Owed Sex

ron-hermione

In the aftermath of the Eliot Rodger’s tragedy there was one resounding go-to mantra from mainstream media, blue pill plugins and the femintariat alike…

“Men are not owed sex for anything.”

Last week I left a couple of comments on Dalrock’s blog outlining my expectations of having this be the first easily consumable public meme.

In its entirety:

This is the first binary retort I expect from feminists unwilling to dig any deeper into the transactional nature of human sexuality. God bless Roosh, but he didn’t do the manosphere any favors by simply stating that incidents like Eliot Rodger’s wouldn’t occur if men had more socially acceptable alternatives for sexual release or female intimacy, and then just leave the interpretation up to a media founded on feminism and feminine-primacy.

I get what his intent was, and probably most of the manosphere did too, but it was just too oversimplified not to be snapped up in the most binary (black or white) terms by feminist, like Linker, and the MSM as an easy mark to line up against. So of course “men” and fem-centrists throw out stupid bromides like “what, do we need ‘sex vending machines’ to keep men’s urges in tact so they wont shoot the pretty blondes they wanna fuck?”

The premise that a man would ever be ‘owed’ sex for anything is offensive to the feminine imperative because it offends women’s self-entitlement to being filters of their own hypergamy, plain and simple. Women’s hypergamy dictates whom they will and will not fuck according to their sexual strategy’s most urgent needs.

To presume a man is ‘owed’ sex for services rendered, or due to his own self-perceived prequalifications for a woman’s intimacy, is to remove women’s control of the decision making / filtering process of their hypergamy.

The offensiveness doesn’t come from the notion that men would need to perform in order to get sex, but rather that a man might forcibly assume control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.

This first comment was in response to the Damon Linker article Dalrock was picking apart. I won’t steal Dal’s thunder, so if you’re interested in that full article go have a read of it in its entirety. Later Dal asked me to clarify what I meant about men “forcibly assuming control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.”

I’m not clear on what you mean here, and fear that others will take this as a justification of rape. What do you mean by “forcibly”? Are you talking about Game?

To which my comment was, again, in its entirety:

Game, rape, guilt, shame, prearranged marriage, obligation, moral enforcement, really anything that removes or limits a woman’s hypergamous filtering and puts that control into the decision making process of men.

In the case of Rodger, although his killings don’t bear it out, his intent, at least as interpreted by a feminized MSM, was a presumed obligation on the part of women (and top shelf women no less) to recognize his self-perceived superior qualifications for their intimacy and reward him with sex, love, adoration, affection, etc.

Granted, the kid was a sperg with a list of very real psychological disorders, but the only thing a fem-centric society focuses on is the audacity he had in presuming he, and by association Any Man®, could assume control of a woman’s hypergamous filtering – in this case via an implied obligation.

The Two Sides of Hypergamy

Anyone who’s read the first part of my Preventative Medicine series understands the dual nature of feminine hypergamy. From a biological level to a social level, feminine hypergamy demands the optimization of two disparate elements: securing the best genetic (breeding) option a woman can attract, and the best long-term provisioning (security) option she can attract in a male. From biologically prompted mating behaviors to contemporary social entitlements, women seek a balance between breeding optimization and security optimization – preferably in the same man, but failing this, optimally in different men.

I’ve written about women’s security needs in various posts, but it’s important to understand that optimizing a woman’s best available options for hypergamy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) prompts a deep, evolved, psychological need for certainty. Feminine Hypergamy is defined by a profound, often life-long, uncertainty and doubt over the choices she makes in breeding and / or bonding with a given pool of men in her lifetime.

The Need for Certainty

Women’s sexual filtering, vetting, nagging, shit testing, as well as many other evolved habits are all subconsciously inspired by a need for hypergamic certainty.

In a pre-sexual revolution social order, a woman’s capacity to optimize her hypergamy (and pacify the uncertainty) had a variety of extrinsic limitations.

Some of these I listed in my comment to Dalrock; guilt, cultural stigma, shame, moral and religious conviction, obligations to family, arranged marriages, polygamy, and yes, rape, were all a means to limiting a woman’s decision making capacity to optimize her innate hypergamy.

Before I continue, let me state in no unclear terms, rape, in its most visceral definition, is bad. I don’t believe the general population of men need a lesson in yet more feminine shaming efforts to understand this simple idea. As most readers know, it’s generally my practice to describe things – not to prescribe things – and allow readers to make their own moral conclusions, but I’ll break form in this case.

Any given reader may see a positive or a negative argument for limiting feminine hypergamy via cultural or religious doctrines, but I am not now, nor will I ever, endorse forced sexual penetration on women (or men) as anything but a negative. However, in light of its undeniable limiting of feminine hypergamous choice, throughout human history, rape is the most direct way men have most decisively removed a woman’s hypergamic decision making capacity. To ignore this truth, or to be cowed by even the thought of considering it, is to deny the obvious.

In a post-sexual revolution social order, women’s control over their hypergamy is only limited by their capacity to attract the best prospective mate their sexuality, personality and physicality will afford them. Whether provided for by the state, personal independence or other means women in a post-sexual revolution era, to a larger degree than any other time in western history, have the security side of their hypergamic optimization virtually guaranteed.

Even with women for whom this security isn’t fully realized, the greater social undercurrent for the past 60 years has been one which presents women with a social responsibility to break away from provisional dependency on men, thus granting women unilateral control over their hypergamous decision making.

Whether this security-side assurance comes from legal institutions, abortion laws, paternity laws, the advent of no fault divorce, child custody and support distribution, or, the security guarantee comes in the form of social conventions which foster the expectation of men to be bound to a one-sided provisioning contract, the modern message is clear for women; Independence from the necessity of men’s provisioning largely reduces or eliminates the uncertainty of  long-term security.

Or in other words, unilateral control of a woman’s hypergamy means Beta Bucks now takes a backseat to Alpha Fucks.

The Old-Order

The provisioning and personal investment in character, masculine virtue and ambition that made the, pre-sexual revolution, old order man an attractive prospect for a woman’s security-side hypergamy no longer carry the necessary appeal they did to ensure he would attract a marriageable woman. For women, the old order of attraction was based primarily on the security side of her hypergamous need because this was the most uncertain aspect she could secure in a social climate where her hypergamous decision making was more constrained.

Not unsurprisingly, women’s prioritizing long-term security inspired men to accommodate it by cultivating provider characteristics in themselves in order to be attractive. This isn’t to say the same Alpha side arousal we see in women’s sexual prioritization today wasn’t important, or tingle generating. Rather, the old social order prioritized women’s security needs since the Alpha Fucks side of her hypergamy was buffered by women’s general dependence on a man’s long-term provisioning.

The problem now is that, since the sexual revolution, the majority of (Beta) men are still raised and conditioned in this old-order context, based on an outmoded social contract that they were taught to ego-invest themselves into in order to best effect their own sexual strategy.

Although it’s the easiest dismissal fem-centric society would have anyone believe, only the most ignorant and self-important of men would ever come to the conclusion that they were owed (in the most transactional sense) the sexual and intimate affections of a woman in exchange for his personal investment, resources, dedication and acts of kindness. Certainly not men raised and conditioned to defer to a woman’s honor and respect, by default, above his own.

However, due to the old order social conditioning that taught them that a man in the unquestioning service of a woman’s security-side hypergamy should be the pinnacle of attraction, their conflict comes not in being denied an owed reward, but rather that rewards of sex, love, adoration, affection, respect, etc. the old-order convinced them they can and should earn is observably being offered to men who embody the exact opposite of his old order conditioning.

Relational Equity vs. Alpha Fucks

Deti picked up on this conflict in the comments of last week’s post:

We as human beings need to eliminate the words “deserve” and “entitled” from our vocabularies. Women are not entitled to anything from men; just as men are not entitled to anything from women. This entire “male sexual entitlement” strawman that our opponents have erected is just bull, plain and simple. Men do not go around claiming “entitlement” to sex; only psychopaths and mental defectives do that.

For anyone unacquainted with the fallacy of Relational Equity, I’d suggest reading that post to get some familiarity. Relational Equity is the idea that the more a man invests himself into his relationship, all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. equity he accrues for that dedication and commitment should be rationally appreciated by a woman and thus a buffer against the Alpha Fucks side of feminine hypergamy.

In essence this fallacy is the is rooted in the old order, security-side dependence of women’s hypergamy – the trust is that Beta Bucks will trump Alpha Fucks.

A man’s ego-investment into this fallacy is often the cause of his want to define Alpha in his own image, rather than remove his ego from the process and observe how women react and behave around men they actually have an Alpha arousal for. An example of this old order Beta disconnect is embodied in the person of Corey Worthington (a.k.a. the Alpha Buddah):

Guy’s like Corey infuriate men who have invested their self-worth in the accomplishments of what they think ought to be universally appreciated and rewarded. So when they’re confronted with a natural Alpha being undeservedly rewarded for brazenly acting out of accord with what they think the rules ought to be, they seethe with resentment. The natural response in the face of such an inconsistency is to redefine the term ‘Alpha’ to cater to themselves and their accomplishments as “real men” and exclude the perpetrator. The conflict then comes from seeing his new definition of Alpha not being rewarded or even appreciated as well as a natural Alpha attitude and the cycle continues. Your respect (or anyone else’s) for an Alpha has nothing to do with whether or not he possess an Alpha mindset. 3 failed marriages and 100+ lays has nothing to do with his having or not having an Alpha mindset. There are many well respected betas who’ve never had a passing thought of infidelity, or may have 300 lays either with prostitutes or because they possess fame or stunning good looks and women come to him by matter of course.

