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.

4 5 votes
Article Rating

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

Speak your mind

247 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jf12
jf12
8 years ago

Any man’s nipples will work if he takes the right hormonal treatment long enough. Similarly, any woman’s orgasms will be much stronger and satisfying if she takes hormonal treatment i.e. female to male transsexual levels of hormones. And she will exhibit mannish behavior in seeking those orgasms.

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  jf12

@jf12

Men don’t have to take excess hormones for their breast tissue to work, nor do biological females have to take supplements to have good orgasms. It seems to have more to do with the females level of vulnerability than anything else. Or at least, this is what my own research into orgasm-deficient women has shown.

Outlier example: I have gender dysphoria, and slightly higher levels of testosterone than the average woman. However, even these levels aren’t at all close to what a male body produces on a daily basis.

At work now. Will be back in 9 hours.

jf12
jf12
8 years ago

@Tarnished, I’m kind of surprised that even when you see and admit the parallel that you deny it. I’ll go so far (boldness has never been a weakness of mine) to say that women’s orgasms are vestigial to the same quantitative amount that men’s nipples are vestigial, and the quantitative measure of that sameness is the schedule of hormone treatment that makes them work better.

Tarnished
8 years ago

@jf12

In case you’re curious:

http://tarnishedsophia.wordpress.com/tag/gender-dysphoria/

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  Rollo Tomassi

Really quick: @Rollo and jf12 I still postulate that female orgasm evolved for the same reason male orgasm did…it makes both sexes more likely to want to reproduce. Even if we say that female orgasms are “vestigial” (not as in useless, but as in not 100% necessary for basic reproductive needs), the fact remains that male and female fetuses have similar nerve endings. If, by chance, males were able to ejaculate without having an orgasm (as can sometimes occur), I’d still not say that the male orgasm is unnecessary *as a whole*. As was pointed out previously, there are a… Read more »

Softek
Softek
8 years ago

Speaking of masturbation and pleasure, circumcision comes to mind. I was pretty pissed when I found out that the frenulum is basically the male equivalent of the clitoris and that mine was *completely* destroyed in circumcision, and I literally have *zero* sensitivity where I’m supposed to have the most. That, and realizing that I have a complete lack of “light touch sensitivity,” due to the loss of foreskin and frenulum. It explained why I always had to use so much pressure to feel anything when I first started masturbating, and why it hurt so much when I tried to masturbate… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  Softek

@Softek

That is horrible. I’m sorry that happened to you. Male circumcision should be illegal, just as female circumcision is. I’ve no issue with an adult who wants it done to themselves, but to cut a baby in such a horrendous manner is child abuse, imo.

jacklabear
jacklabear
8 years ago

@ Tarnished

“Nah, sounds too easy. /sarcasm”

Don’t you know doing what’s easy is seriously beta?

jf12
jf12
8 years ago

@Rollo, great article you linked! Key takeaway “The finding that male-reported female orgasm intensity and frequency during sex were positively related to male relationship satisfaction, and the finding that men’s relationship satisfaction was only positively related to their reported sex frequency for men whose partners orgasm frequently during sex, suggest that men may indeed be influenced by female orgasm in a particular way. The relationship between female orgasm and male relationship satisfaction might be explained in two ways. It may be that female orgasm increases male relationship satisfaction. Alternatively, men who are satisfied with their relationship may be more interested… Read more »

Softek
Softek
8 years ago

@ Tarnished It is horrible. It is child abuse. I would love to spread the message that no one should ever have this done to their child. Not all circumcisions end up as poorly as mine, a lot of guys have some foreskin and some of their frenulum intact — but a lot don’t, and the ones that do still have suffered irreparable damage and have to cope with the grief of knowing that they will never be able to fully experience their sexuality as they were designed to. Long story short, it’s genital mutilation, and the public opinion needs… Read more »

jf12
jf12
8 years ago

@AngryGamer re: “I disagree that Marriage somehow came out of an agreement amongst Lesser Males and Lesser Females.”

I also disagree. Clearly marriage is the result of a gentlemen’s agreement from the betas not to kill the alphas, in exchange for the alphas forcing the women to give the betas a more equitable piece of the, er, pie.

“Do women “know” or “by instinct perceive” the benefit of offspring by Alphas?”

Sure, but their pickers are broken.

BlackPoisonSoul
8 years ago

@Mark Minter, @TheMonkeyKing, @Tarnished – I have noticed from being with two vegans/vegetarians, plus a vegetarian friend, that if they are really into you then the whole vegan/vegetarian thing goes out the window and they’ll start eating meat again. It doesn’t take long for this to manifest.

Tarnished
8 years ago

@blackpoisonsoul

Weird. I guess they weren’t doing it for long, or had weak reasons for being vegetarian then. I can’t imagine going back to eating meat just because someone else, even a lover, thought it was “easier” for them somehow. Then again, my vegetarian diet has a religious bent to it and I’ve been doing it for 17 years, so it’d take a life-or-death issue for me to consider changing.

jf12
jf12
8 years ago

@Tarnished re: “the remaining 2/3 who *don’t* require supplements would attest that they are not necessary.”

Keep in mind I’m not advocating taking supplements, I’m merely stating unequivocally what would happen if they were taken. An average healthy male has much thicker and stronger pelvic floor muscles than an average healthy female. Much thicker, much stronger.

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  jf12

@jf12 Of course. If men are given estrogen, they will develop breasts and get emotional easier (in general). If women are given testosterone, they will grow facial hair, have an easier time developing muscles, and their libido will rise (in general). That is true so if that’s what you were saying I agree. The thing about the pelvic floor muscles is interesting. Where did you hear that? I was taught that women had stronger ones due to the fact they are made to carry 10+ extra pounds while pregnant. Do you have any data supporting your claim? I tried googling… Read more »

Jordan Belfort
Jordan Belfort
8 years ago

On the flip side of cunnilingus,the best measure to see if a girl really likes you, is by how dirty she gets with you in bed. If a girl blows you, sucks your balls, and rims you, consider yourself top sexual priority in her world. It’s far more revealing to measure what she does to you, rather than what she lets you do to her. This has been stated many times on this website but it really needs to be drilled into some guys that girls are very feral minded in the presence of alpha. I remember having a wild… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago

@Jordan

Lol. And what does it mean if she cums from nipple play or fingering or pelvic massage or from watching you jerk off?

Kyfho Myoba
Kyfho Myoba
8 years ago

Robin Baker, in ‘Sperm Wars’ states very clearly what the function of the female orgasm is. When a woman orgasms, several things happen. Sperm already in the cervical crypts is flushed out and becomes unusable for fertilization. The vagina and other associated lady parts ‘milks’ the penis and any ejaculated sperm into the cervix. The cervical mucus, which acts as a filter inhibiting the transit of both infectious microbes and sperm, ‘opens’ for about 90 seconds, allowing a larger quantity of sperm to enter the cervix. Women orgasm for two purposes, 1) To give a partner a superior chance at… Read more »

jf12
jf12
8 years ago

There isn’t any data on any one female orgasm enhancing fertility, at all. While it makes sense that an easily-orgasmic woman enjoys better sex and therefore enhanced fertility, other than effects of overall health no such link has been shown, and believe me no other link in all science has received more attention by more intelligent males for more decades. What is true is that a woman near peak fertility in her cycle orgasms more quickly i.e. more easily, requiring less effort, less time, etc. Thus it is more appropriate to say that reality supports the hypothesis that fertility enhances… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago

As per that chick who made her boyfriend ask 5 frickin times for a blowjob before giving him one: What a bitch. I could understand if he refused to give her oral and she thusly didn’t want to either, or she just hated the idea of penis in her mouth, or had an overactive gag reflex…but to deny a type of sex to someone you’re supposed to love (or at the very least, like) simply because they “don’t turn you on enough”? What the hell? If you’re not attracted to them enough to want to make them happy, you really… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago

@Softek I’ve tried doing the tapping as well when going over my childhood sexual abuse, but it doesn’t help as much as the meditation I do. I’m really glad it works for you though…you deserve to overcome the shitty cards other people dealt you. I’m sorry to hear that your penis isn’t as sensitive as most cut guys. Gods, I’ve heard of botched circumcisions (in as much as it’s not just a botch unto itself), but to not have any sensitivity along the frenulum and for the skin to be *that* tight, the guy in charge of your circumcision truly… Read more »

Softek
Softek
8 years ago

@ Tarnished Have you looked at any of Robert Smith’s videos of Faster EFT on his HealingMagic channel on YouTube? I’m not trying to be pushy by the way — it’s just that I had tried Gary Craig’s EFT (the method that’s been around much longer) multiple times in the past and had mixed success, but overall did not have that great of an experience with it. If you’ve tried traditional EFT and had no success with it I highly recommend checking out Robert Smith’s method. It has a completely different approach and belief system and is a different system… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  Softek

@Softek I have to be awake in 5 hours, but wanted to just let you know that A) I’m not at all offended by your excitement in sharing tapping tips and will try to take a look at the channel you suggested tomorrow, and B) I will have a better response for you after work regarding circumcision, etc. Also wanted to let you know I appreciate and am a bit touched that you are willing to share such a potentially painful or uncomfortable topic with me. I have a great amount of respect for those who put their own troubles… Read more »

Don T Tread
8 years ago

I think most men are miserable, either with how things are or because of a knowledge of how things could be if humans weren’t humans. Because of harsh reality, or stubborn idealism. Isn’t the real key to “happiness” being okay with the fact that, if you’re really honest with yourself, you are miserable, one way or another?

Mr. Odessa
8 years ago

Brilliant quote from Charles Bukowski. This is real.

jf12
jf12
8 years ago

@Tarnished, most women refuse to acknowledge knowing how hard-up most men are. Haven’t you ever heard the joke about why the bride is smiling as she walks down the aisle?

Most women are least giving sexually, even if they give in other areas of their lives.

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  jf12

@jf12

All my friends are men in various states of relationships. Of course I know this. That’s why a good percentage of women suck in areas of sex.

Or rather, they don’t…

I don’t get it, because I throughly enjoy sex of many types (everything from sensual “vanilla” to role-playing bdsm). It boggles the mind that there are women out there who can’t/don’t initiate it every chance they get, especially if they have a nice, giving partner who enjoys it just as much.

blurkel
blurkel
8 years ago
Reply to  Tarnished

@Tarnished

Anyone who had sisters and/or daughters understands why women seem to lack interest in sex. Their mothers train them from their earliest days to see men as requiring their control. Sex is not to be enjoyed for its own sake, but is to be used as the reward in a Pavlovian behavior control scheme. To do anything else opens up a woman to being called a slut by her peers.

jf12
jf12
8 years ago

@Tarnished, re: “It boggles the mind that there are women out there who can’t/don’t initiate it every chance they get, especially if they have a nice, giving partner who enjoys it just as much.”

Yes. This is the reason that most men seek out redpill understanding (someone who is being successful with women usually isn’t interested in why he is unsuccessful): the women in their lives are mind-bogglingly lousy at desire. The very best that most women seem capable of is to lie there enjoying what their men are doing.

Richard
Richard
8 years ago

The old romantic model did work WHEN the woman’s very existence was tied to the man’s. In Wild West Frontier days for example, when the woman was more captive to the man than his horse…. she better damn well love him unconditionally and give him every support she could.

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  Richard

@Richard True, women had fewer options than they do now in Western society. Marriage was expected, and in most cases needed for the resources necessary for survival. But is it not preferable to have your spouse with you because they truly care for you as a person and want to stay to make life easier/happier, instead of them staying out of fear or necessity? I mean, that’s one of the reasons I’ll never marry…nowadays it’s too unfair to the man and basically unnecessary for the woman. Unless you’re of a strict faith that says “sex before marriage is wrong”, there’s… Read more »

Jeremy
8 years ago

I would bet that the average frontier homesteader woman would make the most masculine woman alive today look like an infant by comparison. Survival and hunger has a way of making all humans, but women especially, understand the value of hard work.

Tarnished
8 years ago

@jf12 That’s too selfish to be considered “real” sex, imo. Don’t get me wrong; I greatly enjoy lying back and receiving pleasure from my lover’s talented mouth and fingers. But it’d feel very…off-putting…if I couldn’t then service him in a similar fashion. Sex isn’t a one-way street. If someone just wants to take, they are hardly worthy of the term “partner”. Leech, more like. @blurkel I can honestly say that’s not how I was raised, at least by my grandmothers. I haven’t had female friends since 8th grade, so have little experience with that. My sisters…yeah, that seems about right.… Read more »

Jeremy
8 years ago

@Tarnished …But is it not preferable to have your spouse with you because they truly care for you as a person and want to stay to make life easier/happier, instead of them staying out of fear or necessity? … Is it? Having too much food to eat, rather than too little, is often regarded as a blessing. However the U.S especially is suffering from an epidemic of obesity. Granted that obesity is as much a product of the high caloric content of the food sold as much as the cost of said food. That doesn’t change the fact that as… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy

@Jeremy I never claimed that technology is purely good. Actually, we are in agreement that it has, for all it’s wonders and benefits, been misused and taken advantage of. Men and women alike should avoid overeating, and take part in more exercise. For example, I walk outside for 1 hour every morning if weather permits or use my treadmill and weights during the winter. It would be easier to not, but physical health and strength is an excellent trait to have. More Americans ought to. Yet this does not change the fact that I believe neither men nor women should… Read more »

Softek
Softek
8 years ago

Sleep on the floor or a hard surface instead of a mattress, learn how to breathe only through your nose and using your diaphragm, learn proper oral posture and proper swallowing to encourage proper development of the facial structure, avoid blue light at night, get a Nature’s Platform and squat in the bathroom, use fluoride-free toothpaste, mineral spray/magnesium chloride brine and/or essential oils for deodorant, use natural chemical free shampoo or none at all and just rinse with water, get sunlight, spend a lot of time outdoors, get comfortable walking barefoot, wear minimalist shoes, the list goes on and on.… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  Softek

@Softek

Yes, absolutely! +1

Jeremy
8 years ago

@Tarnished Yet this does not change the fact that I believe neither men nor women should be part of a relationship that holds one (or both) of them “captive”. My comment was not accusatory, it was exploratory. You posed the question: …is it … preferable to have your spouse with you because they truly care for you as a person and want to stay to make life easier/happier, instead of them staying out of fear or necessity? That is still an open question. Your use of the term “captive” does not fit your original question, since males do not seek… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy

@Jeremy True, this was a rather open question. However, recall that it was initially directed toward Richard and it was he who stated that a woman was more a captive to her husband than even his horse. Perhaps I could have used a different wording, but I was attempting to keep within this tangent. Apologies if it wasn’t as clear as it could’ve been…I of course recognize that women are rarely held as literal captives in modern society. As for the aforementioned “myth”: I have no experience with this, and I don’t see how my relationship is transactional. (Unless I’m… Read more »

Jeremy
8 years ago

Reverse Rollo’s question. Ask any woman if she could have sexual access to a single, unattached, very physically attractive, very successful, very well-socially-connected man whenever she wanted, but she could never appear in public with that man, never be introduced to his social circles, and never have any access whatsoever to any of his resources (no gifts, no paid-for fancy dinners, no expensive vacations, etc). i.e., ask any woman if they would accept being the totally secret lover of George Clooney, with all his wealth, social connections, and fame being denied to her, she would literally never be known to… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy

@Jeremy This is what I mean…I understand, accept, and acknowledge the truth of your scenario. You are correct, 99% of women would most likely balk at this relationship. Women as a whole do look for resources in a man, and would generally not be with him if such prospects were denied to her. I *get* that. In this the red pill is bitter but accurate. Yet I look at my own relationships and the pill still sticks in my throat because I’m the 1%. I care nothing for my lover’s resources…I have my own, and 99% of the time I… Read more »

jf12
jf12
8 years ago

Jeremy’s point at 10:25 pm seems to have been dismissed, or missed, by Tarnished at 11:42 pm. “I for one would loathe having a relationship with someone who only remains with me due to fear of unpleasant circumstances” Women in general do not function well by being treated nicely. It does us no good to be advised “Well, just pick a woman who will function properly then” just like it does no good to be advised “Justt pick one of the 1% like me.” The point is that most women have to be made to feel Dread of their spouse,… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  jf12

@jf12 No, I didn’t miss reading it, it’s just difficult to scroll up and down on my phone all the time and sometimes I neglect to respond to a certain part of a comment. Making a partner feel dread to have them stay with you is abuse in my book. No if, ands, or buts. This is a concrete, unbudging part of my moral core. The man who pushes his wife to the ground to remind her who’s boss…the butch lesbian who routinely slaps her femme girlfriend…the woman who threatens to kidnap the children so her husband never sees them… Read more »

Jeremy
8 years ago

@Tarnished But other topics, such as the one we are discussing now, are so foreign to my own way of thinking and personal relations that it’s as though I’m reading stories from alternative realities. The idea that my FwB arrangement is transactional in the way I’ve heard the term used here causes me a great deal of cognitive dissonance. I *know* from my years of reading manosphere blogs, listening to friends issues with women, and my own dealings with them that ABC is generally true, but when I look at my own friendships and other relationships it appears that XYZ… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago

@Jeremy 1. How are you defining LTRs? I’ve been friends with X for 8 years, and lovers for 7. Or is it just not a “long-term” because we aren’t boyfriend and girlfriend? 2. Biological equality is not ever going to become a reality, this is true. But we should still strive to get as close as possible in society. Misandry and misogyny need to both be eradicated, and laws need to be fair regardless of the sexes involved. 3. No, I don’t think I’m a “unicorn”. I do not think of myself as a woman so that might have a… Read more »

Softek
Softek
8 years ago

What is it that we want out of relationships? What makes it worth all the effort? Are sexual relationships a need or a want? Again…the biological significance of sex and general affection in adults is very ambiguous. As far as I know there’s almost zero research done on this beyond some cursory studies talking about heart disease risk and relationship status. Which is not anywhere near in-depth enough to really understand these issues. I’ve been single my entire life. Never even had my own pet. I keep myself fit and strong, I’m a good cook and make great meals for… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  Softek

@Softek You and I are on the same basic wavelength here. One can be alone without necessarily being lonely, though it may creep in every once in a while when family/friends are all busy at once. Enjoying nature, sunlight, fresh air, the slight sting of overworked muscles as you challenge yourself to climb higher than you did last time…few people actually realize *this* is what being alive is about. Sex, intimacy, and the like are very weird topics. On the one hand, some people are denied them while others swim in them. For some, sex is all about numbers and… Read more »

Jeremy
8 years ago

@Tarnished How are you defining LTRs? Not relevant. All LTRs start from a position of a freely entered into transaction, that forms the base. Your relationship may evolve over time, it may turn into something else, or start to include other things or even become altruistic (I know men/women who still provide 100% care for their completely handicapped wives/husbands) but it starts from a voluntary transaction. Biological equality is not ever going to become a reality, this is true. But we should still strive to get as close as possible in society. Misandry and misogyny need to both be eradicated,… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy

@Jeremy 1. Ok. Was just looking for some clarification. 2. As you wish. 3. If you think I was presenting a false dichotomy, I apologize. However, these were just two ends to a spectrum I believed we both knew about and took for granted. I never said they were the only options available, or even that one is better than the other. I believe I stated that different peoplehve different mate preferences and that’s fine. Things are *never* that clear cut. As for taking charge, I don’t know. I imagine most women do like it, same as some men like… Read more »

Softek
Softek
8 years ago

@ Tarnished Thanks. My belief is “I’m not unique” — someone else is suffering with the same stuff I am. A lot of people are ashamed of their feelings or are afraid of being made fun of for expressing them. But when one person shares their experiences, someone else who had no voice can find comfort in it. A lot of the reason I’d imagine guys go to the manosphere is because they’re shunned/criticized/dismissed everywhere else. They’re just told it’s their problem, no matter what’s happening, and they have nowhere else to go for sympathy/empathy/support/understanding/help. Much like how people write… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  Softek

@Softek

I like the way you think, good sir.
Agree 100%.

Tarnished
8 years ago

@Jeremy

Oh, and I’m not “hot”. Others have said I’m a 7+. I don’t see it, and would probably call myself a 5. All in the eye of the beholder, eh?

Jeremy
8 years ago

I’m not going to continue feeding narcissism.

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy

@Jeremy

Okay…? That’s a good plan. Narcissism is a poor trait to have. Better to be humble yet confident than irrationally prideful.

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  Rollo Tomassi

@Rollo

Alright. Thank you.

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  Rollo Tomassi

Okay, so when women out earn their men it makes it difficult to satisfy their desire for resources since they are the ones doing the providing. This then leads to the men feeling the strain of trying to keep the role of family provisioner, and they begin to feel neglected or unnecessary. Thus the women are also left without a male leader in the family (the “you just can’t handle a successful woman” vibe), and either get frustrated and irritable towards their men, or divorce them in exchange for someone who’s more “alpha”. But the article also stated that when… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  Rollo Tomassi

A “Man”? Not just a man? What is the difference?

And what, then, do men need from women? Comfort? Validation? Acceptance?

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  Rollo Tomassi

You’re saying: Men want sex from women. Women want security from men. I get the sex part…Sex is great. Everyone should want it. But I guess I’m still confused about the security aspect. Women tend to have larger social circles and more friendships than men, so it seems her emotional security is covered. Your post discussed how many women are becoming or are primary earners, so there’s the financial security. Men as a whole are already more likely to be harmed or killed in fights/robberies/etc, so it doesn’t seem like they should be forced into defending a female just to… Read more »

jf12
jf12
8 years ago

Rollo rightly claims that what women can give men is “Sex … and occassional appreciation.” It’s very very easy to make a man happy, which makes it all the more shameful to women that so many men are so unhappy.

Tarnished makes the all-too familiar claim that women love nerds and nerds have a lot of girlfriends. So, there’s not much point continuing down that garden path.

jf12
jf12
8 years ago

Re: buying beta. One of the ideas I’ve had rolling around is that since betas provide such great boyfriend experiences to women, women should be paying betas for their services. Instead, what we find is that betas pay bux in order for women to accept boyfriend experiences from them.

jf12
jf12
8 years ago

Re: hunter girls and fisher girls and baseball girls and etc. It’s not just girl video gamers, but also girl race care drivers, girl prison guards, girl comics books, any girl that intrudes on any (? any not?) majority male activities gets a lot more sexual attention than she would otherwise.

Interestingly the opposite effect occurs for boys intruding on female activities.

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  jf12

@jf12

I atually do talk about the difference between “grrl gamers” and gamers who just happen to be women. It’s a constant issue among gaming communities, trying to figure out who is an attention whore who wants everyone to know how “special” they are VS who actually just wants to frickin sit down and play. It’s sad that we have to deal with this, but I think most are good at weeding these females out.

http://tarnishedsophia.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/the-games-we-play-part-2/

Kate
8 years ago

“Lets just say that women’s need for security extends beyond just the financial. Women have a need for emotional, physical and familial security. So while a woman may be independently wealthy and is capable of her own material provisioning, she still needs a man to be a Man.”

Word.

jf12: Betas don’t get paid for anything; that is their curse.

The Burninator
The Burninator
8 years ago

@jf12 You imagine incorrectly for the most part. Sexually women tend to be entirely receivers and narcissists, not givers. QF to the motherfuckin’ T, brother. Unless they’re trying to get something specific out of you, usually a LTR/commitment/engagement ring or at a minimum some jewelry, or they are trying to impress you at the very beginning of your “relationship”, they are by and large entirely unconcerned about your sexual pleasure. They may enjoy sex but your enjoyment in their eyes should be that they showed up to participate at all. Ask any married guy how many years into the marriage… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago

“Her conditions were met, ergo, your pleasure no longer needs to be addressed. The trade was complete.” Okay, here’s something that doesn’t make sense. If we accept the premise that 99% of relationships are transactional, then shouldn’t the reciprocation keep going? If we go with the stereotype of Man Wants Sex + Woman Wants Security, but then the Woman stops holding up her side of the “transaction”…why would the Man ever stay? If there’s children involved I might understand, but there shouldn’t be any childless + sexless marriages (unless there’s extenuating circumstances). Yet the manosphere is full of men who… Read more »

jf12
jf12
8 years ago

Re: why stay. I stay for two big reasons
1) I said I would stay. This is the big reason that Dread is so hard to conjure up in marriage: if he threatens to leave then he is going against what he said earlier.
2) Religiously it’s all just part of “for worse” anyway, so it’s objectively wrong to leave.

blurkel
blurkel
8 years ago
Reply to  jf12

@jf12

Sometimes, the spouse or the promise isn’t why one remains in a bad relationship. Sometimes it’s financial in nature.

There are sometimes other adult relationships which generally get severed when one separates. If the crumbled relationship isn’t especially onerous or difficult to abide, the value of maintaining these other connections make the effort viable.

Bellum
Bellum
8 years ago

@ Steve H. “In my view, what’s missing from Bellum’s equation is the cold hard fact that women never stop testing, never stop creating drama.”
You know those moments when you’re being a douche: women also have them. Just point out she’s being a douche and should stop. Who cares why she does it. Maybe she is shit-testing, maybe she is shit, maybe she’s having a shitty day… I don’t care and neither should you. Be fair and just and expect the same in others. If you’re being subjected to entitlement and drama too often, leave.

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  Bellum

@Bellum

That is excellent advice. I’m not entirely sure what “shit tests” are (what form they take, not the idea behind them) but douchey behavior and entitlement are not welcome in good relationships. You’re supposed to bring each other comfort, not create drama.

blurkel
blurkel
8 years ago
Reply to  Tarnished

“You’re supposed to bring each other comfort, not create drama.”

@Tarnished

Far too many “marriages” are not partnerships. They are power struggles, and shit testing is how she fights for dominance. If it didn’t work, her mother wouldn’t have taught her how to do it successfully. The basic strategy is similar to that of the martial arts, which is to keep your opponent off-balance. The more off-balance, the longer control is maintained.

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  blurkel

@blurkel

Imo there’s already enough power struggles in the “real world”. It’s easier to just be equals when alone than to compete…besides, what is there to compete *about*? I’m not married or even in a boyfriend/girlfriend arrangement so it’s entirely possible I’m missing something out of those dynamics that would make this clearer. But what “powers” are these husbands and wives struggling over? What to have for dinner..? Who has to get up to feed the baby at night..?

jf12
jf12
8 years ago

Re: shit test definition. Women exude contrariness most of the time anyway, but a shit test is when she gives her man unwarranted guff, and there is no right verbal response from him. If he takes it quietly, she thinks less of him for taking it, and will treat him worse. If he reacts to it, she thinks less of him for reacting to it, and will treat him worse. Evo-psych-wise, the correct response to EVERY shit test from a woman is for the man to smack her in the mouth hard. But we can’t do that nowadays so men’s… Read more »

Bellum
Bellum
8 years ago

That’s not what the shit-test theory is. Women will act up to test how you react to an unreasonable demand in order to test how you would react to a sabertooth tiger attacking your children: if you don’t have the stones to tell her to stop acting up, you won’t have the courage to kill forementioned cat with your bare hands. Example: a woman demands you pay for her, or sulks when she doesn’t get something. Correct response: “You’re being a douche because (…). Stop it.” Smacking women is utterly useless as they see it as a sign of emotional… Read more »

jf12
jf12
8 years ago

Telling her to stop it is labeled whining. There literally is no winning for their man here: that is the POINT of the shit test: to make him feel worse. She is communicating her feewings that he is negatively valued by her.

jf12
jf12
8 years ago

re: “I’m not married or even in a boyfriend/girlfriend arrangement so it’s entirely possible I’m missing something out of those dynamics that would make this clearer.”

Correct. Living together with a woman tends to make her controlling.

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  jf12

@jf12

Controlling of *what* though? Even if we did end up living together someday (highly unlikely), I can’t think of anything that would warrant a “power struggle”. It’s just a weird thing to think of having in the confines of a relationship. I can see it in school, at work, maybe even with relatives who keep bugging you about what you’re doing “wrong” in life…but with someone you’ve chosen to be with?

blurkel
blurkel
8 years ago
Reply to  Tarnished

Controlling of what? It isn’t just the household chores. It’s what is done with the money, the kids, and her lifestyle. Many times over the years, I’d come home to discover the latest extravagance. “I just had to have it!” was the excuse. While I’d let her keep her latest trifle, I always knew that I did not have the same privilege. I once asked where the money went every month. Instead of telling me, she had me write out the checks, as if that was going to explain (it didn’t). There were many expenses that were made when I… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  blurkel

@blurkel I hope you pardon my language, but it sounds like you accidentally married a horrific bitch of a woman. I commend *you* for putting up with such assholery for as long as you have. Honestly? If I was in your shoes I’d have said “screw it”. You, my dear sir, don’t have a partner…you have a parasite. And one with a heaping narcissistic entitlement complex to boot. I’m not “sorry” since I didn’t do anything, but you have my sympathies and empathy for putting up with this on a daily basis. As for your sons, I hope they find… Read more »

blurkel
blurkel
8 years ago
Reply to  Tarnished

@ Tarnished

My thanks for your understanding reply.

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  blurkel

@blurkel

You’re welcome, though I feel odd accepting thanks for simply having empathy. People shouldn’t get cookies for being a good person…that should be the minimum default.

Thanks, though.

blurkel
blurkel
8 years ago
Reply to  Tarnished

@ Tarnished

Have you any idea how rare it is for a male to be the recipient of empathy? From anyone?

I thus felt it necessary to acknowledge you as it just might encourage better behavior generally.

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  blurkel

@blurkel I do, trust me. Like I mentioned before, I don’t think of myself as a female and only have male friends. However, even if I cut my hair short, dressed as a guy, and bound my breasts like I did in high school, I still wouldn’t be confused for a man. (Unfortunately.) As such, I can see what happens on both sides of the gender fence. Men and women have issues to overcome, but where everyone listens to female problems it’s a constant cry of “man up!” directed at males. Makes me sick, honestly. I may not agree with… Read more »

blurkel
blurkel
8 years ago
Reply to  Tarnished

@Tarnished

How did you manage to garner this intelligence when so many women have little-to-no interest in matching your effort?

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  blurkel

@blurkel

If you’re not adverse to visiting a MGTOW blog, I think you’ll find your answers if you read the conversation I’m having with commenter ManGoing.

http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/a-portrait-of-a-white-knight-or-mgtow-saves-lives/

Or if you prefer, I’d be happy to have you visit mine. It’s an egalitarian blog, and a safe space for men. There’s only 1 feminist who comments over at my place, mostly I entertain men who are at least somewhat red pill.

blurkel
blurkel
8 years ago
Reply to  Tarnished

@ Tarnished

I read enough of both your stoner thread and “But I don’t WANT to be pretty” to know that I need to read both more carefully and thoughtfully to truly understand. Right now, the anger I feel at your abuser prevents this.

But my immediate reaction is: somehow you still see fit to defend men after these experiences. There is a great story to be told there. More after I’ve read more properly.

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  blurkel

@blurkel

Thank you for your kind words, but please don’t let my past hurt you, too. Take heart that no permanent physical injury was had, and that I’m a survivor, not a victim. Anger is justified in these cases, but it causes pain as well. Please do not feel pain on my account.

blurkel
blurkel
8 years ago
Reply to  Tarnished

@ Tarnished

I understand your sentiment regarding my anger at your step-father. But I am not assuming your pain as if a White Knight. I happen to despise bullies, and have to vent before I can again assume a rational take on the comments. He’s very lucky that I never had any power over him – he’d not relish the experience.

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  blurkel

@Blurkel

Okay, I can understand that. I loathe bullies as well, regardless of age or sex. Please just promise that you don’t let it under your skin though. It’s my pain to overcome, and I only speak of it to let other children/grown adults know that they’re never alone, not in an attempt to spread the hurt.

blurkel
blurkel
8 years ago
Reply to  Tarnished

@ Tarnished

Not to worry. My anger passed within minutes, and it isn’t about to resume. That tornado has blown out. Nothing but rational about that person from now on.

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  blurkel

@Blurkel

Okay, good to hear. Thanks for taking the time to let me know. It’s appreciated.

blurkel
blurkel
8 years ago
Reply to  jf12

That is a shorter respoonse than what I gave. Probably easier to remember for those not involved in such relations.

equilibro
equilibro
8 years ago

“It’s not who earns the most, it’s who makes the decisions”; absolutely right. You don’t have to be a control freak about it, because If you have something good to say you have no need to shout. If she’s right about any proposed decision, tell her or show why she is. If she’s wrong, CALMLY tell her or show her why she is, tell her what should be done instead, and what you will be forced to do if she doesn’t agree. There might be fireworks the first few times but the natural authority you will be demonstrating will be… Read more »

equilibro
equilibro
8 years ago

Addendum: Use the same technique whether a decision is hers or yours.

jf12
jf12
8 years ago

“she will become progressively more submissive”

Nope. Does. Not. Work. Period.

Tarnished
8 years ago

“If she’s right about any proposed decision, tell her or show why she is.” If someone is making a good decision it is probably already evident to them that it’s the right decision. Saying “hey, that’s a great decision” to let them know you agree with them is fine. Saying “hey, that’s a great decision because reasons x, y, z, and because (rehash of their thought process). Good job!” is just plain condescending. That’s something one does with a small child who’s still learning right from wrong and how to think about future consequences, or a mentally impaired adult who… Read more »

equilibro
equilibro
8 years ago

Calmly and consistently hold your ground; don’t duck out. Look her straight in the eye and explain why she is wrong. She then either submits and accepts your decision or she submits because you tell her that if she doesn’t accept it you are leaving, and you leave. If she really wants you, she’ll beg you to come back and then you can write the rules, if she doesn’t then you are better off out of there. Either way you win. Deep down, women are aroused by men who stand up to them. If you haven’t got the balls to… Read more »

Tarnished
8 years ago

Oh, and before I get blasted for decrying traditional relationships: Yes, the dominant/submissive or Captain/First Mate model works for some couples. I have a wonderful female commenter who is exceedingly happy in her marriage, and she is very upfront about being a submissive wife. I do not begrudge her, or others like her, that happiness. Likewise I do not look down on women (or men, to be fair) who choose the home over a career. I may not think the same way, but neither am I so self-centered to believe my way is necessarily right for other men and women.… Read more »

equilibro
equilibro
8 years ago

Say it, mean it, do it.

It’s the way to show the woman that you call the shots. No matter what they might say, most women are biologically programmed to submit, and to “love” you for it. If yours doesn’t, then man up and find yourself another who does.

Don’t blame her if your relationship isn’t working, it’s down to you to sort it out. If you lamely do what she tells you to do, YOU ARE A LOSER.

jf12
jf12
8 years ago

“or she submits because you tell her that if she doesn’t accept it you are leaving, and you leave.”

Correct, Dread works. “Be the man” does not work, except when it didn;t need to.

Tarnished
8 years ago
Reply to  jf12

“Dread” probably does work with select women (same as with select men who are financially dependent or afraid of losing their kids). That’s why I always recommend to people of both sexes to never fully rely on their partner…one can never be sure if your husband or wife will turn on you. Always have a job. Always keep in contact with relatives. Always have at least 2 good friends. Always have a personal (not joint) bank account to keep a couple hundred dollars in. Always have access to transportation, either public or self-owned. Always have a backup plan if you… Read more »

Bluepillprofessor
Bluepillprofessor
8 years ago

“”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… Read more »

orion
orion
8 years ago

I dont care.

If a girl does not want her pussy eaten or to suck my dick, well, it was not meant to be, neh ?

trackback

[…] Intersexual Hierarchies Part 1 – Part 2 […]

trackback

[…] Intersexual Hierarchies – Part II […]

trackback

[…] Intersexual Hierarchies Part 2 May 13, 2014 link […]

Zeke
Zeke
7 years ago

“…as long as you remain the dominant force in her non-work life” I’ve recently read a study entitled Egalitarianism, Housework, and Sexual Frequency in Marriage that supports the fact the claim that marriages with more traditional roles report a greater frequency if sex and an overall greater satisfaction in the marriage. I love how that study relates to everything in this post; that Game does work, that the phrase “If you want more sex, MOW THE LAWN” really is statically true. The biggest relation between this post/study was Tomassi’s relay from Heartiste that dissatisfaction was more frequent in a marriage… Read more »

trackback
7 years ago

[…] dichotomy presents to men and women is that it fundamentally places both sexes into the Subdominant model of intersexual hierarchies. In that model the man is perceived as another dependent […]

trackback
7 years ago

[…] From Intersexual Hierarchies: […]

trackback

[…] quote from this post, where he is responding to this bukowski […]

trackback

[…] Cinslerarası Hiyararşi yazısından : […]

247
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
%d bloggers like this: