Estrus

 

Thomas_Doherty

Last week saw the publication of the latest paper by Dr. Steven W. Gangestad and Dr. Martie Hasselton titled Human Estrus: Implications for Relationship Science. Anyone who’s read the Rational Male for more than a year is probably familiar with my citing Dr. Hasselton in various posts (her catalog of research has been part of my sidebar links since I began RM), but both she and Dr. Gangstad are among the foremost notable researchers in the areas of human sexuality and applied evolutionary psychology. For this week’s post I’ll be riffing on what this paper proposes with regard to a condition of estrus in women.

In the introduction section of The Rational Male I relate a story of how in my Red Pill formative years I came to be a connector of dots so to speak. While I was studying behavioral psychology and personality studies a great many issues jumped out at me with regards to how many of the principle of behavioral psychology could be (and were already being) applied to intersexual relations. For instance, the basic concepts of intermittent reinforcement and behavioral modification seemed to me an obvious and learned practice of women in achieving some behavioral effect on men by periodically rewarding (reinforcing) them with sex ‘intermittently’. Operant conditioning and establishing operations also dovetailed seamlessly into the Red Pill concepts and awareness I’d been developing for several years prior to finishing my degree.

Since then the ideas I formed have naturally become more complex than these simple foundations, but what I only learned by error was how thoroughly disconnected both students and my teachers were with what I saw as obvious connections. I met obstinate resistance to flat denial when I wrote papers or gave a dissertation about the interplay between the foundations of behaviorism and interpersonal relationships. It was one thing to propose that men would use various aspects to their own advantage, but it was offensive to suggest that women would commonly use behavioral modification techniques to achieve their Hypergamous ends.

This peer resistance was especially adamant when I would suggest that women had a subconscious pre-knowledge (based on collective female experience) of these techniques. I never thought I had brass balls for broaching uncomfortable considerations like this – I honestly, and probably naively, assumed that what I was proposing had already been considered by academia long before I’d come to it.

I was actually introduced to the work of Dr. Hasselton during this time, and along with Dr. Warren Farrell, she’s gone on to become one of my go-to sources in respect to the connection between contemporary behavioral ‘dots’ with theories of practical evolved function in intersexual dynamics. I owe much of what I propose on Rational Male to this interplay, and while I doubt Hasselton would agree with all of what I or the manosphere propose, I have to credit her and her colleague’s work for providing me many of the dots I connect.

I understand that there are still evo-psych skeptics in the manosphere, but I find that much of what passes for their piecemeal “skepticism” is generally rooted in a desire to stubbornly cling to comforting Blue Pill idealisms. That said, I’d never ask any reader to take what I propose here on faith, but personally I’ve found that the questions proposed by evo-psych reflect many of the observations I had in my college days.

Hypergamous Duplicity

For the social theater of the Feminine Imperative, one of the more galling developments in psychological studies to come out of the past fifteen years has been the rise of evolutionary psychology. The natural pivot for the Imperative in dealing with evo-psych has been to write off any concept unflattering to the feminine as being speculative or proving a biased positive (by “misogynistic” researchers of course), while gladly endorsing and cherry-picking any and all evo-psych premises that reinforce the feminine or confirm a positive feminine-primacy.

Up until the past two years or so, there was a staunch resistance to the concept of Hypergamy (know as sexual pluralism in evo-psych) and the dual natures of women’s sexual strategy. Before then the idea of Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks was dismissed as biased, sociologically based and any biological implications or incentives for Hypergamy were downplayed as inconclusive by a feminine-centric media.

However the recent embrace of Open Hypergamy and “Sandbergism” of the last two years has set this narrative on its head, and the empowered women who found the idea of their own sexual pluralism so distasteful are now openly endorsing, if not proudly relishing, their roles in a new empowerment of Hypergamous duplicity.

Your Beta qualities are officially worthless to today’s women:

For those of you that aren’t aware, women now are often out earning men and more of them receive college degrees than men. As of now there aren’t really any programs to help guys out. Assuming this trend continues what do you think will happen to dating? I think that attractive women, will have their pick regardless.

However, for a lot of women, trying to lock down a guy in college will be more of a big deal. I don’t think hook up culture will disappear, but will definitely decrease.

With the exception with my current boyfriend, I have always earned more than any guy I have dated. It has never been an issue. I just don’t have to think about their financials, my attraction is based on their looks and personality. I am guessing the future will be more of that.

I thought this TRP subred was an interesting contrast to the Estrus theory proposed in the Gangstad-Hasselton paper (comments were good too). Yes, the woman is more than a bit gender-egotistical, and yes her triumphalism about the state of women in college and their earning is built on a foundation of sand, but lets strip this away for a moment. The greater importance to her in relating this, and every woman embracing open Hypergamy, is the prospect of better optimizing the dual nature of her sexual strategy.

In many a prior post I’ve detailed the rationales women will apply to their sexual pluralism and the social conventions they rely upon to keep men ignorant of them until such a time (or not) that they can best consolidate on that dualism. Where before that strategy was one of subtle manipulation and pretty lies to keep Betas-In-Waiting ready to be providers after the Alpha Fucks decline at 30, the strategy now is one of such utter ego-confidence in feminine social primacy that women gleefully declare “I’m not just gonna have my cake and eat it too, I’m getting mine with sprinkles and chocolate syrup” with regard to Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks.

The Estrus Connection

For all of the ubiquitous handwringing the manosphere imparts to the social implications of today’s Open Hypergamy, it’s important to consider the biological underpinnings that motivate this self-interested conceit.

From Human Estrus: Implications for Relationship Science:

In the vast majority of mammalian species, females experience classic estrus or heat: a discrete period of sexual receptivity – welcoming male advances – and proceptivity – actively seeking sex – confined to a few days just prior to ovulation, the fertile window. Only at this time, after all, do females require sex to conceive offspring. The primate order is exceptional. Although prosimians (e.g., lemurs, tarsiers) exhibit classic estrus, the vast majority of simian primates (monkeys and apes) are sexually active for at least several days outside of the fertile period [2]. Humans are an extreme case: Women may be sexually receptive or proceptive any time of the cycle, as well as other nonconceptive periods (e.g., pregnancy).

Do Women Retain a Functionally Distinct Fertile Phase?

Graded sexuality. Women’s sexual activity is not confined to an estrous period. But are women’s sexual interests truly constant across the cycle? Many female primates (e.g., rhesus macaques and marmosets) are often receptive to sexual advances by males outside of the fertile phase, but they initiate sex less [2].

In fact, women’s sexual interests do appear to change across the cycle. Women exhibit greater genital arousal in response to erotica and sexually condition to stimuli more readily during the follicular phase [5-8].

A recent study identified hormonal correlates of these changes by tracking 43 women over time and performing salivary hormone assays [9]. Women’s sexual desire was greater during the fertile window, and was positively related to estradiol levels (which peak just before ovulation), but negatively related to progesterone levels (which rise markedly during the luteal phase).

Changes in the male features that evoke sexual interest. Since the late 1990s, some researchers have argued that what changes most notably across the cycle is not sexual desire per se but, rather, the extent to which women’s sexual interests are evoked by particular male features – specifically, male behavioral and physical features associated with dominance, assertiveness, and developmental robustness. Over 50 studies have examined changes across the cycle in women’s attraction to these male features.

The importance of behavioral features? Whereas preference shifts of major interest early on concerned male physical features (e.g., facial masculinity; scent), several recent studies have focused on women’s reactions to men’s behavior and dispositions. Previous research had found that women find male confidence, even a degree of arrogance, more sexually appealing during the fertile phase [e.g., 15-16]. Recent studies replicate and extend that work, finding not only that fertile-phase women are more sexually attracted to “sexy cad” or behaviorally masculine men (relative to “good dad” or less masculine men), but also that, during the fertile phase, women are more likely to flirt or engage with such men [17,18]. Females of a variety of species, including primates [2], prefer dominant or high ranking males during the fertile phase of their cycles. These males may pass genetic benefits to offspring, as well as, potentially, offer material benefits (e.g., protect offspring). Women’s fertile-phase sexual attraction to behavioral dominance appears to have deep evolutionary roots.

Much of what’s explored here I laid out in Game terms in Your Friend Menstruation over two years ago, but the implications of the behaviors prompted by women’s menstrual cycle and biochemistry strongly imply an estrus-like predictability. This estrous state is a foundational keystone, not just to developing Game, but a keystone to understanding the dynamics behind Hypergamy, women’s dualistic sexual strategy, Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks, and can even be extrapolated into the drive for ensuring feminine social dominance in both overt and covert contexts.

When women embrace a social order founded upon a feminine state of openly revealed Hypergamy they confirm and expose the reality of this estrous state.

Whereas before, in a social order based on concealed Hypergamy, this state could be dismissed as a social construct (and a masculine biased one at that), or one that had only marginal influence to reasoning women with a “higher” human potential. No longer – the confirmation of a true estrus in women via open Hypergamy literally confirms virtually every elementary principle Game has asserted for the past 13 years.

Dual Sexuality

Within the dual sexuality framework, fertile-phase sexuality and non-fertile-phase sexuality possess potentially overlapping but also distinct functions [22,23]. In a number of primate species, extended sexuality – female receptivity and proceptivity at times other than the fertile phase – appears to function to confuse paternity by allowing non-dominant males sexual access [e.g., 24]. These males cannot rule out their own paternity, which might reduce their likelihood of harming a female’s offspring. In humans, by contrast, extended sexuality may function to induce primary pair-bond partners to invest in women and offspring [e.g., 22].

I found this part particularly interesting when you contrast this dynamic with the social resistance that standardized paternity testing has been met with. In a feminine-primary social order based on open Hypergamy, the Feminine Imperative can’t afford not to legislate a mandated cuckoldry. If Beta provider males will not comply with the insurance of a woman’s long-term security (as a result of being made aware of his place in Open Hypergamy) then he must be forced to comply either legally, socially or both. The old order exchange of resources for sexual access and a reasonable assurance of his paternity is replaced by a socialized form of cuckoldry.

Some studies have found that women’s sexual interests in men other than partners are strikingly rare during the luteal phase, relative to the fertile phase [25,26]. Other research has found moderating effects; for example, women who perceive their partners to lack sex appeal experience increased attraction to men other than partners, less satisfaction, and a more critical attitude toward partners, but only when fertile [27,28]. Fertile-phase women in one study were more assertive and focused on their own, as opposed to their partner’s, needs, especially when attracted to men other than partners during that phase [29].

Most research on cycle shifts has been inspired by theory concerning women’s distinctive sexual interests during the fertile phase. One study explicitly sought to understand factors influencing women’s sexual interests during the luteal phase, finding that, at that time, but not during the fertile phase, women initiated sex more with primary partners when they were invested in their relationship more than were male partners [30]. This pattern is consistent with the proposal that extended sexuality functions, in part, to encourage interest from valued male partners. Others have proposed that women’s estrus phase has been modified by pair-bonding.

Initiating sex or being receptive to a primary partner’s sexual interest during the luteal phase (the Beta swing of the cycle) follows when we consider that a woman being sexual during this phase poses the least potential of becoming pregnant while simultaneously (rewarding) reinforcing that primary partner’s continued investment in the pairing with sex (intermittent reinforcement). This is a very important dynamic because it mirrors a larger theme in women’s socio-sexual pluralism – it’s Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks on a biological scale.

Compare this intra-relationship predisposition for Beta sex and contrast it with the larger dynamic of open Hypergamy Alpha Fucks during a woman’s prime fertility window in her peak SMV years, and her post Epiphany Phase necessity to retain a comforting (but decidedly less sexually exciting) Beta provider.

Women’s sexual strategy on a social scale, mirrors her instinctual, estrous sexual strategy on an individual scale.

Cues of Fertility Status
Females across diverse species undergo physical and behavioral changes during estrus that males find attractive: changes in body scents in carnivores, rodents, and some primates; changes in appearance, such as sexual swellings, in baboons and chimpanzees; changes in solicitous behavior in rodents and many primates [2,31] Because women lack obvious cyclic changes, it was widely assumed that cycle shifts in attractiveness were eliminated in humans, perhaps with the evolution of
pair bonding [32].

In 1975, a pioneering study documented increased attractiveness of women’s vaginal odors midcycle [33]. A quarter century later, research revealing other detectable fertile-phase changes began to accumulate, including increased attractiveness of women’s upper torso odors, increased vocal pitch and attractiveness, and changes in women’s style of dress and solicitous behaviors [34]. Meta-analysis of this literature confirms that changes across the cycle in women’s attractiveness are
often subtle, but robust (K. Gildersleeve, PhD dissertation, UCLA, 2014).

A notable recent study demonstrated that hormones implicated in attractiveness shifts in non-humans also predict attractiveness shifts in humans [35]. Photos, audio clips, and salivary estrogen and progesterone were collected from 202 women at two cycle points. Men rated women’s facial and vocal attractiveness highest when women’s progesterone levels were low and estrogen levels high (characteristic of the follicular phase, and especially the fertile window).

Emerging evidence suggests that these changes affect interactions between males and females. During the fertile window, women report increased jealous behavior by male partners [25,29,36]. A possible mediator of such changes – testosterone – is higher in men after they smell tshirts collected from women on high- than on low-fertility days of the cycle [37; cf. 38]. A recent study examined related phenomena in established relationships by bringing couples into the lab for a close interaction task (e.g., slow dancing) [39]. Following the interaction, male partners viewed images of men who were attractive and described as competitive or unattractive and noncompetitive. Only men in the competitive condition showed increases in testosterone from baseline – and only when tested during their partner’s fertile phase.

What remains less clear is how we can understand shifts in attractiveness from a theoretical perspective. It is unlikely that women evolved to signal their fertility within the cycle to men [22,34]. In fact, the opposite may have occurred – active selection on women to conceal cues of ovulation, which could help to explain weak shifts in attractiveness relative to many species. Concealment might have promoted extended sexuality with its attendant benefits from investing males, or
facilitated women’s extra-pair mating. Possibly, the subtle physical changes that occur are merely “leaky cues” that persist because fully concealing them suppresses hormone levels in ways that compromise fertility. Behavioral shifts, by contrast, may be tied to increases in women’s sexual interests or motivation to compete with other women for desirable mates [e.g., 40].

Usually after first-time readers have a chance to digest the material I propose in Your Friend Menstruation the first frustration they have is figuring out just how they can ever reliably detect when a woman is in this estrous state. On an instinctual level, most men are already sensitive to these socio-sexual cues, but this presumptuousness of sexual availability is rigorously conditioned out of men by social influence. In other words, most guys are Beta-taught to be ashamed of presuming a woman might be down to fuck as the result of picking up on visual, vocal or body posture cues.

Beyond this perceptiveness, there are also pheromonal triggers as well as behavioral cues during estrus that prompt a mate guarding response in men.

I would however propose that the evolved concealment of an estrus-like state and all of the attendant behaviors that coincide with it are a behavioral mechanic with the purpose of filtering for men with a dominant Alpha capacity to “Just Get It” that a woman is in estrus and thus qualify for her sexual access either proceptively or receptively.  Women’s concealed estrus is an evolved aspect of filtering for Alpha Fucks.

In addition, this concealment also aids in determining Beta Bucks for the men she needs (needed) to exchange her sexual access for. A guy who “doesn’t get it” is still useful (or used to be) precisely because he doesn’t understand the dynamics of her cyclic and dualistic sexual strategy. Her seemingly erratic and self-controlled sexual availability becomes the Beta Bucks interest’s intermittent reinforcement for the desired behavior of his parental investment in children that are only indeterminately of his genetic heritage.

Evidence of this intermittent reinforcement can also be observed in what Athol Kay from Married Man Sex Life has described as wives “drip feeding” sex to their husbands. The confines of a committed monogamy in no way preclude the psycho-sexual influences of estrus. Thus placating a less ‘sexy’, but parentally invested man with the reinforcer of infrequent (but not entirely absent) sex becomes a necessity to facilitate the prospect of a future sexual experience with an Alpha while ensuring the security of her Beta.

In closing here I think the importance of how this estrous state influences women on both an individual and social level can’t be stressed enough in contrast to the social embrace of open Hypergamy. The Hypergamy genie is not only out of the bottle, but women are, perhaps against their own interests, embracing the genie with gusto.

Just today Vox posted a quick hit article about how men are discovering that pornography is now preferable to relating with the average woman. In an era of open Hypergamy I don’t believe this is a rationalized preference so much as it’s simply a pragmatic one. Men are rapidly awakening to a Red Pill awareness, even without a formal Red Pill education, and seeing the rewards (the intermittent reinforcement) simply aren’t worth the investment with women who blithely express their expectations of them to assume the role they would have them play in their sexual strategies.

351 comments

  1. This is a great science post. But I have a question.

    If all of this theorizing and SMV analysis is true then it seems like having a healthy relationship with a pre-epiphany stage is impossible. It’s just like girls saying: “oh no relationships are impossible because all guys just want to fuck and game as many girls as possible” when yes that’s true, but when I’m in a relationship with a hot girl I probably won’t cheat on her unless she doesn’t give me sex.

    So I think this theorizing is a soft application to the feminine subconscious.

    But then it confuses me. I wanted to so badly to be with this one young 21 yr old high smv girl but I was scared of commitment because I know all of this now. It’s like if I tell her I like her and want to be with her than I FUCKED and she’ll slowly get “bored” or “change”.

    I get it. But I dont. I don’t get how all of this is supposed to work. I Don’t get how I’m supposed to accept comfortable monogamy without ending up BURNED.

    This mindset is losing me great potential LTRs with girls And I don’t know how to what the path is….

  2. “I don’t get how all of this is supposed to work.”

    In the past, the elders of the society, both male AND Female, made the families stay together. They married young and stayed together.

    There was no alternative.

    Feminism, “the promiscuity movement” destroyed that. That is why you see 50% single mother parents.

    Eve, deceived just as she ever was.

    It’s actually mens’ fault for allowing women so much power. Civil War, WWI and WWII war fatigue softened the men, liberalizing them and stopping them from passing the shit tests. Everything has sucked since then.

    We have no good “king” (president, CEO, etc.) when the king is bad. the entire nation is sick.

  3. actively seeking sex – confined to a few days just prior to ovulation

    As a performer that regularly gets very sweaty during a performance, I can say that women get turned on by the smell of a man when they are at their fertile stage – at least if you can believe what they say. (Which I always take with a grain of salt as women lie.)

    But I can say from past experience that women who have trouble having a child with their husband, will often turn up preggos after an affair. One of the reasons that I enjoy women, but do not trust them. I’ve been the guy on the side often enough to know that trusting a woman is a recipe for disaster. And never trust the paternity of a child – unless you have the DNA test to verify it.

    But when they are ovulating, they will practically rape you… Always a fun time… I’ve never understood why any man would want a relationship that lasts longer that the next day. Enjoy the cream – but leave the curds for her husband/boy-friend…

  4. @will

    I’m in a similar boat. While, I just had my 31st birthday, over the past 2 years 21-25 year old women have become increasingly more interested in me…. both in the “let’s hookup and fuck” type of interest as well as “I want to be in an LTR with you” type of interest. Since, I’ve been reading RM, I have managed to resist getting into an LTR, but I often wonder if I’m missing out.

    For instance, there is the new girl I’ve been sleeping with who is a 22 year old HB 9. Remarkably for her looks, she is actually quite sweet and does not come across as someone who has rode the carousel. Unlike a lot of girls that I involve myself with, I actually relate to her as a person..blah blah blah, etc. I could easily work an LTR with this girl. But, in the back of my head, I still hear the voice of skepticism (and reason) ask the question, “What is the end game?” Then many of your voiced suspicions come into my head along with a few of my own, which are mostly centered upon my own inclinations to infidelity.

    My opinion, if you’re a western man and in a LTR, then the girl you are with better have fought, scratched, clawed, and conned to get you into that LTR. Unless there is a large gap between the SMV of yourself and a 21 year old girl, no 21 year old is going to put up the aformentioned necessary effort to make for a decent LTR. A high SMV girl of that age has way too many options to fret about one guy. But that does not mean you can’t have your fun with her…

    Forget the LTR’s my friend. The landscape is devastated. Invest your time rather in SMV raising activities.

  5. An LTR is only possible with a girl over whom you have a clear SMV advantage and with a steel frame. Furthermore, the girl has to show a unique personality that will make her be worth the investment. Everything else is doomed to fail.

  6. Rollo,

    do you have any date for the release of the 2nd release of your book, and also for your new book? I bought your book to give it to somebody, and would like to buy your new releases for myself when they come out.

    Thanks.

  7. Nathan
    December 18th, 2014 at 12:14 am

    Social conservatives – the so called defenders of the family – gave in on “no fault divorce” with nary a whimper. Thus destroying any chance of enforcing a morality of sexual relations that would tend to keep families together.

    There is probably no totally going back but it may be possible to revert to the old rules if children are involved. Thus leveling the playing field some for Betas.

  8. My opinion, if you’re a western man and in a LTR, then the girl you are with better have fought, scratched, clawed, and conned to get you into that LTR.

    Very good advice.

  9. New Yorker
    December 18th, 2014 at 12:45 am

    I went for good genes (some math ability). The children (4) have turned out well in the brain dept.

  10. I agree with the study, but up to a point. I feel like it down plays the genetic factors which primally attract women during peak fertility. While dominance is an important factor in mate selection (for females), there are many studies which show that women also appraise physical features in men during peak fertility. I’d wager that physical characteristics would be of primary importance and dominance would be of secondary importance. See the studies below:

    Ovulatory Shifts in Women’s Attractions to Primary Partners and Other Men: Further Evidence of the Importance of Primary Partner Sexual Attractiveness. Christina M. Larson, Elizabeth G. Pills, Martie G. Haselton (2012)
    Excerpt: Shifts in women’s extra-pair attractions across the cycle were significantly moderated by third-party ratings of partner attractiveness, such that the less attractive the partner was, the more extra-pair attraction women reported at high relative to low fertility. In line with previous findings, we found support for the hypothesis that the degree to which a woman’s romantic partner displays indicators of high-fitness genes affects women’s attractions to their own partner and other men at high fertility.

    The Scent of Symmetry:A Human Sex Pheromone that Signals Fitness? Randy Thornhill, Steven W Gangestad (1998)
    Excerpt: “Women’s preference for the scent associated with men’s facial attractiveness is greatest when their fertility is highest across the menstrual cycle. The results overall suggest that women have an evolved preference for sires with good genes.”

    Women’s preferences for sexual dimorphism in height depend on menstrual cycle phase and expected duration of relationship. Boguslaw Pawlowskia,Grazyna Jasienskab (2005)
    Excerpt: “Taller males (larger SDS) were preferred more often when women were in the follicular (i.e. fertile) phase of their menstrual cycle and when the partners were chosen for short-term relationships. These effects were independent of woman’s height.”

    Human body odour, symmetry and attractiveness. Anja Rikowski, Karl Grammer (1999)
    Excerpt: “Facial asymmetry was examined by distance measurements of portrait photographs. The results showed a significant positive correlation between facial attractiveness and sexiness of body odour for female subjects. We found positive relations between body odour and attractiveness and negative ones between smell and body asymmetry for males only if female odour raters were in the most fertile phase of their menstrual cycle.”

    And let’s not forget the study that made some rounds on the manosphere:
    The Orgasm Wars: Evolutionary biologists think female orgasms may pick the best sperm. By PT Staff, (1996)
    Excerpt: Thornhill and Gangestad reasoned that if women’s orgasms are an adaptation for securing good genes for their offspring, women should report more orgasms with relatively symmetrical mates… Indeed, the hypothesized relationship between male symmetry and female orgasm proved to be true, the researchers recently reported in the journal Animal Behavior (Vol. 50, December). From data on sexual behavior provided by the women, those whose partners were most symmetrical enjoyed a significantly higher frequency of orgasms during sexual intercourse than did those with less symmetrical mates. Even the data on sexual experience provided by the men showed the women had more orgasms with the most symmetrical men.

    and

    A woman’s capacity for orgasm depends not on her partner’s sexual skill but on her subconscious evaluation of his genetic merits… Women’s orgasm has little to do with love or experience.

    Nonetheless, as the study cited by Rollo shows, dominance does seem to exhibit some preference by females. Only problem with the study is it doesn’t give us a complete picture because other studies show that bilateral body and facial symmetry have been shown to give women a primal, subconscious form of arousal. Attractive physical characteristics seem to be deeply embedded in both men and women.

  11. “The Hypergamy genie is not only out of the bottle, but women are, perhaps against their own interests, embracing the genie with gusto.”

    Rollo, in what ways do you think that this could be against their [women’s] own interests?

    I ask because you also stated the following:

    “If Beta provider males will not comply with the insurance of a woman’s long-term security (as a result of being made aware of his place in Open Hypergamy) then he must be forced to comply either legally, socially or both.”

    If beta men stop complying then the end result would have to result in turning every man and woman into the individual woman’s beta provider via a State proxy i.e. socialism which seems to be the end goal of feminism. How could this not be in the the feminine imperative’s best interest?

  12. Finally answers the, “If you can’t handle me at my worst then you can’t handle me at my best.”

    Manosphere translation:
    If you can’t handle being beta bucks during my luteal phase then you can’t handle me getting alpha fucks during estrus.

    It’s interesting that most advice to men from women involves how to tip toe around women during the luteal phase, concealment.

    Even shit tests may be a way of dividing men into luteal men and estrus men.

  13. Excellent post Rollo, it proves scientifically most of the points you made in the past and is really mind boggling in general!

    “I would however propose that the evolved concealment of an estrus-like state and all of the attendant behaviors that coincide with it are a behavioral mechanic with the purpose of filtering for men with a dominant Alpha capacity to “Just Get It” that a woman is in estrus and thus qualify for her sexual access either proceptively or receptively. Women’s concealed estrus is an evolved aspect of filtering for Alpha Fucks.”

    On this I’d like to add a different perspective. It’s not alpha males that just get it, they don’t have to. I guess even those naturals don’t know when women are fertile the women themselves select actively the alphas during ther fertile phase and intermittently reward their beta during the luteal phase. Women choose…

    Additionally I like your view on the porn watching guys. It makes sense that they choose porn over women, not because they wouldn’t like to engage with them, but simply because they can’t, are hindered via diabolic laws, or think the hassle isn’t worth the little reward. The forces behind that should be aware however, that men without incentives aren’t willing to use their maximum capacity for production anymore. In history that has been ensured because every good, hard working beta guy had a wife to marry. Women are merely used as a tool wrt open hypergamy and feminism in general and it’s not in their best interest to follow it.

  14. Here’s a shocking excerpt from the article Rolo mentioned above. It’s incredible how stupid people have become:

    “The researchers were interested in how declining marriage rates impact society and the economy. They said that stable marriages create substantial welfare improvements for society, especially to the degree that marital stability produces high-quality children.”

    Oh really?! That can’t be true! I thought we had to deconstruct the family for better options like single parenthood and stuff

  15. Rollo – “If Beta provider males will not comply with the insurance of a woman’s long-term security (as a result of being made aware of his place in Open Hypergamy) then he must be forced to comply either legally, socially or both. The old order exchange of resources for sexual access and a reasonable assurance of his paternity is replaced by a socialized form of cuckoldry.”

    It takes a village to raise a child. And when the village is raising the child, and providing for it the mother is free of guilt, and reponsibility. And this is goal of the FI, to get the best fucks, and the most bucks for the least amount of effort and responsibility.

  16. re: “Females of a variety of species, including primates [2], prefer dominant or high ranking males during the fertile phase of their cycles. These males may pass genetic benefits to offspring, as well as, potentially, offer material benefits (e.g., protect offspring).”

    Neither of these supposed reasons has EVER been experimentally demonstrated! “Good dads” definitionally are much better with children, for example. Intelligence is *negatively* preferred, for another example. Females do NOT have magic pickers, and to defend that view is White Knighting.

  17. re: “Women’s concealed estrus is an evolved aspect of filtering for Alpha Fucks.”

    No doubt. Hence, red pill awareness rationally demands 24/7 Alpha behaviors from a man, thus filtering for women who will be more receptive.

  18. jf12
    December 18th, 2014 at 4:54 am

    .Intelligence is *negatively* preferred, for another example.

    I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that. But the first mate’s criteria and mine was intelligence. We got that in our children. If it was a good choice – evidenced by grandchildren – remains to be seen.

  19. @ Rollo – Outstanding and really a lynchpin for your your case. Call it sexual pluralism, that works for me…My thoughts.

    It’s not too far a stretch to say that these masculine traits which demonstrate genetic fitness were created by women, not men, due to their sexual selection preferences. But we never hear any of this discussed. I’m perfectly willing to have a civil discussion with women about the power imbalances that exist in our society. But that discussion should include women’s power as well. Women don’t question possessing the power of reproduction and choice over when men have sex or not – do they? When have we seen it mentioned how unjust (via the lens of social justice that is – I don’t think it’s unfair) it is for men to be so structurally disempowered?

    I’d also want them to acknowledge a few important points when discussing human nature and our social structures. The first is the primary role of sexual dimorphism and sexual selection by females in driving huge and rapid advances in human evolution and our resultant explosion as a species. The second is the crucial importance of group selection in advancing the human condition. SJWs want to eliminate all social groups that they don’t like but in fact, it’s baked into our biology to form groups and for groups to compete. In a way, the entire classical liberal idea is about creating conditions for group competition in a cosmopolitan public square with many different groups of people interacting peacefully, based on a recognition of our common interests.

    It’s also true that humans always and everywhere self-organize into hierarchies in which leaders have more power over others in the group. We have been selected for this individually and as groups – yet the SJW seems to have selective outrage at certain hierarchies, speaking as though the very existence of a hierarchy is axiomatically immoral when in fact it’s how we organize ourselves every day. The idea of liberty is that one can exit hierarchies they don’t want to be subjected to in significant ways (not all ways – we can’t escape our biology), but this isn’t enough for them.

    Given these realities, it’s absurd to have as an a priori stance that any group which is over represented in the higher part of a hierarchy is axiomatically oppressive. It’s actually quite backwards – successful groups should also be recognized for what they are doing correctly as well. I mean, is it really so that western, white male Europeans made no positive contributions to the human condition? If one is to consider it a “group” shouldn’t we consider both sides of the ledger? Including, say, physics and electronics? But no, we are destroying the social fabric of the most successful group in our species in many real ways – and this shows up in plummeting birth rates for this group. I also think this is contributing to western economic malaise as well.

    I wonder, would any feminist be willing to have a conversation framed in this way?

  20. Glenn – “I wonder, would any feminist be willing to have a conversation framed in this way?”

    No.

    You question presumes the ability of a feminist to have a conversation that involves a two way flow of ideas based on facts and logic, and expects both sides to listen to the other. Feminists aren’t capable of two way conversation as that assumes that the feminist position might need introspective examination and therefore be less than perfectly correct.

    But it’s nice to dream isn’t it?

  21. This takes me back to Desmond Morris ‘the human animal’ which was my first exposure to the idea that the fact that humans are animals meant something about our behavior. As much as we like to think of ourselves as divine creatures of infinitely free will our behavior is actually highly predictable in almost all cases and especially when it comes to one our oldest most primal drives: sex.

  22. @ BP – I’d love to hear a response to my comment from any feminist lurker on this site. Please, ladies, I don’t often welcome your participation here but in this case, I’d love to hear it. Even supposedly RP chicks – are you willing to acknowledge how out of touch with reality the SJW’s priors are? Are you willing to see how by selecting males who are most masculine and dominant and aggressive when you are most fertile that you are reinforcing the exact traits women say they want to change about men?

    Women choose. Once I got that this was not political or cultural but rather a hardcoded reality in our biology and social systems which co-evolved, I calmed down. It’s kind of funny in the sense that I think we all know this power imbalance exists but we don’t really discuss it directly.

    The real question is when women will start taking responsibility for the world we live in? They “chose” it in many more real ways than men have – yet they shriek like victims. The irony is just too delicious, yes?

  23. I have noted this sort of “switch” that has been occurring in men really since the “Slap the Soul Out of Girl” video.

    In more ways then just this video, take even like the UVa thing.

    It is as if you are watching a pro wrestling match and the bad guy has been cheating and abusing the good guy while the referee is distracted, and then there is that one moment when the good guy…

    Did you cheer when subway guy just reached back to Brooklyn and let that bitch have it with the best bitch slap I have ever seen in my life?

    Did your white knightey protective instincts for her come out? No? Not a bit? Or did you think that idiot that rushed to her defense was a fool?

    I am not sure this Rational Male post could be called a “slap”. It is to me a technical dissemination of material using Manosphere lay terminology that reinforces AF/BB.

    But what it does do is it feeds and bolsters the idea that really has also been thought by many men for a lot longer than AF/BB …

    That in her very core nature she is a cheating, lying, thieving whore.

    So like Whoopie said about Subway Girl, “She deserved to be slapped.”

    And so do many more: Physically, Socially, and especially Culturally

    We sort of “slapped” the shit out of bunch of them this week.

    So when it is time for some bitch to be “slapped”, if you are the slapper then slap away. If you are the bystander, don’t be that fool that jumps in on her behalf.

    Ask not for whom the bitch is slapped,
    She’s slapped for you.

  24. @ Minter – Speak for yourself – I in no way see this as proof that women are “lying cheating whores”. Wow, you are such a disgusting lowlife.

    @ Rollo – Done, I dropped a comment and link, let the fur fly of course for the lulz. Not much of a dare…I should be clear, my question to women is purely rhetorical. I don’t expect to have any effect on their thinking, but this subject should drive any feminist batshit crazy, so let’s get it on!

  25. Jeez Glenn, white knight much?

    Read the post. Let’s see they conceal fertility to trick the provider but are attracted when the sex might actually produce a conception to masculine or high status features. The intent is to confuse the issue of paternity to yield greater resources from the beta while enjoying the genes of the alpha.

    It is fundamental in their makeup that they lie. It is fundamental to cheat the beta out of resources. Fundamental that they conceal fertility to use it when they desire.

    It is fundamental that the whole basis of sex for them is trading access to sex in exchange for material and social benefits.

    So what part of this post did you skip?

    Yes, it was a strong comment that I made designed for effect.

    And yes, the “slap” idea is a metaphorical device, sort of an authorial thing, a thing designed to invoke a certain feelings.

    But then Glenn, read the comments up above, the comments where the guys are asking “What can I do then?” “How is it possible to have a constructive relationship?”, the frustration and exasperation shown by men at this information, at the whole Social Hypergamy, AF/BB concept.

    And then Glenn, take a step outside of the post, into the greater culture just this week, Glenn. Look at outright dishonest tactics of “their” side in the culture war, all designed to impose on the rights of men.

    To me, women have some comeuppance coming.

    So if you got a problem with the Rhetorical devices I use

    Then Fuck Off.

    And I don’t give a fuck what old bald men think of me.

  26. @Glenn – link or it didn’t happen 😉

    @Mark Minter (and others) – don’t play the victim. Knowledge is power!

  27. @Glenn. I read lots RP blogs and am generally in agreement with them. What I don’t understand in all this is the frequent assertion that beta men have less access to sex in today’s feminist, hypergamous world. I’m referring to sex outside of marriage, where betas are undeniably shafted. Did beta men–that is, most men, since time eternal– more access to sex prior to FI culture, in 1950 or 1850 or 1750 or 1050, or whatever?

    I would think the most hapless beta stumbles into sex today more than his counterpart could a century ago, since most women are available, while in the past such a man would have to pay for a prostitute, marry, or find a willing woman well above or below him (scullery maid, established older married woman).

    Even in today’s marriage 2.0., how does the sex men get compare to sex men could expect in the past? In his Saving the Best post, I think, Rollo makes an example of a former carousel rider who won’t give her husband a “simple blowjob.” Could a man at any time in history prior to the last few decades reasonably expect a “simple blowjob” from a woman, let alone his presumably sexually inexperienced wife?

    Didn’t the social repression of hypergamy in the past also limit most men’s sexual outlets, to an extent? Do RP men genuinely want to return to pre FI state where male sexuality was also somewhat restricted and funneled into marriage and offspring for the good of the nuclear family and civilization? This is an earnest question. Thanks for letting me comment.

  28. It is no surprise that female behavior is being impacted by a force like Estrus. As a father of two sons it is obvious to me that behavior is driven by biology far more than socialization. Perhaps the most interesting part of human biology is that so many people, particularly those in leadership positions deny its importance. At least they do so publicly. The dominant social meme is that behavior is driven by socialization. This is 180 degrees off the mark.

  29. Nancy Collins: “You genuinely like women, don’t you?”
    Jack Nicholson: “Yeah, I genuinely do. I prefer the company of women, and I have deep respect for them. I’m buzzed by the female mystique. I always tell young men there are three rules: They hate us, we hate them; they’re stronger, they’re smarter; and, most important, they don’t play fair.”
    (Rolling Stone Interview, March 29, 1984)

  30. “Do RP men genuinely want to return to pre FI state where male sexuality was also somewhat restricted and funneled into marriage and offspring for the good of the nuclear family and civilization?”

    I can’t answer for all men, but for me the answer is: yes. I would rather see both men and women deal with restraints on their sexuality for the better of the nuclear family than to raise kids in the cesspool we live in now.

    That being said, I have no desire for the “good old days” to return. I’d prefer a modern version of it with more logic and less drama. I’d also like to hit the lottery, not holding my breath on either.

  31. The real question is when women will start taking responsibility for the world we live in? They “chose” it in many more real ways than men have – yet they shriek like victims. The irony is just too delicious, yes?

    I don’t know about “delicious”, but the truth is the truth. And I’m not holding my breath. “Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” (George Bernard Shaw) Men may dread it, but women simply refuse responsibility, and the power they already have (and can never lose) enables them to do so.

    “I think women rule the world, and that no man has ever done anything that a woman either hasn’t allowed him to do or encouraged him to do.” – Bob Dylan, Rolling Stone interview, June 21, 1984

  32. @A Woman – You make an interesting point. Birth control has dramatically increased the supply of sex available to most men. Perhaps the sex lives of Beta males have undergone a relative but not absolute decline when compared to Alpha males. I think what Rollo is getting at is that female mating strategies are shielded from men.

  33. I have always struggled with accepting the fact that women are slaves to their hormones and sexuality. As well as how clueless they are to their own powerlessness over it. It’s like watching an alcoholic who hasn’t come to terms with their disease. They’re oblivious to the destruction they are causing themselves and those around them. Complete and utter lack of discipline.

    I swallowed the blue pill version of women being the ones more in control of their desires hook line and sinker. The fairer more moral sex and all. It was a belief in an innate goodness in all women.

    Hypergamy is the female equivalent of letting the little head do the thinking for the big head.

  34. @A Woman:

    What I don’t understand in all this is the frequent assertion that beta men have less access to sex in today’s feminist, hypergamous world. I’m referring to sex outside of marriage, where betas are undeniably shafted. Did beta men–that is, most men, since time eternal– more access to sex prior to FI culture, in 1950 or 1850 or 1750 or 1050, or whatever?

    As certain ecological pressures weaken to provide a prosperous society (like the one we enjoy today), women will deviate more to fulfilling their short-term mating strategy. Their short-term mating strategy favors only the top percentage of men (think 20%) in terms of aesthetics, masculinity, dominance, status, etc. The key word in my last sentence was “favors”. Sexual pluralism partially explains this. When a women’s need for resources or materials is already alleviated by society, the government, her friends and family or simply by herself, she won’t have an active need for a man that fulfills the beta bucks strategy. Her desire for alpha fucks is stronger because not only is it a crucial part to her pluralistic strategy for progeny, but it is also rare. I understand women aren’t have as many kids as they did in the past but the innate desire for sex (which obviously resulted in offspring in the past) still exists. .

    Even in today’s marriage 2.0., how does the sex men get compare to sex men could expect in the past? In his Saving the Best post, I think, Rollo makes an example of a former carousel rider who won’t give her husband a “simple blowjob.” Could a man at any time in history prior to the last few decades reasonably expect a “simple blowjob” from a woman, let alone his presumably sexually inexperienced wife?

    My guess is men in the past were kept in constant ignorance to a woman’s true desires. Never was there a time in the past where men could actively discuss women on a global scale based on their own experiences with women, but also the ability to back it up by cold, hard, scientific data. As for “Saving the Best”, it’s reasonable to assume that women always have known what they were doing in terms of showing their partners their full extent of their sexual ability or potential(if she was inexperience). This is simply because women won’t alienate men of high genetic quality, after a certain point. In other words, women devise many ways to keep their mates, especially if they’re high quality. Again, review sexual pluralism for signs of this.

    Didn’t the social repression of hypergamy in the past also limit most men’s sexual outlets, to an extent?

    In terms of quantity for a single man, yes. For all men as a whole, no. Repressed hypergamy gave most men an equal shot at at least one pussy (via marriage or arrangement) or see: assortative mating. So, in this case, most men (dads) were content; Cads, not so much. Women are the most selective sex and this stems across all dimensions in her life, from sexual to social. After all, men display and women choose.

    Do RP men genuinely want to return to pre FI state where male sexuality was also somewhat restricted and funneled into marriage and offspring for the good of the nuclear family and civilization?

    I would say most men in general would, but those who took the red-pill will eventually realize a harsh truth. This is where genuine desire comes into play. A male imperative can force women to abide by its conditions, but do women honestly desire it? This is the problem between desire for both sexes. Something must give and unfortunately, most men will realize that women do innately crave and desire true alpha fucks with a real alpha. The studies above indirectly proved that a biological factor is at play here and it is something so subconscious, that even restrictions imposed by any society can’t do much to truly dissuade her genuine desire.

    Either way, civilization requires the participation of men. When hypergamy runs amok,via the current latitude of female sexual choice, the majority of men will find a way to drop out (seeing as how sexually, hypergamy sees the majority of men as unfit). MGOTW is an example of this. What’s funny about the whole thing is that it is evolutionary unstable (see: increased fertility costs, inbreeding depression effects, and losses in subreplacement fertility).

    Female utopias always live on borrowed time. History and evolution has proven this over and over again.

  35. @zdr Thanks for responding. I absolutely agree that female mating strategies are shielded from men, as they have been for eternity. I don’t understand the argument that most men’s sexual choices are in fact more limited than in the past, especially outside of marriage, a frequent RP argument related to the former.

  36. @A Woman, “want’s” got nothing to do with it.

    As I stated, the Hypergamy Genie is out of the bottle, and women are busy partying with him because he’s letting them have their cake and eat it with sprinkles and chocolate syrup too.

    @MrBiggs, women aren’t just coyly confessing to Hypergamy, it’s becoming part of their popular consciousness and they’re embracing it triumphantly. Not only that but they’re also blatant and proud of the expectations they have of both Alpha and Beta men to willingly or coercively accept their roles in that open Hypergamy.

    Needless to say this hubris isn’t in women’s long term interests since men will become more Red Pill aware of the raw deal they’re expected to invest their own wellbeing and futures into.

    Women will only be able to party with the Genie for so long before men come to realize the shit sandwich women are openly telling them they’re feeding them.

  37. What remains less clear is how we can understand shifts in attractiveness from a theoretical perspective. It is unlikely that women evolved to signal their fertility within the cycle to men [22,34]. In fact, the opposite may have occurred – active selection on women to conceal cues of ovulation, which could help to explain weak shifts in attractiveness relative to many species. Concealment might have promoted extended sexuality with its attendant benefits from investing males, or facilitated women’s extra-pair mating. Possibly, the subtle physical changes that occur are merely “leaky cues” that persist because fully concealing them suppresses hormone levels in ways that compromise fertility. Behavioral shifts, by contrast, may be tied to increases in women’s sexual interests or motivation to compete with other women for desirable mates [e.g., 40].

    …I would however propose that the evolved concealment of an estrus-like state and all of the attendant behaviors that coincide with it are a behavioral mechanic with the purpose of filtering for men with a dominant Alpha capacity to “Just Get It” that a woman is in estrus and thus qualify for her sexual access either proceptively or receptively. Women’s concealed estrus is an evolved aspect of filtering for Alpha Fucks.

    I would suggest that concealment evolved with civilization, and is likely one of the first things that distinguished humans from their closest cousins, the neanderthals. A more primitive society has greater requirements for personal protection on women. This means that alpha is required a greater percentage of the time, just for the female to survive. Since only an alpha is ever needed (betas have no place in a neanderthal society), and an alpha is going to keep other men away, there’s no reason to conceal fertility.

    With the emergence of hunter gatherer and later farming tribes, openly displaying female fertility actually works against the harmony of the social structure. Now you have many males in close contact with each other, working together for mutual survival. In this situation, not all of the men can be the “alpha” of the tribe, but women have a deep-seated evolved need for “alpha”. Display of fertility works against the non-alphas, and would be selected out purely based on the fact that the tribe knows it’s survival rests on tribal harmony, and tribal harmony only exists if every man has a shot at paternity. Rather than give up the need for alpha, concealment of fertility was selected for.

    …but I’m just speculating.

  38. @ A Woman – Lol, in fact, two hundred years ago I could be much more forceful in extracting sexual congress from my wife by all kinds of coercion. I would have had many more levers of power to offset her sexual power at that time. As for betas, I believe the woman had far fewer chances to meet alphas due to population density and transportation, and there were also not nearly as many good choices for a woman to have a good sex life, so i bet betas had a much better time than they have today. I mean, she can express her sexual pluralism on her cell phone today, how is that possibly good for betas? You may be conflating SMV and betaness, because i don’t think you are talking to beta 5s. Women don’t need to bargain down to them anymore.

    But even so, you aren’t answering my central question. I’m not complaining about Beta access to sex, even if they are getting more begrudging crumbs in some instances, that wasn’t my point. Mine question was and is: Do you admit that the entire responsibility for what masculinity is in large part falls on the heads of women who exercise sexual selection in favor of the same masculine traits that feminists attack and denigrate relentlessly?

    Put more plainly, does the feminist POV deal with the fact that women control the entire fate of humanity with the power of sexual selection? How and where and when do women take responsibility for how masculinity itself has been shaped by women’s sexual selection strategies?

  39. @A Woman

    Thanks for responding. I absolutely agree that female mating strategies are shielded from men, as they have been for eternity. I don’t understand the argument that most men’s sexual choices are in fact more limited than in the past, especially outside of marriage, a frequent RP argument related to the former.

    That’s a very baffling statement. You seem to acknowledge that men display and women choose, and that that fact has been shielded from men for eternity… and yet you’re confused why men’s choices might be more limited than in the past, a past with arranged marriages?

    Arranged marriages with mistresses allowed = Male idealization
    AFBB = Female idealization

    It shouldn’t be hard to see how men never actually had a choice. It should also be easy to recognize that in the AFBB scenario, what little choice men had is totally extinguished.

  40. @A Woman, in the old order there were social checks and balances on Hypergamy by way of religion, social mores and the simple liabilities that were inherent to women who had little or no control over their becoming pregnant.

    The sexual impulse was there all along, but the social restraint was necessary to buffer women’s innate Hypergamy. In our new order of unfettered Hypergamy we’re now aware of the social implications and personal consequences of allowing women unilateral freedom in optimizing Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks.

    Your present concept of human sexuality is the result of 70+ years of having been conditioned to think of it in terms of a male perspective – “now women can fuck like men always did, Goose, Gander” but this is decidedly not in the best long term interest of women. In fact, it’s fundamentally altered the way men and women relate to one another, and it’s not limited to the sexual arena.

    From a male perspective where unlimited access to unlimited sexual availability of ideal sexual partners, women being released from Hypergamous restraint is a hedonistic godsend for the ‘right’ men (and I have personally enjoyed these benefits). However, the male sexual imperative evolved independently from the female sexual imperative.

    What’s good for male sexuality is not what’s best for the feminine.

  41. Note to Glenn. First, I edited this comment down to remove some things I said to attempt to keep it in a civil tone out of respect for this forum.

    You think you know me. You don’t. You read some things my ex-wife said when she came into the sphere on the day it was announce I was engaged to try to blow it all up for me, swell person that she is. How would you fare Glenn if your ex came in and told us her side of the story? How would anyone?

    I am not going to continue to take this bashing from you and you want to go at it then bring it. Your best tactic with me, and me with you, is for you to just ignore me, just leave my comments alone. I don’t play this domination bullying bullshit.

    You got a problem with me, and it appears you have some sort of stalker obsession, show some respect to the forum, ignore me. I’ll make a deal with you, ignore me, and I delightedly will ignore you. Leave this section to relevant comments about the information on the site, not to a personal vendetta on some grudge you may harbor.
    ————
    To others.

    I am not playing the victim. I am advocating exactly the opposite. I am advocating an aggressive response from the part of men. The language is flamboyant for a reason.

    Yes, the information the past posts is more technical, deeper, more complicated than “back in day” on Rational Male. But to me all it does it reinforce the base lessons: Genuine Desire, Female Conditional Love, Hypergamy, War Brides, Dread.

    I don’t play the victim. A man is aware that he is the man or he is not the man on the basis of what he is being told, not by listening to her words, but rather, by watching her actions. Even more, he can see whether or not he is the beta provider or the alpha stud.

    Either way, he is there because she wants something from him, needs something. And this can give him power, either way. The key being aware of that power and ready to use it.

    He gets what he wants, the behavior he demands, the sex he wishes, and when he doesn’t out comes the Dread. Dread backed by a willingness to run the relationship into the wall if necessary, dread that quietly prepares to dump her ass, mentally, financially, and emotionally. Dread based on the awareness that separation is a process that can mastered, a conscious uncoupling, Red Pill Style. Dread based on the awareness that new and different options await. Dread based on the realization that she isn’t doing you any favors staying with you, rationing the pussy like so many fruit rollups handed out by moms to 6 year olds for cleaning their plate.

    Athol Kay gives advice to men about saving marriages. I don’t. I give advice on breaking up. Let her save the marriage. If she won’t then good riddance. Divorce ain’t gonna kill you. I am sort of pro-divorce. See, you just might end up with a far better deal than the one you had before. Hypergamy goes both ways, girls. So instead of being 59 with a dried up, bitter BPD prune of a wife (Botox only does so much, girls) you just might end up far, far better off. I did. I wrote a long comment on Heartiste about Heidegger’s concept of Dwelling. And my basis, the inspiration for understanding about the “quality of dwelling” is my current situation, one that came to me as a result of divorce.

    I said it before, I am sick of this whole “Oh shit, here come the women.” fear in men. I say, “Step up and hit them in mouth”. Bitch, get right or get gone. There’s VR googles and VR porn on the horizon!! I intend to do the right thing in my marriage and I do. And after a year, that is why I am still here. She got every opportunity to look in the mirror in the morning and say “Imma do right by my man today.” If she don’t wanna, then we can go a different way. I’m all about that for sure. And the best defense against divorce is great offense for divorce. I gotz plays and trick plays. I been in that game before and I know the two minute drill.

    Kate reads this post, keep in mind. She doesn’t like reading this sort of shit from me. And it’s also like showing my cards. But so what, there is no trickery here. I am running the ball over the right tackle, stop me if you can.

    I am not falling for this whole shaming “Victim” label or any sort of white knighting when calling for a wholesale push back from men. Knowledge is power.

    And I repeat, the fundamental statement in this post is that there is an implicit dishonesty in women, one so deeply fundamental at the biological level, and I can see that it leaches out into every thing about that gender. As Schopenhauer said “They shouldn’t be allowed to swear an oath on a Bible.”

    Look at it, here we have a base dishonesty at the lowest reproductive level, one that biologically supports the dishonesty of “cuckolding”. And it is the basis of the trickle out to social dishonesty. All’s fair in hypergamy and war. The post describes this subconscious and conscious attempt of hypergamy (of which the whole concept is dishonest in its implementation), and to cloak the feminine imperative, in order to manipulate and deceive men.

    Then to take this to broader level as they attempt to create a socialized hypergamy, (really it could be and probably should referred to as a socialist hypergamy). Look at the dishonesty of “Rape Culture” “Street Harassment”, then also at the dishonesty in “Diversity” with no more than a blackmailing and an extortion of institutions to provide provisioning to them, AT THE EXPENSE OF MEN. They push politically, legally, culturally to facilitate this Socialized/Socialist Hypergamy, and to press all but the highest status men into the lowest economic, sexual, and social levels of society.

    And where does this dishonesty stop? Is there dishonesty and refusal to accept truth in Academia, in politics, in government, in the media? At what point does the bullshit end and the truth begin with these people?

    I use this story about the Bonobo group in a zoo. The females ganged up on a lower status male to deprive him of resources and life was tough for him. He suffered bitten off toes and parts of fingers. He was lonely and isolated, driven out into corners of the compound by gang attacks from females. The zoo attempted a study that involved reducing the calories of the group. And the oppression of this male got more severe. Finally, in desperation from hunger, he aggressively approached the food trough and began to fight, and fling females away from the trough, viciously attacking any female that would attempt to keep him from feeding.

    I am not the only one of people like me that are pressing for a push back. ROK is easily as radical, one article yesterday was pressing for succession from the United States for conservative areas of the nation. I read another fairly well written site, the writer is a PhD and he calls for violence. I merely call for aggression in dealing with women, in all facets, at the personal, the social, at work, in the culture.

    If you call me sexist, misogynist, hater, whatever, so what. Girls can change all this overnight. They can start being honest.

  42. @ A Woman
    I don’t understand the argument that most men’s sexual choices are in fact more limited than in the past, especially outside of marriage, a frequent RP argument related to the former.
    When I was young and dating in the early 1990s I knew I was going to get sex. That probably wouldn’t have been true in the 1890s.

    However I think a problem that beta males face isn’t a complete lack of sex as much as the reality that women don’t want them. Betas aren’t much more than economically useful farm animals. So although sex occurs it is probably infrequent and sub-par because female desire is absent. The beta male dutifully goes off to work to earn resources for his mate all the while not understanding why his sex life is dramatically below potential. What his mate won’t tell him is that she never wanted him in the first place. He is an appliance.

    I should add that many betas could fix this problem if they’d simply lose their gut, lift some weights and get some game!

  43. “Neither of these supposed reasons has EVER been experimentally demonstrated! “Good dads” definitionally are much better with children, for example. Intelligence is *negatively* preferred, for another example. Females do NOT have magic pickers, and to defend that view is White Knighting.”

    The point is, women have the pickers evolution has (so far) designed for them. Change has happened quickly enough that there’s a lot of confused, overlapping systems all running at once; you only find rational simplicity in much more stagnant species. I empathize with your desire to de-pedestalize women, but your teardown mentality isn’t a stable endstate opinion.

    High intelligence is not selected for because, until very recently, it was not needed and may have actually been a disadvantage – i.e. by overintellectualizing things that needed actions rather than thoughts. Current average intellegence was optimal, which is why it is average now.

    In the same vein, @Jeremy, I think your comment about how concealed fertility may be an adaptation to civilization – a kind of work-around to deal with the fact that now both ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ traits are good to have around – is insightful. I don’t know if it’s correct, but it does seem like the AFBB strategy is full of enough contradictions and difficulties that it represents a recent ‘patch’ over older instincts.

    And this brings us to the point of the original post – women have collectively grown bold enough through abundance to neglect their concealment instincts, but are doing so at their peril. For me, this raises a bunch of tricky questions about what is to be done; given enough abundance, the urgency of the BB side of the equation tunes way down. This is bad for civilization. So what do we do? It seems humans are primed to thrive in circumstances of moderate difficulty, and sort of wither when there is too much or too little, like muscles. We have little external difficulty these days. Creating dread and drama via game is an option, but not one most men are likely to countenance.

    What do we do when our species’ reproductive ‘pickers’ no longer have adaptive mechanisms to pick with?

    This isn’t meant to be fatalistic. I actually have some ideas, and I think that the Manosphere is a great starting ground to get this discussion rolling. Because mark my words, the chief question of this century will be what to do with a more complete, messy understanding of human nature. The question that defines our time will be, how do we balance human instincts with human progress and ideals? How do we structure a society around this?

  44. @A Woman
    “Do RP men genuinely want to return to pre FI state where male sexuality was also somewhat restricted and funneled into marriage and offspring for the good of the nuclear family and civilization?”
    There is no going back for us, and your next comment illustrates why:

    “I absolutely agree that female mating strategies are shielded from men, as they have been for eternity.”
    Over the past 40 years, feminism has removed all social constraints on hypergamy while keeping it secret from men just long enough to ensure AF/BB. Most guys didn’t catch on until they’re past 30 and have been shamed in to marrying a post-wall former CC rider who knew the game when he didn’t. Now we’re starting to catch on. That’s what TRP is.

    The previous state was that both men and women were in the dark about hypergamy, and it didn’t really matter because social and political structures were in place to keep it in check. Feminism, after gaining equal rights with men (keep in mind we were under restrictive social structures too for the benefit of society as a whole) decided women should have special rights. So they removed the social and legal restrictions on hypergamy, increased the restrictions on male polygamy, and the whole while turned the school system and even mothers in their homes in to a system of indoctrination for young boys in to facilitating AF/BB.

    The cat is being let out of the bag right now, and it ain’t going back in. We can’t go back. Society can’t un-know what it knows. It can’t undo the damage that’s been done to my generation and the generation of boys just after. It can’t undo the damage that has in turn been done to a generation of post-wall harpies who aren’t getting the BB they were promised.

    What would I change then? Stop emasculating boys to facilitate AF/BB. Period. Stop letting feminists and women decide what’s good for future men. They don’t fucking know what’s good for them. They can’t know. They’re not MEN. Change the structure of how boys are educated about hypergamy. Remove the shame about their masculinity, and let them see that masculinity itself as the direct counter to hypergamy. Quite simply, TRP is a reaction to the lopsided information boys have been fed. Socially, concepts from TRP need to be so widespread for men that it no longer has a label. It should just be shit we know as a result of being men.

    There is no putting the genie back in the bottle and going back, but we can move forward by putting men on equal footing by removing the disparity in information between the sexes. The manosphere is on the right track, it’s just a matter of getting the message out there without allowing it to be co-opted by women and feminism.

  45. “Put more plainly, does the feminist POV deal with the fact that women control the entire fate of humanity with the power of sexual selection? How and where and when do women take responsibility for how masculinity itself has been shaped by women’s sexual selection strategies?”

    Glenn nails it, predictably. In an environment very altered from our ancestral environment, it’s becoming necessary to carefully consider how we structure things. We can’t just coast on instinct, we need to take responsibility for shit. Women dominate reproduction, so they need to understand it and own it. I don’t see much willingness to do this, and I’m not sure how to elicit it. In the same way, men dominate violence in the world, so we need to figure out ways to harnass and channel this appropriately.

    The past century or so has been the most peaceful, globally per capita, in history. So, ladies. When are you gonna step up?

  46. Jeremy :- “Now you have many males in close contact with each other, working together for mutual survival”
    as in, pack-hunting neandertal/denisovan “alphas” down to their caves/brushwood lean-tos; get it right up ye, fat lad! And here’s another one for free .. oh FFS, are these his burds? Don’t fancy yours much ..

  47. “In a feminine-primary social order based on open Hypergamy, the Feminine Imperative can’t afford not to legislate a mandated cuckoldry. If Beta provider males will not comply with the insurance of a woman’s long-term security (as a result of being made aware of his place in Open Hypergamy) then he must be forced to comply either legally, socially or both. The old order exchange of resources for sexual access and a reasonable assurance of his paternity is replaced by a socialized form of cuckoldry.”

    Look at this: a legislated (by God) timetable for when a husband is allowed by the tribal/national law (of Moses) to lie carnally (intercourse) with his wife. If this timetable were followed, a man would begin to lie with his wife about the time of her peak fertility.

    15:19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be
    blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her
    shall be unclean until the even.

    15:28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to
    herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.

    18:19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her
    nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.

    20:18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and
    shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she
    hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be
    cut off from among their people.

  48. GREAT point being made here. Ladies, you’re unhappy with today’s man? You fucking chose our dads. You have to choose better. Police your sisters! You have to take SOME responsibility for the “patriarchy” you brought into existence.

    Paternity fraud around 5%? Hmmm, MAOA-2r is around that in some demographics. It’s a statistically significant 1% in the largest demographic. Look it up.

    MAOA-3r has also been shown to correlate with antisocial behaviour, when childhood conditions are found lacking (abuse/neglect). I’d argue the abuse is increasingly codified institutionally, and the lack of a strong, benevolent male role model in most households is neglect enough.

    Whaddaya expect, ladies?

    Gents, get your kids DNA tested, and FFS let’s DRAW THE BATTLE LINES IN THE SAND LEGALLY around it. Any man cuckolded in his own marriage should have a clear path out!

    It’s so easy for a relatively small number of not particularly intelligent people to fuck up something that it took a very many more intelligent, responsible people to build.

    Gotta figure out an antifragility doctrine.

  49. So a menopausal woman on HRT perhaps responds to different game style than an estrogen depleted menopausal woman?

    “…the rewards (the intermittent reinforcement) simply aren’t worth the investment with women who blithely express their expectations of them to assume the role they would have them play in their sexual strategies.”

    A way to adapt to this besides MGTOW is simply to play the role they want instead of assuming it. If it becomes time to bail and you want to avoid a hypergamy frustration rape accusation, just claim to have realized that you’re gay. It’s fashionable these days.

  50. OH yeah, funny thing about the MAOA gene… it influences male behaviour disproportionately because it’s on the X chromosome, and we only have one of those.

    That’s right: in men, it only comes from the mother. Happy googling

  51. zdr01dz – “However I think a problem that beta males face isn’t a complete lack of sex as much as the reality that women don’t want them.”

    Bingo!

    Sex is not impossible to obtain. Good sex can be purchased. And purchased sex is every bit as special and meaningful as the “free” variety that a beta can obtain. The unwanted beta has no incentive to seek a relationship that requires his total commitment. In this open hypergamy system commitment only flows one way. And men being the sex that makes commitments, rather than being the recipients of them, will find other more personally rewarding things to commit to.

    There is nothing a woman can do for a man that can’t be sub-contracted other than forming and creating a family which modern women really don’t seem all that interested in beyond collecting the merit badges associated with it. Meaningless sex, while mostly fun, does not mitigate for the loss of status and social value that came with being a family man and good citizen.

  52. @ Minter – I shit out a turd more consequential than you this morning. You have no power to shut me up here – none at all. And I don’t believe a fucking thing you say because you are a well documented liar. Oops – I’m sorry, is reality a fucking inconvenience for you?

  53. Glenn,

    Go back to the previous thread and check the stuff I posted. It might change your mind about me calling them Nazis. Or not.

    Re: Minter. Just how disgusting can a guy get? You’d almost think he takes it personal. As if F=ma is an insult.

  54. Minter asks:

    the comments where the guys are asking “What can I do then?” “How is it possible to have a constructive relationship?”

    OK Minter. One thing is to learn dominance/Game. That raises your SMV.

    And then there is the political program:

    No more playing “Hide the Daddy”. (DNA testing)
    Divorce is ALWAYS someones fault.

  55. the nuclear family

    The brother in law was a Naval Nuke. I was a Naval Nuke. Thus I have a nuclear family. The first mate was attracted to me in part because of that. I was attracted to her in part because of that.

  56. Rollo,

    Women will only be able to party with the Genie for so long before men come to realize the shit sandwich women are openly telling them they’re feeding them.

    That is why I keep telling men that despite their disinclination they must get political.

    No more playing “Hide the Daddy”. (DNA testing)
    Divorce is ALWAYS someones fault.

    Will it totally redress the balance? Hell no. But it is a start.

  57. Beta Bucks Enforcement, UK style. Introduced by a “conservative” government.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30532087

    “A new domestic abuse offence for “coercive and controlling behaviour” within relationships has been announced by the home secretary. Theresa May said domestic abuse by intimate partners or family members was a “hideous” crime that shattered lives. She said she hoped the new law would protect victims from extreme psychological and emotional abuse.

    The maximum penalty for the new offence in England and Wales will be five years in prison and a fine.

    Coercive and controlling behaviour can include the abuser preventing their victim from having friendships or hobbies, refusing them access to money

  58. Glenn,

    Do you admit that the entire responsibility for what masculinity is in large part falls on the heads of women who exercise sexual selection in favor of the same masculine traits that feminists attack and denigrate relentlessly?

    Put more plainly, does the feminist POV deal with the fact that women control the entire fate of humanity with the power of sexual selection? How and where and when do women take responsibility for how masculinity itself has been shaped by women’s sexual selection strategies?

    Good question(s). If they want more betas why don’t they counter their sexual preferences? You often hear the SJW lament: “I hate it, but I’m not attracted to nice guys.”

  59. M. Simon – “You often hear the SJW lament: ‘I hate it, but I’m not attracted to nice guys.'”

    Fair enough. I’m not attracted to SJWs except as targets for my aggression and anger.

  60. Minter

    I say, “Step up and hit them in mouth”. Bitch, get right or get gone.

    You sir are a truly vile creature. That kind of violence sets a very bad example for the children. Very bad. And can land you in stir for a nice long stretch.

    If the only way you can dominate is violence – you got nothin’. Less than nothin’.

  61. Mark Minter
    December 18th, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    Dude. You are so in love with her it hurts. Even from here.

    And you don’t hurt them at all by striking back. Complaining. Proving your dominance over her or any of that other shite.

    You want to hurt a woman? Be indifferent.

  62. Then to take this to broader level as they attempt to create a socialized hypergamy…

    Dude. Dude. Dude. It is already created. All they are doing is trying to strengthen it.

    You are so beta it pains. Jeeze.

    You have been so thoroughly outsmarted it hurts. If you want to do something consider a political program because that is where they have totally whipped your azz and you don’t even notice.

    No more playing “Hide the Daddy”. (DNA testing)
    Divorce is ALWAYS someones fault.

  63. Lets try that last one again:

    Then to take this to broader level as they attempt to create a socialized hypergamy…

    Dude. Dude. Dude. It is already created. All they are doing is trying to strengthen it.

    You are so beta it pains. Jeeze.

    You have been so thoroughly outsmarted it hurts. If you want to do something consider a political program because that is where they have totally whipped your azz and you don’t even notice.

    No more playing “Hide the Daddy”. (DNA testing)
    Divorce is ALWAYS someones fault.

  64. @Woman- The entire premise of your questions reveal much about women. In your mind, men should be happy because they get more sex now. End of story- the rest is all a mystery. And why shouldn’t it be, to you? You’ve been conditioned to think that all men are walking penises (peni?) who are happy so long as their dicks are wet.
    What you miss with your question, and what you reveal about the female nature is this- Men are built for much more than women can even appreciate or comprehend. This is why men have made the greatest discoveries, have invented the greatest systems of thought and why men have built great civilizations- because men are much more. Men see and value meaning, depth, beauty… men gladly sacrifice their lives for these things. So you ask why men are not more happy.
    You ask that because your mind and your nature is satisfied with the quick, the easy and the shiny. Your pussy gets wet, it filled, you are surrounded by “stuff” and be honest- for women that is enough. When the baubles are no longer as shiny or entertaining, just buy another cheap, easy shiny bauble and you’re back to happiness. How could you understand men, what we want and what we truly crave?
    Men deplore the modern state- even those of us successfully getting our dick wet on the regular- because it is ugly, lacks meaning and has no depth. I disagree that sex was worse before- I think it was probably more passionate and exciting because it was treated as something of significance, not like wiping your as after a shit, like it is today. But even so, why would men complain? besides the excellent responses so far, it’s also because men a deeper side to them and that women “just don’t get it”.
    Unlike women, men need more than just the immediate and cheap gratification- although we enjoy that as well. Men idealize everything- Beauty, friendships, spirituality, fuck, even things like math and games like poker and chess.. men see them as deeper experiences, as art, as truth.
    Men see the modern relationship and see degraded shit- used up women who serve as dickholders and nothing more, as opposed to the beauty of femininity, Men see family rendered meaningless and lament the loss of something grand and enduring through the ages, from past to future. Men see children, from something to invest, protect and guide into a future of infinite possibilities, now reduced to a simple status marker for women and a regular check at the end of the month and thinks it’s a criminal affront to the beauty of lineage that survived from the first amoeba all the way to the present.
    Women have destroyed family, fatherhood, relationships, stability, civilization and culture, have debased timeless philosophies and eons of evolved intricate structures, and you, as women, can only wonder why men are unhappy since their dicks are getting wet more often. Yours is the saddest question ever posted on here.

  65. Seems like every time things devolve here into a pissy insult match, Glenn is right there. I’ve commented on here for months without insult. Well, except for Glenn… and here he is at it again.
    It’s a shame, he has great things to offer, unfortunately it comes in this way of arguing and insulting. He thinks its alpha, but its just like a woman, all personal drama and he centers himself right in the middle.

  66. It’s completely fucked and confusing since the whole swallowing red pill and my first shitty break up.

    Even with the very cute, innocent, somewhat religious nice girls I get suspicions that crowd me from LTR now. It’s horrible. Because you wouldn’t expect these nice good girls to be like some of the dirty hoes, but they all have the same instinctual framework…. I say this because a lot of the time I try to tell myself “oh no the guys on the manosphere blogs are just talking about the dirty tatted hoes” but that probably isn’t the case (I hope at least). I’m a pretty average normal high status guys so I go for valuable girls.

    It’s exhausting analyzing it all I do know that.

    I would love to hear @rollo talk about his beta/alpha dynamics with his current wife pre-marriage/kid.

    Like how much did she scratch and claw to be with you?

  67. Hobbes
    December 18th, 2014 at 7:41 pm

    I don’t know if Glenn insulted you but I gotta say. Minter is painful.

    ===========

    Re your list. Don’t leave out man the engineer. Man the builder. Man the tamer of the forces of nature. Every time I engage in that kind of work I get a thrill that females can’t even comprehend.

    Will
    December 18th, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    They are all like that.

  68. @Will- it’s not so much the women, although they bear the responsibility for their actions, but it’s the society that accepts and promotes her hypergamy that you really need to be wary of.
    There are no easy answers. You have to decide for yourself what path, and how to walk it. I you decide on an LTR, will it be marriage? will it be simply ltr without the added burden of marraige, kids? if so, be aware that that choice means mastering game, maintaining frame at all costs, and knowing that it can all change despite your best efforts. You can minimize the risks through Game, financial planning etc… but you have to go in with your eyes wide open.
    If you decide it just sin’t worth it then that involves choices as well- you have to get your game tight to get laid regularly, you have to embrace yourself and develop long term goals and ideals that will take the place that a family/ltr would have taken. etc…
    Learn to deal with fears of loneliness and emptiness. Learn to deal with your insecurities- these things will lead you to make emotional/scared decisions that will sabotage your best efforts.

    It’s up to you, just be aware and make them conscious choices,

  69. @ will
    If a girl wants you there is nothing ambiguous about it. She’ll get in your space, make time for you, tell you sweet things, etc. etc. That’s the kind of woman you want. If you’re doing all of the work she isn’t really interested. In her eyes you’re an expendable beta caught up in her web. Spend your time on your career/business and move up in the world. Staying skinny doesn’t hurt either. Attractive women will compete for your attention and it feels good. Ten years from now you’ll run into this nice religious girl and 9 chances in 10 she’ll be fat. 1 chance in 2 she’ll be divorced and desperate. My life experience says forget her and work on improving yourself.

  70. @M Simon- Glenn went at me once, but it’s the general idea of it. I’m not saying we should all sing kumbaya, but petty insults suck. One of the things I love about this space is how much there is to learn and the higher form of dialogue that exists here. Personal petty stuff drags it down. I know who Minter is, and I am aware of some peoples feelings towards him. I, myself, don’t care about all that. He has a valuable perspective and manages to express it well- whether I agree or disagree hardly matters, it’s food for thought.
    Glenn, btw, is great too. I like what he writes and read it as well. But petty insults are petty insults. I’ll call em as I see em.

  71. Hobbes @ December 18th, 2014 at 7:34 pm

    Thank you for this comment, Hobbes. Something like this has been, to use another Matrix phrase, a splinter in my mind for a while. I’m not sure if I can gender it completely, but it is certainly true that men try to go beyond the physical and emotional impulses more often. In dealing with women, there is always something you cannot seem to express yourself about, something centrally important yet ineffable. And I’ve not been able to find a single woman truly interested in it. I have very intelligent female relatives, and they hemm and haw about it, avoid talking about idealism when they can. Maybe it’s a silly illusion, though I think not; but even if so, it definitely stands as a thing men experience that women simply have little or no access to.

  72. I’m a fan of masculine anger, indignation. It expresses the very opposite of PC understandings of the world, says which is not convenient about things. I think Glenn’s anger is, overall, an asset. He expresses a lot that needs to be said through it. But I am leery of these random vendettas; after a while they seem more like censorship than real thought. Let’s hear more Glenn, less “Don’t listen to Mark Minter.” No-one is perfect, and even a crooked stick can hit a straight ball. Many men read these comments, and they need to hear how to be a man, not how to defame someone. Glenn, you’ve helped me a lot. I need your strength, not your vitriol.

  73. @ A Woman and Glenn: “Lol, in fact, two hundred years ago I could be much more forceful in extracting sexual congress from my wife by all kinds of coercion”

    There would be no ‘coercion.’ Women gave it up when the husband wanted. That was how ALMOST EVERY SOCIETY IN HUMAN HISTORY worked until about 1964. That was the entire purpose of marriage from the man’s point of view.

    @mintner: “It is fundamental in their makeup that they lie. It is fundamental to cheat the beta out of resources. Fundamental that they conceal fertility to use it when they desire.”

    Women are programmed in every cell in their body to lie, right down to the little hidden ovulation trick that their bodies throw out while they [see nothing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwcBaG-S7UA).

    Thus this misplaced: “Girls can change all this overnight. They can start being honest.”

    Mintner, you KNOW that they won’t. Girls can change overnight IF a MAN makes them but stop lying? Didn’t somebody just say that lying is fundamental? Also, I understand your point about getting physical with women because that was normal until the 1960’s. I show pics of men disciplining and spanking their wives from advertisements in magazines from the 1950’s. This was normal for all of human history but we are SMART AND CIVILIZED now so don’t question the orthodoxy. All you have is “Dread” and if you think about exercising actual Dread then she gets 1/2 of everything, plus 80% of your remaining check for child support. Think how different our lives would be if we could throw our wife over our knee and give her a good drubbing? But even when she acts like a bratty child the White Knights come out in force at the mere suggestion of physical discipline.

    For both Glen and Mintner, how bout you both get a room and hate-fuck each other. There is obviously an underlying attraction.

    @Hobbes- You are channeling your handle my friend. Holy Moses that was a post for the ages:

    “Men see the modern relationship and see degraded shit- used up women who serve as dickholders and nothing more, as opposed to the beauty of femininity, Men see family rendered meaningless and lament the loss of something grand and enduring through the ages, from past to future. Men see children, from something to invest, protect and guide into a future of infinite possibilities, now reduced to a simple status marker for women and a regular check at the end of the month and thinks it’s a criminal affront to the beauty of lineage that survived from the first amoeba all the way to the present.
    Women have destroyed family, fatherhood, relationships, stability, civilization and culture, have debased timeless philosophies and eons of evolved intricate structures, and you, as women, can only wonder why men are unhappy since their dicks are getting wet more often. “

  74. @zdr01zd

    I completely agree with that post.

    BUT then why would girls be down to kick it and hang with you once you’ve been fucking them. Like they KNOW they will get fucked and they hang with you still.

    That in my mind shows interest.

    But then it’s like, if I’m not hitting her up then we don’t talk for daysssss.

    It doesn’t make sense, idk how to handle it if I’m looking for a good high smv girl

  75. Basically, in my 20s, I’ve never seen a girl go sooooo out of her way long term for a guy. Even out of my 30+ friends from a big college.

    It’s probably because they’re in college. But still I’ve never seen a girl straight out chase one guy. Maybe for like the first month of courting but that’s it. After that it’s the guy that seems to have to plan everything and initiate texts etc

  76. You probably don’t remember me, because I don’t have my Cat Woman Avatar right now. I thought the Christian Manosphere was going to be the shit. I was wrong. It’s not. Burn it. Burn it with fire.

    Here’s a recent meltdown that I had on a Christan Blogger’s blog. I can’t deal with the insufferable people. It’s overrun by strong crazy women. Please destroy.

    Okay, so we hit it off, FBNF gets jealous, FBNF moves in bends things to make it look like she’s this submissive person while undermining whatever I have say. Now she’s nice for once, and this is the first place I check, because I wasn’t born yesterday. Seen it 1000x.

    I was about to leave the faith when I met you. The only reason I didn’t was because you happen to be part of a miracle by the grace of God. That was specifically the sign I needed: a tangible demonstration that God existed before I left the faith.

    You know why I was going to leave the faith? Because I was surrounded by shallow Christians who act like you two are acting. Any time I was nice to someone, they’d find a way to make me look bad. Any time I gave a guy a real shot, he’d go off with some other girl.

    You’re so weak. Catholicism is so different from the Charismatic background that you come from. You don’t even have any resolve. You’re going to convert because someone who’s “feminine” is up-selling her belief-system. I already know you’re going to do it eventually.

    There’s nothing more beta than changing your entire beliefs system for a woman. You’ll never see me doing that for a man. I can respect God. I don’t know why God always puts me in situations like these time after time. I can’t deal with fakeness and I can’t be quiet about it. I hope everyone gets a chance to read this. People can say that I’m crazy, but I came from outright nearly denying my faith. DS told me his story. I’m never moved by testimonies, because they’re never moving, but when someone has a prophetic dream about you, okay, I’m sold.

    I told him to stop his very sexual flirting with me while he was witnessing, but he said that there was no where in the Bible that said that you can’t do that. Then after I’m converted, he stops. He finally listens to my hounding him to please stop. And then he does this thing where he talks to me like I’m some little kid and gives me all of these Bible lessons for months on end. I’m 25-26, okay? Don’t go wasting my time. But then he throws a bunch of bum reasons as to why it couldn’t work out, all of them insulting to my worth as a person, not to mention hypocritical. He was at the same exact spot that I was two years ago (hey, probably worse, based on the situation), and now he’s saying that I’m not “spiritually mature enough”. He’s two years older than me, by the way. We met on the same blog that we both found the manosphere.

    I try talking to him about this stuff, and it’s just an afterthought to him. I bring it up time and time again: if it’s not going to work out, why do you keep hitting me with half-interest? Imagine if this was you. Imagine you were depressed, about to leave your faith, and all of this happens to you. You’re emotionally vulnerable, and someone dismisses it as “well, I must be a charmer.” But he stubbornly just keeps up with the whole “I make mistakes too” but blame it on me attitude. I was honest the entire time about how I felt. I was vulnerable. He wasn’t. He wanted to keep the upper-hand. How am I supposed to react to this? Dishonest.

    I’m sure FBNF is very happy that I’m upset right now, because it casts an angelic light of self-composition upon her brow. I’m sure DS is going to use this as an example about why I’m such a horrible option to begin with. Let’s just all of us talk in the open about what’s actually going-on. No more he said she said.

    I. Don’t. Ever.:

    -Publicly shame a guy who rejected me (or in this case, rejected after pleading; I couldn’t shake him and his lukewarmness off). Ever. However, the constant, selfishness here, the self-righteousness (um, where do I begin), the Generic Christian Crap, going through what I went through on top of dealing with this guy, and having gone through this for years with other guys, and I’ve had it. Don’t treat me this way and expect no repercussions. I’ve bitten my lip for years. Your identity series is absolutely right. I need more self-respect. I need to look out for my own interests more often. I need to not buy into the bull that everything’s always my fault. I need to stick to my guns. For better or for worse, if I assume foul-play, it’s very likely to be there.

    -Give a flying… feather about other women. This would cheapen my value. I just act like I don’t care. But in this case, girl, you just snuck in here with your soft feminism and won the day. DS thinks you’re the bee’s knees. You think he’s alpha. You’ll probably both do fine with your excessive amounts of self-righteousness. Everyone at church will be so proud of your missionary dating skills, and they’ll finally stop ignoring you. And you’ll live the Catholic dream. And you’ll get to wear a cool head-thingy, and your dad will feel badly that he ever talked about your cousin and caused you to feel bad, but more importantly, because you don’t really care about your dad, your ex-fiance, who you probably ran bases with anyway, will feel this pang of sadness at your vindictive pleasure. You’ll get to prove how wonderful your life is without him; why, someone would change faiths for you. If he’d only had been nice to you, you’d have made the best wife ever. No. No, he rejected you, because you’re a manipulative person. A classic, Texan GCB whose poop don’t stank. You have a personality issue. Maybe he does too. Like attracts like.

    Another guy I liked converted to Catholicism because a girl he liked was Catholic. She was very similar to me. Looked similar, similar personality, similar interests, etc. Guess who wears the pants? Not him! Lol. You two are going to make a lovely feminist couple.

    Predictions:

    -First-off, FBNF will concern troll me.

    -DS will make himself look like he’s above it all. After six months of knowing him as a friend (read: after we had the whole, “yeah, this probably won’t work out” convo but were still talking on a very personal level), he never commented on my blog, even though I’ve commented on his shit before. Thank you for your help.

    -Another thing he might try to do is point-out what a bad choice in mate I’ve shown myself to be for anyone, because I “can’t resolve conflict.” Resolve conflict? You can only get so far talking to a rock. I’ve had it. It’s not conflict. This is stupid. You’re in the past. You just can’t act like this. The line ends here.

    -FBNF will be aghast, sad, reach-out for male support, etc. Her clueless male-following will come to her rescue against my… “attack”… which is actually more like an honest response to attack, but whatever. She’ll troll for more views by writing an open letter on her page against my terrible, not very nice self. People will claim that she’s really actually honest, because she said something about “not seeing why other women preselect” and like defenses, and that her vapid blogs about general manosphere sentiment are somehow helping. They will defend, to the death, their position that what they see in a woman is what they get in a woman, and if a woman were ever to use manipulation to get her way, she wouldn’t do it while pretending to not want control in any number of social situations, including relationships.

    -There will be a massive grave dance in my honor.

    -In nursing FBNF’s ouched-feelings (for a slap in the face she’s been frankly needing for months), he’ll grow inseparably attached to her, fly out to Texas to meet her, realize that this whole time the Holy Spirit’s been urging him toward Catholicism, because he’s not attracted to someone who believes what he believes + I’m a meanie, not the one + other options are at this point eliminated in real life, cuz oneitis = FBNF is his destiny. They will have a huge family, which unites a family way better than silly old essentials in the faith doctrine anyway. They’ll rub their cheesiness in other people’s faces, causing said other people to leave Christianity.

    -A bunch of people will express trollish concern about my mental health, because some guy was a total beta asshole to me and I actually did indeed react. So surprising.

    -Maybe one person would read my entire post and conclude “Yep. I can see why this person is upset. Seems normal.”

    -A ton of people will express outrage that I dare go against protocol and say what’s actually going on with people in a way that is not “nice”, Christian Kosher, or Manosphere Friendly. Maybe if I read another Bible verse, and just sat back let people keep screwing me over, I’d learn a lesson like patience or something…

    -People will be aghast that I insulted a woman, especially one with a very feminine pink vagina flower icon thingy with clitoral pearls. What’s more Christian Kosher than an “accidental” Freudian slip here and there?

    -People will try to use this as an opportunity to make it look like I’m lying about something probably unrelated to the actual post.

    -People will say I’m butthurt about the incident. They will be right: I am very butthurt right now, thanks to one asshole and one preselecting Mandy Moore bitch who can’t stick to her own religion.

    -Women will shamelessly try to correct my harsh language, because that’s the Manosphere.

    -Men will tell me that I’m not being feminine, yet have very dumb ideas with how a women should actually deal with this situation. Even though I already tried very nicely in private over the period of a few months. They will again return to their Christian Apex Fallacy of, “Well, if you’re feminine, Godly, and cute, you will have no problems.”

    -Someone will accuse me of all of the things I accused FBNF of. Because Fallacy of Fairness.

    -I will be compared to Sunshine Mary. Even though I exposed zero documents. Even though I did not threaten to call child corrective services. Even though… everything. One guy will insist that I’m like Sunshine Mary. I’ll be blamed for the problem of every feminism in the manosphere. All because one guy was a loser to me and some other broad with a mug got jealous.

    -One or two people will read through what I wrote and give what I’m saying a shot. To these people: don’t hang out in the Christian Manosphere. It’s stupid. It’s beta. It’s primarily composed of women, and then good old boys. It’s just like any stupid, insufferable yocal church you’ve ever been to. It will teach you how to realize your inner… same old guy and become the same old guy you ever were. You’ll learn to do generic things, like marry outside of the faith and get turned-down by people who are in your faith. All under the soothing pretense of bad religiose instruction.

    ****Well, my time here has clearly ended. Let no one say that I find this place worthy of a blog to rewrite. Let not a person conclude that I wish to draw the attention of what men the manosphere has to offer. This would be illogical, because my Id despises the Beta male, and is telling me to GTFO. Let there be no one to say that I’m trying to gain fans and friends: I’m done. Things won’t change around these parts.

    Bye, then.

  77. A Woman contradicts herself, no surprise. “What I don’t understand in all this is the frequent assertion that beta men have less access to sex in today’s feminist, hypergamous world. I’m referring to sex outside of marriage, where betas are undeniably shafted.”

    Her pretend question boils down to denying the undeniable.

    For her information, yes it is much worse to be a beta man now than ever before.

  78. There has been a recent increase on blog posts concerning the effects of the menstrual cycle in women. I wonder however of this is relevant in todays Western world at all. I cannot speak for America but the vast majority of sexually active women here in Germany is on the pill 24/7/365 anyway (just skipping the week the menstruation itself occurs) no matter if they are in a relationship, fucking around or waiting for Mr Big. I therefore never noticed any change in the sexual appetite of my partners at all – which renders all these discussions about the cycle mostly scientific.

  79. Will
    December 19th, 2014 at 12:44 am

    My OL has two personalities – Nell from Dudley Do Right (My Hero) and your standard issue c*nt. My job is to – by dominance – spend most of my time with Nell. And I do. But that means cutting her off about 1/2 the time. Frees up time for more engineering.

  80. There’s nothing more beta than changing your entire beliefs system for a woman.

    I made my OL change her religion for me. Heh. She got the whole 9 yards mikvah and all. She is a mainstay at the temple.

  81. Not trying to troll…and I found this blog like a day ago and have read a bunch of articles/comments, but Love exists right? I mean two people who just immediately and without bullshit dig each other? Maybe it’s rare but it exists right?

  82. “”Love exists right? I mean two people who just immediately and without bullshit dig each other? Maybe it’s rare but it exists right?”

    It can happen. I think I’ve seen it happen. But mutuality is temporal and needs maintenance. Also, it’s not the everyman story it’s sold as.

  83. @ Will
    Her behavior sounds like it might be erratic. That makes prediction difficult and an LTR impossible. I know I might be in the minority but I’m in favor of LTRs. Find one good woman with a high SMV and stick with her for life. If it takes you 10 years to find a good woman it is worth the wait. Each year you wait your SMV goes up and good women become easier to attract.

  84. @hobbes thanks for responding. All in all, I don’t disagree with you. It’s tragic that feminist choices directly created generations of men for whom marriage and family aren’t a source of joy, social status or even prestige, but a source of burden, humiliation, and theft. And it’s equally tragic that women don’t see how their feminist sexual choices affect men’s decisions, when they decry the lack of marriageable men. As a mother of a young daughter, how I wish that my husband and I could direct her hypergamy toward a good man at the peak of her SMV and into a sexually constructive relationship–marriage–instead of seeing her go off into AF/BB world.

    As to my question, I don’t doubt that I don’t get it. The blue pill may see men as walking penises, but puts male sexuality on the backburner to serve the female, or to “wait for it.” When I started reading RP blogs, I was shocked my how they prioritized male sexuality and the vital role of sex in the male experience–which is the source of my question.

Speak your mind

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s