I wrote this almost three years ago, but the parallels of this ‘Alpha in his own image’ dynamic that Eliot Rodger shared with men conditioned in the old order of earning or meriting women’s intimacy are undeniable. Despite Arthur Chu’s male-apologetic mewling, it’s not that men like this feel ‘entitled to or ‘owed‘ sex with their idealized women, but they do feel their investments in a relational equity, and what they’ve been conditioned to believe should qualify them for women’s attentions have been betrayed to men who gratify the Alpha Fucks side of women’s hypergamous natures.

Feminine-Primary Assortive Mating

 “When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

Ironically the best spokeswoman to illustrate the dichotomy between both sides of women’s hypergamy should be Sheryl Sandberg – the voice and embodiment of several generations of women raised on the Feminine Imperative and unilaterally unrestrained hypergamy. So oblivious is Sandberg to her feminine-primary, solipsistic confirmation of hypergamy that it never occurs to her that men would be anything but accommodating of her life-plan advice for younger generations of women. It never occurs to her that a “man who values fairness” would ever reject her (much less despise her) for the duplicity that women’s dualistic sexual strategy disenfranchises men of.

So you see, it’s not a red pill awakening that predisposes men to believing they’re ‘owed’, ‘entitled to’ or ‘deserving’ of sex, love, adoration, affection or anything else from women – it’s the generations of women like Sandberg who unabashedly exploit the old order conditioning of Beta Bucks men, while expecting them to dutifully accept their open or discrete cuckoldry with Alpha Fucks men – and then tell them that “nothing’s sexier” than their complacency in it with a wriggle of their nose.

 

5 2 votes
Article Rating

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

Speak your mind

243 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback

[…] So the only conclusion we can really draw from this is that women encourage exactly the transactional mentality about sex that they now complain all men feel they are “owed”. […]

trackback

[…] Women will bemoan some fanciful epidemic of misogynists who think they’re entitled to, or owed sex, but the fact of the matter is the same women actively contribute to that belief by (legally now) […]

trackback

[…] I wrote Owed Sex I went into detail about how women’s perception of their hypergamous choices have been […]

cruzcontrol
cruzcontrol
7 years ago

“It’s the generations of women like Sandberg who unabashedly exploit the old order conditioning of Beta Bucks men, while expecting them to dutifully accept their open or discrete cuckoldry with Alpha Fucks men – and then tell them that “nothing’s sexier” than their complacency in it with a wriggle of their nose.” Absolute genius. Rollo, your last few paragraphs are a bonafide tour de force for the manosphere. Thanks for your unapologetic brilliance and clarity. A few months back I was desolate over a girl. You gave me some articles to read. Your blog and book are slowly but surely… Read more »

trackback
7 years ago

[…] of our present feminine-primary social order. We’re emphatically told that women “never owe men sex“, yet the latent message is, and has always been, “but, if you perform to her […]

J
J
7 years ago

Yep.

Women owe me nothing.

And I owe them nothing.

So where does that leave us?

Well, we know where it leaves them. In the arms of other women.

Us men? Increasingly turning to free porn on the internet to keep the prostate in good working order.

The other option? Buy a plane to ticket to a part of the world where they have never poisoned themselves with the pill and feminist ideals. Yes, male happiness does still exist, at least in the short term. Just not here.

Equalist
Equalist
7 years ago

Do you all really believe this? Are you guys for real? Do you seriously feel this way about your mother and sisters and daughters? Why is this website so misogynistic and what’s up with the beta and alpha nonsense, it’s so childish! Do you not believe we are all equal?!?!

J.
J.
7 years ago
Reply to  Equalist

You want decent women?

Buy a plane ticket. To a part of the world where they still exist.

saintluger
saintluger
7 years ago

… two words… SHELF LIFE! ” )p
men, go enjoy the world you built… the Great Whore is a mentality… and they still want it all and will do, say – kill… anything… just to get what they WANT… not need… WANT. let them compete and kill each other, they’re pretty much idiots who don’t have brains like men, but men built the world so hence, they want what men have done, reminds me of some ghetto people who cry racism… and are lazy and always have an excuse too… hmm… something to think about, eh?

trackback
7 years ago

[…] Open Hypergamy isn’t just a game for single women; it’s made its way into contemporary marriages. It’s now part of the egalitarian equalist expectation of men in marriage – that in order for men to truly be men worthy of marrying a co-equal ‘modern woman’ he must dispense with any notion of ownership of her, forgive the worst of her Hypergamous indiscretions as part of her “finding herself” and then accept his role as the Plan B, Beta provider for her in the nick of time to help her fulfill her sexual strategy in the long term. All of… Read more »

trackback

[…] feel when they see a man washing dishes by hand. Women agree, he’s practically owed sex at that […]

Margo Cummings
Margo Cummings
6 years ago

Wow! So you’re blaming women for rape/sexism essentially? This is a distinctly bitter male view of a much larger societal problem. Women did not set up the patriarchal system in which they were essentially considered their father’s and then their husband’s property (still going on today in many places). And no, I’m not just some hard core feminist who believes men are solely to blame for society’s ills. Yeah, I think women are completely delusional with their obsession with marriage, princess weddings & all the other fairy tales they’ve gotten caught up in but don’t put it all on them.… Read more »

trackback
6 years ago

[…] Nice Shaming from a decade ago still manifests like this occasionally, and the predictable “women don’t owe you sex” indignation is still the reflexive response. But as the old exchanges of the old rules are […]

Karl
Karl
6 years ago

Wow. Such drivel. I feel sorry for any women this author has befriended and I’m glad he is not getting laid! It seems to me that persons who buy into this perspective are missing out on the fulfilment that an egalitarian sexual relationship built on mutual respect and desire can give. Trust me Betas with confidence and respect for their partners have sex with remarkable regularity! And I suspect much better sex.

trackback
6 years ago

[…] when the transactional nature of it will run contradictory to the narrative that men are never owed sex for anything. The subcommunication is one of an implied contract, but the indignation will be one […]

rugby11
rugby11
5 years ago
Kevin Franks
5 years ago

If “Independence from the necessity of men’s provisioning largely reduces or eliminates the uncertainty of long-term security,” and this ‘independence’ is provided for though various fem-centric social conventions, then why do women getting off the cock carousel ask “Where have all the good men gone?”

Why don’t they ride the carousel for as long as they can and simply collect a check/support through the social channels?

kfg
kfg
5 years ago

And who woulda thunk that trying to live without consequence or liability would have consequence and liability.

Kevin Franks
5 years ago

The question wasn’t about how long women ride the carousel, but about women wanting “good men” when they’re approaching the Wall. Why do women ask “Where have all the good men gone?” if they’re supposedly independent of them for long-term security?

Dizzle
Dizzle
5 years ago

Because they are trying to have it both ways.

Don’t overthink this.

Kevin Franks
5 years ago

Thanks Rollo.

Thanks everyone.

trackback

[…] the “Good Man” she claims to want, Carol’s go-to response is “You are not owed sex for anything” and “Being nice doesn’t entitle you to my body”, which not […]

Andy Koenigs
Andy Koenigs
4 years ago

Women are really the ones who think they’re entitled to sex. The hypocrisy is extreme.

trackback

[…] fuck them. This is why women get aggravated by the presumption that men might feel they are ‘owed sex‘ in exchange for what they do for them. And why wouldn’t men feel that way? […]

trackback

[…] to fuck them. This is why women get aggravated by the presumption that men might feel they are ‘owed sex‘ in exchange for what they do for them. And why wouldn’t men feel that way? They’ve been […]

trackback

[…] I wrote two essays outlining the minds of Incels. The first was The Severing and the second was Owed Sex. I wrote these essays in the wake of the Eliot Rodger shooting and the sudden emergence of the term […]

trackback
4 years ago

[…] I wrote two essays outlining the minds of Incels. The first was The Severing and the second was Owed Sex. I wrote these essays in the wake of the Eliot Rodger shooting and the sudden emergence of the term […]

trackback

[…] kampanyalarından önce de varolan bir olgu. Sorunun cevabı ise, Rollo Tomassi’nin Owed Sex adlı yazısında (aslında Erkek Düşmanlığı Balonu’nda da biraz […]

Vic
Vic
1 year ago

A little frustrating dating experience I want to share. Me – beta (people would describe as the good guy, friendly, peaceful, confrontation avoidant, friendly, stable…) I tried online dating in my late 20s, and on my profile I explicitly stated that I’m open to any dating interests (short/long term). One woman (that I found good looking) turned down my advances, saying that “You’re a great guy, but I’m not ready to settle down yet for a family; I still want to have fun”. But I didn’t tell her I only want to make a family! I surely didn’t mind having… Read more »

243
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
%d bloggers like this: