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.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

Leave a Reply

  Subscribe  
Notify of
trackback

[…] Intersexual Hierarchies –Part II […]

jb
Guest
jb

Hot fiya right there.

LiveFearless
Guest

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…

Steve H
Guest
Steve H

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… Read more »

walawala
Guest
walawala

“”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.

vinay3543
Guest

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… Read more »

superslaviswife
Guest

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… Read more »

superslaviswife
Guest

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.

Pijama Wearing Ninja
Guest
Pijama Wearing Ninja

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.

Kate
Guest

“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.

troyfrancis
Guest

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… Read more »

Joe Blow
Guest
Joe Blow

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… Read more »

Glenn
Guest
Glenn

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… Read more »

RA (research assistant)
Guest
RA (research assistant)

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,… Read more »

Bellum
Guest
Bellum

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… Read more »

Nathan
Guest
Nathan

I’m on board with Bukowski.

Jeremy
Guest

@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… Read more »

Acksiom
Guest
Acksiom
Tarnished
Guest

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.

TheMonkeyKing
Guest
TheMonkeyKing

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… Read more »

Nathan
Guest
Nathan

Hi Rollo,

A post on abortion. I would be appreciative

Nathan
Guest
Nathan

Abortion = the essence of everything wrong w women

Jeremy
Guest

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)… Read more »

Steve H
Guest
Steve H

“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… Read more »

oogenhand
Guest

Reblogged this on oogenhand.

JackBlack23
Guest
JackBlack23

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.”

Tarnished
Guest

@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… Read more »

LiveFearless
Guest

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… Read more »

Id Monster
Guest
Id Monster

http://youtu.be/xmauSdNJ1Ec?t=2m30s

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.

Id Monster
Guest
Id Monster

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

jf12
Guest
jf12

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.

Jeremy
Guest

@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… Read more »

Tarnished
Guest

@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… Read more »

Tarnished
Guest

@Rollo

Agreed. But surely it can be overridden by individuals if it is found unnecessary in their personal lives, yes?

Steve H
Guest
Steve H

“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… Read more »

Tarnished
Guest

@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).

Softek
Guest
Softek

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… Read more »

Tarnished
Guest

@Rollo

Okay, thank you. I will tonight after work.

Tarnished
Guest

@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.

jf12
Guest
jf12

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.

Tarnished
Guest

@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.

BlackPoisonSoul
Guest

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.

Jeremy
Guest

@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… Read more »

blurkel
Guest
blurkel

“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.

Tarnished
Guest

@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,… Read more »

Jeremy
Guest

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.

Angry Gamer
Guest
Angry Gamer

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… Read more »

Jeremy
Guest

@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… Read more »

Tarnished
Guest

@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… Read more »

trackback

[…] Intersexual Hierarchies –Part II (The Rational Male) […]

Chokmah
Guest
Chokmah

@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… Read more »

Chokmah
Guest
Chokmah

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”.

TheMonkeyKing
Guest
TheMonkeyKing

@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… Read more »

Tarnished
Guest

@TheMonkeyKing

“Settle”? Settle for what?

TheMonkeyKing
Guest
TheMonkeyKing

@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… Read more »

Bellum
Guest
Bellum

@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.

Tarnished
Guest

@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… Read more »

troyfrancis
Guest

@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… Read more »

TheMonkeyKing
Guest
TheMonkeyKing

@ 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… Read more »

Jeremy
Guest

@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… Read more »

Steve H
Guest
Steve H

@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… Read more »

TheMonkeyKing
Guest
TheMonkeyKing

@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… Read more »

TheMonkeyKing
Guest
TheMonkeyKing

@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

Mark Minter
Guest

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… Read more »

jf12
Guest
jf12

@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.

jf12
Guest
jf12

@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.

jf12
Guest
jf12

@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.

TheMonkeyKing
Guest
TheMonkeyKing

@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;… Read more »

eon
Guest
eon

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… Read more »

jf12
Guest
jf12

@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.

jf12
Guest
jf12

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

TheMonkeyKing
Guest
TheMonkeyKing

“@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.

jf12
Guest
jf12

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

TheMonkeyKing
Guest
TheMonkeyKing

@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.

TheMonkeyKing
Guest
TheMonkeyKing

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.

Jeremy
Guest

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

lol, wiping off on her leg… lol

Vektor
Guest
Vektor

“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… Read more »

Tarnished
Guest

@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… Read more »

Tarnished
Guest

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.

Kate
Guest

“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! 🙂

Mark Minter
Guest

@Rollo
Thanks for the gesture.

jf12
Guest
jf12

@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.

Tarnished
Guest

@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.

jf12
Guest
jf12

@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.

Steve H
Guest
Steve H

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

jf12
Guest
jf12

@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.

titanic
Guest

@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.

Tarnished
Guest

@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?

1 2 3
%d bloggers like this: