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
The Burninator
Guest
The Burninator
Offline

@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
Guest
Tarnished
Offline

“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
Guest
jf12
Offline

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
Guest
blurkel
Offline

@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
Guest
Bellum
Offline

@ 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
Guest
Tarnished
Offline

@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.

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

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
Guest
Bellum
Offline

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
Guest
jf12
Offline

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.

blurkel
Guest
blurkel
Offline

“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
Guest
Tarnished
Offline

@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
Guest
jf12
Offline

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
Guest
Tarnished
Offline

@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
Guest
blurkel
Offline

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 »

blurkel
Guest
blurkel
Offline

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

Tarnished
Guest
Tarnished
Offline

@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 »

equilibro
Guest
equilibro
Offline

“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
Guest
equilibro
Offline

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

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

“she will become progressively more submissive”

Nope. Does. Not. Work. Period.

Tarnished
Guest
Tarnished
Offline

“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
Guest
equilibro
Offline

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
Guest
Tarnished
Offline

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
Guest
equilibro
Offline

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.

blurkel
Guest
blurkel
Offline

@ Tarnished

My thanks for your understanding reply.

Tarnished
Guest
Tarnished
Offline

@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.

jf12
Guest
jf12
Offline

“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.

blurkel
Guest
blurkel
Offline

@ 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
Guest
Tarnished
Offline

“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 »

Tarnished
Guest
Tarnished
Offline

@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
Guest
blurkel
Offline

@Tarnished

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

Tarnished
Guest
Tarnished
Offline

@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
Guest
blurkel
Offline

@ 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
Guest
Tarnished
Offline

@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
Guest
blurkel
Offline

@ 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
Guest
Tarnished
Offline

@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
Guest
blurkel
Offline

@ 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
Guest
Tarnished
Offline

@Blurkel

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

Bluepillprofessor
Guest
Bluepillprofessor
Offline

“”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
Guest
orion
Offline

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
Guest
Zeke
Offline

“…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

[…] 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
Idealism |
Offline

[…] From Intersexual Hierarchies: […]

trackback

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

trackback

[…] Cinslerarası Hiyararşi yazısından : […]

%d bloggers like this: