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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

Speak your mind

153 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Different T
Different T
7 years ago

It’s not clear if you are trying to understand my comments or not. I read your post on the pet. To draw another analogy, please read these comments in order, listen to the song (if you can stand it), and then read on… It’s a mistake (and sometimes a fatal one) to ignore what you know is just under the surface. It’s comforting to believe that you’ve got a special connection, and while the conditions are right, you’ll preserve a relationship based on mutual trust and shared affinity. The flaw is in believing that trust, and kinship is unconditional; that… Read more »

Different T
Different T
7 years ago

Addendum: And would a woman in such a society be concerned with “understanding the damage [she] is capable of inflicting and holding [herself] back” and how “magical” she is.

Tilikum
7 years ago

getting a little ‘spergy in here T…..

deep breaths, eh?

trackback

[…] 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 […]

Never Mind the Balzac
Never Mind the Balzac
7 years ago

@living tree ” I have multiple other forums i participate in, some of which contradict yours”

Could you post a link to some of your comments on these sites. It may give us a better idea of where you’re coming from.

NMB

livingtree2013
7 years ago

Yeah, haha, not likely to happen NMTB. I’m not even publishing yet, and I’ve already been stalked by extremist nutjobs too insecure to take even the slightest threat to his masculine identity. Why just a few posts back, my good friend Tilikum just reminded me that because I’m a woman, that I’m retarded, not a real person, and compared me to a dog.

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/

I’m not referring to you necessarily NMTB, but I’m sure you understand my reluctance.

Water Cannon Boy
Water Cannon Boy
7 years ago

If a society kills women for infidelity, then it’s possible that a man would have a different outlook on women. Seems killing them for it shows they do. Whether it affects the woman’s outlook on what damage they can cause I’m not sure. You could say no, because if they kill a woman for infidelity and women still commit infidelity, maybe their outlook doesn’t change. Unless you’re saying that they haven’t killed any women for it, but if they do that hammer’s coming down hard. But then again, maybe there wasn’t any infidelity and that gets used as a way… Read more »

Water Cannon Boy
Water Cannon Boy
7 years ago

As for Softek’s statement. I took that as saying, you come to a doctor with problems, you get treatment to take away what you tell him is wrong, or attempt to. Like telling a doctor about headaches, fatigue, breathing problems. You get treatment to take those away. You don’t get, at least initially, the old paint with lead in it and mold cleaned up at the old apartment building you live in that’s causing the problems.
But it’s his statement, so he could mean something else.

Water Cannon Boy
Water Cannon Boy
7 years ago

Not all nutjobs are like that, Tree.

livingtree2013
7 years ago

Ah, what a surprise (not at all). I figured it wouldn’t be too long before this forum would start discussing killing women for infidelity.

livingtree2013
7 years ago

Very funny WCB, NANJALT!

I’m sure most nutjobs restrain themselves from their natural extremist inclinations due to, um, morality, law and other inconvenient stuff like that, but there’s the minority who don’t let cumbersome social constraints such as civil rights stand in their way. Its difficult to tell which ones have that kind of restraint. They seem normal in person, but behind the veil of internet anonymity, the insanity can be set free.

livingtree2013
7 years ago

Discussing and promoting are different, that is true Rollo, but I’m quite completely certain that rationally “discussing” it is exactly how nearly every atrocity in human history was begun.

And I don’t expect to hear you discussing killing men for infidelity any time soon. Or for any reason, probably. Yet I seem to recall a few articles back getting lambasted by your gang of tyrants for even subtly suggesting that eugenics may not have been all bad.

Water Cannon Boy
Water Cannon Boy
7 years ago

Is keeping a gang of tyrants due to an insecurity?

livingtree2013
7 years ago

Oh come now, WCB, you know full well there are more than a few insecure tyrants on this forum who would be dangerous to individual liberty if they gained any form of clout.

Water Cannon Boy
Water Cannon Boy
7 years ago

Maybe so. I just don’t think Rollo has any possession over them. They’re all incoherently feral.

Different T
Different T
7 years ago

As for Softek’s statement. I took that as saying, you come to a doctor with problems, you get treatment to take away what you tell him is wrong, or attempt to. Like telling a doctor about headaches, fatigue, breathing problems. You get treatment to take those away. You don’t get, at least initially, the old paint with lead in it and mold cleaned up at the old apartment building you live in that’s causing the problems. What if the doctor simply says you need to adapt to the lead and mold. And if that does not work, come back for… Read more »

livingtree2013
7 years ago
Reply to  Different T

Right, Different T, for that treatment you have to see a different professional. A non-psych based one. Sometimes the solutions are not where we think they are.

Water Cannon Boy
Water Cannon Boy
7 years ago

I’d call that bad advice. Or you could say you don’t adapt to the lead, you adapt what you can adapt because of the lead.
But telling them to adapt to the lead, even though wrong, is still an acknowledgement that part of the problem lies within the environment.

Different T
Different T
7 years ago

@ Water Cannon Boy I’d call that bad advice[…] But telling them to adapt to the lead, even though wrong, is still an acknowledgement that part of the problem lies within the environment. No. If the solution is adaption, the problem is the organism’s inability to adapt. Again, much of the manosphere’s efforts are spent hamsterbating about the outcomes of situations which were not in their control. It is a form of “treatment.” The “treatment” is effective (that is to say, deadens the worst pain) because it shifts the cause (even of failure) back within the patients control. This allows… Read more »

Water Cannon Boy
Water Cannon Boy
7 years ago

If you think that the only way to adapt is for the organism to do it. Or, with an example like lead, you have something you don’t adapt to. It’s poisonous. To me, much of the manosphere discussion(only the parts I’ve read) is about seeing clearly, being aware. Not necessarily outcomes. I don’t go through a lot of blogs. Your take could be different. I read some of the post in this blog and I can relate it to some people I’ve known and dealt with. Many things said in this blog i knew about. But there are many people… Read more »

Different T
Different T
7 years ago

If you think that the only way to adapt is for the organism to do it. Huh? Is it correct to assume your contrasting the organism adapting to the organism changing its environment? Or, with an example like lead, you have something you don’t adapt to. It’s poisonous. Is it correct to assume you mean that removing the lead is not adapting? If those assumptions are correct, this point contradicts your previous point. To me, much of the manosphere discussion(only the parts I’ve read) is about seeing clearly, being aware. Not necessarily outcomes. The manosphere very rarely, if ever, “reports… Read more »

Water Cannon Boy
Water Cannon Boy
7 years ago

I was saying that changing the environment is adapting. As opposed to another form would be a change in the organism. May have mistaken you as saying adapting means a change in the organism. Like the wood frog. If by facts you mean there’s a lack of formally done studies, scientific process, then yes. No doubt. However, it’s enough for me and a lot of people to recount many experiences in their lives and what they see in others. Rollo and other people that I’ve come across have been very clear that they aren’t coming from a scientifically done starting… Read more »

livingtree2013
7 years ago
Reply to  Rollo Tomassi

Yes, Rollo, that’s what “philosophy” is really – someone thinks too much about a particular topic, creates completely unsupported theories designed for the purpose of guiding one’s experiences in life, and learning how to better argue those theories. Little more. There generally is no reliance on “science” to a philosopher, the theories are supported merely by observation and thought. Spartan boys used to get schooled in it as early as seven years. Marcus Aurelius’s private education was almost exclusively in the subject of philosophy and rhetoric, as was the majority of well known thinkers of the classical period. This is… Read more »

Different T
Different T
7 years ago

If Aristotle were resurrected and given a blog, every other comment would be a demand for him to back up his insights with a peer reviewed study

Do you agree that it is sometimes best to just call a whore, a whore, without any discussion of hypergamy, or the feminine imperative, or use of any evolutionary psychology model or explanation?

Just Saying
Just Saying
7 years ago

“doesn’t deserve the woman he’s locked down ” – as a reason for possession Hmmm… I can see where this could be a functional reason if the man has decided to limit himself to just one women. I know that I have a core group of women – of whom I demand they see only me – while I can see anyone – and a group that I see when I want and is convenient for both of us. That second group is usually involved with others (who do not know about me), and while there are certain demands I… Read more »

Anonymous Reader
Anonymous Reader
7 years ago

LyingTree2013
Oh come now, WCB, you know full well there are more than a few insecure tyrants on this forum who would be dangerous to individual liberty if they gained any form of clout.

Looking in the mirror while posting, are we?

LiveFearless
7 years ago

@Rollo I’m not drawing attention to SSM to run her up the flagpole for this assumption

Go easy on @SunshineMary (blog) has been surpassed in Alexa rankings by http://eighthrising.com/2013/10/28/10-marriage-tips-every-wife-needs-to-hear/ @eighthrising has listed the Matt Walsh blog on its blogroll. It takes funding and magic to make this happen so suddenly for Eighthrising.

@SSM ‘s credit, it does appear that @SunshineMary’s blog has grown naturally (without funding or power from unnamed sources).

What entities fund The Matt Walsh Blog? It is interconnected with the presence of ‘Jenny Erikson’ blogs.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsfvELCU0gQ&w=640&h=360]

DarkHorse
DarkHorse
7 years ago

Rollo, I’ve been reading your blog and the countless truths such as AWALT, and one-itis, etc. and it really is a service to other men that you bring them these hidden truths. I think cultural conditioning and bad parenting is the root cause. I was raised in a conservative Mexican household and my own mother would espouse red-pill truths. “To women: never give them all your money nor all your love” “Don’t try to save a woman, she likes the bad life (based on her choices)”. were common refrains. She would occasionally go into the deceitful nature of women, and… Read more »

Ray Wolfson
7 years ago

if you think into it logically, many other animals do not have such a penis with a knob on the end for scooping sperm, and this is because their mating strategy is very fixed… the male proves himself (or in the case of herd animals has already proved himself as the alpha of the pack)… mates… and the female will then refuse to mate with others…. this strategy suits animals better, because the female is more or less equal to the male physically…. thus if a male tries to force himself on a female, he will very likely be injured… Read more »

paul paul
paul paul
6 years ago

Discovered your blog a few weeks ago, while trying to make sense of my past four relationships, and about 10 years of life pissed away under the constant obsession with the “ONE.” It is a tremendous help. I am daily rethinking concepts and understanding my numerous errors. To put it mildly, it is a mind fuck. I am going to read your entire blog, and peers use carefully Dalrock and Roissy. If anyone has any recommendations, they are appreciated. In many ways, your writing has been a pillar if not a life saver. As Bukowsky’s poetry in other tough moments… Read more »

paul paul
paul paul
6 years ago

Peer use – peruse. Spell check.

trackback
6 years ago

[…] into a Beta Tell is when a man’s lifestyle revolves around ‘keeping’ her in a possessive sense for fear of losing her because she’s his only viable option for sending his genetic material […]

trackback

[…] explains why “mate-guarding” is an ineffective behavior that is indicative of BETA status: Back in his earlier work Roissy had an interesting post about […]

thomasso75
5 years ago

Can you end up in a situation, where i woman is actually getting more respect for you due to you setting up boundaries, etc, tell her no GNO, and at the same time, loose alpha attraction for you as you signal scarcity mindset?

Is possessiveness always bad?
Is possessiveness always bad?
10 months ago

Hey Rollo, I accidentally stumbled upon some of your work and I have to say, I respect the amount of effort that you have put into your work and how it has seemingly helped a lot of men hopefully become healthier. However, I struggle with digesting some of the logic here. From my own experience and observation, possessiveness seems to be deemed attractive if she has already demonstrated desire for the other person, and vice versa that it becomes a killer if it is from the wrong person (I agree with you on that). However, is it always considered bad?… Read more »

Sentient
Sentient
10 months ago

“Let’s you and him fight ”

Who is the winner here?

153
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
%d bloggers like this: