Socialized Hypergamy


This weekend’s discussion post was inspired by commenter Johnnycomelateley

Rape hysteria also has a deeper motive, equalitarianism (high taxes and social distribution) has changed the economic ecology and altered the incentives for female bonding patterns.

Several economists and anthropologists contend that society is transitioning from monogamy to serial monogamy (serial polygyny).

For serial polygyny to be facilitated women require absolutely unfettered, unrestricted, unconditional, uncommitted, unrestrained, unmoralizing, independent and completely free and unqualified safe access to sexual free choice. Unbounded by contracts, agreements, social norms, moral restraints, religious injunctions, social ties, aesthetic norms, maternal obligations, infanticide (abortion), selling progeny (adoption) and economic restrictions.

Anything that is deemed as restrictive is seen as limiting this choice, male spaces, employment obstacles, undesirable attention, unsafe neighbourhoods, male aesthetic standards, religion and of course rape.

What we are seeing is ‘choice hysteria’, anytime someone somewhere restricts female sexual choice it is met with unbounded fury. Even centuries long legal precedents and wrongful imprisonment must acquiesce to facilitate free choice.

Here are some quotes showing we are transitioning to serial polygyny.

Murdock’s (1967) Ethnographic Atlas categorized just 16% of 862 cultures as exclusively monogamous, with polygamy being found at some level in the rest.

A 2011 study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found that just 23% of women and 14.7% of men aged 25-44 had one (or zero) opposite-sex lifetime partners.

Frank Marlowe, Biological Anthropology – Cambridge
When males provide all the income but some have much more than others, richer males achieve polygyny, while ecologically imposed monogamy prevails in case of moderate inequality. When males provide an intermediate level of investment with little variation, females are not excessively dependent on males and serial monogamy may arise.

David de la Croix, Professor of Economics
In a society with few rich males and virtually no rich females, polygyny is supported by rich males, who can naturally monopolize a larger number of partners, and poor females, who prefer to be the n-th wife of a rich male rather than marrying a poor male monogamously.

Eventually, however, the number of rich males increases enough, and poor females prefer to marry monogamously.

Serial monogamy follows from a further enrichment of the society, through a rise in either the share of rich males, or the the proportion of rich females.

Monique Mulder, Anthropology
A key finding here is that while men do not benefit from multiple marriages, women do. Although the data are very variable (large standard errors), women appear to gain more from multiple mating than do men.

I’ve written more than a few posts about equalism here, but one thing that needs to be made clear is that a true state of egalitarian equalism among the sexes is neither tenable nor sustainable in any realistic measure. There is always a dominant / submissive dynamic in all human relations (not just intersexual ones), even in same sex pairings. While that dom-sub relation may be flexible in various circumstantial instances, the meta-relationship dynamic tends to place the more dominant personality at the top of an intersexual relation.

For the better part of human history this dominance has been expected from a Man, and I daresay as a species we evolved into that dominant role both physically and psychologically. But for the past 60+ years, since the advent of ubiquitous, unilaterally female-controlled hormonal birth control, the social and physical constraints of women’s innate Hypergamy, that had been kept in check by Men’s default dominance, has been unfettered.

When I wrote Owed Sex I went into detail about how women’s perception of their hypergamous choices have been contained by men:

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

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

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

When I wrote that post it was before the Yes Means Yes law had been enacted as well as before the “rape crisis” hysteria we find ourselves in as the result of the machinations of a feminist writer who actively hunts for pulp fiction rape stories to embellish. All now proven a complete and calculated fabrication.

However the base motivation is still the same, and I agree with Johnnycomelately, the social press for equalism is a suitable mask for socialized Hypergamy.

The Feminine Imperative isn’t interested in anything like an idealized state of egalitarian equalism between the sexes; it is only interested in unilateral, uncontested, and socially assured optimization of women’s Hypergamy.

Equalism is an anathema to Hypergamy.

So long as women are subject to innate hypergamous influences there can never be a socialized state of egalitarian equalism between men and women. By its very nature the Feminine Imperative will always seek an unequal state – maximal restriction of male sexuality and maximal unrestriction of optimized feminine Hypergamy. The persistence of pressing the idea that equalism between the sexes is a realizable goal state is necessary to achieve those maximized / optimized conditions.

For men, the end result of that optimized state is really a form of normative, accepted, socialized cuckoldry. However, the efforts to achieve this state are in social evidence all around us now.

Milo Yiannopoulos has an excellent two-part article, Sexodus, on Breitbart London outlining the cultural impact socialized Hypergamy is having on men today and how they are “checking out of society”.

In part two Milo explains:

Men, driven, as many of them like to say, by fact and not emotion, can see that society is not fair to them and more dangerous for them. They point to the fact that they are more likely to be murder victims and more likely to commit suicide. Women do not choose to serve in the Armed Forces and they experience fewer deaths and injuries in the line of work generally.

Women get shorter custodial sentences for the same crimes. There are more scholarships available to them in college. They receive better and cheaper healthcare, and can pick from favourable insurance packages available only to girls. When it comes to children, women are presumed to be the primary caregiver and given preferential treatment by the courts. They have more, better contraceptive options.

Women are less likely to be homeless, unemployed or to abuse drugs than men. They are less likely to be depressed or to suffer from mental illness. There is less pressure on them to achieve financial success. They are less likely to live in poverty. They are given priority by emergency and medical services.

Some might call these statistical trends “female privilege.” Yet everywhere and at all times, say men’s rights advocates, the “lived experiences” and perceived oppression of women is given a hundred per cent of the airtime, in defiance of the reality that women haven’t just achieved parity with men but have overtaken them in almost every conceivable respect. What inequalities remain are the result of women’s choices, say respectable feminist academics such as Christina Hoff Sommers, not structural biases.

And yet men are constantly beaten up over bizarre invented concepts such as rape culture and patriarchal privilege. The bizarre but inevitable conclusion of all this is that women are fueling their own unhappiness by driving men to consider them as sex objects and nothing more, because the thought of engaging in a relationship with a woman is horrifying, or too exhausting to contemplate.

I don’t see men as ‘checking out’ of society so much as I see them being  forced to develop personal and cultural contingencies to adapt to a feminine-primary social order that’s based on socialized Hypergamy. The obvious comparisons to Japan’s culture of “herbivorous” men is nothing new to the manosphere, but what is new is the increasing awareness of the consequences of socialized Hypergamy.

The MGTOW movement (such as it is) is a good example of this adaptation, but even men going their own way are still directly and indirectly subject to the social pressures created by feminine social primacy and socialized Hypergamy. Irrespective of how insulated a man may think he is with regard to interacting with women, he’s still subject to the correlative impact of the societal changes that mandate maximally restricting his sexuality while legislating women’s right to optimal Hypergamy into law.

Imagined “rape crisis” hysteria, affirmative consent laws, politicians attempting to redefine rape as men ‘misrepresenting’ themselves in order to have sex with a woman, and defining domestic abuse as “restricting of finances“, higher divorce rates, marriage rates at an all time low, are all evidence of a feminine-primary socialization of Hypergamy that hides behind an egalitarian ruse.

The more men refuse to cooperate with socialized Hypergamy, the more the Feminine Imperative will legislate their compliance with it. But at some point it will reach a state of critical mass. The UVA gang rape hoax, the fem-centric maliciousness of Sabrina Rubin-Erdely and the blind, ego-invested adherence to an unassailable feminine correct narrative of its ‘believers’ was a good primer for this critical mass.

Most of what I’ve delved into here has been manosphere staple for more than 13 years now, but the mainstream exposure from the likes of Milo and even the national dialogue generated from the UVA gang rape hoax (as deliberately distractive as it is), is evidence that the previously hidden social machinations of feminine social primacy are becoming unignorable.

As Open Hypergamy and the Sandbergian embrace of women’s sexual pluralism becomes more normative, so too will Red Pill awareness become more mainstream. Men aren’t dropping out of feminine-primary society, they’re adapting contingencies for it, learning workarounds, comparing notes, and a growing Red Pill awareness is at the heart of that adaptation, even for men who’ve never heard of it.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

326 comments on “Socialized Hypergamy

  1. @M Simon
    “This is one of the reasons that I NEVER do anything for a woman till after I have bedded her.

    That rule can be found in “Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman” by Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman.”

    As an armchair physicist (intent on returning to college one day and get a PhD in it), I have to admit that Feynman always came across as incredibly alpha. Extremely rare for professional physicists (they’re often arrogant, but rarely masculine) so quite jarring when you listen to him. Hell of a persistent guy though. What he lacked in IQ relative to other physicists he made up for in sheer strength of mental fortitude. In my opinion one of the best examples for young men intent on joining the sciences to look up to.

    Whether about life, education, or physics he pretty much just told it how it is. Fuck anyone that didn’t like it.

  2. “One think I’d like to see is DNA testing of kids in divorce – if the man wants it. No more paying for other guy’s kids. Unless he wants to. That will also damp down some of the worst of female excess.”

    How about making it standard practice regardless of requests upon birth. I don’t know about you, but I find paternity equally important, regardless of marital status. Hell, it’s even more important if you’re still married. A marriage “canary in the coalmine” if you will.

  3. Sun Wukong
    December 12th, 2014 at 5:50 pm

    That was one of the rules I laid down with the first mate. I don’t care who you fuck with (a rare attitude for a guy), the kids had better be mine or I bail. I’m sure about the first. (she got pregnant about 15 minutes after I decided she should – we both felt the spark – magical). And she stopped screwing around when the family started.

    But I still had to game her to keep her in line.

    Anther rule was – if you are screwing around I want the details. And I’ll give you the same. She was more moved by what I did than I was about what she did. “Find the best guy you can, honey.” Thus proving my value.

    Funny thing – I never minded her chasing Alphas (which was her preference anyway). But the (few) Beta guys she went after really annoyed me.

    There are all kinds of ways to play Red Pill. Find one suited to your temperament.

  4. Heartiste recently quoted an article on his recent Dark Triad post. As usual, he misinterpreted the study and I called him out on it but he felt the need to delete my comment. I’ll let that slide for now but I bring this up because the study does give us some insight, rather indirectly, on why “socialized hypergamy” exists in the first place. From the original study (Jonason & Buss, 2012):

    He always deletes comments that contradict his everything’s game view and “men are more visual then women” BS. He especially hates those comments that have ♥science♥ backing them up. Long live the shiv!

  5. I state this innate Antipathy is so ingrained, so deep, so prevalent in women, that it biases their perception of the world, that it is the first filter for them, and it creates a deep and fundamental prejudice towards men, one that is entirely illogical, and it leads to structural oppression of men.

    You take advantage of that by being her protector. That has a higher value than $$$. The first mate when she is running down my faults always ends with , “but at least I can count on you for protection.”

    My method is/was to steer away from/through trouble. A move six inches to the left. A nasty stare. I would fight if I had to. But my preference was to avoid them. My last fight was at age 10. I’m 70.

    1. @ M Simon – We don’t experience our DNA directly, we experience our culture and social system directly. One of the effects of females choosing sexual partners (shows up for about 500 million years in mammalian history) is a social power imbalance that men experience as competition with each other for mates and Red Pill guys call hypergamy. Fyi, for those who don’t realize it – no biologist or scientist in any relevant field uses the term hypergamy and when asked will tell you there is no such thing, per se. The differential in the costs of reproduction and our innate sex drives set up the skewness of female selection.

      There are many other effects, and sexual selection in and of itself can be a huge advantage for a species. It’s quite likely that the rapid development of our forebrain and concomitant intellectual, linguistic and social skills is driven by sexual selection as it happened very fast in evolutionary terms. Huge jump in about 3 million years – remarkable.

      So, women choosing and men competing has huge advantages for the species. In fact, from a broader aspect, it’s also our usociality that gave us huge advantages in adaptation as group selection/competition. From a purely reproductive point of view, we can visualize low SMV single men as worker ants who labor away for their whole lives with a chunk of their income/wealth is skimmed off for the benefit of those who reproduce. They are usocial for sure. If only 50% of men reproduce (assuming reproduction is the goal) why do the other 50% continue to play?

      Here we get to the nub of the complaint for men not at the top of this system. All men are told that if they “are good men” that “the one” is out there for them. That they should not give up hope (mean still work like dogs) and that the magic of romance can happen to us all. We are also trained to believe that women are innately more moral and trustworthy than men and that it’s men who abandon their wives and families when in fact, in families with women of childbearing years that break up due to divorce, it’s the women who initiates over 80% of the time (this is a very hard stat to find, as are all stats that are unflattering to women). The lie is that women will be faithful – they are opportunistic, married or unmarried. These are the lies that keeps the bit in the bottom 50% of men’s mouths, and keeps men getting married when it’s no longer a good deal fro them. @Cuntingwhatevs This is the point.

      As an aside, women seem to not buy into this. They seem to know it’s a beauty contest. Funny though, we never talk about what life is like for the bottom 50% of women…

      @ M again – Consider my mind blown wrt your approach with your wife. It’s exactly how I approach women now. What you do when I’m not with you is your business. Don’t bring it into my home or world at all, don’t give me a disease and we are all set. Interesting comment about protection being central too. I don’t want to be constrained and love sex – what, the women I’m with shouldn’t have the same liberty? In this way I think I’m different from many Red Pill men in that I don’t see sexually active women as “used up sluts” as so many in the PUA, MGTOW and other manosphere guys seem to. Low N women don’t fuck nearly as well as sluts, fyi…But I’ll take all the sluts, you guys can have the all the uptight girls with single digit Ns who still think giving a blowjob is a big deal…

  6. Nathan
    December 12th, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    No. Christianity merely mirrored the environment. Monogamy was advantageous for women. It no longer is. Christianity is dying.

  7. Mr T.
    December 12th, 2014 at 1:38 pm

    Feminist movement is destroying the society by destroying families

    Let us not forget our “Christian” friends who through Prohibition have taken wide swaths of males out of circulation. That may not be the cause of the decline – but it is certainly accelerating it.

    Fortunately we are wising up to that one. Slowly. Let me quote one of the architects of that regime.

    “Look, we understood we couldn’t make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue…that we couldn’t resist it.” – John Ehrlichman, White House counsel to President Nixon on the rationale for the War on Drugs.

    Get it? He couldn’t resist destroying society for political gain. And it is not Left/Right. All politicians are like that. Well the vast majority anyway. We got very lucky in 1776.

  8. And I’ve noticed that Uncle Rollo brings on the paranoia/

    Uncle Rollo has access to your IP and any other information you had to give to register. No need for paranoia. Sheesh. You would think that by now people would get how the ‘net works.

  9. I have yet to ever argue my wife into a state of reasonableness; I *thought* that I had done so a few times, but about a week or so after the supposed “reasonableness” she just reverted right back.

    I have been Red Pill since ’62. I can argue her into reasonableness (eventually) any day of the week and twice on Sundays. It never sticks.

    Red Pill in a relationship is constant effort. It is why Beta is so popular. It takes much less effort.

    Coming late to Red Pill is better than never. Much better. And the fact that you married into her frame is not much of a loss. You can get a lot of that ground back. Because it doesn’t matter. They all want their frame almost all the time no matter what.

    If you want to stay in the relationship (there are children involved, you like her – forget about love) keep working your game.

  10. Darryl Long
    December 12th, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    Got fired/let go from a STEM job because of the FI. I insisted on the truth. She sided with power.

    I am amused. I do have a way of regularly shooting her down in public by telling the truth. It amuses me. Her bosses – who need to hew to the truth to some extent are not amused. That gratifies me.

  11. M Simon
    That rule can be found in “Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman” by Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman.

    I’ve read that book, literally, like 8 different times. That dude was as Red Pill as they come. A man who literally did not give a fuck what people thought of him.

  12. A nice example here from the Matrix too. Sandberg preaches to the women to bask in the normalization of open hypergamy whilst Stoddard here does his best to abuse the minds of young, impressionable men with his paraphilia, presented, of course, as normal – both to achieve the same purpose:

    Standouts here of course would be:

    “Some things to know up front: My wife and I are in an open marriage; it was her idea; it works very well for us.”;

    “I let her know that I was down with whatever she wanted to do.”

    “Adam has helped with this, teaching me to be comfortable being less than without feel less than. Maria has helped to, by always coming home to me.”

    and, of course, the incredible title.

  13. amancalledquint
    December 12th, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    I’d have more respect for the guy if he had a GF or two. For balance.

    He should learn how to G spot massage her to get her warmed up with an O or two before the main event.

  14. @Mark Minter. Excellent post by the way. I agree With everything you said but asking the courts to look at something that few judges even have the IQ to comprehend would never happen. As you said women are not consciously aware of how they process the world and the implications of that. They could care less, that is not their priority and in this way they are like children. Waaa! Gimme what I want! It’s ingrained in their DNA and that’s why they
    are so dangerous and cannot be trusted with freedom and power! Aristotle talked about this thousands of years ago for God’s sake.

  15. @Glenn I agree with the many other excellent points Rollo makes, but once again, Rollo’s distaste for politics leaves him with only partial answers.

    This is because Rollo understands that politics and political figures are basically controlled. They are following orders, not from the electorate. When you mention an influential political figure, it’s similar to mentioning an A-list celebrity. They follow scripts pre-designated for their roles.

    They that control the political folk are no longer the voters. For this reason, every man should figure how to have influence with those that control the narratives the other actors (in politics) follow. There’s a force much larger than all in politics combined. That force can be changed, but you have to understand that it exists and refrain from believing the charade of political “news” and content. It’s theatre.

    1. @ LiveFearless – Your reply to my post on politics is pure hyperbole. Surely everything arises from meta-conditions to some degree, yawn. I focused very specifically on how the radical egalitarianism (calling it equalism is redundant – the words mean the same thing) he laments arises in the radfem movement. It’s a new feature in our culture and the radfems adopted it and gain power from it’s broader social impact and power. Surely you and everyone here have noticed that this radical egalitarianism manifests itself wrt other social issues? I mean, if you guys want me to play amateur historian we can talk about how it comes out of the French revolution and how Mills formalizes some of this with his consequentialist reasoning – it’s a separate thread of thought from feminism. Feminism inherits from it.

      Care to comment on my actual analysis and point?

  16. Glenn
    December 12th, 2014 at 9:31 am

    Nice exposition on Cultural Marxism. I was actually a member of that tribe until the very late 70s. It all rings true.

    One thing you leave out is that the Cultural Right feeds all that with its adherence to Prohibition.

    And we are beginning to get a counter reaction to the Police State that feminism depends on. If it was just theft it could be – to some extent – tolerated. But the jailings and killings are starting to become indiscriminate.

    When fear of authority breaks down….

  17. LiveFearless
    December 12th, 2014 at 9:06 pm

    Not entirely true. The powers will attend to one major issue at a time when it hits critical mass (in their estimation). Revolution is not in their interest. Democracy is not control of government. It is a safety valve. If used wisely by the powers (I’m speaking from the point of view of their interests). But power becomes arrogant. And then things get turned upside down.

  18. Officer: She won’t answer the helm! We’re locked into the moon’s gravitation pull. What do we do?

    Lord Kril: [his eyepiece swings over left eye] We die.

    Last weekend’s post (“teach your children well”) had me question “what would you tell your son living in 1938 Nazi Germany?”

    now this weekend we have welcome to the accession of the FemNazis

    some of the solutions are the same as 1938, move away like to Thailand, keep your head down and hope things change, wait it out, do your own thing and don’t get caught, let your kids know not to believe everything they are taught and hear and view,

    yet there is a time to push back. I’m asking the leaders of our community to think about this

  19. The best MGTOW’s are Stardusk and Bar Bar. Their youtube videos are insightful. Any Red Piller will benefit from their insights whether they choose to go MGTOW or not.

  20. I find it interesting the lengths to which Princess will go to create a new persona, gmail account and monicker for all of the 6 or 7 times she’s felt the need to comment on a blog she already knows is unmoderated and is well aware of her IP info.

    You know, for a gal who’s so convinced that the manosphere is all just a circle jerk of middle-age, fat, balding guys who think Game will get them laid with 18 year old hotties, that’s a lot of persistence…for someone who thinks it’s all bullshit, dontcha think?

  21. Rollo,

    And everyone in tins forum ‘

    Please,please,please. Please

    STOP responding to that cunt princess.

    What I find more annoying is you guys responding to her.

    Just STOP replying to her indananity
    You men are bigger than that.

  22. redlight
    December 12th, 2014 at 10:20 pm

    There are no leaders. If you want something done start something.

    Think about the anti-Prohibitionists who started with ~10% support in the ’70s and are now at ~53% and rising.

    Can you name a leader of the anti-Prohibition movement?

    What do YOU want to DO?

  23. What I was pointing out in

    M Simon
    December 13th, 2014 at 2:12 am

    is that you can’t just say, “Something must be done.” You have to pick a specific result you are after (DNA testing of children – might be one) and formulate a plan of action (start a blog and then petition one State government). The purpose of the blog is to gather supporters and information. Then go after the softest target you can find. Always attack weakness.

    I don’t think this will be won at any one place or time. There will be 10,000 actions. Guerrilla warfare.

    Or maybe you want to go after the harms of divorce. Collect stories.

  24. Great post, Rollo, as always, and some great comments, too. And then some not so great. So it goes.

    I think Rollo’s astute and well-understood observations about socialized hypergamy have invited some misunderstandings. It is important to remember, in context of this discussion, that the Female Imperative is no more an enemy, in the sense many are using it, as the Food Chain is. That is, it is an observable fact of human reproductive biology, not a sinister force bent on doing evil and emasculation. In our culture, thanks to the Pill, liberalized divorce, industrialization, and other advances from our Agricultural past we are witnessing a social and cultural transformation in how the FI (institutionalized hypergamy) is expressed. It’s painful for everyone involved, but most revolutionary changes are. The FI has no political agenda; it exists as a force of nature. Just as the Male Imperative includes polygyny and fungibility, the hypergamous nature of the FI is amoral and locked into our biology. Evolutionarily speaking, it’s a feature, not a bug.

    Conflating that with feminism and SJW crusades does both a disservice. Feminism really is an ideological and political movement with specific goals that proport to serve the FI under the guise of equality. Yet in fact what feminism is attempting to do is harness and steer the FI by defining and enforcing social and sexual rules, one of the traditional consensus-building techniques of the Female Imperative. But they do so for their own purposes of control, and when their radical perspectives bumps up against the far more established power of the FI, feminism usually takes the hit. Feminism can’t fight the FI any more than you can.

    Another issue with some of the comments has been the mistaken belief that sex is the only side of this equation. As Rollo has amply demonstrated, male reluctance to commit to a mate under the present circumstances is having demonstrable social repercussions, particularly for the very class who has made it its mission to castigate masculinity in the first place. Women control sex. Men control commitment. We might be a bunch of neckbearded, knuckle-dragging slobs. But we ain’t marrying their sorry asses. In fact, no one is. The growing panic in the tail-end Gen-X and Gen-Y college educated women (the very women steering the present feminist meltdown) are also dealing with the ugly realities of their biology. And when their ideals are weighed against their own personal piece of the FI, the FI wins out. They know that despite all of their expensive rationalizations about frozen eggs and “just the right guy” and their own career aspirations, the FI doesn’t care about their damn resume any more than a man does. They will leave no legacy but books on feminism no one will read and three million irate Twitter posts.

    Men are adapting. MGTOW-lite is the best bet for a young man. Spend three or four years out of high school in the military or in monk mode, skipping the minefield of loans and poor decisions that is college until he has discovered his passions, and then pursue them . . . without concern about toiling on behalf of a woman. For others, immersion in a STEM field or entrepreneurship or other dedicated area of study, again for their own benefit. But regardless of the method, our young men should be strongly discouraged to marry. If we want to bring balance back to the Force, then the ideal of commitment, marriage, and fatherhood as a sacred and worthy – and extremely rare – aspiration for a young man should be strongly promoted.

    One of the victories feminism has had over both men and the FI has been the devaluing of commitment through the threat of divorce. For the most part men have been complicit in this by treating marriage with as little respect as feminist have – understandable, considering the recent social history.

    Yet you control a market by affecting either supply or demand. If men are unhappy with the short-term SMP, they will compensate and adapt on the MMP side. Increasing demand for strong committed relationships through demographic social pressure while simultaneously revalorizing marriage as a powerful masculine commitment made only to the worthiest of women tightens up the entire market. “Don’t put a ring on it” not only is a call-to-action for young men to pursue their own issues and interests, it also sends a chill down the spines of millions of young women who dream of a wedding some day. If masculine cultural pressure is discouraging commitment without demonstrated social proof of worthiness (and clearly understood social expectation), the “buy in” for most strong and independent women will be just too high.

    That takes some effort, but if you really want to adapt to the way the market is evolving, then understand that all those corporate feminist bitches in the videos above will be pitied and despised by the FI for their “success”, masculine-oriented as it is. Despite their achievement of their career goals and shattering of glass ceilings, they actually lose status and social respect in context of the FI by their failure to be able to secure a beneficial commitment.

    “Can’t they just use reproductive coercion to biologically enforce their institutionalized hypergamy?” you ask. Sure, “accidentally” getting pregnant and forcing a commitment (of some kind) is a danger . . . at the moment. But consider how that would be mitigated by the coming availability of affordable, reversible male sterilization (google Vasalgel for details) would have on that equation. And a cultural predisposition toward paternity tests. When you can withhold your fertility from a woman aspiring to enforce a commitment, you deprive her of much of her present sexual power in a relationship.

    How it will evolve, exactly, no one can tell – but it will be messy. I foresee a general repudiation of 3rd wave feminism and an abrupt retreat from 4th wave intersectionality, as such things become increasingly moot in the face of changing circumstances. And adaptable men.

  25. So what am I doing? I’m going after the Police State without respect to feminism. Why would I do it that way? Because frontal assaults on well fortified positions are suicide. So I attack weakness. Prohibition.

    If I can weaken that aspect I may (if I live so long) go after other aspects that support the FI. But my first goal is to weaken the opposition. By any means necessary. (Hi Glenn)

    Weaken the State is my first objective. Weaken the idea that, “Law is the answer to every problem.”

  26. ianironwood
    December 13th, 2014 at 2:39 am

    Excellent. I like your pointing out that what we have is an ecological problem. The intersection of DNA with environment.

    And a cultural predisposition toward paternity tests.

    That is, I think, the first thing to be done by the “manosphere” to weaken the system as it exists. No presumption of fatherhood. Presumption of fatherhood is a leftover from the pre-DNA age. And we can call it a justice issue. Love to see the feminists squeal over that one.

    No more playing “Hide the Daddy.”


    Re my: – Weaken the State is my first objective. Weaken the idea that, “Law is the answer to every problem.”

    I was thinking of the “Yes Means Yes” movement. Among others. The attempt to put in law the FI. The war on Betas.

  27. And so we will end up as the Mosuo. Where men although allowed to see their children do not head the family. They are shiftless and roleless. And so the Mosuo remain stagnant and poor until the intrusion of the modern world.

    1. @ infowar – Very interesting observation and link. I’ve been trying to synthesize all this in my head and project forward, and had the thought this might be the case. I think many of us are hypnotized by the obsession with culture/social structure that the sociologists and political scientists have convinced us is everything and that encourages us to think too short term.

      If you step the reproductive clock forward, western values drop into the dustbin of history. That isn’t good news though, as along with redfem ideas and Marxism, the classical liberal ideas that gave us the past 500 years of progress will also be extinguished. We can hope that after this new “Dark Age” emerges, these ideas may be rediscovered. There is something to the dialectic, and a counter to every trend can be expected.

      In the end, the groups of humans that have the most babies will win. So, those of us outraged by fadfem lunacy should take some gratification in knowing the they are terminating their own genetic/cultural lineage. I’ve always said that the mission of the left is cultural suicide (that’s what “transformation” actually looks like) – we are just witnessing it in slo-mo.

  28. re: “The more men refuse to cooperate with socialized Hypergamy, the more the Feminine Imperative will legislate their compliance with it. But at some point it will reach a state of critical mass.”

    I’ve seen various low figures bandied about, like “If only 10% of men would embrace the red pill, or maybe 20%, then everything would change.” Is there any evidence to support the claim that there is necessarily such a nonlinear critical threshold percentage for social change? Or should we shoot to capture the majority of hearts and minds?

  29. Bango Tango said “Aristotle talked about this thousands of years ago for God’s sake.”

    That’s the point: there’s nothing new under the sun. He could just as well have spoken about it for thousands of years.

  30. jf12
    December 13th, 2014 at 6:26 am

    We have the example of the cannabis “fiends” who are about 10% of the population.

    It is not so much that we need more Red Pill men. I was one in ’62 (rank amateur). I didn’t get “Red Pill” until I started reading about it. That will take some time.

    BTW my Dad was Red Pill but I didn’t understand until I started reading.

  31. @ Ianironwood “Conflating that with feminism and SJW crusades does both a disservice.”

    It seems you didn’t read my actual comment, analysis or argument either. My point was a very narrow one: How does the radical egalitarianism that informs the morality and view of “justice” that radfems go on and on about arise? My comment answers this concrete point. I don’t “conflate” anything. I explain the epistemology of these ideas and how they became fused.

    Breezy commentary about the FI does no damage to the points I made. Fyi, my guess is that you don’t know the history of the political philosophy – so go back to my comment and see what my reply was to guys like you who seem to object to looking at the politics of it: You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about when it comes to the politics, so don’t comment on it.

    This is a common problem in the manosphere. On YouTube, perhaps nobody is more absurd in this regard than Bar Bar. His understanding of politics is about what you’d expect from an engineering student who reads Lew Rockwell’s blog and maybe watches Mises Institute videos, lol. But Stardusk is just as infantile in his understanding of the politics. Sadly, many self-styled anarchists conflate their idiotic ideas about economics and politics with the Red Pill – yet another reason I keep my distance from MGTOW.

    And for the record to the commenter above, Bar Bar and Stardusk are misogynists for sure. Just watch their videos and listen to the hateful rhetoric they emit about women. But hey, they do sound really cool, right?

  32. @ Glenn

    Great comments, thanks for sharing. I’m teetering on the edge of MGTOW but the only reason is out of anger/frustration and a feeling of being hopeless when it comes to women.

    Which is complete bull for me. Even just from a purely physical standpoint I’m definitely in the top 20% of guys, and if I get my act together I could have it made. No need to martyr myself for no reason. I don’t think any guy should HAVE to go MGTOW and every time I hear about it and consider the idea myself all that comes up to me is this:


    It’s not natural to cut women out of your life completely. I don’t see how any guy could genuinely be happy doing that.

    Anyway, I’m with you on the slut thing. As long as they don’t give me a disease and don’t bring their escapades into my world, it’s all good. Also gives you a lot more options for who to fool around with.

    If you’re not having fun, what’s the point?

    Any guy that tries to talk himself out of wanting to have sex with attractive women IMO is fighting a losing battle. I know how much it can suck being stuck in a sexless life and thinking there’s no way out, but the way out certainly is not to give up and decide that you’re never going to be able to have sex.

    The best thing I’ve done with my life so far is learn how to change my mindset, and also that my personal emotional beliefs and ‘maps’ don’t have to be true. If I don’t like what I have in my life, I don’t have to accept it. I can figure out another way and have something else in my life if I want. I would much rather be nailing pretty girls on a regular basis than doing what I’m doing now. The real question is: how do I know I believe I can’t have that? What is the psychological proof in my mind that that isn’t possible for me? Start knocking out the proof, pull the negative emotions out and make them disappear — and all of a sudden the belief crumbles into nothing, because there’s no longer anything to support it (e.g. negative self-talk, low self-esteem, etc.).

  33. @ Softek – I hope you take this in the spirit that I mean it – helpful. You might really benefit from taking a PUA course – have you done so? You have to understand how to establish a dominant frame with women and you seem to be stuck really badly, and it seems hard for you to get out of your own way. It’s no surprise given what you’ve had to overcome, so please, I only mean this as a tip from a friend, not a value judgment on you. That said…

    I, on the other hand, used to do tricks in junior high school like demonstrate how all women would actually have sex for money. I challenged all the males in my junior high school to bring any girl to my table during lunch and I would get the girl to agree to have sex for money in front of everyone. It was easy, fyi. You simply just keep increasing the amount of money and making them to realize how much money that is (1 million – you could buy 20 of the houses you live in). I would often start with 1 million and by the end of lunch period, more than half agreed that they would have sex with a guy for a 200 dollars. None maintained at more than a couple of thousand. Other boys would watch as I ground these girls defenses down by just asking them to think about it…Lol. Very instructive.

    You see, I was a naturally dominant guy with women. I naturally make my frame sexual with women. You do not – this is okay. But I think you are focused on the metaphysics too much and not enough on your “ground game”. RSD or some other PUA course will give you the ability to develop standard “openers” – me? I went through much training and then have huge experience “opening” people as a sales rep. It’s an unnatural act to walk up to a stranger and start a conversation – I’ve done it thousands of times. It’s how I make a living. I’m not afraid to approach any women. You need to get to that place if you want to stop giving off nervous vibes. When you are nervous, you are demonstrating low value – it’s vagina dryer. A PUA course will get you to do a bunch of approaches and develop a standard schtick so you can get comfortable. Of course, you will only be really good once you internalize the lessons of it all and then you will do it your own way.

    My view on something the Red Pill world doesn’t distinguish enough: Everyone talks about social dominance, and Rollo talks about “framing” and it’s all directionally correct. But in a single interaction, all that’s really going on is the framing of a narrative. And over time, a relationship is merely a meta-narrative that underpins all that goes on between people, and really, it’s an artifact of the narrative one has in any given interaction. When Red Pill types talk about being “socially dominant”, what I think many men visualize is an aggressive, loud, rude or obnoxious guy. Lol, nothing could be further from the truth. If you expand the frame of reference to all social interactions instead of just conjuring a bar type interaction in the mind’s eye, the problems with being a brute become obvious.

    But all social interactions at some level are a competition for “framing” the narrative that you are having. Conversations have an arc, and the individuals involved in it are submitting to the narrative – or changing it/resisting it. Someone is framing the narrative. The person who frames the narrative of any conversation is seen as socially dominant. One does not have to be overtly aggressive to do this, in fact, one can do so very subtly by just asking a question or even with just a facial gesture or body posture.

    Women – and really everyone – want to be part of narratives that are compelling on some level. Intellectually, emotionally – they will even begin rooting for you to keep carrying them along if their place in the narrative is enjoyable (many people feel safe as spectators). This is what social skill is, and being “dominant” merely means driving the narrative that others submit themselves to and participate in – fyi, note that you can’t force them. They have to acquiesce. I’m sure we’ve all seen the loudmouth who dominates a conversation but it’s obvious that the others involved are not going along with it – that person is not demonstrating high value. I’m just lucky that my genetics and life experience made me good at all this very young.

    You see, the biggest challenge most guys face is that they can’t create a narrative that is compelling on command or coherently, and have little skill in this whole domain. This is why having some “routines” as a way to use what “works” so as to experience the dynamics for yourself is very helpful. In this way, it’s much like leadership. True and effective leadership inspires people to step inside the leaders framing of the narrative and to play the role the leader creates for individuals inside the narrative. Now it’s also true that sophisticated social intelligence requires that you give the narrative to others at times to control. Fyi, when you do this in the right way, it’s a demonstration of huge social value in that giving away the control of the narrative demonstrates such high value in that you don’t need to control it to control it, yes?

    One can demonstrate high value by beginning a conversation about anything they understand well, presented in a way that makes the listener curious. You seem like a very smart guy. I bet if you just used some of this canned shit to go out and nail some hotties you would take to all this like a fish to water. Don’t become a PUA forever, but use it to get out of your own way. After you have won over and fucked a couple of women you find very attractie, you will feel completely differently about yourself and women.

    But I can tell you this. You don’t need to “learn” anymore from what I can tell. You demonstrate plenty of knowledge and insight. Remember, you will not be young and handsome forever – if I knew at age 30 what I know now? Holy shit, my N would be twice or more, easily, and with many more hotties. Mind you, I’m not complaining – I lost track of my N in my late 30s when it was in the 70s, 15 years ago.

    And guess what? If society isn’t going to allow men a place of honor and respect for serving it, what else is left? Getting laid, making cash and having fun. We can roast marshmallows on the fire of western civilization’s demise, fine with me.

  34. Glenn “In the end, the groups of humans that have the most babies will win”
    Africans have fuckloads of babies, all the time.
    Don’t look like winners to me. Ask Bob Geldof.
    All that’s happened is a ton of money disappeared into the desert there, to “save” like 2 million starving no-skill paupers who have never owned so much as a pot to piss in, and don’t need clothes or heating. This enabled them to win big time, by becoming 10 million starving naked dumb-as-a-rock paupers or something in a couple of decades. All it needs is Moar Munny!!, apparently, and the world can be fed, this time round. Just a little bit Moar …
    Western betas kick off the horsecollar, where’s that Moar Munny! coming from? The Squid? Oligarchs? Saudi? I should cocoa.

  35. Man, I read thru the comments last night and some awesome comments and perspectives not normally heard … and some complete BS too. Please get out the ban-hammer on Princess. I think I will read thru a second time to make sure I grasped it all …

    So, I’ve noticed some topics that are completely avoided by the Sphere for the most part and still don’t understand why; though some where disclosed here: like Politics and movements in society in general. The situation we are facing is NOT only about women, relationships, reproduction, the FI, etc. Its way bigger than that; but people don’t want to talk about those things.

    Some, like Race, I can understand avoiding. But people don’t want to talk about politics. Or why we really don’t even have a legal system anymore; we have an incarceration system whose purpose is to put men in prison. Women are rarely arrested, when they are, they are given a free pass (deferred judgement, probation, treatment, counselling, etc), and rarely go to prison until they are career criminals who’ve been arrested a dozen times or more. And when they do eventually go to prison get way, way, way more lenient sentences. The divorce court is not the only place male-rape occurs … it is EVERY court.

    But people don’t want to face that reality or even talk about it ??? Or even worse try to claim that we can fight back by using the Legal system. Complete garbage. Our legal system is determined by 1) Those in power making sure they and their allies are protected, 2) Politics and 3) Money. The Law, guilt/innocent, evidence, legal rights, etc have absolutely nothing to do with our legal system anymore and haven’t for a long time. Do people not see this ? Why do they choose to ignore reality ? Why, like Politics, is this Taboo ?

    IMO this is the #1 issue facing men. Women, the FI, and politics are using the Legal System to marginalize, demoralize, and ensure men are enslaved. Yet it is ignored and no one will even talk about it. Guess I still don’t have a complete understanding of what’s going on …

  36. @ Glenn

    Deeply appreciate the advice, and no offense taken at all. You’re right on point.

    RM has been very good for getting me unplugged to the point where I could be open to learning this stuff. But “this stuff” — the real world, practical application aimed at producing results — i.e. getting laid as a result of deliberately pursuing and picking up and bedding women —

    — that’s what I’ve been avoiding.

    The insights you’ve shared are absolute gold. I can see the truth in what you’re saying and have references to my friends to help with that: what have *I* been attracted to? Why do I brag about my friends to people or tell funny stories about things they did? Because they create an arc, a character, a storyline and an identifiable personality. Same reason people like superheroes and characters in movies and all that.

    I forgot I did buy a PUA course a while back, I’m not sure if there were videos to go with it but I just pulled that up on my computer immediately. Getting the rubber to meet the road is what the real deal is. I agree with you that I don’t need to “learn” anymore — and I think that I tend to use overthinking things as a coping mechanism to avoid doing things that make me anxious. e.g. approaching women.

    Anyway, a lot to absorb now, but even more to do. I have to get it clear in my head that in order to change I’m going to need to approach women with tactics in mind, at least to start — forget about analyzing it and just do it.

    I DO have SOME experience flirting with women and sexually escalating with them. Not much, but enough to ‘get’ the idea of how it works. I think you’re right that I’ll take to this like a fish to water once I get in the swing of it. The resources are here. I have been with women that I wasn’t nervous around and had no problems sexually escalating with. I have the ability. I’m just getting in my own way — just as you said. Fucking some hot women would absolutely help me, probably more than anything else.

    Thanks again for the insights and advice — invaluable. It reminds me of when you also said to just go out and take something if you want it. To have that attitude.

    And it’s more honest than anything else anyway. Why am I talking to that cute girl? What’s my real, primary interest? Fucking her. And having a good time with her. That was always my goal, I was just too conditioned out of being able to admit that. I was ashamed of it because I believed in the Feminist lies about ‘respecting’ women and being a gentleman, etc.

    I don’t want to get too ramped up here because I have a lot of hard and uncomfortable work to get down to. One plus is I’m extremely sick and fed up with my situation, so that’s motivation. I have also quit porn and am putting it on myself to figure this out…much like starving is a great motivation to go out and make money.

    “I deserve to fuck you and have a good time with you” is my new attitude with girls from now on. Completely contrary to the “men aren’t entitled to sex” Feminist meme.

    So the goal now is: sift through the PUA program I ordered already and start actually applying these things in real life. What’s more uncomfortable and harder to go through — approaching women and having a chance at having sex, or sitting alone in a room masturbating for the rest of my life. There’s a perspective shift.

  37. @ Glenn

    By the way, also working on my look. Trying to make myself into “somebody” — someone I want to be. Genuinely. Having fun styling my hair completely differently, and I’m in the market for a nice leather jacket now. I made myself a very cool necklace and have a couple super unique rings, and also recently got myself a really nice pair of oxfords.

    I also have spent so much time learning how to build guitars, I’m an excellent guitar player, am into hypnosis, have read a bunch of really cool and interesting books to recommend to people, have an extensive history watching really unique movies, big history with martial arts, love writing and used to write tons of short stories, am VERY into health and nutrition and also some cool stuff with astrology/spirituality — I’ve found that talking about astrology and/or MBTI (myers briggs personality type indicator) and other stuff has been a great point of conversation for people who are into that stuff, can also be a decent ice breaker.

    And my background with guitar work also gives me the ability to connect with people about more objective/mechanical things. I had to learn how to use sprayguns, mix dyes, lacquers, use a soldering iron, get some cursory knowledge with circuit boards, woodworking, and so much more.

    Even though I couldn’t figure out how to get laid, I DID make a conscious effort to spend my time developing marketable skills and pursuing knowledge — as much as possible. So I have TONS of interests, I’ve read so many books, seen so many movies, and have so many unique hobbies and points of view and insights into things —

    — so I have a lot to leverage. I remember you mentioning that too. Leverage my talents. I have been talking to a drummer. I’m a great guitarist. Gigging would probably be fantastic for me. I’ve been playing guitar for over 11 years and used to practice sometimes 8 hours a day when I was in high school.

    I REALLY HAVE a world, an orbit, to bring girls into. I actually had one really hot girl over and was showing her around my workshop, and showed her this guitar I was working on building. I had done all the grain filling with black grain filler, sanded and sealed it and had some color coats down, and it was hanging up in the garage drying between coats — looked AMAZING. And her eyes got all wide and was smiling while I was giving her the tour of my guitar working world, showing her some tools I’d built and also showing off some of my best work.

    I ended up dropping the ball with her and telling her I really liked her and wanted to be with her and that was the end of that. In retrospect I totally could’ve fucked the hell out of her if I just played my cards right and didn’t go Beta as all hell on her.

    But this has gotten me thinking. I also have TONS of great stories to tell to people. Tons of jokes. I have so much to offer but I’ve had the blinders on. Focusing on how bad I feel and how irrelevant I feel and paying ZERO attention to my talents/what I have to offer/how interesting I am.

    My mind is a little blown right now. But this has been a major epiphany for me today. So thanks again.

  38. @ Softek – Great stuff. And you are already taking swings. Here’s my advice on the guitar-show gone sideways. Perfect up until the point when you started talking to her about feelings. Here’s what to keep in mind next time:

    1. Don’t get wrapped up in your head, rather, observe her. Is she moving closer? Facing you directly? Making a lot of eye contact? If you notice yourself being worried, just laugh it off and get back over in her world. You saw the smiley eyes, the twinkle – we all know what that is. Great stuff. You have a line of BS – good. Also, you can only do that when alone with a woman, never in a group.

    2. Escalate very gently in a first meeting – I never was one of those guys who tried to fuck every woman I could, I was picky in fact. So if I was pursuing a woman I expected it to take multiple interactions, I was not about the first night close. Touch her arm. Lean in and whisper something in her ear. And smile. Tell her a dirty joke. I always try and make a sexual reference early on – her reaction to such a comment is very telling.

    3. Push, but then wait for the Pull – The best piece of advice I’ve ever given other sales reps in my business is this. At a certain point in a deal, a you stop selling and the customer starts buying.

    Most important – don’t take it personally. Getting laid doesn’t make you a better man. It’s just what you want to do. It’s the great game of being a man, actually, but we are happy warriors. Win or lose on any given day – that’s the nature of it and all of life for a man. But get in the game. I was just out at a convenience store and I couldn’t help myself, I was chatting up the young cashier, she was smiling and laughing and kept me at the register for a couple of minutes longer. Afterwards, I realized that she had been cold to my initial comment to her, but I just ignored that and pressed on as though that didn’t happen and in 20 seconds she was smiling and chatting and making eye contact. A big part of it is not getting pushed off your framing.

    I think the best advice I got here from Rollo has been about maintaining frame. Even if women are rabidly hypergamous…

  39. @ Tam – All I meant is that reproduction rates are important when it comes to group selection. White people of western European heritage are reproducing at below replacement rates. Obviously other factors are important and overall mortality might be very different.

  40. Softek
    December 13th, 2014 at 9:49 am

    Even just from a purely physical standpoint I’m definitely in the top 20% of guys, and if I get my act together I could have it made

    I was beta beta until my first GF explained to me how women work (age 18 ’62). You can learn it. And you are still well before your SMV peak. Plenty of time.

    The proper attitude is: You can like women. You must not respect them.


    December 13th, 2014 at 7:35 am

    DNA was shorthand.

    Mate guarding was definitely a necessity before birth control. Since – not so much. But I was into it in my 20s. By my 30s I had changed my attitude. I seem to be able to do that with more facility than most guys.

  41. Hibernia
    December 13th, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    #No Hymen, No Diamond.

    Increases my odds. If I was still in that market. But my Game is only good for the more dominant and higher genetic ranked (I brought a nice body and considerable brains to the table). She has to want your genes more than any others.

    I’m maybe one in a thousand. She didn’t have that much time.

    In any case I wanted experience. I had one virgin. Nice girl (if a little on the plain side – nice pair of Ds though – my weakness). Nothing too special.

  42. Glenn,

    3. Push, but then wait for the Pull – The best piece of advice I’ve ever given other sales reps in my business is this. At a certain point in a deal, a you stop selling and the customer starts buying.

    My trick for that was: “Sleep with me naked. I like the body contact. No sex.”

    And despite her obviously giving in. No sex.

    About 3/4s came back gagging for it. It worked on the first mate. We still laugh about it.

  43. Rocket
    December 13th, 2014 at 12:20 pm

    So, I’ve noticed some topics that are completely avoided by the Sphere for the most part and still don’t understand why; though some where disclosed here: like Politics and movements in society in general. The situation we are facing is NOT only about women, relationships, reproduction, the FI, etc. Its way bigger than that; but people don’t want to talk about those things.

    I think Glenn and I are open to that kind of discussion. This is an open forum. Have at it. I’ll respond.

    But people don’t want to talk about politics. Or why we really don’t even have a legal system anymore; we have an incarceration system whose purpose is to put men in prison.

    Yes. And unless you have made zero mistakes (and gotten caught) you can’t get a job. I have a friend who is going through that. The system as it currently operates. Is zero tolerance for everything the power structure doesn’t want.

    It is my hope that by ending Prohibition that can be reversed some.

    It is starting to bite them though. A shortage of long haul truckers is one example.

    The other thing I’m doing is working to demoralize them. You might like this in that regard:

    The first step in winning any war is demoralization of the enemy. Deny them the moral high ground. “The moral is to the material as five is to one.” Clausewitz. Also read B.H.L. Hart “Strategy” the best book on the subject bar none.

  44. Softek
    December 13th, 2014 at 4:30 pm,

    The only thing women WANT is to be dominated. I ask the first mate frequently (to keep her in my frame), “You like being dominated by me?” “YES!”. If you can get close enough – they seem to like spankings. Not to hard (for most of them) and just a bit longer than they can stand.

  45. Glenn :-“reproduction rates are important when it comes to group selection. White people of western European heritage are reproducing at below replacement rates. Obviously other factors are important and overall mortality might be very different.”

    Absolutely. It’s some kind of too-hard-sum-for-a-bear-of-little-brain like me.
    I guess it would involve life expectancies at birth, set against gross national product per capita, factored against wealth distribution and ability to persist in whichever environmental niche the founder population had contrived to prosper. Swedes would do pretty well I reckon, despite the superficially alarming low babby-dropping rate.

    Still don’t fancy the chances of ‘refugees’ from happier climes thriving where I am, no matter how many rickety (vit-D deficient), frost-bitten, trench-footed, S.A.D.-afflicted, non-bacon-eating and non-raw-quadruped-milk-guzzling babies they have.
    Poor sods. What did they expect? We can’t afford to look after these delicate tropical flowers for much longer.

    The peasants here are ugly as sin, but undaunted.
    [keywords: family bakery]
    And the many hundreds of thousands of Polacks, Ruskis, Lits, Lats, Eesti etc. now over here will do well, to them our climate is the Islands of the Blessed. Turn about is fair play, I always say. Thousands of our lot went there in the early modern period, and melted right in.

  46. I remember this vividly. When I was about 19 years old I drove up to Circle K with a friend, parked the car and got out. Outside stood an HB7 that I had never seen before. She looked at me, flashed a confident smile and asked if she could get a ride back to college. I thought for a second, shook my head and responded with a “no.” Her expression went flat and she looked away. We walked inside and had no further contact. I realize it’s a small thing but it was the day I stopped being a white knight. Interestingly enough it wasn’t long after this event/life-change that girls began showing interest in me. If a guy stops being a white knight his social status rises and his life improves. Every time the world loses a white knight socialized hypergamy takes a body blow.

  47. zdr01dz
    December 14th, 2014 at 1:22 am

    In the “old” days the saying used to be, “Gas, grass, or ass. No one rides free.” Those kinds were considered a bit uncouth. I expect they got laid more. Come to think of it that attitude was sort of associated with bikers.

  48. Readers are encouraged to research the proper nouns enumerated throughout Glenn’s post located at December 12th, 2014 at 9:31 am. Wikipedia, while largely disinformation, should serve you just fine for these initial purposes.

    Then you can begin redirecting your frustration away from females (herd-driven creatures) and towards the cloaked males who are competing with you from the shadows.

    This will work untold wonders in your relationships with females. Enjoy.

  49. You are being deliberately fucked with. Learn who is fucking with you (ain’t females), and why, exactly, they are fucking with you (because you let them). Then enjoy a tremendous parasitic burden being lifted off of your shoulders.

  50. Did any of you ever consider the fact that we may not be the only ones talking here? That others may also be here talking among us? Is that farfetched? Or is that 100% rational?

    On this very thread, Glenn made the most hard core post that I have ever seen on any manosphere blog, anywhere, ever. Did all of you readers see who dutifully came out of the woodwork, to dilute Glenn’s post? I sure did. Statistically, ridiculously, fantastically over represented on this one post, right here? (I didn’t imagine those posts after posts after posts after posts after posts after posts after posts after posts after posts after posts after posts after posts after posts after posts after posts, did I, now? They are not of my imagination, but rather in the record, yes?) Do you now all finally see what you are actually up against?

    Rollo, will you stand tall? We will all soon see, and will then know where to properly allocate our energies.

    We don’t expect you to stand tall. We expect you to fold to the forces behind the FEMININE IMPERATIVE. Hope we’re wrong. We shall see.

  51. Historian
    December 14th, 2014 at 5:40 am

    So far Rollo is standing tall. It is an open forum. The fact that “Princess Counting Stars” outed herself is in fact valuable information. She showed where it hurts. Quite useful.

    Also – Glenn didn’t mention the influence of Herbert Marcuse in the 60s. He was quite influential in shifting Classical Marxism to Cultural Marxism. I’m sure it is not an oversight on his part. There is only so much you can get in a blog comment.

    This I thought was quite telling:

    During World War II, Marcuse first worked for the U.S. Office of War Information (OWI) on anti-Nazi propaganda projects. In 1943, he transferred to the Research and Analysis Branch of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency.

    The CIA has been heavily involved in the War On Some Men aka the War On Some Drugs.

  52. This is interesting:

    “Marcuse’s mission was to dismantle American society by using diversity and ‘multiculturalism’ as crowbars with which to pry the structure apart, piece by piece. He wanted to set blacks in opposition to whites, set all ‘victim groups’ in opposition to the society at large. Marcuse’s theory of victim groups as the new proletariat, combined with Horkheimer’s critical theory, found an outlet in academia, where it became the basis for the post-structural movement–Gender Studies, LGBT/’Queer’ Studies, African-American Studies, Chicano Studies, etc. All of these ‘Blank Studies’ brazenly describe their mission as tearing down traditional Judeo-Christian values and the accepted traditions of Western culture, and placing in their stead a moral relativism that equates all cultures and all philosophies–except for Western civilization, culture, and philosophy, which are ‘exploitative’ and ‘bad.’”

    The problem the opposition to these policies has is that through government policies many of these groups have been oppressed. The answer that opposes the Marxist view is smaller limited government. What the Marxists want is more government to oppose government. A biger dose of the poison.

    Where they are screwing up is in opposing Prohibition. Anti-Prohibition is inherently a smaller government movement.

    Heresy alert: The Culture Warriors on the Right are inherently in league with the Cultural Marxists. Both believe in government’s role in culture. Which is the inherent problem. They may consider themselves in opposition but in fact they give the Cultural Marxists power by insisting on government’s role in culture.

  53. M Simon,

    Thanks for your enthusiastic jibber jabber. I’m of average intelligence. I don’t understand one fucking thing that you just posted, but what I feel somewhat certain that you are saying, is this:

    “The Culture Warriors on the Right are inherently in league with the Cultural Marxists. “

    Yes, that seems so very logical.

    That makes so much sense to me that just perhaps I can now go count some sheep and go to sleep, yes?

    Thanks for playing.

    Your intellectual contribution (jibber jabber) here at Rollo’s site is mind blowing, thank you so much.

    By the way, here’s a long-ass cite that no one will read: pfft

    We’re so fortunate to have you, M Simon, here at Rollo’s site. Thank you so much for your jibber jabber contributions.

  54. Re: wives not “owing” sex to their husbands. Yet I am sure they believe they are owed financial support from their husbands.

  55. Robert What?
    December 14th, 2014 at 8:14 am

    Nature at its finest. You have to make her WANT to have sex with you. The best way to do that is to have a GF and a wife. Or two wives (where is that legal?).

    Dealing with the essential nature of women is not for the faint of heart.

  56. I just had this exchange over at Rollo’s site. Stayed up all night fucking with this bullshit (3 hrs). Me and good old ‘M Simon’ had this exchange, and in it, he barfed his true colors by posting the below YouTube video, which has since been scrubbed. It concerns every single reader and writer in the manosphere. Read the thread. Give it its due concern, for your own self-interest.

    @ M Simon,

    Pretty convenient that you had that video at hand. You and your ilk have now deleted it, but here’s the link:

    I stayed up all night transcribing that fucking filth, because I wanted to be honest in my assessment. Turns out, it will wind up being a damned good record of just what transpired here tonight (since you scrubbed it). Effort well spent, as we working folk like to say.

    Alright, let’s get started, shall we?

    First, let me state this upfront… actually, let me ask you first, do you smoke crack? Because you must be tweaking your balls off to think for one second that what is about to follow will sway one single man in the manosophere to your depraved reality. If you haven’t noticed, the men in the manosphere are here to improve their health and wellbeing, and NOT to descend down into your self-loathing depravity.

    Before we really get down to brass tacks, please allow me the following: >> FUCK YOU for making me stay up all night to transcribe this filth. And you ARE filth. Fuck you. Now then, let’s get on to the transcript of the YouTube clip that you posted on Rollo’s blog @ December 14th, 2014 at 7:01 am:

    [Readers, please excuse typos… I transcribed this filth in the wee hours of the night, going fast, because I was trying to get to sleep. Halfway through, I almost quit, but then I decided, nope, I’m going to do this, and show everyone EXACTLY what is transpiring in the manosphere, underneath EVERYONE’S noses. You think this isn’t happening on all of your favorite blogs? (You are more innocent than me, then.) I hope you’ll like me a little bit more for my efforts.]

    Without further adieu, I present to you the transcript of ‘M Simon’s’ YouTube post on Rollo’s site. Strap yourselves in my friends; this one is a doozy.

    “…what Cultural Marxism is. Often it’s suggested that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy. I’ve called this video ‘Cultural Marxism for Dummies, because you’d have to be a dummy by the end of this video. Of course you’re always going to get [ ] arguments that expose or refute them, and even if I made 1000 videos, this would always be the case, since they will do anything to come out on top, but since I don’t make videos to convince those beyond reason, instead, I concentrate on raising the awareness of those that are open minded, and actively want solutions to collectivism. A quick stand through the Wikipedia of cultural Marxism will immediately show that this is a [ ] to those on the left, and much to the annoyance of those on the left, one that others like to label leftists with.

    Some consider leftists to be a pejorative, or in other words, an insulting term. There is some truth in this because leftists notoriously rename themselves when the public becomes increasingly aware of what they represent. This can be demonstrated in the fact that leftists don’t often even like to use the word socialism to describe themselves anymore in the mainstream arena. Today, leftists often prefer to use the term progressive, but this is merely an attempt to frame anything that originates from the left as positive, while those that don’t identify with their value as regressive and thus intolerant and oppressive. Some might argue that there are people out there that call themselves cultural Marxists, but this really isn’t important. What’s important, is what Cultural Marxism is, once we move past the semantical arguments of the acceptability of the label.

    Marxism is drawn from the theory of historical materialism. What Karl Marx was attempting to explain in this theory was that the working class has always been denied access to the means of production and property by the ruling class, which uses the power of the state to oppress and exploit this group. This leads to the alienation of the working class from property and the means of production, which creates a class struggle which Marx believes can only be overcome by socialism. This explanation is what some call Classical Marxism, which Karl Marx himself, along with Friedrich Engels, outlined.

    Cultural Marxism is also founded on a similar theory of struggle, though it delves deeper into the cultural reasons for oppression. The early foundation of Cultural Marxism cam about du to the disappointment Marxists felt when WWI didn’t result in the prediction of the working classes across Europe rising up and overthrowing the ruling classes; only in Russia did this prediction come through. This disappointment led to a group of Marxist founding the Frankfurt School, where they set up an alternative Marxian method of cultural critique, called Critical Theory. It was during this time that many Marxists began to digress from the primary focus on economic alienation, focusing more on cultural critique, and issues related to social identities.

    Cultural Marxism differs from Classical Marxism given that it doesn’t merely focus on the alienqtion of the working class but also, on their identies, such as race, sexuality, and sex, alongside the classical Marxist case for class stuggle. This form of criti2ue was later called contra-materialism by Raymond Willinams, as part of the literary branch of Critical Theory that emerged in the 80s, hence the reason that many call this ‘Cultral Marxism.’ If this explanation doesn’t clarity once and for all that Cultrual Marxism is indeed a valid and existent ideology, then I can olny conclude that those refusing to accept this ar either deceitful or arrogant.

    It’s important to note that cultural Marxist idealogy isn’t merely linked to the FRanfurt School, and to see where else this ideology takes its roots, we need to again go back to the first half of tht twentieth centry. As the bulid up to WW2 grew, countries like Spain and Italy became battlegraound between two sides of the socialist coin. The national socialists and fascists one on side, who wanted to preserve and spread their own race, and the international socialists on the other side, adhering to the Marxist interpretation of struggle against the ruling class.

    It was during this time that Antonio Gramsci developed manh of his theories and ideas that concentrated on Cultraul Critique of Fascist Italily. Like the Frankfrust School, Gramsci expanded classical Marxism to include cultural oppression, or what Gramschi called ‘cultural hegemony.’ After WW2, national socialism was well and truly defeated, with the help of the Soviets, which meant that International Socialists were free to infiltrate the West with their propaganda.

    One examale being the revisin of the 1939 Nazi-Soviet non-agression pact. Among other things, the pact set out an arrangement wher the Soviets and th Nazis would dived Eastern Eurpose amongst themselves. Records show that neither side would have stuck to the pact in the long term, but it was the Soviets that came out on top, by convincing the Allies to go to war against the Naxis. This allowed Stalin an the Soviets to ex0an their territories into Eastern Europe, createing the Soviet Bloc, which in itself shows that Stalin was diabolically calculating in his efforts to use not only the Naxis but the Allies to succeed in his plans.

    With Stalin destroying the creitilibty of communism through his rule at the USSR, international socialists begain to search for other ways to further their goals. While some still belived in classically violent Marxist revolution, others thought a gradualist approach rould be more successful. It was during this time that Cultural Marxixm began to grow in popularity do to its focus on the undermining on Western values. And foremost among the pseudo-intellectuals leading this change, was one of the founders of the Franfurst School , Herbert Marchusa. Marchuas’s ideas would become central to the Civil Right’s Movement in the the 60s, and it was his books, [ ] an Civilization, and One Dimensional Man, that he became most well know for.

    Herbert Marchusa is believed by many to be the father of the new left, that emerged after the civil rights movement, and he was particularly sympathic towards feminism. He stronglhy belived that women were the key to a cultural revolution. And he also believed that feminism was essential if this was to be a success. In an interview, which I’ll link to below, you can hear Marchusa talk about his theories and ideas, in his own words, and confirm the ploints that I present hear, which again, thourougholy dispels the myth that cultural Marxism is a conspiracy.

    Marchusa’s ideas again became influential within the politicallhy correct orthodoxy that emerged during the 80s. And it was Marchuas’s essay, ‘Represive Tolerance’, that set out to be intolerant towards those that were perceived as those, among other things, chauvenistics, but even, those that oppose the expansion of public services. As you can see, this is a typically intolerant social attitude, which has led to the dismantling of individual liberty, in favor of collective tyranny and politically correct silencing tactics, which prevents any rational discussion from taking place.
    Today, Cutural Marxism is all around us. It’s not a question of proving where Cultural Marxism can be found, but where it CAN’T be found. So it really is a misnomer to call it a conspiracy, or to deny its existence.
    University Humanity’s deparments are DOMINATED by Critical Theory, which demonizes anything Western. We can also clearly see how identity politics is not just a major part of the modern life, but the very mainstay of how it panders to the public. The use of memes like ‘the war on women’ is a prime example of this, but though there are variations between classical and cultural Marxism, the aim is still the same—collectivism.

  57. Historian
    December 14th, 2014 at 10:32 am

    The video is still up at YouTube. And still on this thread.

    BTW it is spelled Marcuse not Marchusa. But you did get it phonetically right. So there is that.

    I also note that you posted “Glenn’s post located at December 12th, 2014 at 9:31 am” what I have posted is an elaboration on Glenn’s post.

    I’m really, really, sorry that what I posted bothered you. I promise that from now on I’ll keep posting similar stuff when appropriate. Because the history is accurate and I did in fact (in a very minor way) participate in it. My thinking has changed.

    And thanks for the transcript. I may be able to use it once I correct the spelling errors.



  58. Yeah, you liked that transcript, didn’t you, little infiltrating subversive bitch? You are a lowly parasitic worm, and everyone reading this knows exactly that. You’re motherfucking right I stayed up all night transcribing that filth.

  59. Thanks Rollo, not sure who those other incarnations of Historian are … but was sure wondering what the hell was going on. Glad you are on top of it.

    I’m assuming all of this BS (princess et al too) is related to Glenn’s original post. I am interested in discussing such things as I am trying to understand in the big picture how all the pieces fit together … as long as it is SAFE to do of course. If such topics are taboo here (and now maybe we can see why, brings out the spooks and fanatics) then perhaps you or M Simon or others could post links or sites where such things are openly talked about. Looking that the Culture Marxism stuff and it makes sense but all seems a little too theoretical to me.

  60. This is an even better explanation of current events:


    Essentially, it was necessary to rewrite history from the perspective of viewing almost everyone as having been ruthlessly oppressed by straight, white men for all of history, and reduce our understanding both of all of the past and the present structures in society to a vision which views the entire narrative as one extended campaign of white male rape and domination of everyone and everything else.


    The origin of “Rape Culture” in a nutshell.

  61. Thanks for the link to the Spearhead Mr Simon. I have read some of the Spearhead before, but not that particular article. Towards the end of that article there are a couple of important things said:

    “The next step is raising our middle fingers at that apparatus and its social conservative enablers and walking off.”

    “And with a healthy and utter disregard for what women think of this.”

    Sounds like MGTOW to me.

  62. A few points of clarification:

    1. Rocking MrE is a sophist and buffoon. If he ever had an original thought, it died of loneliness. He’s directionally correct in his commentary but simply doesn’t have the broader knowledge to put this in historical and proper philosophical perspective. He’s also a tradcon, which means most of what he believes about the world is a fairy tale to begin with. Do not take him as representing my views. For fun, if I felt like it, I could argue with MrE that Adam Smith was a socialist and win because I know that he’s never read a single work of Smith’s. Fyi, if you want to understand classical liberal ideas and how they collide with the material world in human society, there is no better book than Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, and economist Russ Roberts recent book on it.

    2. Cultural Marxism is a bad description – What I sought to answer was where this radical egalitarianism arises from? Rollo keeps pointing to this as an issue, i took on laying out where it comes from. Socialism predates Marxism, and in fact an early French socialist, Fourier first publicly coined the term “feminism” in about 1812 (he also co-originated the term socialism with some other guy I can’t remember who). But this was pre-Marx when socialism was more of a Bentham informed construct, really about maximizing the utility of govt to deliver the maximum amount of good for the most people.

    In a way, one way to look at how we got here is to see our founders basically stopping short of Bentham and Mills and leaving the institutional setting and ideology there. Socialists who followed Bentham and Mills and kant and others towards Utopia believed they were the righteous inheritors of the liberal tradition.

    When Marx comes along, he introduces scientific socialism. He popularizes and instrumentalizes Hegelians materialist dialectic. Engels by 1884 has written The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State which lays out the entire Marxist driven critique of the family and patriarchy for the RadFems to pick up – long before the Frankfurt school. The totalitarian nature of Marxism was always there, it just received greater focus after the revolution didn’t happen in the way Marx predicted. The focus on the other social apparatus in society, beyond the material was always there.

    3. Arguing with freaks – You guys know I’m not shy. If @Historian – whoever he is – wants to actually make a salient point, I’m game. If he’s got data to back up any assertion he makes, he hasn’t bothered to share it. He also hasn’t even made a point. I can just about guarantee he’s either an Illuminati/Bilderberger/Alex Jones freak or a Noam Chomskyesque anarcho-communist. I’m quite well acquainted with both lines of BS. At least Chomsky is smart, although his entire body of work in the field he built his reputation in has been set aside in favor of much better theories. He hasn’t been a force in his field – linguistics – for 25 years. And he isn’t a historian or economist in the first place, but that doesn’t slow him down…

    You all have been quite patient with my excursions. I hope some of you are getting value out of it. This issue is directly related to how the FI expresses itself in our social system, so it’s on topic.

  63. ianironwood makes the observation “One of the victories feminism has had over both men and the FI has been the devaluing of commitment through the threat of divorce.”

    He is correct. The only way to devalue men’s SMV (as a whole) in order to artificially inflate women’s SMV (as a whole) was to pull down men’s MMV, since most men (being betas) leveraged their individual MMV to inflate their SMV. Feminisn gained “control” of men’s MMV by attacking marriage and disincentivizing commitment, ensuring that most men have less to offer, i.e. less to “tie down” a woman with.

  64. zr01dz mentions “the day I stopped being a white knight.” My own adamantium sheen dulled the first time I deliberately gamed a woman, convincing her to conspire in her own pickup for blatantly nefarious purposes. Anyone else have a little moment of realization to share?

  65. Glenn
    December 14th, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    1. Rocking MrE

    He described the history as I experienced it fairly accurately. I knew nothing else about him. Thanks.

    I must add that I was not a deep Marxist. What I knew was mainly from hanging around them in Bezerkeley ’67 and the culture of the time. I was nominally a member of the Digger Clan for a while as was now famous actor Peter Coyote.

    December 14th, 2014 at 1:37 pm

    As you can see from the thread I did a post on the subject at my blog. You are welcome to comment there with any name and even a fake e-mail. I will get your IP though. I rarely look those up unless some one is making trouble.


    As I have noted in this thread the socons are playing right into these fool’s hands. White Knighting, The War On Some Drugs, Christian Cultural Imperialism etc And in that vein you might like a comment Randy made here:

    Randy used to be a socon and now hates them with a purple passion. I was never too well disposed towards them myself.

  66. jf12
    December 14th, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    I was a White Knight until my first GF. I had made some kind of mistake and to atone I bought her flowers and candy. I got told in no uncertain terms to never do that again. “Never admit a mistake” was one of the things she told me, She was really furious. I took it to heart.

    Everything I had learned about women I had learned from the movies. That was the beginning of my education (’62).

  67. jf12
    December 14th, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    I was discussing with some socons gay marriage and said that was nothing. It was hardly a blip in the decline. The real problem was no fault divorce. It went right over their heads. It was right back to “gay marriage is the end of civilization”. For some reason they are totally blind to what they are doing and what they are allowing.

    In the same vein (different thread) I said if you want to prevent the decline of the family you must End Prohibition because it is ruining the Black family and creating a culture of excess dependence on government for sustenance. (I didn’t even mention multiple children from multiple men/fathers). And I get back the usual “Drugs are the most evil thing in the world. They are destroying civilization and must be fought with all our power lest they cause irreversible moral decay “. My point again ignored. Not to mention my point about the government fighting drugs on the one hand and delivering them on the other (Iran/Contra – “The Politics of Heroin” by McCoy). Which was my point about the CIA and Marcuse above.

  68. jf12 on December 14, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    BTW it is the essence of White Knight to insist that women are not the source of the problems.

    And this is a lesson that the people here writing long winded essays about the details of political history don’t seem to get.

    When ancient Rome went down the same path were on with the rise of a welfare state, all the political instability, degeneracy of sexual mores and women taking a more influential role in society was this because of Karl Marx or Peter Coyote? Or could it be something in the biological human nature of man and woman and the natural evolution of society expressing the dominance hierarchy competition to survive to reproduce?

    No that can’t be it. Alright, let’s hear about what Adam Smith really meant by the invisible hand. Or the finer points on how socialism differs from communism.

  69. How the environment determines reproductive strategies. It starts off a little slow and then explains the necessary terms. Don’t quit after the first paragraph.

    @M Simon. Good stuff…thanks for the link.

  70. Lots of left/right/socialism/whatever talk here today.. I won’t pretend to have a deep understanding of history, or any of these topics, but as someone who is open minded and given towards rationalism I find that all of it smells of bullshit. I can make a case that it’s the free market capitalists and bankers etc who masterminded mens decline and the rise of the FI.
    In the end I think all these “conspiracy” theories as to why we are where we are today are just that.. It also conveniently plays into the white knight tendency of even RP men to put aside womens responsibility for their own behavior.
    It seems to me that once the pill became accessible and work became less labor intensive, everyone had something to gain by lowering mens value and exploiting womens new-found freedom. Everyone except beta men, of course. Bankers, corporations, politicians all the way down to the militarists, the medical industrial complex and Hollywood have all made a pretty penny catering to a new demographic of solipsistic women who were easily influenced and easily manipulated, while sending the bill to the ever willing to pay, ever reliable betas.
    Left/Right, top to bottom, alpha men to ugly women all had alot of self interested reasons to tighten the yoke on beta men and unleashing hypergamy from any social, moral or legal liability.
    It’s kind of poetic actually, many mens greatest problem is the tendency to solve womens problems for them. A man will kill himself providing and giving to women and find himself beta-ized and divorced before long. In the same way men as a group solved womens most pressing and hypergamy limiting problem – pregnancy. And so men “solved” this problem by creating birth control and abortion then legalizing both. In return men have gotten exactly what men get when they set out to please and pander to the feminine- abandonment and derision.
    And funniest of all is that all this can change in a day- no need to fight the corporations, the marxist/socialist bogeyman or the FI. Just stop playing by their rules. If men, today, decided to stop playing along. stop marrying, stop paging, stop providing, stop knocking them up when they turn 30 and want off the carousal, stop defaulting from “yes maam/sir” to “NO”, stop encouraging men to join the military, stop doing anything that does not put you and your interests first and foremest. and it’s all over. And even funnier is the fact that he won’t even be MGTOW, no man is surrounded by more pussy than they guy who tells society to suck it.

  71. @Hobbes re: “Just stop playing by their rules.” and “stop doing anything that does not put you and your interests first and foremost.”

    Yes, but easier said than done for most men. It is literally definitionally good that most men are conditioned to play by the rules and to put others first. Breaking rules and being selfish is literally bad.

    So it is sad that a man being bad is what *works* with women. There is no Goldilocks level of extra-medium badness; the badder, the better it works.

  72. Gentlemen,

    I’m not in a position to fight this fight, and never wanted it to begin with. I was shocked that it even surfaced out of the shadows in the form of a YouTube video… never expected that. I’m out. It’s all yours.

  73. “Several economists and anthropologists contend that society is transitioning from monogamy to serial monogamy (serial polygyny)”

    Humans have never been monogamous. We didn’t evolve to be monogamous. Monogamy is unnatural. The only way to achieve monogamy throughout society is through brute force via either religion or law (tyranny).

    If one accepts that all human beings are of equal moral value – in other words, if one rejects aristocracy, rejects inequality before the law, and accepts modern morality instituted since the Enlightenment that all humans are created equal – then you must accept the freedom of men and women freely to choose sex partners.

    This will result in unfettered hypergamy and it will result in alpha males and males of high social status and wealth hoarding female sex partners leaving scraps for the rest of men. But what can be done?

    So many in the manosphere blame women for this. I blame men. Alpha males hoard women and beta males kiss ass. Men kiss ass, men marry women, men treat women as if they’re special, men make fools of themselves to get pussy.

    Men, stop it. Cut it out. If I were a woman, I would totally allow men to compete for the privilege of kissing my ass. I would totally allow men to buy things for me, to give me money, to shower me with compliments, to take me on expensive vacations, to gauge his ego by how well he pleases me in bed, to pay for my college, to give me half of all they own. And no one could blame me for accepting their foolish generosity.

    If you accept modern morality, then this is what we get and there’s not much we can do other than enjoy it – and for a man, it means being able to get lots of sex from many different partners, it means being able to get sex without having to marry one person and have, as Vince Vaughn said in Old School, one vagina for the rest of your life.

    Men can also refuse to marry and develop game. Refusing to marry is vital for a man to maintain his freedom and dignity (I do acknowledge a few men like Rolo can pull it off – although, it’s not easy).

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: