The Myth of the ‘Good’ Guy

Janus

For as often as I’ve made my best attempts to define what I believe constitutes feminine Hypergamy on this blog, it seems that critics of the red pill, and even newer, well-meaning  red pill advocates, are beginning to think of Hypergamy as some convenient trope that manosphereans refer to when they want to explain away some annoyingly female trait.

Is she shit testing you? Must be Hypergamy. She broke a nail? Must be Hypergamy.

There is a very real want for understanding things in as simplistic a solution as possible, but feminine Hypergamy isn’t a dynamic that lends itself to a simple definitions. One of the reasons the early proponents of PUA ran into issues with legitimizing their ideas was due to so many of their ‘students’ seeking out easily digestible answers to solve their ‘girl problems’. As I laid out in Dream Girls and Children with Dynamite, these guys wanted the tl;dr (too long; didn’t read) footnote version of what to do in order to get to the silver bullet, magic formula part of the lesson to either get with their dream girl or “start fucking hot bitches”.

It is exactly this mentality that’s now causing such frustration in understanding Hypergamy and seeing how it works, not just in individual women’s personal decisions, but as a societally influencing force of the Feminine Imperative. Hypergamy is not a “math is hard” dynamic, but because it requires a comprehensive (and evolving) understanding it seems like the go-to throwaway answer to women’s behaviors and mental schemas to men (usually new to the red pill) without the patience to really invest themselves into grasping it.

I’ve defined Hypergamy so often on this blog that if you search the term “hypergamy” in Google, the Rational Male blog is the number two return below the wikipedia definition. As I write my way through the second volume of the Rational Male book I’ve found that a concise understanding of feminine Hypergamy is vital to grasping so much of the social and psychological dynamics that are a result of it. Every PUA technique, every common frustration MGTOW experience, and every gender-biased social injustice MRAs set themselves against, all find their roots in feminine Hypergamy, women’s pluralistic sexual strategy and the social and legal manifestation employed to ensure maximal feminine social primacy in optimizing Hypergamy.

Looks vs Character (Game)

Over the course of the past five or so posts, the topic of discussion in the comment threads has eventually found its way back to the basics of Looks versus Character (or Game, depending on your perspective of how learning affects character). Only discussions over what constitutes ‘Alpha’ in a man are so contentious as the importance women prioritize physical arousal in men.

I’ve already covered this debate and what I believe influences women’s arousal priorities in the Looks Count and Have A Look posts. My intent with today’s post isn’t to reheat these old debates, but rather to investigate a bit further into the connection between Hypergamy and this arousal prioritization.

First and foremost it’s important to understand the part that women’s biologies play in influencing Hypergamy and how women’s biology is more or less the point of origin for how they conduct their sexual strategy. To review, I’ll ask that readers refer to my post Your Friend Menstruation, but the basis of women’s sexual pluralism is found in the natural attraction predispositions that women experience as a result of (healthy) ovulation.

In her up cycle (proliferative) phase of ovulation, women are psychologically and behaviorally motivated to prioritize physical arousal above all other breeding considerations. In her down cycle (post-ovulation, luteal phase) women a similarly motivated to prioritize comfort, rapport, and long term security to ensure parental investment and benefit survival.

What I’ve described here, in as brief a fashion, is the foundation of Ovulatory Shift. There exists over a decade’s worth of experimental psychological and biological evidence supporting this theory. Due to biological and psychological influence, women become subliminally predisposed to behaviors which maximize fertility odds with the best available breeding opportunity, and maximize the best potential for long term provisioning and parental investment.

Whether this behavior is manifested in a preference for more masculinized male faces and body type, greater ornamentation and lower vocal intonation for women during ovulation, or a predisposition for more comforting, nurturing and supportive male characteristics during her luteal phase, the end result is optimizing Hypergamy, and ultimately reproduction.

For further reading on Ovulatory Shift, see the research of Martie Hasselton.

Arousal vs. Attraction

From last week’s post, in one of his less long-winded comments, commenter Siirtyrion inserted this bit of evolutionary truth:

Females only receive two quantities of evolutionary value from males – direct benefits (observed in long-term mating, with implications for the survival of offspring), and genetic benefits (observed through indications of physical attractiveness in her mate). And since females can receive genetic benefits outside of marriage (i.e. through casual sexual encounters), and no longer need rely upon mates for the survival of their offspring, there is no pressure for them to compromise on holding out for an unlikely (long-term) fantasy partner.

This current social pattern increases highly male variance in mating success, because female sexual choices always tend towards small male breeding populations (narrow range of male phenotypes), while male ‘preferences’ are inclusive of a broad range in female variance.

I believe one of the main contentions Siirtyrion kind of needles with this is that, as described, modern conveniences of female social empowerment (actual or imagined) discounts the need for hypergamic assurances of long term security. I’m not so willing to accept an overall disregard for the provisioning aspect (Beta Bucks) – you’re not going to reprogram millennia of psychologically evolved firmware overnight – but in discounting this need, the characteristics for which women would seek out a male exemplifying the best long-term security are deemphasized if not considered entirely.

If you read through any woman’s online dating profile you undoubtedly come across some variation of what Roissy has described as the “483 bullet point checklist” of stated prerequisites a man must possess in order for her to consider him a viable candidate for her intimacy. While I don’t think there are quite that many items on the checklist, you’ll find a host of common-theme personal qualities a guy has to have in order to be her boyfriend – confident (above all), humorous, kind, intelligent, creative, decisive, sensitive, respectful, spiritual, patient,..I could go on or you could just read this old joke.

The point is that all of these characteristics that women list as being ‘attractive’ have absolutely no bearing on how sexually, physically, ‘arousing’ a woman finds a man. As I’ve described in the past, while Game and personality can certainly accentuate arousal, all of these esoteric personal qualities have no intrinsic  “‘gina tingle” value if a man isn’t an arousal prospect to begin with.

The confusion that most Beta men make is presuming that what women list as being necessarily ‘attractive’ IS what makes him ‘arousing’. So when he models himself (often over the course of a lifetime) to personally identify with this checklist of attractive prerequisites he’s often frustrated and angered when all of that personal development makes for little difference when a woman opts to regularly fuck men of a better physical standard.

It’s duplicity of a sort, but it is also a strategy of deliberate confusion.

It may not be a woman’s conscious plan, but this deliberate confusion makes the best pragmatic sense to effect an optimized Hypergamy. Remember that Hypergamy is not just Alpha Fucks, it’s also Beta Bucks … if a bit delayed in her life in order to maximize Alpha Fucks. So when a woman describes what she finds “attractive” in a man this list will include all of the above bullet point characteristics because they “sound right” – because they shine her in the best light, yes, but also because in being so concerned she imputes the idea that she’s following the ‘right’ plan of looking for a good man to have a future with, and raise kids with.

Then and Now

This is going to sound like I’m glossing myself, but bear with me – I can remember how effortless sex used to be for me when I was in my 20’s. I had sex outdoors, in cars, hotel rooms, in hot tubs, in the steam room of an all women’s gym (after hours), I even got after it with a girlfriend in the balcony of a church in L.A. once (again after hours, no one around, only for convenience I assure you). Mostly I didn’t have a dime to my name, but I still had one of two fuck-buddies who would literally come to the bedroom window of my apartment to fuck me in the morning once or twice a week before I went off to the community college I was going to.

The point is there was no pretense of ‘attraction’ being anything other than a girl and I enjoying ourselves then. There was no ‘checklist’ of acceptable pre-qualifications for intimacy. The providership necessity that dictates a need for long-term consideration wasn’t even an afterthought; in other words, the Beta Bucks / Character / Integrity aspect of Hypergamy that women publicly claim is a dealbreaker for real intimacy was prioritized far below Alpha Fucks sexual urgency.

You can say these were just the types of girls I was getting with at the time, but courtesy of social media, I assure you, you would think these women would never have had that capacity now. They were all “sooo different when they were in college.”

It’s not until after a woman’s Epiphany Phase at around the time she becomes aware of her SMV decline that she begins to consider making that Beta Bucks checklist any kind of prerequisite for sex and intimate partnering. However, this epiphany isn’t the sudden revelation women would like men to believe it is.

For the life of me I can’t remember where I read the link, but I was reading a ‘Dear Abby’ sort of advice seeking article from a young girl (early 20’s) who was exasperated over finding the “perfect guy” only she couldn’t ‘get with him now‘. Her words were something like “He’s so great, awesome personality, funny, in love with me, supportive, etc., but I wish I could freeze him in time so he’d be the same guy and waiting for me when I turn 29 or 30.”

On some level of consciousness, like most women, she knows the dictates of what her own Hypergamy is predisposing her to. She knows she’ll eventually need that ‘perfect’ supportive, in-love guy to live out the long-term aspect of her Hypergamy with,…after she’s exhausted her short term breeding potential with men who better embody the Alpha Fucks dictates of her Hypergamy.

Arousal Preparation vs. Provisioning Preparation

For all of Siirtyrion’s vernacular, I will have to agree (to a point) that the balance between women’s short term breeding impulse and the long term provisioning needs Hypergamy predisposes them to now strongly favors the Alpha sex side of that optimization.

In Open Hypergamy I made a case for the aspect of an ‘old order’ of Beta Provisioning being a previously ‘attractive’ element for women’s determining long term suitability with a man, and that this old order was being replaced with other, extrinsic means of ensuring a woman’s security needs. Whether by social funding, or by indenturing men to provide for women’s wellbeing through other social conventions the effect is an imbalance between the dual nature of women’s sexual strategy.

However, I also feel it goes beyond just the social element now. Men are still confused by a feminine conditioning which wants to ‘freeze’ him in time in order to be the dutiful ‘perfect’ guy, ready to be thawed out and ready to serve the Feminine Imperative at a woman’s convenience.

While still convenient, men must be conditioned to confuse him that ‘attraction’ qualities are ‘arousal’ qualities in order to have him ready to be ‘perfect’ at his appointed time – and it is women who need to believe for themselves that this is what they think should be true.

The Myth of the ‘Good’ Guy

In the beginning of one of my earliest posts, Schedules of Mating, I briefly refer to the ideally balanced guy who would satisfy the optimization purpose of women’s Hypergamy:

There are methods and social contrivances women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male’s genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she’s capable of attracting. Ideally the best Man should exemplify both, but rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by an innate need for security, the feminine as a whole had to develop social conventions and methodologies (which change as her environment and personal conditions do) to effect this.

There is a dichotomy that exists for men in this respect, which really has no parallel for women.

I am aware of certain (formerly red pill) bloggers who promote the archetype of a ‘Good’ guy as some role for men to ideally aspire to. The ‘Alpha Cad’ archetype must necessarily become the ‘douchebag’ caricature of an overtly distasteful masculinity (for men less able to embody it) and yet, the opposite caricature of the doormat, supplicating ‘Beta Dad’ is equally distasteful and certainly untenable when we consider that ‘attractive’ qualities are never ‘arousing’ qualities.

So the archetype of the ‘Good’ guy is offered up as some sort of livable, compromised ideal. If men could aspire to embody the best of the Alpha and temper that with what they define themselves as the best of the Beta, well then he’d be the ‘perfect’ catch for any woman of course.

The problem with this ‘Good Guy’ myth is not because men can’t or wouldn’t want to try to balance women’s Hypergamy for them, but simply because women neither want nor expect that balance in the same man to begin with.

It comes back to the Just Get It principle for women – any guy who needs to make a concerned effort to become what he expects women will want from him to be ‘the perfect guy’ doesn’t get it. They want Mr. Perfect because that is who he already is.

I mentioned above that there really is no parallel for this in women and I’m sure the Madonna / Whore dichotomy will be mentioned in the comments later, but allow me to point out that there is no concerted parallel social effort on the part of women in which women prompt each other to become a ‘Good Girl’ in order to satisfy the ideals of men. If anything a hostile opposite resistance to this is most true.

Women neither expect nor want a ‘Good Guy’ because he’s not believable, and his genuineness is always doubtable. That may sound jaded, but throw away any idea of being a ‘Good Guy’ balance of Alpha and Beta, because the Beta side of ‘good’ is so reinforced and common in men that it’s become the default template for women’s perception of you.

There is no Alpha with a side of Beta, there is only the man who’s genuine concern is first for himself, the man who prepares and provisions for himself, the man who maintains Frame to the point of arrogance because that’s who he is and what he genuinely merits. There is only the Man who improves his circumstance for his own benefit, and then, by association and merit, the benefit of those whom he loves and befriends.

That’s the Man who Just Gets It.

223 comments

  1. I agree that whenever the topic of what a woman can do to become appealing to men is often met with hostility. But the times that it isn’t, when women may be sincerely asking what appeals to men or what a woman can do, they want specifics.

    Compare it to what women advise to men, you return to your Just Be Yourself column. But if you were to say that to women seeking advice on appealing to men, you’d receive a lot of groans and moans that you’re copping out on telling them.

  2. Attractive vs. Arousing. If women really do have this hard and fast (pun) dualistic view of men, then being a beta/omega just sucks even more. The beta might be attractive to a woman and she will want to date him or want him as a companion but the good sex will always, always be reserved for the arousal inducing males. Not sure why any man who is not being visited at his bedroom window for fuck buddy sex would want to put any effort into pursuing women after hearing that. Time to go MGTOW. Of course then what you are saying is that game really only works to make naturally arousing men even MORE arousing to women and all game is doing for non naturally arousing men is making them more ATTRACTIVE to women, appealing to the other side of their hypergamy, the beta warm fuzzy security side, not making their panties any wetter. Yeah that sounds about right.

  3. So physicality trumps all. But it’s not just brute “dominance”physicality right – what about boy band or cute looks. Particularly favored by asian women.

    Rollo would you generally agree with the following behavioral cues/physique:
    – Straight posture, contraposto stance
    – V taper, defined muscles
    – Smirk or amused mastery facial expression
    – Clear enunciation

    This stuff has worked well for me. But one thing, height, is really at the heart of it and I’ve seen it at clubs where the tall huge guy just simply takes the girl from dance floor to bathroom (bangs) then leaves. Much rarer for a shorter, even handsome and ripped guy to do that (e.g. myself)

  4. Damn you Rollo! You’re right of course, but fuck you anyway. Because once again, this will force me to recalibrate. There is a Zen-like wisdom and clarity in this… I actually think there is a lot of Buddhist wisdom in what you write, whether you intend it or not.

    To be the thing you want to be. To attain the thing you want to attain (sex from a truly desirous partner), it’s almost as if you have to surrender and stop taking the steps to attain it directly.

    The best concrete example I can think of is night vision (bear with me). Have you ever noticed at night that you can’t see something as clearly when you are focusing directly on it? You can only see it clearly when you look at it out of the corner of your eye because of the way the cones and rods are aligned in our retinas.

    Or take the pursuit of happiness. Several studies have concluded that pursuing happiness directly is a sure path to unhappiness. Happiness can only be achieved indirectly. It’s a byproduct of the many other “good” life decisions we make, many of which are temporarily quite unpleasureable (hard work, sacrifice, struggle, even failure). Some of the biggest fuck ups I know believed happiness could be found in the pursuit of pleasure.

    Same thing here. Men think about sex all the time. It becomes an unhealthy “attachment.” The problem for most of us is that we pursue it in a straightforward, direct, clumsy, bull-in-a-China-shop way. We go through epic mental acrobatics trying to get the alpha/beta mix just right, reading and studying what works and what doesn’t. We burn countless ergs trying to pursue that particular pleasure.

    Even most PUA theory is really nothing more than a series of tactics to trick a male’s prey into desiring him by causing her to believe that his “genuine concern is first for himself.”

    They are tactics that work to be sure, but how many of us have truly improved our circumstances for our OWN benefit, rather than doing it because we think that by doing so there will be a pot of pussy at the end of the rainbow?

    So, bringing this full circle back to the Zen theme for a second consider this: Have you ever been in the zone so to speak (frame?) where you truly just didn’t care? I have… I’ve been in situations where I hadn’t showered… I probably stunk. My clothes were a mess. My shirt had food stains on it. My hair was disheveled.

    And the last thing I had on my mind was chasing pussy. Miracle of miracles! I ended up getting laid. And not just that… I was a complete chick magnet. I could hear the dull hum of ginas vibrating all around me. It was almost as if there was no way I thought I was going to score, so all the pressure was off… I was funny, cocky, rude, arrogant and couldn’t have cared less. I had no attachment to outcome.

    And yet on other occasions… Cleaned up and spiffy. Best clothes on, cologne, looking great, bringing my A game, and not a humming gina to be heard in 10 clicks. I was attached to outcome.

    Buddhism teaches that suffering ends when craving disappears. Or to put it in game-speak, ginas tingle mightily when you truly have no attachment.

    As Ray Bradbury said, “Learning to let go should be learned before learning to get.”

  5. Ugh. In my twenties I never had sex once, indeed I was a virgin. Still kind of smarts to hear your stories about how well you had it.

  6. Height is everything. I have seen goofy looking plodding nuckleheads with huge bushy mustaches have tremendous success with women and would be scratching my head in amazement. If you look across every species of animal it’s that way across the board. They have done experiments with birds. Birds that have longer tail feathers have more reproductive success then birds of the same species that have shorter tails. When scientists attached an artificial longer tail to a shorter tailed bird his sex life dramatically improved. Being short/small = bad genes in the female mind which then = no arousal/no nookie.

  7. So are your last two paragraphs the closest we’re going to get to the tl;dr (too long; didn’t read) footnote version the pua’s were looking for?

  8. Why do women not look after the provisioning of their girlfriends if all their needs are being met? Namely, if a 45 year old woman is in a happy marriage with an affluent alpha dude, why doesn’t she encourage him to take her post-wall girlfriends as 2nd and 3rd concubines into his home? Doesn’t she also want her girlfriends to be provided for as she is?

  9. “women neither want nor expect that balance in the same man to begin with.”

    They want an alpha who embodies the good guy traits as an afterthought to his otherwise overwhelming alpha – and only when those traits like generosity and kindness are directed towards her in tantalizingly sparing amounts.

  10. Appreciate the comments, Rollo. Now as cheesy as this may sound, you are without a doubt, a true ‘rational male’. You’re able to set aside your views for a bit (unlike other bloggers) and read another person’s perspective on the true sexual nature behind the sexes. I know I’m not particularly liked around these parts because simply put, ‘redpillers’ are still human and all humans have egos invested in certain ideologies. To have someone claim that your ideology is false or even faulty, brings out a form of primal defensiveness in people where either they simply shut out from any further critique or disregard any comment.

    But that’s for another topic. Here’s something I’ve been stirring up in my head and something that will have you guys thinking. I challenge the notion of “status is king” by the PUAsphere and Manosphere:

    If we discuss mating behavior from an evolutionary perspective, women have not always chosen the men, or at least not entirely, their families and larger groups having a large say in the matter. These would tend to choose higher status men than perhaps the woman on her own would choose. And to what degree are the families’ preferences hard-wired or cultural?

    Female sexual liberation (where they were no longer economically/politically dependent on their mates) changed all that, and engendered in effected female populations a kind of romantic idealism, that, for many, will be impossible to realize. And it is these kinds of unrealistic expectations that form the basis for much of the prevailing conflict between the sexes in the Western world. But, what most in the manosphere fails to grasp is that being a high-status male in the current mating market (post female sexual liberation) says less about independent wealth/status indicators, than about indications in physical attractiveness.

    Now, hear me out on this as this might seem a bit controversial (as always):

    Women are NOT hard-wired to be attracted to high status men and also, social status has only evolved in the past 10,000 years; it only has a large cultural component. The stamping of brain biology of Homo sapiens occurs before the Neolithic period, so it is not useful for evolutionary psychology.

    In hunter gatherers (where the men are supporting the woman and child) nobody is really rich – furthermore having a child with *significantly* older men carries higher risks of birth defects through mutational load and of course the older husbands far more likely to die and leave the mother without support so there are significant disadvantages. I use the older husband example, because we can typically assume a more mature man would have a higher status/ranking.

    The distinct reproductive role of males and females is a core focus of sexual selection, antagonistic co-evolution. Contrasts between male and female choice could arise because of critical differences in the way that maintain benefits of choice preferences in each sex. Consistent with this, men search for female mates with traits of fecundity and reproductive value. All men prefer nubile girls with physical features that signal a combination of that sexual maturity but relative youth, body and facial symmetry. Women also want good male genes for them.

    The fact is that females are the (reproductively) rate-limiting sex and it has always manifested in their higher selectivity (DNA analysis shows that only 40% of an ancestral male population was reproductively successful, compared with some 80% of females).(Jason A. Wilder et al 2004, “Genetic evidence for unequal effective population sizes of human females and males”) This dynamic changed, briefly, when ascendant populations became organized in Neolithic 10,000 years ago around efficient systems of social monogamy, which encouraged male co-operation, and compelled women to ‘settle’ and pair-off with their nearest male equivalents.

    As I’ve also said earlier, “Thus, mutual sexual attraction, traditionally, has never been a requirement for long-terms relationships. Rather, sexual desire was (and in many cultures still is) a frequent trade-off that women were expected to make, in securing a long term mate – the reason being, that women are so selective in terms of sexual attractiveness, as to render an insoluble scarcity of males to satisfy this requirement under assumptions of a monogamous mating system.”

    The ancestral environment shaped the heritable mental and behavioral traits of present-day humans. Hundreds of well controlled studies show that all humans have similar notions of beauty. So, in that sense, physical appearance has an objective basis, both for women and men. Beauty exists in mental algorithms that interpret visual data. And such algorithms have an objective existence, and we can draw upon elements of evolutionary biology to explain human mating behavior.

    The optimal phenotypic or behavioral option is the one that maximizes net benefits under constraints. True, some complexities can be taken into account. But each sex has a bias to prefer individuals of particular qualities because that bias has advantages in realms other than mating and the optimal strategies may be contingent on the condition or phenotype of the individual (conditional or phenotype limited optima).

  11. @Corleone
    I really like your interpretation of this article. It is verified in my experience. The girls come running towards you when you are not directly focused on attaining them. Some of the more legit self-help advice I have seen advocate this approach to life, and by extension, to getting women. Women want men who are focused on achieving their own goals for their life (financial, physical, intellectual, hobbies, etc.) Whenever a man is perceived by women to be chasing them that man’s stock drops immensely in womens’ eyes.

    If I had to explain it in more spiritual or psychological terms, I would say that women want a man to be strong enough in his own direction (pursuing goals) that he will not be distracted by her. Because if he can be distracted by her, then he is not strong enough to achieve his goals. And if he is not strong enough to achieve his goals, then she cannot indirectly reap the benefits of him doing so.

    Of course, at some point a man is going to have make some overt attempt to achieve his end with a woman. However, if he has to do more than lift a finger to do so, he is trying too hard and is therefore shooting himself in the foot.

    “There is only the Man who improves his circumstance for his own benefit, and then, by association and merit, the benefit of those whom he loves and befriends.

    That’s the Man who Just Gets It.”

    Good stuff.

  12. Rollo writes:

    There is only the Man who improves his circumstance for his own benefit, and then, by association and merit, the benefit of those whom he loves and befriends.

    In 2014, due to a ‘hit and run’ driver, I’ve been alive, then dead, then alive but with loss of normal mobility and speech and went from ripped to morbidly obese according to DEXA scans.

    I’ve made a lot of choices for my own benefit since I began the 24/7 inpatient care program.

    My choices were against the wishes of those that love me. A lot of people told me I was wasting time and effort.

    And here’s where Rollo’s words come into this picture… In counseling (a part of this specialized 24/7 inpatient care program known to restore mobility to the paralyzed, etc) they told me I had to be more SELFISH.

    People that love me didn’t realize that my drive and determination have included much more than restoring mobility, speech and other functions.

    What I do changes the course of global events. My life has specific purpose that I see, feel, hear, taste, experience…

    They would still love me if I had remained a vegetable, but that’s not how I roll. Tell me it can’t be done, then watch me do it.

    I’ve lost 25 of the 55 pounds I gained in 2014, and the next DEXA scan will prove that I’ve gained at least 15 pounds of lean muscle mass despite the odds. My clothes from 2013 fit again.

    Yes I’ve pushed the limits because I see the ‘improved’ me and the purposes I will accomplish in the future.

    Yes I’m still dizzy all of the time, and the pain is constant. I have refused medicines that reduce dizziness or pain. Hiding the symptoms does nothing to retrain the brain or rebuild the body.

    Rollo writes:
    there is only the man who’s genuine concern is first for himself, the man who prepares and provisions for himself, the man who maintains Frame to the point of arrogance because that’s who he is and what he genuinely merits.

    I’ve heard a lot of junk during my points of greatest weakness. Imagine experiencing paralysis and hearing stuff like this:

    “They’re just taking your money.”
    “There’s only so much they can do.”
    “You need to just get back to work.”
    “You don’t need all this therapy.”
    “You’re pushing yourself too hard.”
    “You look normal now, just be thankful and stop working so hard at it.”

    and so on.

    I have ignored all of it.

    I live in gratitude for every moment.

    So, was I abandoned due to my choice to do whatever it takes to more than restore all functions of my body and mind?

    No.

    The opposite has happened.

    I’m not 6′ tall. That is NOT a barrier in attraction.

    The ‘looks count’ meme, in the comments of other posts, is comedy to me. Why?

    Along with the other debilitating issues caused by a ‘hit and run’ driver, my brain messed with a lot of functions including hormone production, causing me to gain 55 lbs of body fat in early 2014.

    The ‘looks count’ guys on here are complaining about the ones that have more ripped bodies that women find attractive. I challenge you, if you’re a ‘looks count’ guy, to think about getting ripped if you had paralysis. It’s kind of difficult, but I’ve found the ways.

    If I can get ‘ripped’ even with paralysis, dizziness, pain, (list is much longer)… I’m working out at least three hours per day, seven days each week. Whining about others with perfect bodies would have been easier, but that’s not what I’m about.

    Are you saying you can’t go from being a ‘looks count’ guy to being the ripped MAN starting right now?

    Build your body following a step by step guide like Victor Pride’s Body of A Spartan

    He didn’t have that body before following what’s he figured out… and the secrets exist in his book.

    The ‘looks count’ guy must find his purpose.

    A man that is driven by his purpose doesn’t feel the need to complain about his looks.

    He’s too busy staying ripped so he can most effectively do that purpose.

    And… beyond getting a body like Victor Pride and Rollo, HEAR THIS NOW!

    So much wisdom is packed into the last 151 words in this current post by Rollo Tomassi.

    Do what you must to do for YOU to be the MAN.

    In this way, you attract those you wish to attract.

    Let others call you selfish. Take it as a compliment.

    They will respect you for being the MAN, and they benefit from your choices.

  13. Hey Rollo this isn’t related to the post but I was drinking with my friend downtown and we were talking about how it’s hard to stay attracted to the same girl for more than a few months at a time. We’re both in our 20s and live in Las Vegas, so I’m aware that fucking other girls helps but we were curious how you maintain attraction to your wife for such an extended amount of time, especially since you’re monogamous. After I’ve been with a girl for too long I get bored and want to move on to something different. What’s your secret?

  14. Be of equal or higher value (this is preferable) than her;
    have as many or more *options (again, preferable) than her and be able to create the opportunities for you and her to get it happening.

    Having said that; a woman’s perception of a man’s value changes with time.

    *The most basic definition of value being a combination of looks (SMV), status, and resources (job/money).

    *Options. Money, status, dominance etc. give a man options.

    Ironcally though; once a man gets it happening with a woman, she will start limiting said value and options IF you let her get away with it.

  15. @Rollo

    A well written post but I think you confused “character” with game. Game is about understanding signals, creating signals, and escalating socio-sexual interactions. When one has “game” they also have underlying emotional, intellectual, and confident characteristics. Human beings might be pretty, but they’re still apes. Game is also about social awareness and status. Generally speaking, game enhances arousal in the minds of women because it presents a formidable masculine man.

    I have never been under any illusions that women desire good-looking men with bulges in all the right places. However, I have seen too many men without the “right” characteristics pull high quality pussy based entirely on their wit and command of social space (game). They are not people pleasing pussy polishers but rather savvy jerks.

    It seems to me that you’re throwing in your lot with the “looks are all that matter” crowd. This may even be a subconscious attempt at social proof. However, it’s either misguided or disingenuous to say that Game and feminine defined “character” are the same. I realize that your post isn’t really about that, but you’re wrong on this point.

  16. So true Rollo, the Good Guy doesn’t exist in a woman’s mind, he can’t be genuine. He would be too perfect to be trusted, so it’s rather useless for a guy to try to achieve it.
    And you’re totally right in that women don’t have the slightest interest due to their innate solipsism to want to become a man’s dreamgirl. I guess this has something to do with the entitlement attitude as well that is so common these days.
    You can criticize me, but I believe that hasn’t been there in the past, because women needed men a lot more then so they just had to acquire certain skills and behaviors to make themselves interesting for men. However that’s obviously not the case anymore, it’s rather the other way round. Women get assured by the herd that they don’t need no maayan, so they don’t place any importance on being interesting to the beta male. But as she realizes that she can’t have it all, as was promised to her, she will start to panic and either become a cat lady or desperately hitting on beta guys. I’ve seen this in person and for the greater beta it’s poosy paradise. They are still betas and women smell it but these dudes have become smarter and while pretending to be classical providers they just pump and dump.I’ve even read an exhilarating article on that in PLyboy magazine. Payback time.

  17. “483 bullet point checklist” of stated prerequisites a man must possess in order for her to consider him a viable candidate for her intimacy.

    Men qualify, women disqualify. Hence the different ways in which the checklist is viewed. Betas think if they can just satisfy enough bullet points, they qualify for intimacy. To women, it’s just a wish list, and they are always (unconsciously) looking for disqualifiers. A large part of game is simply learning and training oneself not to mess up and show those disqualifiers. Hence, talk less, don’t react, move slowly/deliberately, show amused mastery, and so on. Because just a couple of disqualifiers will outweight a whole lot of qualifying bullet points, especially if there is gross incongruency.

  18. @Live Fearless:

    “A man that is driven by his purpose doesn’t feel the need to complain about his looks.”

    I’d like to extend your thougt a little. I’ve said it before but the looks-are-the-only-thing-that-matters guys are searching for an external excuse they cannot possibly change such as height or facial symmetry to blame for their limited success.
    These are not the factors that determine your success and empiricism proves it everyday. Sure, maybe you can make a differnece between attraction and arousal but that’s not the point because the results, i.e. reproduction, are the same for rather unappealing high status guys or model looking not high status guys.

  19. @BC:
    Game even goes so far as to completely flip the script so that you disqualify the woman to which she answers immediately with an attempt to requalify herself. The reason why flipping the script is so powerful is because it’s powerful manipulation and frame setting.

    @Bango Tango:
    Game in my eyes is awakening your alphaness through a fake it til you make it apporach. Eventually digesting the red pill sets your mind right again. You’re NOT doomed to eternal betaness, frame it as a removable conditioning, which it is!

  20. @ Rollo – great post as always.

    Question – Does ones ‘Alphaness’ only then exist and operate in a vacuum (you either ‘just get it’ or you don’t) and Hypergamy is always in a state of flux (ovulatory shift + pluralistic sexual strategy)?

    If so, no wonder the AF/BB : AP vs. PP algorithm is so complex.

    I guess Hypergamy is not without a sense of irony – it spruiks for the ‘good guy’ beta, but is only aroused by the “selfish” Alpha.

  21. Great analysis as always.

    If I had a pound for every time I’ve heard variants of this from female colleagues and acquaintances . . .

    “He’s so great, awesome personality, funny, in love with me, supportive, etc., but I wish I could freeze him in time so he’d be the same guy and waiting for me when I turn 29 or 30.”

  22. Does AF/BB really happen in practice? While the woman would mate with the alpha, does she really end up with a child to be raised by the beta? I suppose she could try to trick the beta, but you would think he would figure that out, and it would have to be a pretty low beta to accept the woman with a child because he had no other options for sex.

  23. The confusion that most Beta men make is presuming that what women list as being necessarily ‘attractive’ IS what makes him ‘arousing’.

    I have been thinking for a while now, that most people do inherently understand hypergamy even if they can’t verbalize it. It’s in every Hollywood movie (even though it is portrayed laughingly skewed). Even beta’s somewhat understand it, even though they make the terrible mistake of trying to optimize it by doing what women say they want rather than watching what truly turns them on.

    Women neither expect nor want a ‘Good Guy’ because he’s not believable

    This is hugely important, though I do think women consciously do “expect” the Good Guy. Unconsciously, they know there is no such thing. The things on their 483 point checklist are completely at odds with each other and cannot be within one man. Hence the huge confusion from women who can’t figure out why they aren’t aroused by the nice guy and being completely frustrated by being turned on by the “bad boy” but not feeling respected by him.

  24. @Siirtyrion. Great post man! Just as good as Rollo’s piece and explains a lot. We always hear the tired line from people like Heartiste that looks don’t matter, women aren’t as visual as men blah blah, game is all you need to get laid, when in fact when it comes to sexual arousal (and let’s be honest that’s all we men really care about a woman being) looks are in fact MORE important to women in order to be aroused then men. More muscles, more height in men trigger that ancient base instinct for mating in women that has nothing to do with a man’s social status or wealth like you said. Yes game can get you laid but the quality of the lay will not be the same as the naturally aroused type. Or at best it will be just different, if you are perceived as attractive by women but not aroused by them you will get the “love making” variety instead of the raunchy fuck that we as men want more (the majority of time…be honest!).

  25. “If men could aspire to embody the best of the Alpha and temper that with what they define themselves as the best of the Beta, well then he’d be the ‘perfect’ catch for any woman of course.”

    If men aspire to be anything to gain women’s approval…it is going to fail badly.

  26. I spent a lot of time trying to understand the motivation and meaning of the checklist girls, because the environment in which it is most prevalent and explicit is online dating. I was a divorced early-40’s guy, I had never dated (met my ex- at 19), and had never wandered. So I was clueless as to what women wanted. At the same time my primary pursuits (software exec and writer) presented few, if any, new relationship prospects. I was like a man sleepwalking through the wilderness, possessing neither a compass nor flashlight; hell I wasn’t even aware that I was still asleep.

    Being totally blue pill I assumed that satisfying the checklist algorithm promised SMP success. Over time I raised my online dating response rate to around 10%, which is higher than normal, and met a couple of women I wish I could meet again, now.

    A few thoughts on checklists and their importance to women, because I think they are extremely important to women for reasons we may overlook.

    a. I think we need to remember that women have changed radically in the past 40-50 years. It is now socially desirable — it creates social status for them — to be a strong and independent woman demonstrating that men are bicycles, accessories to their unique life narrative. When women meet, they talk. And they compare notes on who is scoring with men who check more boxes on the list. This is how they evaluate each other (with their competitive vacationing, their masters degrees, their shoe collection, the zip code or street address of their condos, the links to power they can claim, their politics, etc.). These checklists are written, essentially, to project their social status to *other* women, in unstated competition to see who will ‘win’ the ultimate contest: a long marriage announcement in the Times. We live in a cult of celebrity largely fueled by female status organizing.

    Don’t believe it? How many of us have been subjected to bald due diligence by a new girlfriend’s female cohort, during the first dinner party or mixer, when we are being vetted for income, political preferences, school background, or “a great sense of humor!!!” because one of the checklist items is “you must make me laugh!!!”

    So the checklists may represent the new social reality of longtime single women (or newly divorced women) one-upping each other in search of a “great catch” who “just gets her.”

    I attributed my success online dating to a relentless effort to pre-empt the checklist mania by checking as many boxes as most men could. With one misunderstood (by me) exception, which likely supports Rollo’s thesis here.

    b) As noted by Rollo, the checklist is window dressing for appearance, resource calibration, and the promise of hawt action. I am fortunate in the looks department: I’m 6’1″, nordic, and I’m still at my college playing weight. Whereas “athlete and toned”, online, means that a girl needs to drop 20, I took it literally and documented my physique in photos (without comment or salesmanship). Unwittingly, too, I documented what my ex- looks like by showing happy beta pictures of me with my children, who are lookers owing to the fact their mother was a NYC model (preselection bias). I unwittingly documented my personality by noting some of my pastimes, in photos: in a cockpit; on the steeps in the backcountry; sitting on a Deere. Early in an online conversation, knowing that they were going to Google me anyway, I encouraged them to do so, so they rank me professionally. As I said, I pulled some attractive and accomplished women, misunderstanding that appearance was a checklist item like any other, and that alpha pursuits were nothing more than “nice to haves” rather than critical barriers to dating acceptance.

    c) Then I discovered red pill thinking. I maintained the same checklist strategy (designed to provide some comfort and social qualification, so a girl could brag to her girlfriends). I included the same photos. And I added one line, to wit: “While my public style is traditional — think Gregory Peck — and courtly, my private style would be termed anything but that of a submissive — perhaps that of Keith Richards.”

    Response rates went through the roof, approaching 50%. (Granted, I try to understand whom I can reasonably approach, in the interest of time.) I regularly pulled responses from women who stated they wouldn’t even consider a man 10 years younger than I am. I could only stay ‘visible’ online for a week or two, or else I’d get choice vertigo and lose control of my time.

    I apologize for all the anecdotal exposition here, but no one can convince me now that women seek men who are good at being a man, while presenting a wrapper (that women require) that argues he’s still a Good Man. I believe Donovan first articulated this trope.

    Whereas, in ignorance, I thought being an attractive man is important, it’s clear that arousal suspends a woman’s critical or skeptical thinking.

    My primary contribution here, if I have made one, is that we ignore the importance of the checklist wrapper — the pre-textual excuse, the flag of social qualification, the denial of raw sexual interest — to a woman’s friend-set. The influence, continuity (with SIWs their friends are their constants, the men come and go), and veto authority of a woman’s friend-set is enormous.

    Of course, if the chosen man turns out to be an effective lover, that quality too is interjected in her competitive positioning with those same friends.

    So it’s just one merit badge after another, sewn into her Girl Scouts sash, all to justify naked sexual interest. But, at least in my dating cohort (35 – 45, educated, professional) we ignore either at our peril.

    My last remark attempts to tie these thoughts to popular culture. Let’s take Paul Newman: every woman’s dream for decades. He was desirable as a Good Man — witness the glow that his remark “Why go out for hamburger when you’ve got steak at home?” induces. Such a cute guy, in love with Joanne and loyal after all these years, what an amazing man because he could have had anyone, their thinking goes.

    But I’ll bet what they’re really thinking is, “I want Hud, I want Luke with his shirt off.”

    Newman gave them both.

    They have absolutely no compunction or preparation NOT to think, all their livelong days, that they shouldn’t have it all. This is their world, they’ve written all the new rules, and our role is easier if we let them have their pretty illusions.

  27. Regarding Stingray’s comment on the failure of the nice guy to motivate desire, something even women would deny if stopped in the street, recall the recent survey that showed 67% of married women would rather read a book or cut flowers or stare at television — than do their man. (This is after they’ve locked him down, of course.)

    This fact has been assigned all sorts of self-justifying euphemisms by the intelligentsia. My favorite is the use of the term “compassionate sex”, which we are to believe is the natural evolution of desire post-monogamy. It is *supposed* to replace passionate relations, we are told. Man-up! and submit to our destiny. (And if that’s not enough, make sure there’s enough conditioner in the shower for three minutes of solo fun.)

    How many men are motivated to commit their lives to someone, in hopes of lifelong, twice-a-month, “compassionate sex”?

    It’s an example, for me, of how women self-sabotage systematically, because woe betide a man who argues with the virtue of “compassionate sex” to his spouse. Or gives up and finds some passion on the side.

    Granted, there are always two people in the room, but many, many women would find their relationships more stable if they balanced their prosaic public life with a more frequent promise of competent sexual adventure.

  28. Man, was I a “promise-keeping” chump. Getting served fixed that — popped about every single balloon. A decade later I’m not even sure they’re all popped yet. Always alarming to wonder if one still doesn’t know what one doesn’t know.

  29. Say Rollo,

    If you wanted more proof of your “women in the locker room” angle, the
    gamergate scandal is something else. I recommend everybody check this out, the sheer amount of corruption and hypocrisy involved is hard to believe.

    A quick overview:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/01/Lying-Greedy-Promiscuous-Feminist-Bullies-are-Tearing-the-Video-Game-Industry-Apart

    Watch the Quinnspiracy Theory videos by InternetAristocrat to get more details:

    https://www.youtube.com/user/InternetAristocrat

    And check out the responses, an insane amout of corruption involved.

    Would have emailed you this, didn’t find a link for it.

  30. @BuenaVista,

    This fact has been assigned all sorts of self-justifying euphemisms by the intelligentsia. My favorite is the use of the term “compassionate sex”, which we are to believe is the natural evolution of desire post-monogamy.

    My favorite is “Mismatched Libidos”.

    ‘Mismatched Libidos’ is the first trope women will defer to, and properly conditioned men will adopt about their wives, at the first sign of sexual indifference after marriages. I read this shit in damn near every DeadBedrooms subreddit thread.

    Funny how well matched couples’ libidos are when they’re turning out urgent marathon fuck sessions at every opportunity before they marry.

    And don’t throw out the “kids make everything different” horse shit – of my past N count 3 were single mothers who would fuck like 20-somethings and would actively create situations and opportunities to get after it.

    ‘Mismatched Libidos” is a very useful social convention prefabricated for women’s use once they’ve settled into marriage/monogamy.

  31. Note regarding Athol Kay – I believe he is almost a foot taller than his wife, so right from the start he’s got quite a bit of biologically based tingle generation in his partnership dynamic,

  32. “There is no Alpha with a side of Beta, there is only the man who’s genuine concern is first for himself, the man who prepares and provisions for himself, the man who maintains Frame to the point of arrogance because that’s who he is and what he genuinely merits. There is only the Man who improves his circumstance for his own benefit, and then, by association and merit, the benefit of those whom he loves and befriends.

    That’s the Man who Just Gets It.”

    This little summary alone was worth writing the article for. Something to be ready daily.

    David Deangelo had a great principle (which I live by) that men should always seek first to build a happy single life “that is so damn good” that when the “perfect” women enters it, you aren’t even sure if it’s worth giving up for. She may be a 10 and meet your every need, but still, it would require some alteration to accompany her in your life, and this is something you aren’t sure is worth it. If you do decide to bring her into your life for something more like a relationship, you are very cautious and are testing her to see if she if the right fit for you.

    Naturally, this attitude makes you lead your life as an alpha, and the beta provision qualities you have are simply there because thats how you choose to provide for yourself, regardless of who enters or leaves it. It is not intended for anyone else. It is your legacy.

    If you can genuinely find yourself in that position, your frame will dominate and you will naturally and effortlessly demonstrate that you “Just Get It”.

  33. @DBM,

    A well written post but I think you confused “character” with game. Game is about understanding signals, creating signals, and escalating socio-sexual interactions. When one has “game” they also have underlying emotional, intellectual, and confident characteristics. Human beings might be pretty, but they’re still apes. Game is also about social awareness and status. Generally speaking, game enhances arousal in the minds of women because it presents a formidable masculine man.

    Agreed, however, once a Man internalizes Game it becomes part of his character.

    It seems to me that you’re throwing in your lot with the “looks are all that matter” crowd.

    I linked these in the article to address this:
    https://therationalmale.com/2012/02/23/looks-count/
    https://therationalmale.com/2012/04/13/have-a-look/

    If you’ve spent any time reading my stuff you’ll know I’m not into absolutes.

    Status, affluence, Game, social & emotional intelligence, creative intelligence and many other factors are elements in ‘attraction’ and certainly accentuate ‘arousal’. A good looking guy displaying masculine dominance and benefiting from social proof will always outclass the good looking guy without those accentuators.

    One area I think Siirtyrion overlooks is the importance the variables of external context play in arousal and attraction. In the land of the 4 foot man, the 5 foot man is the arousing Alpha – until the 6 foot man arrives.

    There is also the personal context of women’s self-perceived SMV and how this affects their arousal and attraction incentives with regards to the men they can realistically breed or pair-bond with.

    Looks are NOT everything, but they are far important than I think most men are comfortable in admitting to themselves.

  34. “Mismatched libidos”: why stop there?

    Honey, it’s not that I got fat and you didn’t and there’s something wrong, we just have “mismatched food appetites.”

    Honey, it’s not that I get drunk every night, and you want to discuss Kant or play scrabble, we just have “mismatched entertainment appetites.”

    Honey, your income is insufficient to fund the gap in our “mismatched lifestyle appetites.”

    It goes on, and on, and on. “What I do or what I want is what you will accept. If not, you are not accepting me as a rich and complex person, you hater.”

  35. Rollo, what’s your advice (if any) to your teenage daughter when she enters the world of dating? What about to women who think of themselves as “nice girls” (yes, I know there’s no such thing) who want to marry and have children with the perceived “good guy”? I mean, after reading all this, what’s a woman to do?

  36. Rollo, excellent post, as always. A few thoughts:

    While I appreciate your perspective and highly astute analysis, I also appreciate that we have been living in a virtual vacuum of masculine examples for the last forty years, the kind of examples that would help a man “just get it” on his own. Through no fault of their own, a whole generation of men are waking up to the truth of their own interests and the deceptions that have been purported upon them in order to control them financially and sexually. “Just getting it” isn’t an option for them. They have been so long divorced from a culture of positive masculinity that they lack the basic terminology, skill sets, and understanding to “get it” without assistance.

    Without that culture, they need to be taught the basic principles of Game and the Red Pill through metaphor and analogy before they can internalize them. Making the leap from AFC to Red Pill Alpha takes time, discipline, study, dedication, and commitment. It also takes breaking down the praxeology into easy-to-understand and digest terms. Men raised on the Blue Pill need the Alpha/Beta understanding first, before they can appreciate the value of their own SMV and ability to arouse a given woman. Men already in LTRs before the Red Pill need a transitional meme through which they can achieve the internalization of their positive masculinity, and for many “Beta with a side of Alpha” is an achievable, believable goal.

    Once progress has been made to the point where such distinctions become unnecessary in his mind, and he presents more Alpha or Beta within the frame of his relationship naturally as a matter of course, he can consider abandoning the terms as archaic for his personal toolbox and focus on pure mastery.

    But until then a man in a LTR who hopes to master his wife’s potential hypergamy needs the aspiration of being adept at providing comfort/attraction or excitement/arousal to suit his wife’s needs for security and stimulation. And a woman in a LTR who desires to counter her husband’s polygamous impulses likewise needs to understand her own hypergamous desires and consciously channel them toward sustaining and nurturing her committed union, not foolishly destroying her family over a culturally-encouraged phase of unhappiness.

    I understand why many in the Manosphere have backed away from Athol, but Married Man Sex Life Primer remains one of the better core Red Pill books out there, and has the bonus of being very readable by a wide spectrum of men. For the vast majority of men struggling to break their Beta and embrace more Alpha energies in their lives, the Alpha/Beta model of behavior assessment, and the goal of being able to present the appropriate behavior at need, is invaluable tool.

    All of that being said, your point is very well taken. As the Manosphere hacks away at the core of what masculinity and manhood mean for us all, it becomes increasingly clear that the only real “good man” is the one who pursues his own interests with the dedication of a soldier to the army or a monk to his church. It cannot, in the 21st century, be defined anymore by his marital status or his level of achievement in society. A “Good Man” is what he says he is, and it is up to the rest of the world to accept it.

  37. In my late teens to early twenties I was the nice guy. There was no conscious effort to be so , just the conditioning of friends family and TV.
    There were two times when two different girls basically told me the same thing.
    ” You’re perfect. You’re just the most sweet and wonderful guy… and what ever happens… don’t you ever change. ”
    I was too naive at the time to realize I was being dumped with those words while they went off to chase badboy cock. Though, I’m sure if the technology were available they would’ve had me encased in carbonite.

    In my latter 20’s I started to get a clue. The biggest breakthrough happened when I was dating a girl I didn’t much care about. I would ignore her calls. Make plans without her. Talk to, and often flirt with, other girls in front of her. I even forgot her birthday. And she said the most mystifying thing I’d ever heard a woman say at that point in my life. ” I’ve never had a boyfriend who treated me as well as you do. ” She clung to me so tightly it made me uncomfortable. She wanted me back even after I slept with her roommate.

    I spent days pondering the difference between her and the girls I had really put out for . Was she a masochist ? It took longer than I care to admit, to figure out it wasn’t the girls, or the differences in their personalities. It was me and the difference in mine.

  38. If the “formerly red pill blogger” you are referring to is Athol Kay, then I disagree with your assessment of him. He has come to reject the alpha = strength and beta = weakness view and now sees alpha and beta as two different suites of attributes both of which are necessary for a successful long term relationship. So he has a different paradigm then yours; one which I think both better and healthier.

    He’s basing this off of the research of Helen Fisher. Alpha = psycho-sexual strength and attractiveness = dopamine. Beta = emotional health and commitment = oxytocin. Testosterone fuels the sexual desire. Another former game blogger had a similar view. I think his name was Narciso Babaero. Google him up; his theory is impressive imo and a far better base for intergender dynamics than the traditional manosphere/Roissy one.

    What we call “beta” is too much emotional provisioning without enough alpha psychology. But in LTRs, as Athol keeps arguing, you can’t have all Alpha without Beta. You need to balance. That’s what he’s teaching. He hasn’t all of a sudden embraced a blue pill view of “building a better beta”. Well, you could say that only if your ideal is that of the life long bachelor. But for all the men who want long term relationships then they need to learn a different skill set than for guys going for just one-night stands and short term flings or fuck-buddies (ie plates).

    At the least, humans are wired for serial monogamy. Athol writes on how to make that work. He is perhaps the most mature of the game bloggers / authors.

  39. Does AF/BB really happen in practice? While the woman would mate with the alpha, does she really end up with a child to be raised by the beta? I suppose she could try to trick the beta, but you would think he would figure that out, and it would have to be a pretty low beta to accept the woman with a child because he had no other options for sex.

    There is cuckolding that happens, of course. But today the main way this is playing out is serially, due to the widespread ability to avoid pregnancy. So, women are pursuing the genetic side of their sexuality during their 20s when they are at the peak time when they can attract the best male genetics for sex, and then pursuing the resources/companion/child-raising side of their sexuality once they begin to move past their peak ability to secure the top male gene specimens for sex.

    This is the case irrespective of whether a woman wants to get pregnant — the question in arousal, not the desire to actually reproduce. In fact, the ability to pursue arousal vectors without reproduction ensuing is a key element here, together with financial/social independence.

    There are women who pursue AF/BB at the same time, of course — either in the form of affairs, or in the form of actual cuckolding. The incidence is mostly deliberately obscured by the medical community (the prevailing ethical thought in the medical community is that disclosure of non-paternity when it comes up outside a paternity test setting is unethical), but numbers appear to vary based on SES and race (at least in the US) and a “blended” number of ~10% is generally spoken about in terms of non-paternity overall — so there is a fair amount of actual AF/BB cuckolding going on, as well, while the prevailing AF/BB is serial in nature in our current sexual culture.

  40. As Jack Donovan states in THE WAY OF MEN there’s a difference between being a “good man” and being “good at being a man”.

  41. There is also the personal context of women’s self-perceived SMV and how this affects their arousal and attraction incentives with regards to the men they can realistically breed or pair-bond with.

    @Rollo. But this doesn’t turn off the arousal or attraction the woman might have, it just gives them less incentive to try as hard to be attractive to a male the female thinks is unattainable. They would still jump at the chance if it came to them more often then not.

  42. Confidence is the basics of game, looks are the basics of confidence far more often then not. Therefore looks are far more important to your game then study of game theory. End of story. Hit the gym gentleman.

  43. @s.r.

    There was a time I would recommend MMSL to married men to start them down a red pill path in the hopes it would help them unplug in their marriages – I can’t endorse that now.

    Athol’s primer was (and still is) a good resource for coming to terms with the red pill after a man’s married into a blue pill marriage, but I would argue that Athol’s message has now changed to the point that I doubt he’d agree with many of the same red pill tenets he himself proposed in the primer.

    MMSL is his primary revenue source now, and as such he’s got to compromise that message to accommodate the women he’s (necessarily) allowed into his previously male-space in order to preserve his ‘brand’.

    If you want a real-world assessment of ‘married men’s sex lives’ look no further than the DeadBedroom subreddit:
    http://www.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/

    These men’s issues aren’t that they need a more Beta-Sensitive balance to their Alpha-dopamine dominance. That sells more books and consults for his reader’s wives hoping to build-a-better-beta, but it doesn’t address the vast majority of men’s real problems that Ian Ironwood described above – these guys have been preconditioned to be overt Betas who expect women to want to bang them in marital bliss because they’re ‘good betas’.

    Evan Mark Katz, Aunt Giggles, Mark Manson and regrettably Athol Kay have simply repurposed the red pill to serve their brands and the Feminine Imperative.

    Just as I said they would almost 3 years ago:
    https://therationalmale.com/2011/11/08/could-a-man-have-written-this/
    https://therationalmale.com/2012/12/28/sanitizing-the-imperative/

  44. @Ian,

    Men already in LTRs before the Red Pill need a transitional meme through which they can achieve the internalization of their positive masculinity, and for many “Beta with a side of Alpha” is an achievable, believable goal.

    I appreciate what you’re getting at, but lets put it this way, guys don’t seek out the manosphere because they’re getting too much pussy by being ‘Nice Guys’ (or even ‘good’ guys) with so much Beta-sensitive oxytocin Game that they have to ask for advice on how to let so many girls down easy when they reject them.

    No, they’re seeking out the manosphere (we don’t advertise) because doing what they’ve done is only getting them what they’ve gotten. As you state, the greater lack isn’t an overly conditioned Beta-sensitivity, it’s a dearth of Alpha-dominance.

    The women Overseers in the male-space of the manosphere initially find this sexy – more ‘Man Up’ male Alpha attitude from their husbands makes for (temporary) tingles, but he can’t be allowed to ‘Man Up’ to the point where she loses Frame control of her Beta.

    That’s the paradox of building a better Beta, women want control over when their husbands are Alpha-hot (ovulation) and when they’re Beta-comforting (luteal phase). The risk of encouraging more Alpha-dominance is that it has the potential of tipping that control over into real Dread for women.

  45. “Evan Mark Katz, Aunt Giggles, Mark Manson and regrettably Athol Kay have simply repurposed the red pill to serve their brands and the Feminine Imperative.”

    I agree about Walsh. I used to think that she was good for data dumps but now I don’t even trust that. She has abandoned the core Red Pill Truth; ie that woman are wired to respond to male psycho-sexual dominance. I never followed Katz and as far as I know Manson was a PUA who is now trying to sell “inner game” crap. So I agree with those three but not about Athol. He still writes about male dominance but in the context of LTRs.

    But his change of approach was due not to him selling out but to his empirical experience through his coaching. And imo, from my experience with married couples that I know, Athol is right in advising men to master both skill sets; it alpha dominance and beta dependability. Now, I might agree with the argument that he isn’t stressing the core red-pill truths he once did but I don’t see evidence that he abandoned them. He just posted links to two interviews he did and he discussed the necessity for alpha in both of them.

    You might be right that Athol is primarily dealing with formerly blue pill men. In 20 years or so things probably will be different and when all the young guys today who are players eventually settle down, and most of them will, perhaps teaching them relationship skill will require a different tone.

    For my part, I have learned alot from Athol and I like the fact that he hasn’t gone down the path of Manospherean/Roissyean nihilism. Also, I like the fact that he stresses biology without being a determinist which I estimate at least half the Manophsere is de facto. Lastly, your general point that the red pill is hard to swallow remains valid.

  46. @Beunavista, Great comments. your personal anecdote helps balance the theory of Rollo’s stuff w/ real world application.

  47. @DBM from Rollo’s “Looks Count” post

    Consider that greater than 66% of people in western society are overweight (33% are morbidly obese). So it stands to reason that 2/3rd of the guys seeking out the community in order to change their lives, outlook and sexual prospects are going to be struggling with obesity from the outset. Now also consider the preferred belief among guys that looks, at least, matter less than personality, Game, etc. in female attraction. This is NOT a coincidence. For these guys it takes more effort to change their bodies than to change their minds.

    Being the opposite of obese is achievable for any man.

    It takes work, however.
    And time.
    And drive.
    And having a reason that’s so powerful you just don’t have any other choice.
    It takes education.
    It takes facing the fears and doing it anyway.
    It’s painful.
    And if you’re doing it right, you’re nauseas and your muscles are completely spent.

    Looks enhance the rest of it.

    All of those excuses about this attractive dude that fails with women… He ignores The Rational Male. You’re not ignoring RM.

    The question:
    Why do you want looks?

    What will becoming ripped do for your life?

    Your answers must have the power that drives you.

    The majority of men are obese.

    You can be in the top 1% by getting ripped.

    Do you think that would improve your odds in attracting the kind of woman you say you want to attract?

    I’ve gone from 7 1/2% body fat to 26% body fat this year (DEXA scans show) because of the ‘hit and run’ accident.

    Through this, I’ve been ridiculed by some ‘new money’ types that are obese at a lower tier location of a high end gym chain (Its location is a couple of blocks from the inpatient care location, so it’s convenient).

    Granted, this might be expected since I’m the only one that shows up with a staff including a nurse.

    Now, this paralyzed actor that couldn’t speak has become ripped again. This has changed the dynamic a bit.

    They that brag about their little toys are still obese and they speak to each other about using cheap drugs (alcohol and the restaurant food they brag about). Why brag about activity they do in attempts to cover up their internal misery.

    Of course a lot of what they spend on low status drugs (alcohol and restaurant meals) is spent trying to earn the attention of women that would never have them.

    The cool man working in the locker room wears a black shirt with the word “MAINTAIN” printed on the front… They treat him like a servant. I call him Sir, and I know that Spanish isn’t his only language.

    Recently he’s been acting clueless each time he calls one of the low status guys with toys “Gordita”

    Don’t be that guy.

    Be the ripped MAN!

  48. That’s why learning pick up is the ultimate paradox. Also MGTOW is a paradox as well. Men who are truly and genuinely alpha are guys who do what they want for the benefit of themselves and not because it will get women to approve of them. Men who make pussy or sex an intention seem to find it most because they find who who also want sex. It’s not about who likes them or approves of them. It’s finding women who are interested in sex with you. Because you want sex. Men who look for attention or validation are playing the game and trying to do what’s necessary for women to like them. And that doesn’t work.

    Because you always end up seeking it like a drug. And something that will fill your hole up. While a man who does what he wants and feels like doing isn’t validated by what the result is. It’s the simple action of doing what he wants to do. The result is important and that’s why he’s doing the action but he doesn’t find his validation or his worth from the result. While the result can teach you very much, it’s a matter of skill and repetition that ultimately finds you what you wanted to begin with.

    MGTOW fail to see that giving up on women and need to prove themselves first fall flat on their faces because they are lying to themselves. They want women and sex. They are stuck in the world of doubt and the belief that they aren’t good enough. Or are too beta to get what they want. In other words they never knew that they could simply ask for what it is they want and if done enough times it goes your way.

    That doesn’t mean with the same women it would work but with the RIGHT women it would. I also want to say that while perseverance and not giving up can be a good thing you could run into a problem that she is a oneitus. Where you begin to forget that there are other plates out there to be spun and some of which are better and will fulfill your need of pussy. So the ultimate thing a man can do is to capitalize on his value and to believe in it.

    If he is a man who believes in it he is always investing in himself and also is going after what he wants. And never settling for anything other than that. He is not investing in himself for a women but for himself. His best interest is always at play. No matter if it’s women, your career, hobbies, or whatever it is you desire. Your journey will take you where it does. Just don’t make women priority one.

  49. @LiveFearless your story is inspiring! I wouldn’t say anything you’ve done is “selfish,” there is such a thing as taking care of yourself so that you can do well at anything in life. Even biblically you’re supposed to “love your neighbor **as you love yourself.**” You have to love yourself enough (which is a kind of necessary selfishness) in order to be able to love others. You’re story is amazing – congratulations!

  50. “I wish I could freeze him in time so he’d be the same guy and waiting for me”

    Oh, but honey, you won’t be the same, will you?

    Guys like this often get inoculated by BPD trainwreck nightmares (poor guy linked in Curious Man’s post is textbook).

    Of course they won’t be the same after that. And they’ll smell the likes of you from a mile away.

  51. I agree with MMSL becoming something else other than red pill, I left that place a while ago. You can be alpha all the time, good alpha’s are not mean or abusive you just have to always hold your frame and show strength and leadership.Trying to ix in beta will only make people resort to their old beta behaviors.

  52. @Rollo: “There was a time I would recommend MMSL to married men to start them down a red pill path in the hopes it would help them unplug in their marriages – I can’t endorse that now…. Athol’s primer was (and still is) a good resource for coming to terms with the red pill after a man’s married into a blue pill marriage,”

    Let me propose an alternative to Athol Kay (May Peace Be Upon Him). We discussed his feminine influenced change in attitude over at TRP: http://en-us.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2dr8n7/put_a_fork_in_it_mmsl_has_officially_sold_out_to/

    Our very own Ian Underwood has an alternative. He wrote a couple of very nice books on applying Red Pill theory with chapters on marriage and included very concrete and personal examples:

    The Gentlemen’s Guide to picking up women by Ian Ironwood
    The Ironwood Collection of Alpha moves by Ian Ironwood

    I read them at a critical time in my Red Pill awareness and his perspective as a married guy was very helpful.

    [Yes, I commented on this thread when it went up]

  53. Status, affluence, Game, social & emotional intelligence, creative intelligence and many other factors are elements in ‘attraction’ and certainly accentuate ‘arousal’. A good looking guy displaying masculine dominance and benefiting from social proof will always outclass the good looking guy without those accentuators.

    Physicality is the driving force behind a women’s raw, unfiltered, sexual selection. It reigns as king for a short-term mating strategy, which is the current mating strategy that is being heavily favored as the West turns more r-selected. Many of the factors you have listed come into consideration, AFTER THE FACT, of physical attraction (at least via the Alpha Fucks side of a woman’s strategy).

    One area I think Siirtyrion overlooks is the importance the variables of external context play in arousal and attraction. In the land of the 4 foot man, the 5 foot man is the arousing Alpha – until the 6 foot man arrives.

    Variables are applicable to understanding how key objective truths rule out, I’ll give you that. But the fundamental premise here is that looks still weight heavily into sexual selection regardless of how other guys measure in any given place. There is an objective notion of beauty regardless of where you’re at.

    There is also the personal context of women’s self-perceived SMV and how this affects their arousal and attraction incentives with regards to the men they can realistically breed or pair-bond with.

    I may have to do a post on this because I’ve thought about this as well. Nonetheless, even though women do take into consideration their own SMV, that won’t stop them from lusting over a guy who’s significantly above her own market value. Whether a woman can attain, let alone pair-bond with said high value man, varies mostly by the man’s options and awareness. This is especially true if the woman isn’t particularly too attractive. But just to play around here for a bit. Think about a man who’s a, let’s say, 5 in SMV. His market value won’t stop him from seeking out a woman who’s a 9, damned be all. After many repeated tries he may fail and call it quits but make no mistake about it, he will still be highly attracted to said woman. Switch the sexes here and a woman will still have a much better shot at pair-bonding (however short) because, as we all know, women are the true gate keepers of sex. It is this shot alone that cause the rampant “…romantic idealism, that, for many, will be impossible to realize.” Even if it is impossible for most women, it will not stop women from rejecting men who are less-than ideal, for a (however idealistic notion) shot at a high value alpha.

    Looks are NOT everything, but they are far important than I think most men are comfortable in admitting to themselves.

    I have never said that looks are everything. What I do say, is that, the preference for good looks far outweighs any other factor in sexual choice in this SMP (ESPECIALLY for young women), but I have also said that women do take into account personality once a long-term mating strategy has developed.

    I suppose the main point I try to establish is: “Looks matter a whole lot more than it is currently being discussed amongst the Pua-sphere and Mano-sphere.”

    I hear a lot of this “Women aren’t as visual as men” or “Game incites real gina tingles better than good looks ever can”. Both of those statements are complete bullshit for anyone who doesn’t have their head stuck in the sand.

    As I’ve stated above, “Hundreds of well controlled studies show that all humans have similar notions of beauty. So, in that sense, physical appearance has an objective basis, both for women and men.”

  54. “Athol’s primer was (and still is) a good resource for coming to terms with the red pill after a man’s married into a blue pill marriage, but I would argue that Athol’s message has now changed to the point that I doubt he’d agree with many of the same red pill tenets he himself proposed in the primer.
    “MMSL is his primary revenue source now, and as such he’s got to compromise that message to accommodate the women he’s (necessarily) allowed into his previously male-space in order to preserve his ‘brand’.”

    That’s the heart of it. Athol used to offer free advice and blogging primarily for men. His “Male Attraction Plan” morphed into the “Mindful Attraction Plan” so it could be sold to both men AND women to improve their marriages.

    But down deep, what’s really going on here is the folly of believing that men and women can candidly and explicitly discuss intersexual relationships together in one forum. After at least two experiments elsewhere (one at HUS), I’ve come to the conclusion that they cannot. What invariably happens when you combine men and women in one such forum, and women are allowed a considerable amount of control over the overall frame of the discussions, it breaks down in the name of “tolerance” and “good taste”, etc.

    Women run screaming from the room when confronted with evidence of their own natures; their own dark depravities, their own deepest desires. They cannot handle their disattraction for their husbands; their alpha widowhood, their lusting after old boyfriends years and decades after the relationships ended. They cannot handle the fact that they really do notice only the most dominant, most confident, best looking men; and that other men barely show up on their radar screens.

    They cannot handle the fact that they loved loved LOVED sex with their college boyfriends; and feel “meh” about sex with their husbands. They recoil in horror when they realize the only reason their marriages work is because of their extreme sexual attraction to their husbands. They absolutely deny deny deny that they still have feelings for old boyfriends. They will never acknowledge that many of them will cheat given the right time, right circumstances, right guy, and low risk of detection. They insist on “ethical” behavior for men, but while unattached they can have sex with men engaged to other women and to them this presents no ethical problem at all.

    This is why you have some bloggers watering down the red pill; and other hardcore feminist bloggers who have repudiated the red pill altogether. Some are all about marriage. Others are not about traditional sexual morality at all, and just want to get their focus group girls to marriage eventually while avoiding as many pump and dump pitfalls as possible.

  55. Such women can’t handle the fact that good looking alpha men make them wet; and their husbands and beta BFs….don’t They cannot handle the fact that they loved it when good looking attractive men fucked them hard; and that they hate it when their husbands or beta boyfriends make love to them.

  56. Game doesn’t arouse sexual desire. In my younger years I was dragged to nightclubs and to other vagina-dens by my friends and not once did I ever see a guy game a woman. Nearly all of these guys weren’t ”gaming” women above their looks-range. No, they were decent-looking guys who were trying to get some from average and below average women.

    On the other hand, I’ve met many a near-retarded Tall/handsome/rich guy who couldn’t beat women off his case. As one of the posters has said so far, height is everything. I’ve also met men who were douchebags or had some seriously messed-up physical features about them, but the height offset all of their physical shortcomings. And the women they slept could be even considered hot, so you can imagine what average-looking(not obese women) did to them.

    A handsome face can attract average women, if you are short, but if you are handsome and tall – you have got it made.

    What’s a young man to do? Realize that biology is king. Only a very small handful of men have free sex. The majority of men can indeed get a girlfriend, but they’ll have to put up with them, deal with their problems, issues, health problems, and demands, and the sex will very very lackluster and will be rationed.

    If you guys intend to go to college, head for a STEM-oriented college/medicine. Social studies colleges are packed with women. If you enroll in one of the social studies colleges there’s a very high chance of either spending your next 4 years thirsty as hell for vagina, from seeing all of those women, or the women won’t like the look of you and claim you raped her, even though you never got 400 meters near her.

    your 20’s are going to be complicated. The mere rustle of the wind will give you erections. That’s how is. Most human males who’ve lived from the first humanoid specimen, didn’t reach maturity, most didn’t age past the age of 25, which means they’d have to be aroused at a moment’s notice to ensure the survival of the species. That’s the drawback of evolution, lol.

    Anyway. Dedicate your time to your enjoyment. Learn to draw, to paint. Learn a trade. Carpentry is a lot of fun and can earn you money. Don’t interact with women if you can avoid it and consume porn.

    I’m a successful ghost. Went to college at the age of 18, saw how much of a fraud college is, and how higher education is a breeding ground for compliant betas, entered the work force, returned to college in my late 20s. I spent my days surrounded by very attractive women and not once did they arouse my sex drive. That’s what porn can do for you. It can set you free from your biological imperatives.

    Now I have career women wanting to date me. I have the feeling they would get a ”’oops I’m pregnant” pretty soon if I was to ever have sex with them. I’m a bit of a trickster. On occasion I have the girlfriend of some friend of mine ”force” me to meet one of their female friends, one of those post-wall 30 year old chicks who still look good(they’ll keep their looks until their mid 30s) and then I pretend to either be a slob/have no job/be addicted to video games.

    I tell you, women sure have a short fuse on that patience, LOL:

    I’m such a man-child!

  57. “She wants traits that are composites of Disney characters she’s seen in her lifetime.”

    You have it backwards. Disney characters are made up to be what she wants, from a time long before Disney.

    And ultimately what she wants is beauty and the beast.

  58. What Athol’s rebranded approach essentially amounts to now is negotiating desire by appealing to women’s reason.

    He’s not doing anything Dr. Phil or any other mainstream marriage counselor doesn’t get paid for. The approach presumes all actors are rational agents who can come to the table and negotiate the terms of a ‘her needs’ (first) / ‘his needs’ arrangement that will result in a co-equal Alpha-Beta balanced marriage.

    Does he still even promote the Captain – First Officer idea now? It seems at odds with what I’ve read of his lately.

  59. And ultimately what she wants is beauty and the beast.

    This reminds me, every woman I’ve spoken to found the beast far more attractive than the prince at the end of that movie. Him transforming was actually a let down at the end.

  60. “The approach presumes all actors are rational agents who can come to the table and negotiate the terms of a ‘her needs’ (first) / ‘his needs’ arrangement that will result in a co-equal Alpha-Beta balanced marriage.”

    Maybe. If that’s the case, then the man’s “rational” position is: Dread, and DNA testing of all children born to the marriage. The “rational” position for men has to be “give me what I want, or I’ll get what I want elsewhere and end the marriage”.

  61. @Deti,

    Observing a process will change that process.

    https://therationalmale.com/2013/12/30/secret-of-the-red-pill/

    If your purpose is to alienate and/or correct a woman you have no interest in by pointing out the brutal truths of being Game-aware, that’s certainly your prerogative, but you will never get into a woman’s pants or be more attractive to her by explaining the Game you are engaged in with her (or hope to be).

    This is where Athol’s (as well as Tucker Max’s I should add) rebranded approach will alway fall short – genuine, organic desire is the result of playing the Game with women, never explaining it to them.

    Also from Just Get It:
    https://therationalmale.com/2012/08/22/just-get-it/

    She want’s you to ‘get it’ on your own, without having to be told how. That initiative and the experience needed to have had developed it makes you a Man worth competing for. Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ‘the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be. Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shit test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.

  62. “If I had to explain it in more spiritual or psychological terms, I would say that women want a man to be strong enough in his own direction (pursuing goals) that he will not be distracted by her. Because if he can be distracted by her, then he is not strong enough to achieve his goals. And if he is not strong enough to achieve his goals, then she cannot indirectly reap the benefits of him doing so.”

    Patrice O’Neal (RIP) summed this up with the phrase:

    “Men want to win, women want a winner.”

    A man who makes a women (or sex) the focus of his life is not making his success the focus of his life, and thus, his overall success will be limited. That limit will affect the woman in that she will be sharing a limited success rather than the full potential of which he is capable.

  63. @Siirtyon

    “I have never said that looks are everything. What I do say, is that, the preference for good looks far outweighs any other factor in sexual choice in this SMP (ESPECIALLY for young women), but I have also said that women do take into account personality once a long-term mating strategy has developed.”

    The only reason I can suss for this weird adaption you have is you may be hanging around with some ridiculously good looking dudes. In that context, this whole thing you have may make sense, as a woman chooses the best of whats in front of her, not the best she can get.

    Fair to say that your guy friends are blowing you out, and its fucking up your frame maybe?

  64. @Stingray, well, women do have a thing for getting bent over by Bigfoot you know…http://www.salon.com/2014/01/23/bigfoot_sexy_erotica_author_explains/Alpha Fucks / Alpha Fucks

    Rollo, can you please psychologically explain this

  65. @Rollo Tomassi:

    Yes, he does still promote the Captain – First Officer model.

    @deti:

    I’ve noticed a much greater shift in the MMSL forums than in Athol’s blog posts. As you said, ” What invariably happens when you combine men and women in one such forum, and women are allowed a considerable amount of control over the overall frame of the discussions, it breaks down in the name of “tolerance” and “good taste”, etc. ”

    Once more women started participating in the MMSL forum, shaming and accusations of neglecting the wife’s needs/feelings started entering the conversations on a regular basis. Certain female regulars could be counted on to frequently point out that “a man’s rationalization hamster is no less active than a woman’s.” There are a few women on the forum who do make valuable contributions to the discussions on the forum. However, there are more who simply reinforce that whole idea of “innate solipsism” every time they post.

    I’d still recommend MMSL to a married man who has been doing “all of the right things” and is confused and frustrated by his wife’s lack of sexual interest. Speaking from my own experience, I found the writings Roissy or Roosh to be reprehensible the first time I was exposed to them. It was MMSL that opened up my mind to the Red Pill. For a guy who is married with a couple of kids and just wants to have the marriage that he thought that he was going to get, PUA-oriented writings that advocate spinning a lot of plates are likely to alienate him before he really has the chance to examine his own beliefs.

  66. ” . . .every woman I’ve spoken to found the beast far more attractive than the prince at the end . . .”

    The story is told in that order for a reason.

    “Big, strong, uncaring beasts (until she tames him with her feminine strength . . .”

    And they lived not too unhappily until she got bored of her toy dog.

  67. “women neither want nor expect that balance in the same man to begin with.”

    They know they cannot control the alpha. He has proven this.

    They know they can control the beta. He has proven this.

  68. @Siirtyrion

    Indeed.

    Looks Matter.

    Thankfully a guy can become a ripped MAN with super low body fat and lean firm toned muscle. And, no, I was not born with ‘skinny’ genes. Quite the opposite.

    As Rollo wrote “In the land of the 4 foot man, the 5 foot man is the arousing Alpha – until the 6 foot man arrives.”

    Forget the six foot man, be the equivalent of 6’7″ man by being ripped at whatever height ya got.

    Trends in fitness are leaning toward more obesity. It’s unlikely there will be a super flood of ripped men to compete with anytime soon.

    The ‘looks matter’ guys have been acknowledged by Rollo Tomassi in numerous comments and posts.

    If you’re a “looks matter” guy:

    Now it’s time to be the MAN with the looks instead of complaining about him.

    Build your body.

    It enhances EVERY area of your life.

    Are you ready to stop eating food from restaurants?

    That saves a bundle of money.

    Use that money purchase a Norwalk 280?

    It’s part of the process of acquiring those “looks” that so many mention.

    You see a lot of people with “good looks” on television and in movies.

    MOST of them are consuming fresh, organic, non-gmo vegetables that’ve been titrated cold into a bag, then pressed with two tons of pressure.

    This creates a bag full of dry, heavy bulk and a jar of vegetable juice that’s the consistency of water.

    There are respected scientific journals from decades ago that explain why this works.

    This helps the body restore it’s ability to heal as you workout on the journey to having those looks.

  69. off topic, was there ever a post about or containing elements of “brownie points” was driving down the country today listening to the wireless and some guy playing a request for his girl and the dj says thats worth a few brownie points.. My girl goes awwwwwwwww, i immediatley thought social convention.. oh well

  70. >>Rollo, can you please psychologically explain this.

    >No, no I wont.

    [cough]wimpout![cough]

    Fundamentally, it’s evolutionary biodetermination again.

    Females provide the genetic baseline; males provide the genetic variance.

    Thus, males tend to be attracted to a narrow range of particular characteristics. The less that males are attracted to that genetic baseline and the more they’re attracted to variations from it, the less healthy/functional and more damaged/dysfunctional their offspring end up, and evolution does the rest.

    Complementarily, females tend to be attracted to a wider range of more variant characteristics. Women want the man who stands out from the background of males in general, even if he stands out due to Dark Triad traits, because such males provide the genetic variance needed for the species’ adaptation to changing conditions.

    However, because women’s sexual consequence risks are more significant than men’s, their standards are more complex, etc. There are certain signals that are necessary to healthy species reproduction regardless of gender; women’s greater tendency to be attracted to more extreme variations of the basic male model do not invalidate those nor are they invalidated by them.

    So that’s the fundamental objective reason why women’s attraction and arousal triggers — their “sexuality” — is more fluid than men’s, and why more of them are more easily turned on by Assquatch and similar cryptosexuals. It’s their genetic responsibility to be attracted to the outliers, and sometimes the outliers are so extreme that the attraction is dysfunctional otherwise.

  71. This is where Athol’s (as well as Tucker Max’s I should add) rebranded approach will alway fall short – genuine, organic desire is the result of playing the Game with women, never explaining it to them.

    Rollo,

    Great point. I think a good analogy would be someone explaning a magic trick as it is performed. It ruins the experience.

    I must admit this is one of the more perplexing and odd things I’ve noticed among some “red pill” guys, the desire to want to explain it intellectually to women they are sexually involved or trying to be sexually involved with.

  72. That’s the heart of it. Athol used to offer free advice and blogging primarily for men. His “Male Attraction Plan” morphed into the “Mindful Attraction Plan” so it could be sold to both men AND women to improve their marriages.

    deti,

    I think one thing that has been amply demonstrated is that trying to run things as a business model that provides your livelihood or even that you are just trying to monetize as a side business is inherently corrupting (Athol, HUS, Manson, EMK). When it comes to this stuff, truth cannot coexist with maximizing profits.

    But down deep, what’s really going on here is the folly of believing that men and women can candidly and explicitly discuss intersexual relationships together in one forum. After at least two experiments elsewhere (one at HUS), I’ve come to the conclusion that they cannot. What invariably happens when you combine men and women in one such forum, and women are allowed a considerable amount of control over the overall frame of the discussions, it breaks down in the name of “tolerance” and “good taste”, etc.

    Agreed. I think the exception to this is if you have a limited number of women commenters who are at least somewhat with the program, and clearly understand they are “guests” at the blog. They are welcome to participate and/or watch from the sidelines, but the minute they start trying to change the rules, they can GTFO. As you know, we at JFG have a number of women commenters who I think add to the discussion, but if they tried to influence the tone or frame of the discourse, they would get the boot.

  73. Rollo,

    This is a truly brilliant article!

    “Women should only ever be a complement to a Man’s life – never the focus of it.”

    Indeed! And women also want to hero-worship and serve* a man who is on a Great Mission. A woman really doesn’t want to follow a “leader” who is following her butt.

    * Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals” talks about how dedicated followers are created through unapologetic expectation of loyalty and hard work.
    .
    .

    Siirtyrion,

    As a past critic, I wanted to acknowledge your well-written and interesting comments.
    .
    .

    @ stuttie, September 2nd, 2014 at 7:20 am

    “Does ones ‘Alphaness’ only then exist and operate in a vacuum (you either ‘just get it’ or you don’t) …”

    I think that Alphaness (in this sense) does operate like that, but only with respect to a specific woman.

    If you “learn it” (and internalize it completely), then you can appear to “just get it”, to a new woman. But if a woman has already seen you not “just get it”, then that is irrecoverable (“you can’t unring a bell”).

    This learning process also takes quite a few “practice runs”, with each one taking you further down the path.

  74. I’ve been reading MMSL since it’s inception and remain a big fan of Athol Kay.

    Something I’ve seen over there again and again, especially early on: Men in Blue Pill marriages would show up, absorb the Red Pill, run a detailed self improvement plan for 6 months to a year, learn game, get in shape, upgrade their wardrobe, start flirting with other women and garnering IOIs, seriously throttle back all Beta behaviors at home while increasing overall Alpha… and for a short time their wives would start to fuck their brains out. And then they’d start crying about being treated poorly or ignored. And then they’d stop putting out. And then they’d start talking about divorce. Often the guys were doing critical damage to their marriage during this phase that took a long time to repair.

    And in most (not all) of those cases, adding back the right kind of Beta behaviors while maintaining high levels of Alpha turned the hot sex spigot back on. Many previously sexless marriages have been running hot and heavy for years now under this model. I think many of the tweaks Athol Kay made in his approach were designed to try and keep this pattern from booting up in the first place.

    He’s certainly trying to carry the message to a wider audience now than just married guys in the manosphere, but Athol didn’t create the Alpha/Beta balance model out of whole cloth just in order to sell books. It may be at odds with the model Rollo puts forth in this post, but I’ve seen it work too many times to doubt the mechanics behind it.

  75. @Rollo – Brilliant post.
    @stuttie – you make a very good observation.

    Men want sex all the time, so if you are stuck in an LTR with one woman we are being trained to Try and Balance:

    Alpha Fux / Beta Bux on one side with Arousal Preparation vs. Provisioning Preparation on the other.

    And unless you know where she is in the cycle there is no way to understand her.

    The ONLY answer is to be ALPHA 100% of the time, fuck her, do your own thing and let others deal with the emotional fall out. i.e let her complain about you to her mother, girlfriends, beta orbiters, etc etc.

    The Flipside of this is that if you want to break up with a girl after fucking her 20 times simply show some Beta. My favourite way to break-up is to tell a girl I am poor / have money troubles, or fake an Asthma attack and get her to drive you to emergency…all pussy kryptonite.

  76. @Rollo – “women want control”

    Which is where women fall down. They’ve been conditioned by modern society to want control, yet they only get the real tingles when they’re not in control.

    Which is why (I think I said to @stingray once) that the bonsai doesn’t give a damn. It does what it wants, and might – if a woman is lucky – get temporarily loaned out to a woman to determine if she’s fit for purpose.

  77. @Siirtyrion

    I will throw a wrinkle into your comment. All of what you write is 100% correct. Females are conditioned to seek the “best” genes yet have accepted the best most available mate given the monogamistic nature of society for the past 10,000 years.

    Here is my wrinkle just for shits and giggles. Even though homo sapiens was “imprinted” quite a while ago with attraction vectors, I believe ecological factors have caused selection that have made that “choosiness” in attraction far more prevalent in Western European and hence, North American and Australian women. I feel (without any mathematical modeling to actually back up the claim other than some rough calculations) that selective pressures can be quite severe even over the short run. So give it a couple of centuries or more, then minority traits came become quite prevalent in a group.

    My recent example is obesity as a factor of the birth control pill and abortion. I can see stats that in every place that obesity is on the rise, birth control and abortion have been available for 30 years or more. Yes, affluence, exercise, and diet are factors. But there are those that experience all of these and remain thin, and those that don’t. Thinness is a heritable factor and often a characteristic of the higher classes, as is sobriety (moderation in consumption in all things is the older definition of the word rather than total abstinence from drugs or alcohol as is the more popular current meaning).

    Sexual or Erotic Capital has such a high value today that the woman that possesses it will wish to continue to possess it and avoid children, which would reduce sexual capital. And she will avoid them at all cost. The fatter woman gains social and financial value through maternity and doesn’t have the same incentive to avoid it. Over time, the population gets fatter as those who have a genetic tendency to moderate and are inherently thinner are “selected” out by the births from fatter women and those more susceptible to behaviors and consumption that lead to fatness.

    There is an exponential rule that says divide 70 by a rate of change to get the time required to double or half. So a mere 5% reduction in the number of thin children per year being born says half as many are born per year in 14 years (70/5). Even if there is no growth in the percentage of obese women having children, the reduction in thin women having thin children would cause the percentage of fat children, hence fat adults, to rise as percentage of the total. 50 years was all it took for the stock of people to change from majority thin to majority overweight and a far far higher number of obese and extremely obese than ever before. Yes, things could swing back the other way. But if ecological factors continue as they today, then over time, fatness and obesity will become ever more common genetic characteristics of modern humans as thinness becomes bred out of the species.

    So I propose that selection has handed men of European descent a particularly “choosy” and bitchy female and that selection has really occurred in the last 1000 years. In his essay, “The Arrow of Disease”, the author listed the necessary conditions of epidemic and hence heritable resistance and immunity to communicable disease as a function of (1) domestication of animals, chickens, cows, swine (2) Cities (3) Trade. Prior to 1900 and for many hundreds of years. cities were predominately a European development with all of the top cities in population found in Europe. And Domestication of animals was in its highest practice in Europe, and was practically non-existent in the Americans prior to colonization. And trade was something mostly limited to the silk trail across the middle east and up into Western Europe. It has been noted that there is “bitch” line that exists in Europe that separated eastern from western Europe. My contention is that those on the western side of that line are a function of selection as a result of this trade route.

    In the Red Queen, the author goes through various theories of sexual attraction and selection. The one settle on, the Red Queen, is that immunity and resistance to parasite load is the primary driver of the quest for “good genes”. I hold that the massive epidemics that roared through Europe in the past 1000 years have selectively favored those with those “good genes” and also selected for a bitchy, choosy woman, that selected men on the basis of those good genes, meaning a highly functioning immune system, that also supported those high cost honest signals of muscles, and attitude, as well as symmetry manifested in looks inferring low parasite load or resistance to parasite load.

    On the flip side, take some place like Colombia. Genetic analysis coupled with analysis of the historical record shows that 98% of the female mitochrondria are indigent women. And the historical record shows that European female immigration to the region was almost non-existent. Spanish law favored those with more “pure” European ancestry. So after the initial mating with what females did not die from exposure to disease from Spanish explorers, subsequent generations of men mated with the daughters of those initial matings. Subsequent immigration of men from Europe drove the stock of the place more and more European, but the female genes are almost entirely of indigenous stock.

    Compare the women of Colombia to the Women of North America and Europe. The women of Colombia generally like men, they are more sexually attracted to men, they are far more easily aroused and lips don’t lie, far higher in sexual appetite, far easier brought to orgasm. And western men who travel to Colombia are shocked at the difference.

    Compare on the other hand, the women of Argentina, notorious for their bitchiness (See Rooshv). Argentina was second to then United States in immigration from Europe, Italian and Spanish, men and women with 12.7 million compared to 27 million to the US. And two other subsequent periods after World War I and the Spanish Civil War brought millions to the urban areas of Argentina. All these periods incorporated high levels of western European female bitchy mitochondria into the Argentine gene pool. And the place is fucking notorious.

    Then likewise compare other regions that are considered to have “nice women”, Philippines, Thailand, Russia, Ukraine, all regions that lacked “trade” and cities. The first two were remote locations in the whole world travel thing until recently. And the second two were primarily large land masses without a lot of interaction outside of local regions. The disease path went across the Northern Middle East, across the Near East and the Levant, up into Greece and Italy, over to Spain, across the alps and into Western Europe. Follow that arrow and that is where the bitches are(were) found. And then with Colonialization of Canada, the United States, and Australia, those bitches went global.

    So maybe there was some time in Europe, oh, about 1500, when boys would sit around the fire and the elders would tell stories. And the boys would say. “Oh wise father, tell us about the time when women weren’t bitches”. And the old men would start, “Some time, many winters and summers ago, back before the great sickness, ….”

  78. “Then likewise compare other regions that are considered to have “nice women”, Philippines, Thailand, Russia, Ukraine, all regions that lacked “trade” and cities.”

    You know why they use pesos in the Philippines?

  79. All this worrying about women and their hypergamy. Life really isn’t that hard if you’re in good health.

    1. Buid a Spartan physique. You would have to be deformed to look ugly as a Spartan. Do wrestling, judo or jiu jitsu and pay attention to your food.

    2. Be passionate about your life. It can be your career, your family, your sport, Dungeons and Dragons. Women don’t care as long as you aren’t a deadbeat.

    3. You need love and respect. Being ‘Beta’ is about unconditional giving without getting love and respect in return. Being ‘Alpha’ is about setting personal boundaries and commanding love and respect.

    4. Learn the art of making love. It’s no rocket science, but every woman is different. You would find sex rather bothersome as well if you didn’t orgasm often.

    5. This one is very important: most people – and thus women – are cunts. Avoid them!
    Women saying they want a career man who works nine to five, helps around the house and looks like a Greek god are immature and most likely rationally challenged. Don’t make that culpa in elegendo.

  80. Reading the bit about ovulation and selecting for good genes and comfort depending on what stage she is in, would birth control mess with these signals as well and how?

  81. BV: ““Mismatched libidos”: why stop there?
    Honey, it’s not that I got fat and you didn’t and there’s something wrong, we just have “mismatched food appetites.”
    Honey, it’s not that I get drunk every night, and you want to discuss Kant or play scrabble, we just have “mismatched entertainment appetites.”
    Honey, your income is insufficient to fund the gap in our “mismatched lifestyle appetites.”
    It goes on, and on, and on. “What I do or what I want is what you will accept. If not, you are not accepting me as a rich and complex person, you hater.”

    This is so true, clever, and funny I’ll have to use it. Somewhere.
    Probably not online though.
    Because there’s a record, and I like to steal material with absolute stealth. Thanks for giving me a smile this morning, BV. 🙂

  82. Joe Rogan said something similar to the penultimate paragraph in a recent podcast … “Be the guy you pretend to be when you’re trying to get laid.”

  83. MMSL corrupted message and form:

    I turned a buddy onto Rollo, Donovan, MMSL etc. about a year ago. He’s a smart guy, lapsed seminarian now hospital admin, living in the Bible Belt and married to a biology prof. He loves being married to her and caring for their three girls. After 15 years he was getting it 1-2x a month, but only after she boozed up and went starfish on him. Among the other complexities, he was tired of drinking but if he wouldn’t drink with her, she wouldn’t drink, and … not even the starfish experience.

    He got a lot of value out of the MMSL literature, as well as Rollo, and is rockin’ the weight room, is a teetotaler, is getting hit on all day long at work by nurses, and is happier: total RP storyline. However, he’s now up to 3x a month with his starfish. So no happy ending there, yet. He doesn’t fuck around because, well, some men don’t believe in that.

    Anyhow: MMSL. He reported this summer that the forum is transformed just in the last year, he is regularly called out and threatened with being banned by the female forum police, and he concludes the sole purpose of the blog is to sell $200/hour “life coaching” bullshit. Like most churches, MMSL’s market appears now to be women; household spending is controlled by the wife.

    The value he’s received is the historical lit that advised a man on improving himself and placing expectations of improvement on his spouse. He recently told me that he’s willing to work with his wife for another year, but he’s gonzo if she can’t be his lover as well as his roommate. But he no longer bothers trying to interact with anyone there now that the women want to tell the men what to think.

    I doubt he’ll really leave her because he’s devoted to his girls, but he’s at least at peace with himself now as a man. As well as being far healthier physically. MMSL has moved on to another place, according to him.

  84. On the discussing of RP stuff with civilians, male or female:

    I’m recent to this way of thought, and initially I was stunned and amazed at how truthfully it explained so many things. So I explained it to my better friends, male and female, and was met with shock! horror! predictable shaming! and the rest. Again, these are people I might have known for decades and who care about me.

    I come down on the side of this issue requiring discretion. My view is it’s healthier to “show, not tell.” The most I’ll say is “women want dominance, protection, and provisioning. It doesn’t matter if they’re “feminist” or not.” But even that is a little too bold, unless the woman stops listening after she hears “dominance”, as most do. (They immediately think of sex and say to themselves “finally!”) Since most of the women I date have been around the block once, I sure don’t explain hypergamy to them, as almost all of them have triggered their divorces.

    Really, I think people are more receptive if we demonstrate our values instead of preaching them.

    I’m beginning to think of RP as a secret society, and have been reading on the sociology of secrets and secret societies this week. The seminal monograph is a 1906 piece by the father of micro-sociology, George Simmel. (I’m writing about that for another blog.) Simmel unlocks a fair bit of the intersexual puzzle, well beyond the business about keeping your powder dry, if you can handle the verbosity and his drifting logic.

  85. Here is perhaps the most erudite and funny analysis I’ve read on the pain of being an invisible “good guy”, with a nuclear carpet bombing of the current feminist trope that ‘badass v. nice guy’ dichotomies are a production of the MRA/PUA/RP world, and just reflect misogynist entitlement.

    Like a good liberal he says he’s not really into Game, just that Game explains the world, including his own.

    I’m not really a ha-ha big laugher, but he had me losing it repeatedly.

    http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-romanceless/

Speak your mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s