I realize I dropped this quote last week, but it provides us with a unique illustration of the prevailing feminine psychology that’s been evolving since the sexual revolution.
“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
In last week’s post I made note that Sheryl Sandberg was blissfully ignorant of her blatant admission of feminine hypergamy, but I felt her ‘advice’ to women here represented so much more than just a display of her solipsistic ignorance.
For as long as I’ve butted heads with many obstinate deniers of hypergamy’s influences, on women personally and society on whole, I’m not sure I’ve read a more damning indictment of hypergamy from a more influential woman. Sandberg’s advice to the next generation of women essentially puts the lie to, and exposes the uncomfortable truth about, women’s efforts deny the fundamental dynamic of female sexual strategy – Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.
Even if you want to argue the evolutionary (psychology) and biological origins of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, the fact is now socially evident; women have come to a point where they’re comfortable in openly admitting the truth that Red Pill awareness has been drawing attention to for over a decade now.
Courtesy of Sheryl Sandberg, the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks basis of women’s sexual pluralism is now publicly recognized. It’s kind of ironic considering that what the manosphere has been trying to make men aware of for years is now being co-opted, embraced and owned as if women had always practiced an open sexual pluralism – incredulous to any man’s shock over it.
However, the truth is that a feminine-centric social order can no longer hide the increasingly obvious fallout and consequences of a society restructured to accommodate women as the predominant sexual interest.
Last week I speculated that Sandberg was ignorant of the feminine-primary implications that her statements draw attention to – and I’m still of the opinion that an innate feminine solipsism motivates more and more women to this admission – but it’s impossible to ignore the new degree of comfort in which women feel in laying bare their dualistic sexual strategy.
To some significant extent the Feminine Imperative no longer needs to keep the ‘Good Genes’ / ‘Good Dad’ dichotomy ugliness a secret from men.
In last week’s post I mentioned that a new ambient sense of an assured long-term security in the feminine mind was predisposing women to prioritize the ‘Best Genes’ (Alpha Fucks) side of feminine hypergamy. Sandberg’s ‘advice’ is a vital confirmation of this, however, she tacitly acknowledges a window of opportunity during which women possess a better capacity to pursue this side of hypergamy:
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.
In these two sentences Sheryl (and by extensions the Feminine Imperative) essentially confirms women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, my (now infamous) sexual market value graph depicting women’s peak SMV and decay, and the first half of the time line of women’s phases of maturity I laid forth in the first two installments of the Preventative Medicine series.
Selling the Beta
With regards to men, I believe the most salient part of Sandberg’s admission is found at the end:
These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.
For the better half of the time since the sexual revolution it was necessary for the Feminine Imperative to convince a majority of men that their eventual Beta providership for women was not only their duty, but also a prime aspect of feminine attraction. As I mentioned last week, under the (pre-sexual revolution) old-order attraction model this may have been the case to a large degree. However after the revolution, and as women’s hypergamy prioritized towards ‘Good Genes’ short-term sexual partners, the ‘Good Dad’ (Beta Bucks) men needed an ever increasing ‘sell’ of their own attractiveness by women.
This persistent sell was a necessary element of ensuring a future long-term security for women while pursuing increasingly more short-term breeding opportunities as feminine-primacy expanded into society. The future ‘Good Dads’ would need to be patiently waiting out women’s “indiscretion years” during their SMV peak, so the sell became an ever-evolving definition of what women found attractive in men based on that old-order model of dependability, patience, industriousness, and every other characteristic that defined a good provider.
Quoted from Why Muscularity is Sexy:
According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.
From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.
Strategic pluralism theory is a pretty good definition of feminine hypergamy, but what this theory hadn’t yet accounted for (at the time it was published) was the necessitousness of women with regards to short-term mating strategies and long-term parental investment opportunities over the course of the various phases of maturity as they aged.
The Beta investment sell was necessary because it ensured male parental investment at a later (usually just-pre-Wall) time in a woman’s life. Thus, Sandberg’s praise of men “who think women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. [Men] who value fairness and expect or, even better, want to do his share in the home” will eventually be sexier than the Alpha “bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys” she encourages women to fuck earlier in life is an excellent example of this sell.
Ironically it’s exactly with this sell that women encourage the very transactional nature of sexual relations with men they’re screeching about recently. It’s the Choreplay fallacy on a meta scale – do more around the house, play into the equalitarian schema women think they need in a provider, support her ambitiousness and opinionatedness and you’ll be considered “sexier” and get her Best Sex she’s been saving just for a guy like this.
Building the Beta
The problem the Feminine Imperative runs into with selling the Beta is that as women’s “independence” expands this sell becomes less necessary and less effective. Less necessary because women’s personal, social and legal long-term security insurances have become almost entirely disconnected from men’s direct (not indirect) provisioning. Less effective because men have become increasingly aware of their disenfranchisement of the old-order provisioning model as being something they might equitably be rewarded for.
As the consequences and repercussions of women’s hypergamous priority shift to Alpha Fucks become more evident and real for men; and as their capacity and comfort with connecting and relating these experiences with other men becomes more widespread, the less effective the sell is for Beta men awaiting their turn to enter into a pre or post Wall monogamy with the women attempting the sell.
Throughout the 70’s, 80’s and most of the 90’s, the sell was effective because men were isolated socially and technologically from each other’s relative experiences. From the late 90’s onward that isolation has diminished while the societal results of feminine-primacy have become more glaringly, and painfully, evident to men.
In its ever-reinventive fluidity, the Feminine Imperative found it necessary to transition from selling men on being later and later life long-term providers for women into building a generation of men who would expect of themselves to fulfill that role when the time came. These men would be raised and conditioned to be the patient Beta providers women would need once they had followed the Sandberg model of hypergamy.
These would be the boys / men who would be taught to “naturally” defer to the authority of women under the auspices of a desire to be an equal partner.
These are the men raised privately and created socially to be ready for women, “when it comes time to settle down, and find someone who wants an equal partner.”
These would be the men ready to expect and accept a woman’s proactive cuckoldry of him in the name of being a pro-feminine equal.
These are the men raised to accept an open form of hypergamy in place of the selling to an old-order Beta provisioning model.
The Hypergamy Schism
The problem this creates for women becomes one of dealing with the men they need to sell a secretive hypergamy to and the men they build to accept an open form of hypergamy to. The increasing comfort with an open admission of hypergamy is relative to a woman’s capacity to get away with it.
A woman like Sheryl Sandberg has the means to decisively ensure her future independence and long-term security (at least in the financial sense) whether she’s married or not. She could very well return to the Bad Boys she found so arousing and advises women ‘date’ and never rely on a man’s direct provisioning. As such she’s very comfortable in publicly revealing the ins and outs of post-sexual revolution hypergamy without so much as an afterthought.
While she publicly affirms the build model of Beta provisioning (under the guise of equalism) and expects “those guys will be awaiting you” this doesn’t hold true for a majority of women. Women with affluence enough, or a physical attractiveness sufficient to virtually ensure their future provisioning are much more comfortable with the build a better Beta model than women who find themselves more lacking in this assurance.
The more necessitous a woman finds herself in the sexual marketplace, the more likely she is to deny the mechanics of her own hypergamy.
A woman less confident in consolidating on her future long-term security (and / or cooperative parental investment) has a much more personal investment in keeping the truths of hypergamy a secret from men. As such, these women will be more predisposed to misdirecting the men becoming more aware of this truth and relying more on the selling model of Beta provisioning.
Needless to say this split between women comfortable in open hypergamy and women reliant upon secretive hypergamy is a point of conflict between the have’s and have not women in the sexual marketplace. The more men become aware of women’s hypergamy and strategic sexual pluralism, through women’s open embrace of it or the manosphere, the more pressure the ‘have not’ women will feel to also embrace that openness.
[…] Controlling Interests […]
Looks like MGTOW is the only option.
The problem this creates for women becomes one of dealing with the men they need to sell a secretive hypergamy to and the men they build to accept an open form of hypergamy to. The increasing comfort with an open admission of hypergamy is relative to a woman’s capacity to get away with it…. …Needless to say this split between women comfortable in open hypergamy and women reliant upon secretive hypergamy is a point of conflict between the have’s and have not women in the sexual marketplace. The more men become aware of women’s hypergamy and strategic sexual pluralism, through… Read more »
Does Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks have a masculine corollary? I believe so, it’s known as Madonna/Whore albeit, that’s not parallel construction. Parallel construction would be Whore/Madonna. For what it’s worth, not all women–or men–actually obey the prevailing *sequence* of archetypes and there are indeed individuals who successfully embody *both* strategies and even with the same person sometimes or in consensual poly-amory. Whereas having an unresolved Oedipus or Electra complex sort of dooms one to mismatched archetypes in my view. Meanwhile, clearly privilege changes everything. A female with less privilege than Sandberg would be ill-advised to follow her relationship advice which could… Read more »
@Capri, been there, done that.
“Courtesy of Sheryl Sandberg, the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks basis of women’s sexual pluralism is now publicly recognized. It’s kind of ironic considering that what the manosphere has been trying to make men aware of for years is now being co-opted, embraced and owned as if women had always practiced an open sexual pluralism – incredulous to any man’s shock over it.” That’s funny, I noticed it too. Once upon a time, I remember that they would argue against the idea that women might want to fuck alphas or badboys or whatever, but then, to my surprise, they started… Read more »
I think in most cases, the woman ends up having children who are the beta husband’s rather than the alpha bad boys’ she dated, so it is not really a case of getting alpha genes and beta provisioning. Of course there are single mothers who had already had the bad boys’ children and get a hard up beta to be the step-father, but that’s not usually the case. I personally am quite grateful for reliable DNA testing so I can’t be fooled (and will check if I ever have children).
“As the consequences and repercussions of women’s hypergamous priority shift to Alpha Fucks become more evident and real for men;.” As the RedPill takes its toll on my psyche, I have noticed more and more, how much masculinity in the physical is being on display, in the media, the social media. et al. Its not about having a job, but a bod. As it becomes more an AlphaFucks world, the male masculine physical displays will be more pronounced. For instance this new term “spornosexual” is rising, and it is masculinity in the visual sense, it is, I feel in direct… Read more »
Intra sexual competition signalling, I fucked the bad boys and got the money so there! Her age is a factor here.
I’ve wondered about the nature of inter generational intra sexual competition (everyone knows stories of mothers being jealous of daughters) and how it plays out.
[…] Controlling Interests (The Rational Male) […]
When does Sheryl predict that David’s *eventual* sexiness will be realized by her?
If this book does not make her husband find his masculinity……then he deserves every emasculating death stare that he gets.
Gold my man. I want to recommend your fine writing and books to all my friends. I’m just terrified that their brains will melt.
Is it finally time to realize my potential to attract more/better women by waxing my body hair, getting a spray tan, and getting some ink? Damn… never thought I would actually be considering this but the results these kind of guys get speaks volumes.
A beautifully written breakdown. Kudos.
“When it comes time to settle down, find someone … ” – Sandberg
Also assumes that there will BE someone, i.e. a Beta, to settle down with. The FI assumes the sale.
There always is. There will always be guys out there that are just lonely and want to opt out of the game, just about every woman can find some guy(so long as they are not too picky).
Sheryl is worth a lot of money due to Facebook. If she ever gets divorced in California she might have to fork over half of her net worth to her beta hubby. And she, like other career women at the top, employ nannies to take care of the household.
She surely did a prenup. And would be given custody, so no avail to the beta hubby.
Your understanding and ability to elucidate all of this is remarkable, as always. I can only add that there are other players in the schema; 1. The legions of fat women about 120 million strong (never given their full credit for how much influence they have on this whole dynamic) They have allowed women who MERELY MAINTAIN THEIR PHYSICAL HEALTH the leverage to build their own fantasy mating playground equipped with tattoed fantasy figures with media contrived sex appeal then transitioning nicely to millionaires and huge castles in the suburbs—all while not even cracking the top 70% internationally for female… Read more »
Why not just call ‘hypergamy’ what the evo-bio/psych guys call it; ‘dual-mating strategy’. Doing so would lend a lot more scientific credence to it and make it easier to propagate to the public.
@melmoth I do sometimes stop and think “damn this chick is 20lbs overweight but she is still an 8 in this environment”. To be honest I have gotten so used to it I am not very picky. It isn’t so much the slightly overweight chicks that screw things up, but the obese ones really mess everything up (same for the obese men). Most people aren’t going to look awesome and have abs but a decent level of fitness is possible (see: the rest of the world). How many times do you see a woman with a beautiful face but she… Read more »
I think in most cases, the woman ends up having children who are the beta husband’s rather than the alpha bad boys’ she dated, so it is not really a case of getting alpha genes and beta provisioning. Of course there are single mothers who had already had the bad boys’ children and get a hard up beta to be the step-father, but that’s not usually the case. I personally am quite grateful for reliable DNA testing so I can’t be fooled (and will check if I ever have children). True, but people’s emotional reactions are based on the satisfying… Read more »
scratche2013 – “As for the quiet dentist example; women detest quiet men, I wish I knew why. They will always go for boisterous men, even if they are much less physically attractive.” I chalk that up to an S/MMP that allows women to be lazy. All people seek the easy solutions, the lazy solutions if they exist. In this case the market incentives make quiet men more work in relation to their value. A gregarious lower value man is less work and therefore a near perfect, good enough substitute for the higher value quiet man. It’s really a decision to… Read more »
I get the feeling that selling the beta will escalate. No matter how independent a woman is, she’ll always seek to use less of her resources, the “what’s mine is mine and what’s his is mine”. And anything other than financial, she’ll seek to get somebody that has more than her. Back to the kind of guy she “deserves”. And Jeremy raised the question that I was thinking about. The infighting. It will start when the have-nots start to feel like they have to escalate the selling of the beta, while listening to people like Sheryl Sandberg keep telling them… Read more »
The pressure’s on. The more men are becoming aware of female hypergamy — and the pervasive feminized conditioning that caters to female hypergamy — the more power we have to start shifting the power balance by prioritizing our own sexual imperative to the same degree that women have been prioritizing their sexual imperative. *True* equality (in the modern fem-centric era) would mean men pursuing their sexual imperative as recklessly and selfishly as women pursuing theirs without any fear of condemnation or judgment. Really, it’s so simple. It’s just realizing that feminism is based on double standards, and those double standards… Read more »
Great post. Yeah, it’s a tough pill to swallow. I should have swallowed it eight years ago. I kind of did, but I didn’t. Just accept that men and women cannot love each other for the same reasons (Who they are vs. What we are), and if you don’t desire children, then live the single life. Hooker sex can actually be great if you find the right one (not talking oneitis here) and it doesn’t cripple you financially. I like the honesty of hooker sex, plus you can have it with pre wall women with high SMV.
It’s often simpler than that.
Most people, men and women, are raised in homes with emotional problems. Spanking, yelling, irrational punishments, addictions. Almost all women I’ve met had these, even UMC.
They are attracted to each other of low emotional skills.
Plus, the “bad boy” is available to hang out by the pool at 3 pm mid-week.
When you’re young and you say you believe it
Then you’re never gonna change
You can read about it all in imaginary stories
But you’ll never get the glory, ’cause in life it ain’t the same
You give a bit, and you give a bit
And it’s all you’ll ever do
But you still keep believing in your love shit
‘Cause you’re hoping one day it’ll happen to you
^^^ Ain’t that the truth. They don’t say “It stings like a bitch” for nothing!
@Melmouth Im mainly speculating, but I don’t think “boisterous” is synonymous with “alpha”. I can easily picture the dentist getting a girl wet with a smouldering stare, walking right into her personal space, whispering something cocky in her ear, and walking off with a sly wink and grin while the chick chases after him. I think the real dichotomy is between deference and self-prioritization – an alpha gets what he wants and doesn’t wait for others to give it to him. @alcockell Its not the only option, but its certainly one of the most appealing. In any case, judging from… Read more »
@ softek re: your long post. You’re hurting. And I simpathize. I really do. But you don’t need game. Proper therapy and journaling. To stop the self-attacks. The self-attacks are likely a habit to stop you from being assertive because in the past, as a child, you were attacked for it. Whether you ever get laid again, stop the self attacks, replace them with virtue. Also, I don’t see that you’ve internalized anything. Once you internalize, you realize that women are boring and don’t care for you as a person. Dates with 9’s lately have been really mind-numbingly boring. The… Read more »
@ THEGREATSHEBANG & (especially) softek: You should both be well-served with investing more time in reading guys like Derek Rake and Jack Ellis…
Comprehend and enjoy; keep it real & your heads levelled!
Źokko, it is unsportsmanlike to crowd another mans fishing spot because you see his success. Go out and explore new waters.
A woman like Sheryl Sandberg has the means to decisively ensure her future independence and long-term security (at least in the financial sense) whether she’s married or not. She could very well return to the Bad Boys she found so arousing and advises women ‘date’ and never rely on a man’s direct provisioning. As such she’s very comfortable in publicly revealing the ins and outs of post-sexual revolution hypergamy without so much as an afterthought.
@scratche2013 “They will always go for boisterous men”
No, only a particular *kind* of boisterous. The Steve Urkel kind, for example, does not work.
Brilliant, simply brilliant – bravo, Rollo this is eaily one of your best pieces together in terms of how you tie so many of the ideas you present here to a real world example. The really interesting bit to me is the con job of it all that women are presenting. They want betas so they can dominate them – Sheryl is a prototypical alpha-bitch. She might get wet for a real man, but is constitutionally incapable of submitting to a man’s frame. The most galling part of all this femcentric view of the world is that men’s needs and… Read more »
To women like Sandberg, men are just wallet-penises in waiting, who are to be perpetually on standby to serve women’s wants and needs and who own wants and needs aren’t to be considered at all outside of their utility to women.
Beta bucks is being collectivized, women are going to vote themselves cradle-to-grave provisioning. The major theme of national elections going forward will be “reducing inequality” and “improving children’s lives” by granting female voters and particularly single mothers additional entitlements.
“To women like Sandberg, men are just wallet-penises in waiting, who are to be perpetually on standby to serve women’s wants and needs and who own wants and needs aren’t to be considered at all outside of their utility to women.” It’s like that to women like Sandberg because that IS the reality. They re not deluded. They are merely conforming their behavior to reality. Pretty much ALL of these women will eventually be able to get married because no matter how much the betas complain about the manifest unfairness of it all, they will nevertheless line up to ‘put… Read more »
Ha ha haaa. The men Sandbox thinks she “deserves” wouldn’t touch the old crone with a ten-foot silver-plated swizzle-stick. Besides, their families probably wouldn’t let them, cut them off without a penny. Sons and heirs, that’s what those outfits require. And “smart” in wives is bad, for that class. Means they can plot to disinherit, Roman empress style. Reminds me, must ditch this email. Gone to shit since Mayer was perched on top like the sugar-plum fairy, after many years of use and no issues. Increasingly unuseable, and now ineradicable Inbox-spam too. FaceBug went a couple months back due to… Read more »
“expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home.” Dafuq, Shezza? What didya think they were doing all this time you ladies were treatin’ ’em mean to keep ’em keen? Sitting in a piss-stained Burzum teeshirt on a Cheetos-encrusted Lay-Z-Boy, in the legendary basement? In jail? What, maybes they were in the military? Newsflash. Those guys do 2x the cleanup & “housework” that wives ever do. At the double, or else. Or they have servants. Like you. OK you meant the “right” sort of light-on-his-feet never-wed SWPL bachelor? Oooh no, I think his boyfriend might have something… Read more »
sometimes i am shocked when girls admit it. 1 girl was describing to me another who was going around kissing everyone at some party & then went home with some random alpha. the 1st girl told me “but that’s what your 20s are for right?” um not really but that’s what all these girls believe.
Outstanding post here; if I could type this note while standing and applauding, I would…. So, what man would hate themselves enough to settle for what Sherly Sandberg is proposing? At its core, it shows an appalling disrespect for men, their lives and goals. The fact that you are a free agent, with hopes, dreams and desires is never even taken in consideration. Pre-wall, you wouldn’t even be considered by a woman like that for a fraction of a second, but come the day that the first Botox appointment is scheduled, suddenly her 267th choice for a partner is moved… Read more »
From an alpha’s point of view, why would you not like hypergamy, why would you not like feminism that allows them to act it out? This is the question that I have always asked. If you are part of the 20% receiving 80% of sexual attention (i don’t care about the exact numbers, just that the phenomenon exists) then wouldn’t you do all in your power to MAKE SURE that these systems that benefitted you NEVER went away?
@John, feminine hypergamy is never going away. It is literally written into women’s genetic ‘firmware’.
My intent is never to make it go away, but rather caveat emptor – buyer beware.
That exactly is the consp…errr, beautiful day today, isn’t it?
As the super alpha (I’m talking top 0.05%) sees his civilization deteriorating, he starts to have an incentive to reign in hypergamy. These are forces that take years and decades to play out however.
It’s interesting that Sandberg apparently believes she is selling the Beta to *women*. She thinks that she is advising them to do what they don’t want to do: settle for a nice guy good husband. But as Rollo noted, all she is really doing is perpetuating the myth to Betas that women will eventually want them.
Ahhh, but there is a whole new matchmaking industry flourishing out of those words. From a matchmaker: http://lnkd.in/b8eQs_X
You’re settling if:
“he could be geographically desirable or work in the same building or make the right amount of money, etc…
Can you see yourself going out night after night and still find something to talk about? (If not you’re settling)
If sex is something you do because it is expected instead of losing yourself in the other person, you are cheating yourself!”
One thing I late-edited out of this post was the feminine selling of the idea of Cads vs. Dads that “seller” women like to promote. It’s really a variation of Dalrock’s “lets you and him fight” scenario, but ultimately it achieves the same goal Sandberg advises for women’s “at the right time” security needs. “Dad’s” are sold the idea that, once women are done banging “Cads” (whom they prefer to fuck but are ultimately unreliable), they will be the “true Alphas” for sticking with the Beta Provider program and get their Dream Girl for the happily ever after once she… Read more »
@ Softek – Wow, what brutal honesty – would that any fucking woman on earth could ever be as open and vulnerable as you were in your comment. I’m in a very similar place to you with just about everything you said, including being tempted by MGTOW and rejecting it. It’s even harder to deal with when you’re older as I’m, 51. Some silly commenter above claimed you hadn’t internalized anything – uh, yes you have. And I did too. The entire gynocentric world we live in is designed to make men vassals to women and pussy beggars. And of… Read more »
@Rollo, re: “organic enmity”. It’s seemed to me that since the sexual liberation of women, women have used their freedom primarily to protect their access to alphas by protecting alphas from betas.
Forget your horrible case of oneitis and leave the country pronto. Get out now.
This whole discussion comes down to strength. If we were to look at the sexual hierarchy, we see Alpha Male>All Females>Beta Males. Betas are 80%+ of the male population. These numbers are what make the Sandberg method possible. Those numbers will never change because most guys, for one reason or another, dont take full charge of their lives. The great news is that any man who is focused and Game-aware can tilt the odds in his favor. It is just a question of effort. Women are so hungry for a dominant male that a man with just a semblance of… Read more »
New Yorker, I’d agree with that except that the 80% Betas ‘believe’ or are conditioned to believe that they are in fact in control of their lives by following a feminine-primary conditioning.
One thing to be glad about, IMHO, is that some women are finally admitting to their pluralistic sexual strategy. It slowly merges herd gender dynamic view with actual reality that men have been observing for decades. Perhaps in near future, a sensible man doesn’t have to feel like he just entered the twilight zone, when talking to women about these topics. Based on my personal experiences and observations, there are more than enough future beta husbands that will gladly accept a former cock carousel rider as his one and only, forever and ever. Or at least until she gets bored,… Read more »
Thought-provoking Rollo but I’m going to be a cook here who claims certain ingredients have been incorrectly added or omitted from the recipe. -Building a better beta reduces transactionality. He ‘wouldn’t have it any other way’. As you say, the properly built beta openly accepts a woman’s proactive cuckoldry. The sell isn’t necessary. -The ‘building a better beta’ meme is a recent and historically unprecedented one. It’s brave new territory. -The sharpest feminist voices are not among the higher SMV females for whom simply building a better beta will suffice. In contrast, these feminists are middling women – 5s, 6s,… Read more »
@Rollo, I felt the need to share this nugget I found today. It was tough to get through but some classic white knighting and shaming here. After reading your material, it’s so much more amusing/disturbing to read this and many of the comments. Imagine if we used “woman up” on the ladies demanding they give us sex whenever we choose. Oh but that’s misogyny.
I didn’t want to believe it at first but some men are bound be to beta for life, even with solid game. I’ll let you in on a little secret that any guy who’s been in this game and has read up on the red pill will tell you: Game can only do so much; It’s not nearly as important as looks in establishing real desire. The reason most PUAs won’t tell you this is because they’re either selling you something, or they themselves are blind to the truth. I didn’t acknowledge this when I was pulling women at first… Read more »
*Broken record alert* To everyone reading this – if you will simply create abundance in all areas of your life – inner work, outer work (socializing), game, personal finance, looking your absolute best, exercising, travel, hobbies you enjoy – and you combine that with red pill wisdom + a) compiling a variety of women acquaintances and/or FWBs who you know would love to fuck you given good logistics, combined with b) a humble, ego-less willingness to contact escorts whenever you feel like it and don’t logistically have a chick at your beckon call that same night…or simply bypassing a) and… Read more »
This post makes sense but a wanted to touch on a few things: A) if you fuck a girl and she ends up being with another guy and you show aloofness and indifference that IS defining you as an ‘alpha fuck’ b/c you fucked her and your not bending your frame like a beta. And B) if the goal in life is to create offspring with a high smv hot girl….and being a beta provider is what gets you that… Then doesn’t that mean the beta providers are winning at life? (Assuming the girls aren’t just getting knocked up which… Read more »
This is Sandberg, decoded: “When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date [lean in and fuck and suck] all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things [Alpha allure] that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands [duh, apparently, this needs saying]. When it comes time to settle down [after all that fucking and sucking of Alpha bad boy cocks], [shake off your used up carcass that’s been violated in every orifice and] find someone who wants [has been… Read more »
“if the goal in life is to create offspring with a high smv hot girl”
if that’s the goal in life, then life is not worth living.
and the prospective girl you speak of is not even hot anymore by the time she bears your child in Sandberg’s advocated scenario.
and because of all the cocks she’s had in her anus, mouth, and vagina by that point in time – the exponentially quantifiable likelihood that your marriage/LTR with this mother of your child will be disastrous in Sandberg’s advocated scenario.
see Heritage Foundation comprehensive report @ http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf .
” They’re angry and unhappy of course. Both of those emotions are such a given and such an obligation for the American male that if you manage to avoid them you will be hated for it.”
Ihad not seen this, I’m still young and single, but now that you say it, it’s obvious truth.
@softek, ” It really fucking hurts to unplug, just as much as it hurts that first time you found out some girl you were heads over heels in love with was fucking and giving all her affection and attention to some guy that wasn’t you. ” I used to feel the same way. After she stops bring a deity to me I stopped romantic illusions. It becsme just a fuck. I guess it’s like eating a burger. The smerican indians would pray to tge soul of the animal before killing it thanking it fur it’s life but now we don’t think… Read more »
Flip, You might be thankful for reliable DNA testing but keep in mind, DNA/paternity testing is being made illegal in more developed feminist countries. It is now illegal for paternity testing to be done in much of Europe including France and Germany and a few other major countries in the EU. I am a geneticist and I can tell you with 100% certainty there is an all out war going on to try to ban genetic testing for all NON court ordered paternity tests using the best interest of the child as the reason for banning it as the laws… Read more »
“Throughout the 70′s, 80′s and most of the 90′s, the sell was effective because men were isolated socially and technologically from each other’s relative experiences.”
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a van full of men.
Lol @ Sheryl giving this “valuable” advice. Bitch is ugly as fuck and I wonder if she dated more than 5 guys throughout her whole life. No doubt she is a great COO, but she’d better not dish out dating advice.
@Craig: The FI limiting the use of paternity testing …. why am I not surprised? Its scary how predictable this all is.
It is truly amazing that the law of the land is that if it benefits women it is good if it benefits men it is bad… How they could get the laws to change to only allow paternity tests to show paternity which benefits women but not allow them to show no paternity is insane. The hypocrisy of women and the FI knows no bounds.
@ New Yorker – I agree in the sense that there is really nothing to do but alpha up and play the game that’s been laid out for us more effectively. But I’ve always found this line of reasoning somehow unsatisfying, and after reading Rollo’s comment I realized why. It isn’t biologically determined that 80% of males are beta. Sure, some distribution exists wrt biology but many betas are INTENTIONALLY beta. They think that being a nice guy really is a superior way to be versus a brute like you. They embrace beta, you see them all around you every… Read more »
B) if the goal in life is to create offspring with a high smv hot girl….and being a beta provider is what gets you that… Then doesn’t that mean the beta providers are winning at life? 1.) This presumes an imbalance in assortive mating. If a Beta could by some other variable (provisioning) ‘get with’ a woman of higher SMV than his own this would be a net benefit in his favor. However, female SMV decays far faster than men’s so it really comes down to with who and when he consolidates on this benefit. 2.) This presumes a static… Read more »
Umm, I tend to disagree with many commenters who think “Selling the Beta” is working. The wonderful posts on this site discussing the marriage strike, and especially the way a woman’s odds of getting married after 30, let alone 35, have declined so dramatically, indicate that a lot of gals that age are not going to secure permanent provisioning from the beta. When my ex and I separated, but before I learned anything of Red Pill truths, I found myself quite in demand from a certain class of gals. I now live in the Tampa Bay area, and around here,… Read more »
@ Glenn I am not advocating a “more for me” approach. I sympathize with the 80% betas and have done my best to try to spread the truth. Many just refuse to listen. I understand that they have been programmed in a certain way (as was I actually…) but there needs to be some responsibility on the individual. Deep down, every beta knows that something is wrong in his life. Hence, there is no replacement for a man taking responsibility for that. That applies to a lot more than just women….it applies to career, fitness, personal relationships, etc. As much… Read more »
“Can one really just say, hey, eff them, more for me?” Yes. And that is a recipe for misery. And a guy with that mindset will always be at a competitive disadvantage IRL to the guy who has good intentions and is trying to set up his buddy or cousin or female friend with someone. When you are the ‘impromptu dating coach’ one of the problems that arises is that you inevitably come across as more attractive than your client, unintentionally sabotaging the client. IOW, genuinely seek to help *others* hook up and you’ll be given everything on a silver… Read more »
“Is it finally time to realize my potential to attract more/better women by waxing my body hair…”
I’m a man. I have testosterone in my blood and receptors for it in my skin.
I will never emasculate/feminize myself by removing my body hair.
A woman who doesn’t like my masculine gender signals is not a better woman as far as I’m concerned.
Guys, Rollo is essentially laying the groundwork for the prediction of another sexual revolution. Whether he actually makes that prediction or not (it is wise not to become a prognosticator), the case he is making here leads to a polarized female side of society. When societies polarize, they usually destabilize and some kind of cultural or even political revolution happens. In our time, we will have the female haves on one side, with the high-paying (not necessarily high-producing) careers, prestige, etc… living the life of “having it all” and being able to afford it… contrasted with the female have-nots who… Read more »
Hmm,..now, what blog have I read this on before,…?
“Simple, she lies (battle feint) to most men that “alphas” are really “assholes”, and that “betas” are “the true sexy””
Spinechilling pang of truth right there. Great overall comment as well. I do think that we’d be talking about a *very few* female ‘haves’ in that context (who we might also call ‘true Alpha females’). I don’t see men being sincerely attracted to the sugar mommy inversion en masse.
@jacklabear “Is it finally time to realize my potential to attract more/better women by waxing my body hair…” I’m a man. I have testosterone in my blood and receptors for it in my skin. I will never emasculate/feminize myself by removing my body hair. A woman who doesn’t like my masculine gender signals is not a better woman as far as I’m concerned. I feel the same as you but I can’t deny the power the current culture has over the minds of females. A significant % of the most attractive females are extremely vain because that is the trend… Read more »
Maybe an obviously, fundamental answer, by I would love some insight. Why are there so many women who hang onto major beta men for so many years, even when they are young and in their prime? I understand the pressure of approaching the wall and grabbing hold of a beta male. But I know so many women (or girls) who have clung onto the most beta guys since they were young (think high school sweethearts) until marriage. What is the appeal there? Are they simply comfortable or maybe they don’t know any better? Maybe they’re just brainwashed into thinking that… Read more »
I think that very few women consciously understand their sexual strategy. They dont always know why they switch from bad boys to betas, they just know that they “like him”. Sandberg probably understands it more consciously, but I would say that she is in a small minority. Hence, the beta condititiong of “wait your turn” that betas receive is often subconscious in that many women are not aware of the reasons for their change in tastes. They often call it “maturity” withoiut acknowledging that the haunting reality of the Wall is what causes this “growth spurt”.
@ Steve H Not sure if you meant your dating coach comment for me. I am not trying to serve as anyone’s coach. But the only way I see of helping someone is to show them the reality of what they are facing. The more energetic ones get it, the others just shrug in powerlessness. It makes me want to hurl but I also know that the only person who can change is one who truly wants to live. This is where each man has to decide the purpose of his life for himself. Too often, it takes a crisis… Read more »
Look for the moments when women start to tell people like Sandberg, “sure, easy for you to say”. That’s the sign of the beginning of the in-fighting.
scratche2013: “The problem for me is I would like to have more of these 18yr old hotties for one night stands and I know going “metro” or “sporno” or whatever would probably work” I’m not in my twenties anymore and to me, if a woman isn’t worth more than a one night stand, she isn’t worth fucking in the first place. Sure, I like the way young hotties look, but if she insists that I de-masculize myself, it isn’t worth it. It reminds me of the Swedish feminists making men pee sitting down. I’m not going to go along with… Read more »
You’re one hunned percentile right that the modern western male, and esp american male, is a CONSTRUCTED being . . . not the natural and complete man he was created to be. Instead, he is in the vast majority of cases a man-u-fractured entity whose foundational psychology — and assumptions about right and wrong — are templated upon him incremetally as he “becomes a man” in the feminist nations of the past half-century. It’s funny that all the Science Fiction writing geniuses overlooked the point you found so patent and obvious — that modern maleness in an artifice imposed upon… Read more »
Ermagerd .. she’s one of Them Beenthere seenit dunnit (well, dun a runner, eventually. “Vivacious” somehow has a nasty half-life of about 18 months as it decays into “Intolerable”). ““From a young age, I liked to organize — the toys in my room, neighborhood play sessions, clubs at my school,’’ wrote Sheryl. When she ran for class vice president in junior high school, she added, a teacher warned Sheryl’s best friend to find a new pal because “no one likes a bossy girl.”” I’d been looking for some kind of handle on her general level of cognition or awareness or… Read more »
@ Glenn I want to tell her how I feel or ask her out or something, anything, to just get a response and put an end to the torment. I feel like I’m losing my mind. The conflict is I’m afraid that asking her out or revealing my intentions will be the very thing that destroys any chance I have of getting with her. Her boyfriend is an AFC and I keep thinking if I keep my mouth shut and play my cards right I could win her over. She’s flirted with me and shown interest and after everything I’ve… Read more »
@ WaterCannonBoy, re “easy for you to say”, here are some feminist intellectuals idle dimbulbs chewing the fat over Sister Sheryl’s weighty “advice”. And the hivemind converged on .. you called it right. Class “privilege” i.e. The Munnay!. Not having family arms, being more inbred than a guineapig, and having The Hon. tacked onto your name, I think. Latoya: could use a bit of education as to what “structural issues” are, since she appears to think that everyone has an even shot Kate: this kind of position is grounded in a level of privilege that most women (or even most… Read more »
Just a pointless semantic argument: MGTOW doesn’t necessarily mean giving up on women. It really largely depends on who is defining the term. Within MGTOW, the term lesser-used term “ghost” can mean someone who has given up on sexual relationships women, with “ghosting” as a verb for that. Even if ghosts are “incels” or “involuntarily celibate”, incel is most often invalid, because most people do sexually reject someone, even if its much less so for men and usually for incels women with lower SMV. PUA’s seem to equate MGTOW with ghosting when they themselves could be considered MGTOW by virtue… Read more »
@caprizchka: A lot of beta men are trying to transition to alpha men through the use of game, etc. In your corollary, do you think its possible for women to make the same transition, or do they stay on one side or the other.
Remember Betas, “nothing’s sexier” than your equal partnership…
@ Softek – Sir, if I was in your presence and a friend I would slap across the face you to shock you out of your delusional state. Let’s keep this very simple. 1. You are not a snowflake, you are not unique and you are not speshul. Neither is this “one”. What you are going through is what all men go through. 2. You just have “oneitis”. I won’t pull the links and lay them out here, Rollo has written about this extensively. Just re-read what he has written. 3. New Yorker may be right – I’ve seen you… Read more »
What can I say, my brain is damaged. I can quote movies from my childhood verbatim but I can’t quote the manosphere. Sorry.
“When it comes time to settle down,” Translation: “When none of the Alpha’s will give you the time of day.” From a male perspective this “advice” is great – we get to enjoy an unending supply of fresh, young, nubile women going through their “experimental” stage, and never have to really deal with the dregs. Pass them off to the retards in the back… That’s been working pretty well for me these last 50+ years, so I see no reason it won’t last me a while longer. Great advice for the ladies Ms Sandberg – I couldn’t have enjoyed anywhere… Read more »
Very few members of the herd actually know where the herd is stampeding off to, they just follow the leader.
@jacklabear, “The fact that testosterone was made a controlled substance is an ominous sign of what the culture is doing to destroy masculinity.”
Awesome putting together the big picture. Female hormones, including but not limited to “natural hormone replacement” estrogenic compounds, can be obtained OTC all over. In addition, birth control pills are available OTC in most countries
*except* for countries that emphasize female choice above all. In countries like the US, females are too afraid that males might slip them something.
Glenn at 9:22 AM tries to get Softek out of his funk. His suggestions would definitely work, guaranteed, if Softek wanted to.
@Kate, sorry no transition per se is possible for women. Men transition from being below women (beta) in the intersexual hierarchy to being above women (alpha). All that women can do is fight each other for relative order amongst themselves.
On the other hand, you, meaning all y’all, could voluntarily choose to surrender and submit to a man whom you have previously been attempting to control, thereby sort of transitioning yourself by making him transition for you.
“Good men are an afterthought after we let the bad boys run through us. Give us children. Sit around our house while WE pay the bills. Get disrespected. Then after we have a high body mileage we want the good man. We want him to play Daddy to the children we had with the bad boy or bad boys. The same men we mocked we look for them to marry us.”
@M3, that was a good critical run down of feminine hypergamy. Now imagine a man had written this, would he be a misogynist for the same?
The rest of it was just as good M3…
…and all the usual suspects, feminists and manginas alike, blamed the manosphere for creating Eliot Rodger…
I’m finding my well heeled beta buddies ( the type that several years ago would have been fine with settling) are playing the field much longer and with younger women.
I think this is what is causing all the consternation, it doesn’t take a whole sale revolution to upset the apple cart. All it takes is for betas to take the scenic route to marriage (say about a decade) for an entire cohort of women to be up shit creek without a paddle.
Was Jeremy Meeks raised by a single mother?
And if so, irony or poetic?
@New Yorker – I fully agree with your comments. Your convo with Glenn just reminded me about how a frame of PUAs vs. AMOGs and all that in-real-time interpersonal competitive stuff is really disadvantageous (to both oneself, and others) compared to worldly-wise, often lower-key red pill men with good intentions.
But, only “damaged, immature women with serious issues would ever want to fuck an incarcerated Alpha thug” right?
@Rollo of course he would. Females have built in cover (by virtue of being female) to self criticize their own gender – they risk being called self loathing women, internalized misogynists or labia traitors.. but it still gives credence to the critique coming from a woman amongst the ‘normies’. For a man to verbalize or publish the exact same observations, he would be drawn / quartered / vivisected / burned in effigy as a woman hating misogynist this side of Hitler. Why? Because Penis. The public at large can hand wave away mens observations coming from the mouths of men… Read more »
I have heard the outrage of formerly ignored betas becoming deemed worthy of slavery by post wall carousel riders. “… it won’t be with the bad boy, because he had the good sense to hit it, quit it and get the hell outta there. No provisioning duties for him. While we all joke about sloppy seconds and “sleeping in the wet spot”, this is EXACTLY what the dominant man avoids, and the submissive man accepts as his due, and considers himself lucky to get.” The irony here is that these dominant bad boys have made a career of passing around… Read more »
Jack – sexual variety is its own reward. So what if we are lucky number 132, we get to enjoy a voraciously sexual blonde slut for a night and then we’ll fuck another brunette slut a couple nights from now, and a redhead slut next weekend, and a latina slut a couple weeks from now, etc etc. That’s assuming you’re doing the quintessential dominant bad boy thing you posit. Which is in and of itself a form of MGTOW. I co-sign Class-Punk’s comment. You could always go the LTR route if the chick is hot and young enough too. That’s… Read more »
@ Glenn I don’t think this was your intention, but I have to laugh at a realization I had. My first reaction was “I’m not wallowing in my misery you fucking cunt, I’m facing it head on and pushing through it because I have the balls to take full responsibility for my own feelings and the intelligence to know how to address them, and having been born a month premature with serious health problems, molested by a family doctor, physically and emotionally abused by my parents and tormented and ostracized by other kids my age growing up all the way… Read more »
lol and it continues: