Intersexual Hierarchies –Part II


Hierarchy2

Don’t wait for the good woman. She doesn’t exist. There are women who can make you feel more with their bodies and their souls but these are the exact women who will turn the knife into you right in front of the crowd. Of course, I expect this, but the knife still cuts. The female loves to play man against man, and if she is in a position to do it there is not one who will resist. The male, for all his bravado and exploration, is the loyal one, the one who generally feels love. The female is skilled at betrayal and torture and damnation. Never envy a man his lady. Behind it all lies a living hell. – Charles Bukowski

For my more optimistic readers, you’ll be happy to know I don’t entirely agree with Mr. Bukowski’s sentiment here, however Charles gives us a great introduction to the next progressions of intersexual hierarchies. While I’m not sure every woman is as skilled as the next in betrayal, torture and damnation as Charles’ waxes poetic about, I do believe that his understanding of the male nature is not only accurate, but that male nature is actually the source of his equating women with betrayal, torture and damnation. It’s not that women are inherently evil, it’s that men’s idealism make them so available to being betrayed, tortured and damned.

If you’re at all familiar with Charles Bukowski, you’ll know he was one of the last true son’s of bitches – the unapologetic epitome of gloriously arrogant self-concern and masculine independence. For what he lacked in polish he made up for in talent and a brutal honesty that could never be acknowledged in the fem-centrism of today. In the mid 60’s he was a feral, instinctually red pill Man.

Charles, for all his musing on women, knew that it was the male nature that facilitated women’s damaging of men. The feminists of his generation and today simply dismiss him as a relic of a misogynist era, but his real insight was about men’s inner workings.

“The male, for all his bravado and exploration, is the loyal one, the one who generally feels love.” I’d like to believe that Bukowski was ahead of his time with this, however I think it’s more accurate to presume that, due to a constant feminine-primary socialization, men have been conditioned to interpret love under feminine pretexts, rather than acknowledging men and women approach love from different concepts.

In light of these differing, often conflicting, concepts of male-idealistic and female-opportunistic love, it’s easy to see how a man might find women duplicitous, torturous and damnable – particularly when his feminine ‘sensitivity training’ predisposes him to believe women share the same love idealism he’s been encouraged to believe.

Hierarchy2

The Feminine Primary Model

The Feminine Primary model of love is the idealistic fantasy the vast majority of men have been conditioned to presume is a universal model of love. In this fantasy a woman reciprocates that same idealism he has about how she should feel about him based on his concept of love. That love eventually has to (potentially) include children, but the fantasy begins for him with a woman’s concept of love agreeing with his own love-for-love’s-sake approach, rather than the performance-based, opportunistic approach women require of men in order to love them.

The best illustration I can apply to this model is found in the very tough lessons taught in the movie Blue Valentine. You can read the synopsis, but the plot of this film graphically outlines the conflict that occurs when a man conflates his idealism of the feminine primary model of love with women’s opportunistic model of love. That idealism is exacerbated by a feminine-primary conditioning since early childhood which prepares him to expect girls and women will share in it.

When you look at this model objectively you can’t help but see the Disney-esque, blue pill promise of a mutually reciprocated love. Men being the true romantics predispose themselves to wanting to believe this model is really the only acceptable model. The dispelling of the fantasy this model represents is one of the most difficult aspects of coming to terms with red pill awareness – in fact one of the primary reasons men become hostile to the red pill is an inability to imagine any other possible model.

Most men’s dispelling of this fantasy comes after he’s reached the ‘happily ever after’ part of this schema and he realizes the conditionality his wife places on her terms for loving him. He comes to the realization that women’s love model is based upon what he is before who he is.

While there is a definitive conditionality placed on her love, men don’t necessarily expect an unconditional love. It’s usually at this stage that men are conveniently expected (or expect themselves) to ‘Man Up’ and earn a woman’s mutually reciprocated love by adopting the male responsibility aspects of the first, conventional model. As Gustavo describes, “a man provides” and for all of his previous equalist conditioning that made him believe a woman would “love him as he loves her” he blames his inability to achieve that idealistic love on himself for not living up to being a “man” deserving of the feminine primary model of ideal love.

What he’s really done is convinced himself into accepting a woman’s opportunistic model while retaining the idealism he’s been conditioned never to reject – thereby leaving her blameless in her own concept of love.

It’s hard to consider this model without presuming a woman’s manipulative intent of a man, but let me state emphatically that, for the better part, I believe most women simply aren’t specifically aware of the mechanics behind this intersexual hierarchy model. Through any number of ways women are socialized to presume that their feminine-primary position implies that men should necessarily take the life and maturity steps needed to fulfill women’s opportunistic approach over the course of their lifetime.

We like to bemoan this as feminine entitlement, and yes it can get, and is getting abusively out of hand, but this entitlement and expectation originates in women’s opportunistic approach towards love.

Men are the “romantics pretending to be realists” and women; vice versa.

Hierarchy3

The Subdominant Model

Lastly we come to male subdominant model wherein a man, by conditioning and circumstance, expects love from a woman as he would from a mothering dynamic. Often this situation seems to result from an overly enthusiastic belief in absolute gender equality and parallelism, but the underlying motivation is really an abdication of masculinity and, by association, abdication of conventional masculine responsibility. There simply is no presumption of masculine ‘headship’ prior to, or into a long term relationship.

I outline the origins of this hierarchy model in Pre-Whipped:

These are the men I call pre-whipped; men so thoroughly conditioned, men who’ve so internalized that conditioning, that they mentally prepare themselves for total surrender to the Feminine Imperative, that they already make the perfect Beta provider before they even meet the woman for whom they’ll make their sacrifice.

The social undercurrent of an ideal gender equalism plays an active role in creating these men, and specifically this hierarchical model. Unfortunately the social and / or personal illusion of control this model is idealistically based on is usually overshadowed by the male-dominant / female-submissive expectations of the more naturally fluid conventional love model.

These are the ‘house husband’ arrangements, and the ‘gender is a social construct’ relationships. While the hope is one of a realized egalitarian equalism within the relationship, the psychological struggle eventually becomes one of dominant and submissive gender expectations in the pairing.

From Master and Servant:

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

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

For all of the mental and social awareness necessitated by this equalist fantasy, men subscribing to this model inevitably fall into a submissive (conventionally feminine) role. As the red pill gods would have it Heartiste had a timely post outlining all of the logistical failing of this arrangement today, but underneath all of the trappings that make this model seem imbalanced is the reversal of conventional roles which place women into the love flow state men are better suited for since their approach to love originates from idealism (and not a small amount of martyr-like sacrifice for that idealism).

Essentially this model forces a woman not only to mother her children, but also her husband.

In the beginning of this series I stated that men and women’s approach to love was ultimately complementary to one another and in this last model we can really see how the two dovetail together. That may seem a bit strange at this point, but when social influences imbalance this conventional complement we see how well the two come together.

When a woman’s opportunistic approach to love is cast into the primary, dominant love paradigm for a couple, and a family, that pairing and family is now at the mercy of an opportunism necessitated by that woman’s hypergamy and the drive to optimize it. Conversely, when a man’s idealistic approach to love is in the dominant frame (as in the conventional model) it acts as a buffer to women’s loving opportunism that would otherwise imbalance and threaten the endurance of that family and relationship.

From Heartiste’s post:

7. Arguments about chores, money, sex life, and romance were highest in couples where the woman made all or most of the decisions. Female decision-making status was an even stronger determinant of relationship dissatisfaction than female breadwinner status. Women can handle making more money in a relationship, but they despise being the leader in a relationship.

8. Argument frequency decreased among female breadwinners if they were not the primary decision-makers. Lesson for men: You can have a happy relationship with a woman who makes more than you as long as you remain the dominant force in her non-work life. Or: GAME SAVES MARRIAGES.

When a woman’s love concept is the dominant one, that relationship will be governed by her opportunism and the quest for her hypergamic optimization. The ultimate desired end of that optimization is a conventional love hierarchy where a dominant Man is the driving, decisive member of that sexual pairing.

246 comments

  1. The work of true mastery:

    …conditioning since early childhood which prepares him to expect girls and women will share in it.

    When you look at this model objectively you can’t help but see the Disney-esque, blue pill promise of a mutually reciprocated love. Men being the true romantics predispose themselves to wanting to believe this model is really the only acceptable model.~Rollo Tomassi

    EXACTLY.

    It. Is. Conditioning. Just don’t try to explain it to anyone that watches television… or anyone that has a Facebook… or anyone that…

  2. I kept batting these two models back and forth, searching for a ‘right one’, realizing that neither of them work. The conventional model from part I – that seems preferable to both of these.

    I’m wondering at the deepest level why male-idealistic love even wants the Feminine Primary model. Is it simply FI-centric conditioning?

    Obviously the female-opportunistic Subdominant model below is overrun with dysfunctional relational phenomena at its core. But it’s the male-idealistic Feminine Primary model that men ‘want’ that seems to tie in, ironically, to Heartiste’s previous post yesterday about appeasement in LTRs. When a man in the Feminine Primary model actually *desires* to man-up and earn that love via merit, he’s by definition appeasing his woman – which kills her desire and robs her of happiness. One of Heartiste’s points was that beta men are intractably unwilling to acknowledge how much of an indifferent ‘asshole’ you could be while still retaining her attraction…

    But then he goes a step quite farther: it is in being the indifferent ‘asshole’ that her hypergamy is satisfied. Conversely, it is in ‘manning-up’ and intending/endeavoring to earn that love – even if it’s via the most traditionally masculine means imaginable – that kills her attraction, dampens her happiness, and puts her hypergamous wandering eye back to work.

    We know in analyzing both of the models presented here in part II – that neither of the two is ultimately beneficial to our love style or to our relationship’s functional health, period. How then, to provide the steadfast dominance and provisioning directionality that is the foundation of the conventional love model in part I – while also sating her hypergamy via asshole-ish indifference, unapologetic self-interest, and refusal to prioritize the FI? That seems to be a lingering question.

  3. “”When a woman’s love concept is the dominant one, that relationship will be governed by her opportunism and the quest for her hypergamic optimization. “”

    Right. What holds most guys back is the “fear” of “losing” the opportunity to meet, to date, to bang, to marry etc etc.

    This scarcity mentality causes guys to needlessly cave in to a demand or two and that prompts him to lower his value in her eyes.

  4. The pre-whipped explanation in this post is another way for illustrating a male “vagina mentality”. That is: the majority of men are so driven by sexual thoughts and relinquishments, no matter how infrequent it is and excessively giving and endeavoured they need to be to get there in the first place, that they are willing to sacrifice, offer and be taken for granted far beyond the true value of the woman he eventually acquires.

    In view of the above, and although I certainly wouldn’t compliment them for it, you can kind understand why a naive man with no red pill comprehension acts this way when he secures a woman who is well above him in physical impressiveness terms. However, when men are exerting beyond the call of duty with run of the mill looking women (as the vast majority of women are), it defies belief when they feel the necessity to run with this process.

    As a link to this post, the below will give further back up to predicaments men will face when poor choices are made:

    http://www.vinaywcmd.com/2014/04/diamonds-to-divorce-whirlwind-2-year.html

  5. Excellent post. I think I’m starting ti get what you’re trying to say.

    An addendum onto the “Master and Servant” extract and following text. Whilst women are conditioned to believe they don’t need men and given everything they supposedly need (resources, safety and emotional support), women still don’t feel provided for or supported without the support of a man or men. This is why “independent” modern women engage in shit-tests rather than actual testing (as brought to my attention by Autistic Gamer, credit where credit’s due), why they flit from man to man and feel dissatisfied when not in a relationship, why they collect beta orbiters, why they don’t want to stay somewhere at night unless a man they trust is present. Modern women, for all they are given, still subconsciously want a man, because no amount of food, shelter, armed force or affection is worth ANYTHING when none of it comes from a man. We’re biologically designed to seek men who provide these things, not these things in and of themselves.

  6. Give a woman fish and she’ll eat for a day. Teach her to fish and she’ll eat for a lifetime. Give her a fisherman and she’ll marry him rather than take your fish or fish her own.

    Disclaimers:
    NAWALT.
    Hypergamy or personal preference sometimes means she’ll have the hunter or gatherer over the fisherman.
    Modern society messes this dynamic up, it’s just an outline.

  7. I did have this idealistic mode of thinking until my mid to late teens when I saw girls for what they were worth, but then I figured that women were right in how they see relationships so I view women through opportunistic eyes also. If you can’t offer me what I want, I’m out.

  8. “It’s not that women are inherently evil, it’s that men’s idealism make them so available to being betrayed, tortured and damned.”

    Excellent distinction. IF you know you are handling a dangerous substance and you use the right protection, you are far less likely to get hurt. Its important for both men AND women to both know a woman’s capability for damage and protect against it.

  9. Great post. BUT — has anyone provided anything more than anecdotal evidence to substantiate the assertion that ‘the male, for all his bravado and exploration, is the loyal one, the one who generally feels love’?

    I’m as big a fan of Bukowski as I am of this blog, and certainly it feels intuitively correct to say that men are the true romantics. However, I have also seen many men operate out of their own version of hypergamy — I’ve done it myself. There have been numerous occasions where I have dumped a girl in order to ‘trade up’ for a better one. And a colleague of mine recently left his long-term girlfriend to shack up with a hotter, richer model. Granted, these are anecdotal examples too, but my point is that men are as capable of opportunistic behavior as women, provided they have the necessary options in the sexual marketplace to engage in it.

    My question, then, is this: are men and women’s inherent operating systems really so different? Is men’s sense of ‘honour’ more frequently borne out of beta-tude and a lack of opportunity than anything finer? And are women simply ‘corrupted’ by the greater power they (frequently) wield in the sexual market?

    Before anyone weighs in, I fully understand the ‘nurture’ component of this — that men are raised in a culture that trains them to view romantic relations in a particular way that supports the feminine imperative. But my suspicion is that, at a base level, the genders may not be so different, all things being equal (and yes, of course, all things will never be equal, but . . .) We are all animals, out for ourselves. Happy to be proved wrong, though.

  10. Most men are loyal like Labrador Retrievers. You can kick them over and over again and they keep coming back, happy for the attention. (Not that I’d kick a Lab.)

    The observation on women’s outlook and their self-deception about it was made clear to me last year. I needed some ankle surgery to repair an old sports injury exacerbated by military service and reaching 40-something-dom. I was laid up for most of two months. My wife asked why I was depressed and I told her it was because I couldn’t do shit – no gym time, no bike time, no pickup football with the guys in the neighborhood, and I was very limited in the work I could do. A lawyer who can’t meet with clients or travel, these days, can be pretty limited. She told me not to worry about it, a man is more than the sum of what he can do. “Oh no, it’s about who you are as a person, not what you can do!” was her reply. I laughed her off and told her that I define myself by what I do, not by who I am; and that ultimately what I do actually is who I am. She didn’t get that.

    Around the same time some friends of ours got divorced. He is a high achieving lesser Alpha professional, rolling in money and working in a high profile job, respected in our local community. His ex-wife, as of last winter, was a fading 7, post-wall, who was unhaaaaaapy.* She filed for the divorce because, well, she can’t say, just because she had to, according to my wife. No abuse or other issues, but the spark was gone or something. He’s a very nice guy as super high achievers go, the family friendship is mainly based on my friendship with him, we have a deep mutual respect for each other – he’s a very principled and thoughtful guy, smart, loyal, honest and kind; exactly the type of guy you want for a friend. My wife observed, “that woman is stupid… she completely had it made with that guy… nice house, beach house, vacations, and he seems nice enough. What woman would break up with him? She’s a moron.” My wife was oblivious to the fact that she defines our mutual friend almost entirely by his material achievments and his capability to be a good provider, rather than by the thing I (and my buddies) judge him by, his excellent character.

    So what she says she thinks when she’s talking to me, is about exactly the opposite of what she says when she’s giving a candid opinion about some other guy. I don’t hold this lack of self-awareness against her; the water in Narcissus’ pool only shows a dim reflection, and I don’t think there are many women who can use that particular mirror to get a really good view of themselves.

  11. Great article. It’s great to see the rubes game that is romantic love taken apart so cleanly. When you bring in the ideas of chivalry and courtly love, and see how clearly these values became reflected and even central to art and culture at times – just consider medieval romance literature – it becomes even clearer how men have gotten so sideways with women.

    It’s not as though men’s relationships with women haven’t always been troublesome, but before romance/chivarlic/courtly gynocentrism emerges in the 13th century c.e., many cultures had a much less femcentric way of seeing things. The phenomena of addictive love was seen as poisonous for a man – Lucretius in his epic work, On the Nature of Things, talked of how men must avoid that ‘shot with an arrow’ kind of overwhelming love of a woman. That the “need” for just one woman meant death to happiness for a man.

    I think feminism arises from these conditions – it’s to possible without women having such a twisted emotional sense of themselves and men. Peter Wright goes into this in great depth on gynocentrism.com. The most actionable insight is that women really like men better who don’t actually give a shit about them, as they like winning a prize that is of value. Fyi, if you have no social/sexual value, they will simply treat you like you are invisible usually. It’s too bad I walked around for 50 years on this planet pretending women were something other than they were, and trying to be something that didn’t even make me happy in the first place. Sigh…

  12. As a first time commenter I’d like to thank Mr. Tomassi for the extremely illuminating and helpful posts. There is an epiphany I arrived to, maybe it is something you have elaborated on another posts (?), or could serve as an idea to elaborate on in the future:

    Both men and women internalize gender as a part of their identity, but only women seem to feel a _collective belonging_ to ‘womanhood’. To be sure, there is an abstract concept of manhood as a sort of ideal to live up to, and as a sufficient standard of performance has been met, one may call oneself a ‘man’. This is manifested in the initiation rites and corresponding social norms in every known culture. But there is no men as a group you belong to by the virtue of birth. If anything, this relationship is antagonistic. To be a man is to compete and win over other men.

    With women, they seem to feel there is a collective group of all women they are part of, observe:
    -Women groups where gender is completely irrelevant: women lawyers, conservative women, coder women, women dieters …
    -How many women self-refer as ‘a woman’: “As a woman in business…”, One can readily observe the ‘woman this and woman that’ in the media.
    -Injustices against an individual are readily perceived as an injustice towards a group of women.
    To make the most lucid example of this dynamic, try reversing this:
    -In Finland, there is a women’s magazine called “Us, Women” aka. “Me Naiset”. This is literal collective identification. The whole premise of “Us, Men” is utterly ridiculous, on a deep seated subconscious level.

    Why is this? For the same reason trade unions exist. Feminine imperative can be seen as the act of leveraging the collective power of the trade union, and collective identification of ‘womanhood’ is a psychological manifestation of this. Mr. Tomassi has elaborated on this before, so just a brief example:
    -To be a man is to defend your country => Go fight and possibly die in a pointless war to protect us or you have no access to the reproductive resources.
    -To be a man is to take responsibility and provide => As a condition of this labor agreement, to receive reproductive access, this is the minimum level of provisioning I except.

    The statement “us women are oppressed” is not intended as a statement of a fact, even if it were true, but similar to “us metal workers are oppressed”. It is a convenient rationalization to resort to when leveraging your power in negotiations and broadcasting the existence of that power. Lesser negotiation position in men’s part due to women’s provisioning for themselves contributes to both the cultural increase of beta-deferentialness (betaness) and culture’s woman-referentialness (feminization).

    There are good biological reasons why men are not able to form a similar trade union. As a cartel membership grows, the gains for an individual violating the membership grows. In free markets most cartels seem to not be able to form. In reproductive terms, the gender gains are asymmetrical. It is not a great loss if one woman breaks away from the reproductive cartel, since few men benefit from this. But one man breaking away from a reproductive cartel is enough to fertilize all women in a tribe. In addition, the gains from having the cartel, or the losses of lacking one, are great for women: not having women to fight a war is a great benefit, where I cannot come up with many additional demands to be placed on women which would have benefited men greatly.
    To facilitate understanding, one may take a stone cold analytical approach or alternatively try to simulate thinking, empathize, from the other point of view. Incorporating the collective identification to one’s simulation helps me greatly to understand why men and women behave the way they do.

    TL;DR: womanhood is the biggest trade union in the world, feminine imperative is the act of leveraging this, and collective identification as ‘a woman’ is the psychological manifestation of this.

  13. Decisions are made together if they concern both partners, or with the other’s advice when it concerns one partner.
    There’s only a problem when the woman wants to decide for the couple or the man, or when the couple disagrees.

    Any dominance issues can be resolved in bed, instead of by creating an unhealthy dynamic, and by being Alpha outside the relationship.

    I love my woman because she’s beautiful, smart, humorous, and so on… but I stay in a happy relationship with her because my needs (sexual and culinary) are being met, and they’re being met because I demand they’re met and can do so because I meet hers.
    I think men ideallistically would like their needs being met without them having to watch over it. That’s the same as how women would like men to do chores without them having to remind men of it.

  14. @troyfrancis

    ..has anyone provided anything more than anecdotal evidence to substantiate the assertion that ‘the male, for all his bravado and exploration, is the loyal one, the one who generally feels love’?…

    …There have been numerous occasions where I have dumped a girl in order to ‘trade up’ for a better one. And a colleague of mine recently left his long-term girlfriend to shack up with a hotter, richer model. Granted, these are anecdotal examples too, but my point is that men are as capable of opportunistic behavior as women, provided they have the necessary options in the sexual marketplace to engage in it.

    Well, first, you can’t provide objective evidence of emotion in the first place. So asking for anything more than anecdotal is asking for a faster-than-light automobile. Second, you actually answer your own question, when you use the proviso “provided they have the … options”. Men, generally, do not have as many SMP options as women, in fact if I were to put a number on it, I’d say the average man has 1/10th the options as the average woman, even presuming their SMV’s are within a point of each other. So comparing male hypergamic behavior when it only occurs at most a 10% clip to female hypergamy, is kind of a waste of time. Sure, it does exist, and men with options can practice it… again, that caveat, men with options. In other words, high alphas, rock stars, movie stars, politicians… etc… you have to go pretty far down in the female attractiveness spectrum before you get to women who do not have the same sexual options as a male rock star.

  15. @Troy,

    What is statistically more significant; 70+% of all divorces being initiated by women or the >5% occurrences of men possessing the SMV, affluence, social proof and/or Game-awareness to entertain the idea of ‘trading up’?

    The concept of a “Trophy Wife” is a (ludicrous) feminine social convention with the latent purpose of shaming men by pathologizing their sexual impulse, while also being a salve for the ego of a a woman (usually post Wall) who finds her SMV is no longer the insurance (or lure) of a man’s commitment to provisioning for her.

    The problem you’ll run into is that on a base level, the biological factors that predispose women to hypergamy make any notion of gender parity a fool’s hope.

  16. Love for love’s sake + sex for sex’s sake = a wonderful arrangement. However, for many men and women this seems difficult to attain, which is saddening because this is exactly how relationships *should* be.

  17. The art is binding ‘indifference’ with ‘provisioning’ and becoming that person. is ‘indifferent provisioning’ appropriate…?

    Alphas can and do provide for their woman/women. But they are indifferent about it, insomuch as it’s just a thing I can do for anyone, especially another more deserving/appreciative woman.

    “I text you. But I text everyone. I go out with you and buy you a drink at the weekend, but I let you know that I am doing the same with others during the week (even if actually I’m not on that given week)….”

    It’s the abundance mentality, as has been alluded to earlier in this thread and countless times before it. Until a man assumes this mentality and engrains it in his persona, he is either indifferent or he is provisioning, neither of which are particularly fruitful when executed separately in my humble opinion and somewhat limited experience.

    To return briefly to Part one commentary and Steve H’s thoughts on the locker room guys….. correct me if I am wrong (it has been known on rare occasion), but it seems that not all guys are locker room-riding jocks, yet not all locker room jocks are alpha males. And not all guys that never set foot in a gym are hopeless betas. Far from it.

    In summary, if I spend extended periods in the gym/on the playing field horsing around with other guys, which I do regularly but not excessively, I am limiting my exposure to females. Yes, I am becoming a man/maintaining my status as a man/embracing masculine competition. I found myself debating the sexual dimorphism and difference online recently, more so than I was actually out using my experience and masculinity for the purposes which they were bestowed upon me.

    Just thoughts, musings etc. Not really in one camp or another on any particular subject…. pretty reactive when it comes to females these days, but of course, indifferently so. It’s a tack that has always seemed to work, but I am embracing a more active game strategy, albeit casual.

  18. The problem you’ll run into is that on a base level, the biological factors that predispose women to hypergamy make any notion of gender parity a fool’s hope.

    I was thinking about this recently, and I’m not sure my thoughts are too simplistic, but I found myself relating women to smaller men who latch themselves onto a bigger-stronger male friend for protection. The smaller man with fewer resources, living in a lawless society will (anecdotally) find a larger male protector. When that larger male protector looks to potentially “lose”, the smaller male will sometimes “trade up”. I found this (admittedly) hypothetical dynamic similar, so potentially worth thinking about further.

    Now the male instinct in this regard (finding themselves a protector) is weak. This is because males have an evolutionary direction towards bigger/stronger, and are bigger/stronger than the average woman. That evolutionary pressure created consequences for conflict between men that were disastrous. In recognizing the destruction of the “nuclear options” men had w.r.t. fighting other men, men generally recognized that banding together was less destructive to society than all men competing against each other. So, paradoxically, much as many philosophers have written; A well armed society is a polite society, while a disarmed society with technologically enforced safety is fraught with conflict. Humans evolve politeness where weaponization exists, and conflict where safety exists.

    Women have the complementary evolutionary pressures, towards being weaker and requiring externally-provided safety for survival. This means that the provided-for woman’s world is a world of “enforced safety”. Because of this, their perspective is actually a world of conflict. This could also help explain why women are the realists pretending to be romantic. Women never escape conflict, they can escape violence, but never conflict. They can leave it behind for a while, particularly when becoming a mother, but most women, until they are well post-wall and provided-for, are always competing with another woman over something. This familiarity with conflict and with being weaker than males provides women with an instinctive understanding of the need for self-protection by any means possible. It is women in the social warfare trenches, and women alone. They are not put there because they are instinctively combative, but because their biological nature (able to bear young, weaker than male) provides them relative safety from male combat. This paradoxically makes them more likely to “go nuclear” on another person if they want to. This is why women can literally just go violently crazy, because of their lack of familiarity with violence and their entire life-span being spent in the safety provided for them by men.

    Hypergamy and the impossibility of gender parity springs from this basic imbalance. Female society is a physically disarmed society living in the (relative) protection of the physically armed, and as a result women socially sharpen their spears and are not afraid to unleash hell. Male society is an armed society full of people who have experienced and seen the results of horrific conflict, yet many times foolishly believing that because violence is the final word in conflict that it is the only realm of conflict. Men have no need to be hypergamous because they (most times) do not need the protection of a superior, and have far less tools to affect such behavior anyway. Women cannot escape their base sense need for hypergamy, because they instinctively know they will (at some point) require the protection of someone who is “armed”, and will use whatever tools at their disposal to find the person who is “armed best” to best ensure survival (of themselves and their offspring).

    I may have missed the mark there some, these are some raw thoughts on the matter.

  19. “Until a man assumes this mentality and engrains it in his persona, he is either indifferent or he is provisioning, neither of which are particularly fruitful when executed separately in my humble opinion and somewhat limited experience.”

    My M.O. these days is to be mainly indifferent yet still dominant (attached enough that I don’t let her get away with disrespect or unfeminine behavior) -and- provisioning *on my own terms*. I will give-to-give when I feel like it, almost never apart from that barring unique and rare extenuating circumstances.

    But because I’ve decided that my provisioning ain’t gonna be on her terms…well, that’s the root of my question.

    As to whether indifference vs. provisioning is an either/or proposition – I have lived out 1st hand being the man who is provisioning yet intransigently attached. And I got burned so badly doing that, I vowed to myself never to repeat it.

  20. I happened to seemingly presciently read Bukowski’s five autobiographical novels a few months prior to my own red pill awakening … here is my favorite Buke quote (from “Women”) which will certainly resonate with regular readers of this blog:

    “Once a woman turns against you, forget it. They can love you, then something turns in them. They can watch you dying in a gutter, run over by a car, and they’ll spit on you.”

  21. @Jeremy

    ” Women cannot escape their base sense need for hypergamy, because they instinctively know they will (at some point) require the protection of someone who is “armed”, and will use whatever tools at their disposal to find the person who is “armed best” to best ensure survival (of themselves and their offspring).”

    While I agree that this describes the vast majority of women I’ve known, one has to wonder why there would still be the need for hypergamy in Western countries. After all, women are (or should be, if they’re not lazy or entitled) just as able to provide financially for themselves as men are. Learn a trade, get a job, pay your bills, stash some away for savings…These aren’t very hard aspects of life for most adults. So what’s with the continued throwback to relying on a husband/boyfriend provider that so many female citizens (even ones without children) still do?

  22. What is statistically more significant; 70+% of all divorces being initiated by women or the >5% occurrences of men possessing the SMV, affluence, social proof and/or Game-awareness to entertain the idea of ‘trading up’?
    The concept of a “Trophy Wife” is a (ludicrous) feminine social convention with the latent purpose of shaming men by pathologizing their sexual impulse, while also being a salve for the ego of a a woman (usually post Wall) who finds her SMV is no longer the insurance (or lure) of a man’s commitment to provisioning for her.
    ~Rollo Tomassi

    This is a talk that should’ve been given during the sales pitch by the group that did a recent screening of the movie “Divorce Corp” near Los Angeles.

    And what encourages statistics in these ‘United States’? Ask my friend Barry Dutter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42Vb0Paygzs … women have booted off of more of the televised ‘dating’ shows than anyone.

  23. Alpha fuk, Beta bucks explained by a pimp. Forget the crassness of it all (which is what some commentators may point out) and listen to the message.

    They know the score.

  24. The video won’t start at the part for some reason but it starts at the 2:30 mark.

  25. Great work, Rollo. I’d like to repeat something I said earlier, regarding you observation here that “Essentially this model forces a woman not only to mother her children, but also her husband.”

    This will happen to most couples, because, I believe, mothers tend to have another child to which affection must be transferred. Hence the fact that loving a child IS women’s model for loving forces a woman to cease loving her husband more as a man after the honeymoon period, and instead love him more as just another child.

  26. @Tarnished

    …one has to wonder why there would still be the need for hypergamy in Western countries. After all, women are (or should be, if they’re not lazy or entitled) just as able to provide financially for themselves as men are.

    You could look at it that way, but I find it a myopic glance at what “the matrix” wants people to think. The reality is that women *will never* be “as able” to provide financially for themselves as men are while still perpetuating the species. The men on planet earth could impregnate every single fertile woman on earth within hours, and the world economy would still keep going as if nothing ever happened. No man would quit their job as a result. No man would start purchasing large nesting items as a result. The women, on the other hand, would all see their lives change drastically in a few short hours. The female-side of the economy would radically shift towards one of massive consumption within a couple months. Many professional women who see this as their last shot at bearing young would quit their jobs, or take an extended leave. Many women would demand the nearest sympathetic male support them in their motherhood.

    Every human female is on a roller coaster that could dip down into the depths of black-hole-for-resources motherhood within a few weeks. That kind of potential instability means that despite any degree available, women are always hamstrung by their biology to some degree. Birth control made this significantly less of a no-choice-scenario, but pregnancy and motherhood have not gone away and wont go away until the human race dies out. Because of this, women just cannot perpetuate the human race and still provide for themselves as men can.

    Furthermore, despite the financial capabilities of modern women, they’re still physically weaker. This fact does alter your perspective. In male world, we call this “Small Man Syndrome”. It isn’t generally acceptable to be a “small man”; Women ignore you, and bigger men can be a significant physical threat. This fact alters your personality if you don’t take great pains to refresh your perspective often and ignore the greater amounts of social rejection you’ll experience. Women experience this exact same perspective, however they have a different bag of tools to deal with it than a “small man” does. In your average woman’s bag of tricks is the ability to get the attention and protection of males, this includes hypergamy and all the behaviors associated with it.

    So again, even with our “modern world”, I still feel that women are facing a perspective that makes hypergamy necessary, just based on biology alone. You would have to change humanity into a single-sex species to get rid of hypergamy, imo.

  27. @Jeremy

    Ah, okay. If the scenario is one of absolute forced pregnancy and no birth control/no abortions allowed, then yes…females everywhere would be financially screwed in roughly 9 months. Potentially sooner for those who have terrible pregnancies or die from unforseen complications. (I myself would take drastic measures to ensure infertility.)

    My scenario was less one of forced pregnancy and more one of women being able to decide when/if they should ever wed or have children. Should some woman have no desire for marriage/offspring, but instead be happy with a good, infertile FwB and a stable career, surely there’d be no reason whatsoever for her to indulge in illogical hypergamous stupidity. If said woman wants more money/resources…she should simply work harder, correct?

  28. Hypergamy is not a ‘need’ dictated by any society, it’s a hardwired psychological aspect of women’s biology.

    As unjust as hypergamy can be, the fact is that it was selected-for adaptation because it served the human species so well.

    Hypergamy is only bad or good depending on which side of the curve a person happens to fall on.

  29. Even in the most conservative of cultures you’ll still find hypergamy influencing the interpersonal / intersexual aspects of that culture.

    No one is ‘overriding’ hypergamy, because it works in the favor of society and encourages ever stronger (theoretically) family units. It’s not that hypergamy is bad or good, it’s how it’s applied that is constructive or destructive.

  30. “You’re not thinking about Frankie right now.”

    “No, I *am* thinking about Frankie right now.”

    “No, you’re not thinking about Frankie right now.”

    Watched the film during my downtime at the office today. Great recommendation, Rollo.

    The scene right around the 25 minute mark (Amazon instant video stream) when they’re driving out to the motel – I found myself instinctively saying ‘No, dude! Wrong response…Oh man, wrong response AGAIN!’…and then I realized that it was essentially the same exact conversation I’d had at least 3 times with my ex-gf 2-4 years ago. That was hard to watch, as were a whole slew of scenes that followed…

    I’m now interested to dig into some of the more esteemed MSM reviewers for their take on the film. I’ve always gotten a lot out of watching a film and then reading the analyses of Roger Ebert, A.O. Scott, Peter Travers, and a few others.

  31. @Rollo

    Hmm, alright. I suppose it just doesn’t seem this way from most of what is on the manosphere. Quite frequently it sounds as though men are actually upset by women who admit to *any* hypergamy, be it in reference to romance, sex, finances, attractiveness, etc. I get how hypergamy is destructive, but not so much as to how it can be constructive (especially when it could hypothetically mean a woman leaving a good provider for a “better” one).

  32. Taking hypergamy personally is a tremendous issue. It’s a central issue.

    It isn’t enough to simply know that it’s biological. Subconsciously we don’t operate from that understanding — the painful feelings are still there.

    I’ve been using faster EFT lately to deal with a lot of things and have been having a lot of success. I’ve been thinking of times women rejected me after pursuing them for months and in the matter of a day of meeting some biker guy they were fucking his brains out.

    All the times I was suicidal, all the times I was desperate and lonely for attention, and the girls I was trying to connect with ended up hooking up with the hot exciting guys while I was withering away in the mental hospital. All the times girls I thought cared about me left me for dead as if they never knew me because some other better guy showed up.

    Tap on the forehead, “Let it go.” Tap on the side of the head, “It’s safe for me to let that go.” Tap under the eye, “I’m here to let it go.” Tap the collarbone, “It’s safe for me to let this go.” Grab the arm and…..”Peace.”

    It gets more in depth than that, but at the same time, it really is that simple.

    But whatever anyone does, this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Talking about hypergamy and trying to beat it into yourself that this is the way things are is only going to take you so far. The painful feelings themselves need to be addressed.

    Personally, I just remember all the times hypergamy punched me in the stomach. I imagine scenarios that are very upsetting, like imagining one of the girls I used to be in love with fucking some stud. I close my eyes and get the feelings as intense as I can, the tightness in my chest, the sinking feeling in my stomach. Sometimes I’ll label them, like ‘inadequacy,’ ‘fuckup,’ ‘loser,’ remember all the times I was humiliated and treated like a little kid…and then I tap it out. “It’s safe to let these feelings go.”

    I keep tapping until I can think of these images and scenarios and memories and notice that they don’t have any effect on my emotions.

    Anyway, if anyone’s interested, there are a ton of videos on YouTube about it. I highly recommend it. I think one of the pitfalls in the manosphere is that no one is focusing on how to directly deal with the pain we feel.

    Instead of looking to women for nurturing and emotional support and dependence…make our own selves our center for that support. Don’t deny the want or need for it. Just flip the script and give yourself what you want — clear out the emotional attachment and dependence.

    I also tap on things I read here that trigger me. Things I read about how women work that remind me of all the times that was true in my life. It brings up memories and emotions and I just tap them all out. It’s emotional whack-a-mole. But again…it needs to be addressed. Our subconscious will always put women and idealized love on a pedestal until we make peace with ourselves and clear out our minds.

  33. @Softek

    Hopefully this doesn’t sound too hollow since it’s just words on a page, but I’m truly sympathetic to the fact you went through that. I’ve dealt with suicidal thoughts (due to different reasons) and can empathize with that, even if I can’t know what it’s like to be a rejected/humiliated male. I pray the tapping aids you in getting over the bitches in your past. Blessings, friend.

  34. Tarnished asks “I get how hypergamy is destructive, but not so much as to how it can be constructive”.

    If women’s pickers worked well, then the 20% of men that women actually select would indeed be better men and therefore society as a whole would move to some greater good, or something.

  35. @jf12

    What is defined as “better” in this instance, please? Does it have to do with pure resources (big home, cars, money, etc) or can it involve better qualities (loyalty, kindness, compassion, love for ones family, etc)? I’d prefer the latter over the former…resources can’t make up for lack of a good home.

  36. The Master might care for (“love”) the Servant.

    The Servant had better respect (“appreciate”) the Master.

    When that love/appreciation is gone from the “relationship” then divorces happen.

  37. @Tarnished

    Ah, okay. If the scenario is one of absolute forced pregnancy and no birth control/no abortions allowed, then yes…females everywhere would be financially screwed in roughly 9 months.

    I was only using the forced-pregnancy scenario to illustrate a point, and that is that no amount of science has actually changed human biology to the point of alleviating motherhood from women entirely. And the rigors of motherhood are actually in conflict with individual mother/female & child survival.

    …Should some woman have no desire for marriage/offspring, but instead be happy with a good, infertile FwB and a stable career, surely there’d be no reason whatsoever for her to indulge in illogical hypergamous stupidity. If said woman wants more money/resources…she should simply work harder, correct?

    That’s easy to think because it’s logical and rational. But it’s clear to me that it’s entirely incorrect. I would guess the reason why has to do with the fact that women still have whatever nature gave them over millions/thousands of years, so a few short decades of access to male resource methods isn’t going to change female nature. Furthermore, even if you suppose that women “could just be like men” and support themselves that doesn’t do anything to remove the old set of female “tools” away from them.

    To try to construct an analogy… It’s like giving a kid the choice of doing a good job mowing the lawn to receive 5 or merely taking a package to the post office for $5. Both are methods of getting the $5, so you cannot expect the child to always rely on a single method of getting the money when a choice of method is provided. Kids are going to have their own preferences. If one method just seems “too hard”, the other method of accomplishing resources is still there. Because options exist, there’s no focus to do a good job mowing the lawn. Even if the kid does decide one day to mow the lawn, he/she is not going to go out of their way to do a good job of it as they could just decide to walk to the post office later and accomplish the same goal. Women in the modern world are in this position. Careers are actually a “tryout” position for any female, and they instinctively know it. The standby-fallback position is always to rope a man in to provide her with resources. Because of this, hypergamy still remains a valuable tool in their toolbox.

    I get how hypergamy is destructive, but not so much as to how it can be constructive (especially when it could hypothetically mean a woman leaving a good provider for a “better” one).

    All destruction is actually creation from a different perspective. If I dig a pit and destroy a section of the surface of the earth, I create a water well that will keep a family alive. If I bulldoze a mountain for rare earth metals I am also creating a world of cellular phones while exposing new rock surface for the earth to do it’s crust cycle on. If I spill oil into the ocean and kill some fish, I am providing food for the microbes in the saltwater that eat crude oil (yes, those do exist, I’m not making it up).

    Hypergamy is no different. It can absolutely be destructive on an individual relationship level, and even on a society-wide level. However, properly channeled/controlled, hypergamy is a major backbone to human progress. It’s true that without men all the women would still be living in well-decorated caves, but without hypergamy there would likely have been very little competition for the best cave (Men are generally content creatures). It’s that competition for the best cave that motivated men to keep building a better home, better car, better society.

  38. “Never envy a man his lady. Behind it all lies a living hell.”

    When I was young, a wise man tried to educate me about this reality with the comment “For every woman with a hot derierre, there is at least one man fed up with what that body part produces”.

    The living hell I then went through was enough evidence for my two sons to not be in a hurry to get entangled with women. If my past ensures a better future for them, then it will have been worth it.

  39. @Jeremy

    Thank you, you’ve given me a lot to consider. (Don’t “worry”, I knew about the oil eaters…and even if I didn’t there’s little reason for you to lie about much here, yes?)

    I’m sure Rollo’s link will help clear up some of my lingering questions, but your analogies were excellent too, especially the $5 one. Guess that’s one of the major separators of people…taking the easy job vs the labor intensive job. I’d personally prefer the job that let’s any abilities of mine show through, or at least isn’t mind-numbingly dull. Even reading is preferable to watching a movie, most days.

    I’m not the type to look down on people (in this case, women) for their life choices. The next generation of human beings needs to be cared for, and always housewives outnumber househusbands…if most men and women are content with traditional gender roles and the children get a caretaker who raises them well, so be it. But I can’t help being saddened by the truth of your statement that a career, to most women, is only till they can have a husband to lean on.

  40. Remember, hypergamy works best for society when it is channeled into being the inspirational carrot for mankind. In our modern world it’s been turned into the knife in men’s backs.

  41. Ah the Female Imperative… brought to you by Feminism

    It occurred to me recently that children not the women that produce them should be the primary focus of a man.

    No so long ago Women were merely talking Brood Mares for the next generation of Humans. They were relegated to the lowest status in most ancient societies. It was when education became more available for females that things changed.

    My thinking NOW is that Female Centric Empowerment (which might be the same as Feminism) is not so much about raising the status of women so much as LOWERING the importance of the Children they birth.

    Think about it this way. Throughout the West it has become standard for educated women to delay children and have TWO or LESS offspring. Meanwhile in many Arab middle eastern countries women have 4+ children. And women are forced to walk a step behind their husbands… and cannot drive a car… cannot vote… (I’ll stop the fantasy there… 🙂

    Perhaps it is simple attention math. if a woman has one child she is 1/3 of a family. If she has 10 children she is 1/12 of a horde.

    Perhaps it’s the realization that if a woman chooses a large family she is choosing motherhood as a primary occupation.

    Perhaps widely available birth control options has empowered women to incrementally decrease the number of their offspring thus lowering the distraction from ‘the precious few wanted children”

    Whatever it is I get the sense that we in western societies have really screwed badly with human biology somehow. And not in a good way.

    Angry Gamer

  42. @Tarnished

    I can’t help being saddened by the truth of your statement that a career, to most women, is only till they can have a husband to lean on.

    Human nature is what it is. If we’ve all been lied to about what we are and what we’re capable of, it’s much better to know the miserable truth than the pretty fantasy.

    Try to keep in mind the converse side of career-oriented-females who quit their jobs to become mothers later. Young men have two choices in life, work or prison. Those choices will never change. Women are now being given the choice that men never got, and never will, that is the choice between living at home under the provisions of someone else, or working on a career. When a woman “trys-out” for a career, she is displacing a young man in the labor force. That young man will not get the experience, or years of promotions, or networking that he would have if he were hired instead of her. When that career-minded woman then quits the labor force to become a mother, all those years that that young man could have been working his way up the ladder are entirely wasted. They’re wasted on the ridiculous dream that women can “have it all”.

    Women should be forced to make their choice and stick to it. There’s no earthly reason to object to women wanting to work and make money, but if they’re going to quit to be a mother later, that’s a grave injustice to young men.

  43. @Jeremy

    It’s such a relief to find someone like minded in this regard. You’ve spoken my own thoughts on this matter, good sir. I go over this decision more in my post “The Cheese Stands Alone” (silly name, I know), but I truly feel that as I’ve chosen to have a career and eventually become a business owner, I have a duty to stick to it. When you make your bed, you lie in it…for better or for worse.

    People need to realize their actions affect not only themselves, but others too. Up to and including men and women they’ll never meet.

    Thanks for a delightful conversation, Jeremy. I’m to bed, but hope to speak to you more later.

  44. @Rollo: Just as side note and not wishing to divert away from the main topic/discussion:

    You can have a happy relationship with a woman who makes more than you as long as you remain the dominant force in her non-work life. Or: GAME SAVES MARRIAGES.

    Given that most men are not natural “players”, game cannot save marriages because one cannot fake game ad aeternum. But perhaps in some cases, being an asshole can save the relationship and the marriage. So Heartsite and you unwittingly or not are explaining why some women dump the perfect boyfriend for an asshole: it’s because they are cave women. Feminists of the world, listen to this: cave women, need cave men for a happy relationship. Tell me whom you are paired with and I can tell you who you truly are. Given the widespread complaints about assholes, I am afraid there are too many cave women in the world. [end of side note]

  45. I have to correct myself here: “Tell me whom you are paired with and I can tell you who you truly are.”. We have to exclude gold diggers and those who “changed lanes”.

  46. @Steve: “My M.O. these days is to be mainly indifferent yet still dominant (attached enough that I don’t let her get away with disrespect or unfeminine behavior) -and- provisioning *on my own terms*. I will give-to-give when I feel like it, almost never apart from that barring unique and rare extenuating circumstances.

    But because I’ve decided that my provisioning ain’t gonna be on her terms…well, that’s the root of my question.

    As to whether indifference vs. provisioning is an either/or proposition – I have lived out 1st hand being the man who is provisioning yet intransigently attached. And I got burned so badly doing that, I vowed to myself never to repeat it.”

    The middle sentence herein answers its own question Steve-o. You’re the man of the house, or the situation, you are master of your own existence, therefore you use the goods and services at your disposal EXACTLY as you and you alone see fit.

    I have been stung before also, like 99.9% of blokes in the manosphere. Having now seen that there are hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of guys out there either in the same sitch, or worse still, still with the b*tch, I am resolved to re-build and maintain my life with myself as the leading role.

    I can’t really comment on life outside of the UK, but chicks in this country will generally need a degree of both provisioning and indifference. Sh*t man. It is selected for in our evolutionary make up, pretty much since the dawn of time, that we DO provision. Why the f*ck should we let some half-assed cultural nuance of the C20th undermine millions of years of evolution.

    I will continue to provide for my woman/women, because that’s what my nature tells me; not because some myriad of fem-bots/beta-boys tell me it’s what’s expected of me in the C21st.

    I have a hot little Swede on my case right now. I have provided for her more than she has me. But I know I am in charge, despite the fact she is in her absolute prime, 23 and 7. We have seen each other half a dozen time in the last 4 months, owing mainly to my maintaining the frame, helping her forget other hangers-on, my getting in shape, spinning other plates etc. I f*cked her 3 times in the last week. Owing to Senor Tomassi’s school of training, this chick will not be ready to settle within the next 5 years or so at the earliest. And I agree with him. My last GF was 33 and still wasn’t ‘ready’.

    F*ck em. I’mma do what I’mma do. If one decides to hitch along for the ride and suck me off at some point, well it’s a bonus. If I ever lose this mindset, then I am sliding towards betaville, with no return ticket.

  47. @Tarnished

    I suppose ‘settle’ in the same way that Mr and Mrs Tommassi have apparently ‘settled’.

    And by that I mean have a healthy LTR, where neither individual is reliant on the other, but where I as the man am spontaneous enough, powerful enough and man enough to fixate this chick’s gaze….. I have to admit to you guys, I am falling for this Swedish birdy. But trust I am under no beta illusion that I don’t have a task on my hands.

    After spending the better part of last week together, she sends me a second unresponded text the other day saying, ‘I’ve gotten used to having you around’.

    My response was, ‘You wanna f*ck me, don’t you.’ No response as yet; I think they say ‘no news is good news’ right?

  48. @TheMonkeyKing,

    Here’s how I understand what just happened:
    She declared she misses you and wants to take the relationship to the next level, and you responded you want to keep things the way they are and only see her as a friend with benefits.

  49. @TheMonkeyKing

    Ah, thanks for the clarification.

    I get what you mean. My own FwB arrangement has lasted 7 or so years, 8 if you count the previous time when we were just friends. I like the freedom that such a relationship brings…no one is indebted to the other, you don’t live together, your lives are still your own, there’s no financial entanglements, no kids to worry about, but you have the comfort of a disease-free sexual partner to have fun with. (Of course, he knows he can have other sexual partners so long as he uses protection, but I’m content to be “monogamous”.) Mine is probably a bit different since I take on the provider role, but what works, works.

    As for your text…heh, I see sex in your immediate future, sir.

  50. @jeremy

    ‘Well, first, you can’t provide objective evidence of emotion in the first place. So asking for anything more than anecdotal is asking for a faster-than-light automobile. Second, you actually answer your own question, when you use the proviso “provided they have the … options”. Men, generally, do not have as many SMP options as women, in fact if I were to put a number on it, I’d say the average man has 1/10th the options as the average woman, even presuming their SMV’s are within a point of each other. So comparing male hypergamic behavior when it only occurs at most a 10% clip to female hypergamy, is kind of a waste of time. Sure, it does exist, and men with options can practice it… again, that caveat, men with options. In other words, high alphas, rock stars, movie stars, politicians… etc… you have to go pretty far down in the female attractiveness spectrum before you get to women who do not have the same sexual options as a male rock star.’

    Well, I’ve seen evidence put forward that women are less likely to bond to a man after a large number of sexual partners (something which I was slightly skeptical about too) — I wondered if there was anything similar to substantiate men’s greater innate honor or loyalty.

    To be clear, I’m not refuting @rollo ‘s central thesis here, not yours. Women have far greater leverage in the sexual marketplace, and thus their hypergamy can flourish untamed. I get it.

    My question is about the degree to which ‘hypergamy’ is intrinsic to gender,rather than to simple supply and demand in the market — and your response, which focuses on women’s opportunities to act out, doesn’t address this.

    Look, if a group of men ‘happily married’ to post-wall boilers were offered the opportunity to have sex with the hot girl from the Blurred Lines video, with absolute certainty that no-one would ever find out, how many do you think would partake? My guess: quite a few. What of male honor then? The fact that this scenario is entirely unrealistic does not detract from the position that the impetus to pursue the most attractive available sexual proposition regardless of ethical and moral consideration is common to both sexes.

    Women get a lot of stick around the manosphere (not here and certainly not from Rollo) about their hypergamy. My only interest is whether this is scrupulously fair. If a man were suddenly awarded the same sexual options as a woman for a year, do we really believe he would behave any differently? If not, then perhaps it is market conditions, rather than gender, that dictates behaviour in this area.

    As I said in my original comment, it certainly feels intuitively correct that men are the more honorable gender — I’ve seen things in my own life that would support this. And I’m aware I’m in danger of painting myself into a NAMALT-type corner. But this is something I’ve wondered about for a while, and would be interested in people’s opinions.

  51. @ Bellum and Tarnished

    Yeah, as mentioned, I would get serious with this chick, but my previous experience and gauging her own current and previous outlook (plus sound advice from the men of the Manosphere) tells me that I do not broach the subject of exclusivity first.

    Even if she did want to go exclusive (which she might in the medium to long-term), I now know that I will still be maintaining frame and ‘indifferently provisioning’ for ever and a day.Am happy the way things are going. I got her hooked; now for the reeling in to start….. very, veeerrry slowly.

    However, the point at which the lady knows she has you exclusively as her own, balls in palm, first two fingernails drawing blood from your perineum, that’s the top of the bell-curve of her attraction to you…. you never wanna reach the summit of that curve. Always be ascending (escalating).

    [with regards to said bell-curve, may be Senor Tomassi can find time draw up another ingenious graph (in the same vein as the SMV comparison) for the information of his current and future followers]. May be one already exists.

  52. @troyfrancis

    I would guess that wherever you have a two-sex species, you will have hypergamy, or elements of it, in some form. Wherever you have a dominant and a submissive, these elements of behavior will exist. The reason is because the procreation competition is now split/spread out between two complementary sexes, and because the two sexes do not entirely measure up physically. So you have two different individuals, with two different sets of strengths and weaknesses, who both must work together *AND* compete for the best breeding option available to them. Hypergamy and polygamy (when possible) are the inevitable result of that situation.

    The manosphere rails against hypergamy because it is currently an out-of-control force in the world. They are right to push back against it, for now.

  53. @Troy, this post will interest you:
    https://therationalmale.com/2011/10/18/the-honor-system/

    Also, I have touched on the idea of male hypergamy here:

    https://therationalmale.com/2013/12/12/madonnas-and-whores/

    but I think you’ll find that trying to draw hypergamic equivalencies between the sexes doesn’t fit comfortably into an equalist’s desired comparison.

    The example of sexual temptation and hypergamy you present is only one side of women’s dualistic sexual strategy. Your example only illustrates the priority men give to the Alpha Fucks side of hypergamy. Women’s sexual and security goals are dictated by their evolved biology.

    https://therationalmale.com/2013/02/01/male-sexual-response/

    The question you should be asking of men is this:

    If you encountered a woman who fit every ideal you ever had for a relationship – best friend, loving, 100% loyal, excellent mother, came from a great family, perfect HB 10, healthy both mentally and physically, emotionally available, intellectually stimulating, shared all your beliefs – who loved you unconditionally and wanted to marry you, but with one caveat; he/she would NEVER have sex with you under any circumstances, would you marry this person? You could have children together through insemination and they would always be platonically affectionate with you; knowing full well before you did, and pledging to be completely faithful yourself, would you spend the rest of your life in a completely sexless marriage with an otherwise ideal person?

  54. @TroyFrancis – “Women have far greater leverage in the sexual marketplace, and thus their hypergamy can flourish untamed. I get it.”

    My answer is that you maintain/grow your SMV throughout the marriage/LTR such that:

    1) She knows that you could go fuck a new woman as easily as she could go fuck a new man
    2) She knows your premise is true – and since in your particular relationship that issue equals out – she knows that you actually have the upper hand comparative to most (read: her friends’) relationships.

    My question is about the degree to which ‘hypergamy’ is intrinsic to gender,rather than to simple supply and demand in the market”

    I hear you, but men will excitedly fuck an ugly whore for sexual variety’s sake. Think Hugh Grant cheating on Elizabeth Hurley with Divine Brown in the mid-90s. A woman’s hypergamy wouldn’t naturally jump at the chance to fuck a lower-SMV male. This applies to your meta-question about the possibility that men with options may be as hypergamous as women. It’s a different impulse.

    “if a group of men ‘happily married’ to post-wall boilers were offered the opportunity to have sex with the hot girl from the Blurred Lines video, with absolute certainty that no-one would ever find out, how many do you think would partake? My guess: quite a few. What of male honor then?”

    I’m not married, but being in an LTR – I wouldn’t fuck Emily tomorrow if she showed up on my doorstep. I’d be very flattered, and possibly fantasize over that proposition, but that would be it. Cheating is cheating, and integrity is priceless. Then again, that’s coming from a ‘men should have honor’ proponent.

    @TheMonkeyKing – My take is that the swede’s lack of response to your last text could be translated as – ‘fuck. he doesn’t want a relationship. and i’m still horny. how dare he not want a relationship with me? fuck him. aahhhh fuck, i actually want him more now…’

    Great idea for another RT graph on waxing/waning attraction!

  55. @Jeremy

    “I would guess that wherever you have a two-sex species, you will have hypergamy, or elements of it, in some form. Wherever you have a dominant and a submissive, these elements of behavior will exist. The reason is because the procreation competition is now split/spread out between two complementary sexes, and because the two sexes do not entirely measure up physically. So you have two different individuals, with two different sets of strengths and weaknesses, who both must work together *AND* compete for the best breeding option available to them. Hypergamy and polygamy (when possible) are the inevitable result of that situation.

    The manosphere rails against hypergamy because it is currently an out-of-control force in the world. They are right to push back against it, for now.”

    This is all true. We can also consider other factors of sexual dimorphism which also play in to human reproductive strategy. The size of the female population is larger than that of the male population; and they know it, hence the ostentatious make-up and outfitting (in comparison to men); women are always peacocking, I prefer the one that peacock the least, because they are usually the once that have to the least.

    Conversely, women have fewer and finite number of gametes (eggs, to you and me); where men potentially produce and keep producing gametes (swimmers, to you and me) throughout the life-cycle. I sympathise with them in this respect; they have a ticking clock. No wonder they guard their investment – I would do exactly the same in the same position.

    You know all this already. But I do find the subject quite fascinating.

  56. @Steve

    “@TheMonkeyKing – My take is that the swede’s lack of response to your last text could be translated as – ‘fuck. he doesn’t want a relationship. and i’m still horny. how dare he not want a relationship with me? fuck him. aahhhh fuck, i actually want him more now…’ ”

    Reverse psychology…. love it or loathe it, it underpins successful human reproductive strategy. A bit of a gamble I know. But better that than tingling on her phone every hour of the day and night. Mystery is the new devotion =D

  57. Waah fucking waah. Jeez. You guys are leaving out some key points.

    Yes this hierarchy “Men love women, women love children, children love kitties” exists because on the basis of evolutionary adaptiveness, it fucking worked. But it is an evolutionary artifact that was selected for heavily during the agricultural and industrial ages. And it only works and is functional as long as women are constrained into either monogamy or polygamy where provisioning of men is mandatory in the minds of women.

    Simon Shepard sort of pre-dates Rollo on this topic with this idea called “Affection Beneath” and he presents much the same graph as Rollo, God -> Man-> Woman-> Child-> Kitties. And he states it is instintive, and cannot be displaced, only mis-directed. And this “Attraction Beneath” is selected into men’s brains because it was evolutionarily selected that the men became emotionally bonded to both women and his offspring because it fucking worked. The offspring of men that stuck a-fucking-round, no matter how unfaithful, bitchy, ungrateful, and duplicitous the female acted, had offspring that tended to survive and thrive far better than those of the actually “smart” motherfuckers that recognized that being “rolling stone” was far more fun and far less work. And mathematically, fucking more bitches increased his paternity by fucking more bitches rather than holding one woman’s coat.

    And also it needs to be remembered that female promiscuity has both a genetic payoff and a protection and care payoff. It’s “nice work” for the women “that can get it”. It fucking pays well. And it pays so well that it took “agriculture” and the societal constraint of female sexuality to push women away from it and into a provisioning based model.

    But first, lets jump through some relevant points that can sort of put this whole waah waah topic into proper perspective.

    There is a ton of work using this concept called the Tullock Competition Success Function. Data is fed to a model to see where an equilibrium arises, called something like Evolutionary Adadptiveness Equilibrium or often Evolutionarily Stable Strategy. The male activities modeled are Fighting, Mate Guarding, Care, and Provisioning.

    The modeling showed that in a promiscuous environment, the highest ranked males will fight 100% of the time, and that 80% of conceptions for offspring will go to those top 10-15% males.

    And then lesser males will Mate Guard 100% of the time if they can get any of the remaining 20% of conceptions,

    AND THEN EVEN LESSER MALES THAT ARE LEFT OUT WILL NEED TO OFFER PROVISIONING AND CARE AS A STRATEGY TO GAIN ACCESS TO MATING AS FEMALES BARGAIN TO EXPAND PROTECTION AND ENHANCE CARE.

    So then it was assumed that monogamy arose as a bargain between the lesser males and the lower ranked females. The KEY TERM in the formulas for the model was PROVISIONING: At some level of provisioning then it became worthwhile for women to ally themselves with lesser males if the level of provisioning offered was greater than the benefits of promiscuity and to trade monogamy for that Provisioning.

    So then we can create our own hierarchy that states that at the top of male traits is “Good Genes” that are displayed via male dominance determined through Agonistitic competition, then beneath that as traits of lower ranked males, guarding (second, because at least the dude as some trim to guard and protect, provisioning, then last and fucking least, CARE.

    Therefore, looking at the photo at the top of the post and the pathetic nature of our Caregiving male, then strikes you exactly as it should. The male is SIGNALING his pathetic low ranking by trading Care for access to mating.

    But, also the point that is lost on a lot of you is that fucking PROVISIONG IS ONLY JUST ABOVE CARE IN OUR HIERARCHY. And the manosphere lore dictates this over and over of pathetic betas offering “Food For Mating” as a reproductive Strategy and getting shit on.

    And to puff your chest out about the superiority of the ability to provision as mating strategy is entirely a FEMINIZED value that is inherent in many of you. You have bought into the whole model that lead from promiscuity to monogamy via the offering of provisioning. Yes, provisioning, hence production rose in a society that enforced monogamy as the organizing social value, lead to less violence, more social development and for this reason deserves social value.

    But in a biological and evolutionary sense Good Genes Uber Alles.

    Because what both the modeling predicts and what our current observations have shown is that once the female can provision herself then that whole model goes to fucking hell.

    Women have displayed time and time again that they will step on, and step over, tons of males with wads of dollars in their pleading little grubby fists to fuck the man with “good genes”.

    And those “Good Genes” are notoriously “ungood” in the terms of “virtue”. The preferred traits in our girl’s heart of hearts are the wonderful characteristics of: (in order) Confrontative, Arrogance, Muscles, Attractiveness, and a whole smorgasbord of psychopatic traits of impulsiveness, fearlessness, unavailability, defection, and hopefully, a penchant for violent sex.

    And way down the list of traits is “Financially successful”

    So “Not So Fast” when you wish to jump up and down extolling the virtues of Production and Provisioning as these “good” male traits. You buy into a feminized Fem-Centric value and concept that works to push and press men into a slavery and “Vag drying” that often leads to bitterness and wasted life as quick as the ridiculed care model.

    Yes, “Prestige” has replaced “Dominance”, and “Success” has replaced “Fighting” as what I would call “Adapative Substitutes.” But what is key here is the means by which “Success” is measured, money, is earned. If it is earned via competition and the male sits higher in his hierarchy then it is “attractive”; any other means then it is “Provisioning”. And the whole definition of “Beta”, once you take the whole alpha,beta, delta, gamma, omega ranking system into consideration is that the Beta, is the guy without alpha genes that sits higher via ability to provision and the higher beta is that bookworm doctor or lawyer, without Corey Bennington Alpha Buddha cred, that uses the offer of provisioning for mating, is almost just as “creepy” as the lower ranking Gamma, who has to offer “Care” as a strategy.

    Now what is key is to remember is that the fact that our “Caregiver” is standing in that door, wearing that pussified baby carrier, trading care for mating is a fucking Feminized Fem-Centric act on his part.

    And it is just as Feminized and Fem-Centricc as that man that gets in his car on Monday morning to go off to work to come home and trade his paycheck for mating access. It has been stated on this blog that a woman is psychologically incapable of realizing the sacrifice that a man makes to be with her, in any form, from the highest ranked Sexy and Successful George Clooney super alpha to even our “pussified” gamma Care Giver. So women expect and demand this rent be paid in return for access and both men and women all jump up and down to demand that “rent”. Even Manosphere men that know the downside of it, yet all fall in lock step in demand for it.

    She is a pain in the fucking ass, even the best of them. She brings and incredible amount of bullshit, stress, worry, agitation, work, aggravation, and boredom into your life. And the lone male without the burden of her, gets by in life far more simply, with far less work, and far less sacrifice. And the fact you even think you want her is a feminized value that is reinforced in your body via whatever level of tesosterone, and via the addiction to dopamine, oxytocin, and enforced via AVG and Cortisol.

    Even the provisioning beta is enduring an increased Cortisol level and loss of Tesosterone. And Careboy is enduring even more due to his status. And over the long term, it can have effect and damage on his health. It is tightrope a married man walks between the benefits of oxytocin and AVG and the detriment of the imposed stresses.

    A single man reaches a health balance that is not so bad off compared to the mated man, and far better than the man who is divorced or widowed.

    So yeah, let Girlfriend in her DKNY suit, makeup, Louboutins look down on him because she gets to go and be around Sexy alphas all day and his gamma ass is at home giving care.

    But underneath that suit is diminishing SMV, saggy tits, veins, a dropping stretched out Vijayjay, and all the costs of childbearing and childbirth, hairs were there shouldn’t be any, and whole wagonload of hassle. So let that bitch push him out because she thinks that not only can she be “Strong and Independent” but also return to a “Classy and Fabulous” empowered woman. And the data shows that after some initial empowerment then reality that she is used up pain in the ass will come to bear.

    I watch Big Bang. It was announced that it has been contracted for 3 more seasons. The big storyline the past weeks is that Penny is “Cashing Out” and she wants to marry Leonard. I had this observation that the actress that plays “Penny” is getting very “wallish” and that face and nose is broadening, getting more coarse, and that ass and those thighs “iz gettin’ kinda chunky” . She even caused an internet roar over the rumor she was “bobbing” her hair. And it dawned on me, that in 3 seasons, those Nerds will actually have HIGHER SMV than these girls that seemed to be “doing them a favor” by giving them access.

    So the key here is learning about biochemistry, and if a man does not possess a psychopathic outlook, then to at least gain a sociopathic one based on a discarding of romantic nonsense that has been imposed on him via a feminized, fem-centric culture.

    Yes, upon separation he will pay the price of that loaded gun going off and firing off that stress and depression bullet into his head. But it won’t kill him, and there are direct steps to get through that forest quickly and come out the other side, mentally healthier, physically better, and in good position to get along better without that bitch, her hassle, and the slavery and imposition she imposed on him.

    And men need to understand that the operative, and I mean “operative” word in the phrase “trade care for mating” or in “trade provisioning for mating”, is TRADE. If that bitch is not keeping her side of the trade, meaning she is no trading pussy, then she is in violation of the implicit deal.

    So thus the “Waah Waah” aspect of all this. She is a fucking pain in the ass, which the painintheassness rises every day, as does her hassle, and her needs and demands, increase and increase.

    And her SMV drops by the day. and actually will plummet and disappear.

    And his care or provisioning remains constant or rises, and her trade value drops. It is an amazing result of feminization that men have any part of this what so ever and that we all don’t demand to sit at home, a BMW, and a private beach, and be a Mack Daddy, while women go out and get us money just to keep us around to guard her, help her, and put up with her hassle and bullshit.

    So again, Careboy can learn every thing he needs to know from reading Rational Male:

    (1) The Power Dynamic, the person with the most power in a relationship is the one that wants it the least. You have a biochemical trick being played on you that makes you think you want it. But that trick is fucking necessary or no man would ever stay more than 30 minutes after orgasm unless promised sandwiches.

    (2) Placating women and appeasement is stupid and leads to a bad end. Being an asshole either works to maintain attraction or if doesn’t work then it gives the guy self respect and signals to him it time for new pussy.

    (3) Dread and Alpha flashes work and if they don’t, then fuck it, get the fuck out. There was an interesting theory proposed that outlawing with fem-centric conditioning against marital rape actually has lead to more sexless marriages and hence more divorce. That women will push a man just up to and before provoking him into aggression. And the author proposed that the act of marital rape can cause a woman return to closeness because the guy showed a flash of alpha and fulfilled some need women have to be “ravished” and dominated. But the key is dread to let her fear and experience the reality of the loss of the man, his care, and his guarding. If she doesn’t experience any of it, because she wants out, then help her ass out and give her exactly what she thinks she wants. A better day and a better situation will probably come along for you some day, some how, even that only means being alone with the stress and hassle of her.

    (4) Beta is provisioning just as much as care giving. And time and time again, women have discarded it just as often, if not more often, as they have discarded Care Based relationships.

    Here is the lesson of Mark Minter. If everything that possibly can go wrong does go wrong and man can slide and slide to the edge of the cliff and be hanging on by fingertips. And you can have literally nothing that fem-centrism demands of men, and you can be a basement dwelling whatever,, too old, too poor, too bitter, too angry ……

    And end up with an attractive woman, 25 years younger than you, one that treats you better, in a far far better situation, all because you learned and practiced the doctrines taught in this community.

    In the end, the collective of women needs the collective of men far, far more than the collective of men need the collective of women. And it is only tricks of adaptiveness that has selected mechanisms in men that trick them into thinking anything else. All the biologists all use the phrase “the female has a higher investment in reproduction” and what it should say is that it is a shitty job, so shitty that men have be tricked into having anything to do with it anymore than wiping his dick off on her leg and leaving.

    And that is the truth of Male Privilege .

  58. @troyfrancis, the average man’s vastly higher libido than the average woman’s ensures that “‘hypergamy’ is intrinsic to gender” BECAUSE of “simple supply and demand in the market”. ref, e.g., Vohs And Baumeister, Sexual Economics.

  59. @Rollo re: question “would you spend the rest of your life in a completely sexless marriage with an otherwise ideal person?”

    I don’t consider that a valid marriage anyway.

  60. @SteveH “This applies to your meta-question about the possibility that men with options may be as hypergamous as women. It’s a different impulse.”

    Excellent point. Roughly speaking, men with options are just happy to be on the other side of the hypergamy curve; they aren’t driving their *own* hypergamy.

  61. @Rollo

    “The question you should be asking of men is this:

    If you encountered a woman who fit every ideal you ever had for a relationship – best friend, loving, 100% loyal, excellent mother, came from a great family, perfect HB 10, healthy both mentally and physically, emotionally available, intellectually stimulating, shared all your beliefs – who loved you unconditionally and wanted to marry you, but with one caveat; he/she would NEVER have sex with you under any circumstances, would you marry this person? You could have children together through insemination and they would always be platonically affectionate with you; knowing full well before you did, and pledging to be completely faithful yourself, would you spend the rest of your life in a completely sexless marriage with an otherwise ideal person?”

    I think the answer, under the current human condition, is no.

    Sex for humans is no longer a case of simply passing on genes; you as a man of great psychological knowledge and power understand that this is the sole driving force of all living things – to survive in order to pass on the chromosomes.

    However, for humans and other ‘higher’ animals (dolphins maybe one example), sex is now a physical/social/psychological reward in itself, we don’t need to pass the genes on, necessarily…. indeed much of our modern (material) existence contribute to our potential sexual gratification, opposed solely to reproductive success.

    …. and the $64,000 question being, what would Rollo do….??

  62. Another excellent article!

    The following are just a few observations involving definitions and their boundaries.
    .

    I don’t think that using “love” to apply to both men and women, in a way that implies equivalence or even correspondence, is accurate.

    If you make a list of how love is expressed through men, and how it is expressed through women, the commonalities are trivial and the essential parts are different.

    “It’s not that women are inherently evil, it’s that men’s idealism makes them so available to being betrayed, tortured and damned.”

    Or perhaps it’s not that men’s idealism makes them so available to being betrayed, tortured and damned, it’s that women find it so easy to commit such acts against their “loved ones”.

    A lack of goodness does not have to follow from a lack of permanence, so can their husbands and children ever even be “loved ones”, in the sense understood by men?

    Men love idealistically, but women love opportunistically. Using “love” to describe both induces men to “fill in the blanks”, in a self-referential way, to the benefit of women, by assuming capacities and feelings that don’t actually exist.
    .

    “… blue pill promise of a mutually reciprocated love. Men being the true romantics predispose themselves to wanting to believe this model is really the only acceptable model. The dispelling of the fantasy this model represents is one of the most difficult aspects of coming to terms with red pill awareness … ”

    The problem is that men who come to terms with red pill awareness often do not then think through this new model, in which “love” does not need to be mutually reciprocated, in which their comforting word has been redefined to mean something completely different.

    They do not fully dispel the fuzzy remnants of their fantasy, the remnants that mask and make “acceptable” a model that would otherwise be treated with much more wariness and indifference.

    As Rollo said, “What he’s really done is convinced himself into accepting a woman’s opportunistic model while retaining the idealism he’s been conditioned never to reject – thereby leaving her blameless in her own concept of love.”
    .

    “He comes to the realization that women’s love model is based upon what he is before who he is.”

    But he rarely continues to the realization that this makes him a replaceable commodity, instead of a person or anything even close to a “soulmate”.

    “What he is” implies a “something” and not a “someone”, and thus the concepts of loyalty and even decency do not apply, because they are not defined for “things”.
    .

    I agree with Rollo that “It’s hard to consider this model without presuming a woman’s manipulative intent of a man, but let me state emphatically that, for the better part, I believe most women simply aren’t specifically aware of the mechanics behind this intersexual hierarchy model. Through any number of ways women are socialized to presume that their feminine-primary position implies that men should necessarily take the life and maturity steps needed to fulfill women’s opportunistic approach over the course of their lifetime.”
    .

    “In the beginning of this series I stated that men and women’s approach to love was ultimately complementary to one another …”

    They are indeed functionally complementary, but appear to be psychologically complementary only because of the lack of full disclosure.
    .

    “When a woman’s opportunistic approach to love is cast into the primary, dominant love paradigm for a couple, and a family, that pairing and family is now at the mercy of an opportunism necessitated by that woman’s hypergamy and the drive to optimize it. Conversely, when a man’s idealistic approach to love is in the dominant frame (as in the conventional model) it acts as a buffer to women’s loving opportunism that would otherwise imbalance and threaten the endurance of that family and relationship.”

    When a man’s idealistic approach to love is in the dominant frame, and is acting as a buffer to a woman’s loving opportunism that would otherwise imbalance and threaten the endurance of that family and relationship, it is doing so because he is the driving, decisive member of the sexual pairing, and his dominance has adequately masked the “nice guy” of his idealistic approach to love.
    .
    .

    @ troyfrancis

    “Well, I’ve seen evidence put forward that women are less likely to bond to a man after a large number of sexual partners (something which I was slightly skeptical about too) — I wondered if there was anything similar to substantiate men’s greater innate honor or loyalty.”

    I recall seeing evidence a while back (I don’t have the links) that, before women had the power of frivorce, men would often not divorce women even when they had cause, and when they did divorce them, they did not try to destroy them, and even continued to be concerned about their well-being.
    .
    .

    @ Mark Minter

    It would help if you summarized what you are trying to say in a first paragraph, and then summarized your evidence and supporting conclusions in a last paragraph.

    Oh, and, while your condescention is adequate, you really need to use “fuck” and ALL CAPS more, to establish yourself as a true authority, lulz.

  63. @MM tldr. No male primate WANTS to have to supply bananas and grooming to get a little nookie, but we gotta do what we gotta do.

  64. @eon re:MM. Oh noes! You’re another one who doesn’t respond properly to AMOG signaling! What will he do?

  65. “@MM tldr. No male primate WANTS to have to supply bananas and grooming to get a little nookie, but we gotta do what we gotta do….”

    +1. Coz…. one day, along comes another monkey, equal in stature in every way to the non-provider; the one difference being, he gots the fruit and the fine-tooth comb.

  66. @Monkey, the point isn’t answering the question (which should be an obvious ‘no’) but considering the truths it implies in even asking it.

    Consider the opposite extreme; would you bang an HB9.5 whom you knew would guarantee you a sexual experience you would savor to the grave, but only once and with absolutely no consequences for enjoying her?

  67. @TheMonkeyKing, I wonder if the extra protein from all the little lice and bugs helps the beta nutritionally?

  68. @Rollo

    I understand your point now. However, currently, as a man in the early stages of (or, even yet to reach) his prime, the answer is still no. The first extreme scenario sounds like chronic case of beta provisioning oneitis, non?

    The second scenario is not something I am entirely unfamiliar with; on occasion their choice, on others my own.

  69. Hmmm…. I’m yet to be swayed on the ‘provisioning is beta’ thing.

    Provisioning only becomes beta when it’s solely relied upon and/or used to excess. Happy to be persuaded elsewise though.

  70. I lol’d with tears of appreciation at Mark’s comment. Bravo Mark.

    lol, wiping off on her leg… lol

  71. “I believe most women simply aren’t specifically aware of the mechanics behind this intersexual hierarchy model”

    I have been in discussions with women where I calmly and clearly point out obvious cases of a blatant pro-female double standards….the eyes just glaze over and I can almost see the words ‘does not compute’ floating over their heads. The expectation of special treatment is so ingrained into women, it is unconscious. So many women don’t…can’t…won’t get it…ever. It is a waste of breath. Only incentives and disincentives matter when dealing with 99% of women. It makes one wonder if women truly possess free will.

    “It’s not that women are inherently evil, it’s that men’s idealism make them so available to being betrayed, tortured and damned.”

    Male-idealistic love is maladaptive and leads to pain. Women won’t change unless incentives and/or disincentives lead them to change. Men, as always, are the ones who must adapt and evolve in an inhospitable environment.

    Or perhaps men will say: ‘to hell with it…..bring on the sexbots!’

  72. @Rollo

    As per the “perfect spouse but no sex” question: No. I would not.

    I’m bisexual, so it could be a man or a woman, but sex is too intrinsic to do without in any way, shape, or form. If it was a man/woman I previously had a regular relationship with and their lower body got destroyed/incapacitated in some horrific accident, I’d stay with them of course…such a thing would not be their fault, and you don’t abandon a spouse for this. But even then, I imagine oral sex, mutual masturbation, erotic massage, etc would still be on the table after their recovery time.

    But sex is the physical act of actually loving someone. It’s not just “fucking”. It’s much deeper than that, closer to a baring of ones soul than a mere physical joining. To me, it’s not an activity to be enjoyed with just anyone…if I had a friend who was still a virgin, I’d be 100% more likely to have sex with them than the “hottest” piece of cock or ass prancing around. Thus my answer to your “hot chick, one time, no consequences” would also be a resounding No.

    http://tarnishedsophia.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/what-is-love/

    http://tarnishedsophia.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/what-is-sex/

  73. Btw, this is just how *I* think of love and sex. If others have different views (which is to be expected), they are just as valid and true. I didn’t mean to come off as judgmental, if I did.

  74. “It is an amazing result of feminization that men have any part of this what so ever and that we all don’t demand to sit at home, a BMW, and a private beach, and be a Mack Daddy, while women go out and get us money just to keep us around to guard her, help her, and put up with her hassle and bullshit.”

    LOLOLOL I had to get us a BMW. You needed more legroom! 🙂

  75. @Tarnished “I imagine oral sex, mutual masturbation, erotic massage, etc would still be on the table after their recovery time.”

    You imagine incorrectly for the most part. Sexually women tend to be entirely receivers and narcissists, not givers.

  76. @jf12

    Well, that’s ridiculous. Sex is a two person activity. What could be better than coaxing moans and gasps of pleasure out of your partner? Moments where my FwB cries out in spite of himself are what I live for…

    Maybe that’s part of the reason most women report having lower libidos and treating sex like a chore. They aren’t having the full experience that makes it worthwhile. It’s always better to give than to receive, especially when both partners are of this mindset and everyone ends up satisfied.

  77. That’s an interesting question in light of Minter’s post about Care Givers and / or Providers vs. the visceral Alpha’s women desire for insemination at least 10-12 days a month.

    I read this at CH when I was brushing up on the Blue Valentine movie:

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/beta-valentine/

    The attention to detail is apparent in Blue Valentine. Cindy gets knocked up by an aloof alpha whom she allows to fuck her raw dog from behind, rutting like animals. He, naturally, cums inside her and issues a perfunctory “Oops, sorry” after he is spent. She rushes to the toilet to urinate out the sperm but it is too late. In another flashback we see her examining a pregnancy stick with fear in her eyes.

    In contrast, when Dean first lays with Cindy, he goes down on her. He eats her out dutifully until she has climaxed. We do not see Dean penetrating her during that scene. The message is clear — alphas fuck the way they like to fuck, betas selflessly please their women. Since Dean never has a kid with Cindy despite a flashback scene where he expresses his desire to have one with her, we can assume that either she went on the pill or she required him to use a condom even in the marital bed.

    So here’s today’s fuck-with-your-head question: Is going down on a woman the sexual behvior of a Beta care-giver? Does getting her off orally send her the latent message to her that you’re a ‘tryer’?

  78. @Rollo, in my unmerciful i.e. clearheaded moments I have adjudged all provisioning as beta, so yes. Any care, any trying to please her, is beta.

  79. My answer: only go down on her when you’re drunk, or she asks for it. In neither instance is doing so particularly Beta.

  80. @Tarnished, it’s not my fault that women’s sexuality is receptive and narcissistic. Note I didn’t say submissive. Ask any qualified psychologist or sexologist.

  81. @Rollo
    As with most things Manosphere, it depends on the frame. If done only to please her then yes, it’s Beta. On the other hand, if it enhances the man’s experience, and/or if he does it intermittently as a reward (assuming it’s done well), the Alpha.

  82. @Rollo

    Oral sex is never a bad thing, or even a passive thing. I love how powerful it feels to give an excellent blowjob, and my lover has stated numerous times how he adores the sounds I make when he eats me out. Pleasing your partner, in whatever way they like, is an amazing gift to give and receive!

    Is it any wonder that our favorite number is 69?

  83. Over at J4G there’s an ongoing theme regarding how Beta monkeys bring bananas to, and groom girl monkeys in exchange for sexual release when the girl monkey’s are in their ‘down cycle’ and not occupied with being enthusiastically pounded by Alpha monkeys when they’re ovulating.

    Seems like cunnilingus is just one degree of caring separation from bananas and grooming don’t you think?

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