceutical drugs’ patents are still in force, not on what’s actually biologically appropriate.

    I was disillusioned with psychiatry a very long time ago, and it’s very similar to disillusionment with relationships. You’re told that if you just do x, y, and z, everything will be okay. And if you don’t follow the rules, then anything bad that happens to you is your fault, because you didn’t follow the very clearly established standards — shame on you!

    If your relationship didn’t work out, it was because you didn’t treat your girlfriend like the queen that she is and weren’t attentive enough to all of her needs. If your mental health didn’t improve, it’s because you didn’t listen to your psychiatrist and didn’t do what he told you. In both cases it’s your fault for not kneeling before a golden cow, whether that golden cow is an established set of behaviors you’re supposed to follow or a regimen of powerful drugs you’re supposed to swallow.

    Various people with various mental illnesses, men and women alike, can be a lot less likely to seek treatment. There are a lot of various reasons for this.

    Instead of why some demographic of people might be reluctant to seek treatment, I think the more pertinent question is this: why is ‘treatment’ held in such a high regard these days?

    Organisms respond to the conditions of their environment. The problem is that the idea of ‘treatment’ is based on diagnosing an organism with a problem in isolation from its environment, instead of considering the environment’s role in the adaptive response(s) of the organism.

    As the saying goes, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”

  67. Fair point, softek, most people I know who’ve sought counselling don’t come out much better off than they were when they started. It’s most likely an easy money-grab.

    Anyway, sad state of affairs all around.

  68. It’s a bit difficult to not over invest when all of your disposable income goes to your ex.

  69. LT: A quote from James Stockdale comes to mind:

    “You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”

    In doing independent research in nutrition and physiology, particularly drawing a lot from the work of Ray Peat, I’ve found an incredible amount of not only hope, but actual success, in terms of my own depression, anxiety, fatigue and other issues like insomnia, where psychiatry failed me.

    It is a sad state of affairs, and there are plenty of things that’re completely screwed up in this world. And that’s why it’s important to focus on the things that aren’t. Human warmth and connection is really the best thing to fit the bill. Nothing takes me out of an existential crisis faster than that, whether it’s one of my friends coming over and getting drunk with me, or sitting by myself and imagining how I could make a difference in someone else’s life — for example, writing about my experiences going through whatever problems I’m having, and then writing about the ways I’m working through them and coping with them in order to give hope and guidance to other people going through the same thing.

    I spent a lot of time thinking romantic love was the only way to experience that warmth and connection, and I think that’s a major cause of possessiveness and co-dependence: if you believe that only one person in the whole world can give you what you need, well…that speaks for itself.

    An eye-opener for me has been seeing how reserved I used to be around people I wasn’t sexually attracted to, and how much happier I felt when I started thinking of ways I could feel more connected to and mutually supported by people completely outside the realm of romantic love.

    Apprentice-mentor and teacher-student relationships, family relationships, friendships, pets — ideally, a combination of some or all of those.

    People need each other. Humans are extremely social animals, and it’s really important that we don’t forget how valuable it is to feel loved and connected.

  70. @Softek: “People need each other. Humans are extremely social animals, and it’s really important that we don’t forget how valuable it is to feel loved and connected.”

    On the whole you might find it a case of too little, too late.

  71. @BlackPoisonSoul:

    I actually wasn’t familiar with that idiom. That says it all.

    I’ve been in the emergency room and put in the mental hospital on suicide watch a couple times before, and even these days I still wonder if I’m going to end up ending my own life. Once that digs its way into your brain, I’m not sure if it ever goes away.

    I struggle very, very hard — directly in proportion to how afraid I am to face the reality that too little, too late is how it ends up for a lot of people in this world, and that I could just as easily turn out to be one of those people.

    Back when I was in high school, one of my classmates hanged himself. I’d been to a lot of wakes and funerals, but never for someone so young. I’d just recently played music with him over a friend’s house. It felt so unreal. I can’t even express how deeply depressed and sad it makes me feel to know that people are giving up and committing suicide every day. It’s also pretty scary knowing that it could happen to anyone.

    A better word than ‘scary’ might be ‘sobering,’ though. I’ve spent most of my life with severe depression and anxiety, and largely because of that, I’ve come to believe in the value of enjoying and appreciating life, as well as the importance of confronting uncomfortable realities head on.

    Wish that pill was a little easier to swallow, but what can you do? I will say that a lot of what I’ve read here and in Rollo’s book has turned my brain upside down, but it’s helped me to feel a lot more resilient and it’s given me a clearer understanding of myself and why I’ve experienced some of the things I have.

    Tragedy happens, but that doesn’t mean that we’re powerless to do anything about it. The Starfish short story comes to mind — you can’t make such a big difference that no more tragedies will ever happen again, but you can make enough of a difference to prevent a tragedy in at least one person’s life.

  72. “D-Man, January 8th, 2014 at 3:02 pm: …There is no woman in this day and age, who is physically beautiful, who has no history at all, who will be completely devoted to you through to her core, and never size you up, and who has zero imagination when it comes to other men. Not with the way they’re wired, and certainly not with the encouragement they get from the culture at large….There is no possessing them. Great men have come undone in the attempt.”

    Absolutely freaking right. Excellent post.

    One of the results of all this is that American culture incentivizes far different behavior from men than it did in the past. Despite all the “men are scum” propaganda from the feminists of the past, most men used to devote their labor and their lives to the welfare of a woman and her children. Men no longer have that incentive and in fact are often destroyed by women if they try to live that role. Men today are incentivized to be sociopaths and a nation of sociopathic men is going to be a whole hell of a lot different from what has come before.

  73. As a few comments on recent posts regarding the “male hamster” have been made, it appears the conception that males are more than capable of rationalizing their situation may be garnering importance. Let us look at this post as an example.

    First, Rollo makes the claim that “He was by no means a saint, and for all of his dedication to his family and wife, his main fault was his possessiveness;” and “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.”

    At this point, Rollo never draws the conclusion that the sister-in-law leaving was the brother-in-law’s fault, however he goes on to elaborate. “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;” and “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.”

    He then goes on to relink a previous article regarding what he terms “dissociative indifference” as a more appropriate response. This raises the question, a more appropriate response to achieve what ends? The only clear answers are either to keep the girl or move on with minimal psycological damage.

    Rollo may readily admit that his fundamental aims are no different those employing the possessiveness strategy, but it is unclear.

    Now look at his brother-in-law’s situation more closely. Would “dissociative indifference” strategically displayed throughout his relationship generated a different outcome when a millionaire showed up to sweep his wife away?

    “So why not Mrs. Tomassi too, right?” Yes. why not Mrs. Tomassi, as well? The only clear thing is that the decision was and would not be made by either the brother-in-law or Rollo.

    Now examine the statement provided by Softek; “Organisms respond to the conditions of their environment. The problem is that the idea of ‘treatment’ is based on diagnosing an organism with a problem in isolation from its environment.” If you have read this far, please go back and reread from the beginning of this post.

    ——————————

    In another comment, Mr. C states “In a simplistic way,the behavior of both men and women is largely determined by what they believe that they can get away with; based on the previous experience of social feedback and social conditioning.”

    Let’s look at “Alpha Buddha” Corey (the kid that had a party and destroyed thousands of dollars in property. Why does what he did illicit comparisons to alpha behavior?

    If, instead of appearing on national television aloof and in sunglasses, his male neighbors had beaten him into a coma, would he be headlining as an “alpha buddha?”

    Now let’s look back at the brother-in-laws situation. If his society dealt with infidelity the way many historical societies have and some still do, would he still have the same outlook. That is to say, if the social response was to execute the cheating wife and demand repayment to him from the millionaire (or execute the male as well if he was unable to pay the debt), would he have been rationalizing how he’d messed up? Such societies would have viewed the interloper as turning his wife into a toxic liability, eliminated her from his (and the society’s) balance sheet, and demanded compensation.

  74. And on a not entirely unrelated note, Rollo’s use of “going feral” is still incoherent.

    How is leaving your husband in a society which has normalized divorce “reverting to a wild state?”

    Nearly all of Rollo’s posts regard using evo-psych or similar to explain things in a supposedly “objective” manner, but then he inserts an enormous (and antisocial) value judgement into what defines domestication.

  75. jf12 on women in social media
    (This blocking and unblocking is yet another characteristically female cycle.)

    Very similar to the “I’m leaving! I won’t talk with you people any more! I”m done!” comments routinely left by women on this and other reality-based men’s sites — almost always followed by another comment, from the same woman, sometimes only a few minutes later.

  76. oh living tree.

    this is going to sound harsh, but thats ok.

    you need to understand finally how the superior man considers you, lest you think that the experiences that form the ……adolescence…. of your thoughts are anything but whisps of reason and momentary electrical and chemical impulses that are crossing the barrier between your hypothalamus/amygdala and underutilized pre-frontal cortex. your ability to concisely convey your damaged hypothesis are imoressive sure, but remember that even when you win the Special Olympics you are still retarded.

    my favorite quote for girls like you:

    “To be disappointed in women is like being disappointed in your dog. Or your cordless drill.
    Dominate them completely and they will stand by while you molest babies. No woman is a person.”

    think about this as the overarching consideration in which you are held before you speak again. i look forward to your next contribution 🙂

  77. @AR, yes, good example. Another is that when a woman is in charge of a blog site then she tends to prohibit commenters much more willynilly than when a man is in charge. I think the overarching principle may be best described as saying women are a lot snittier than men.

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