Mutiny

mutiny35bounty4121

There are times I’m typing away on a particular topic and I get scooped by my own comentariat.

Quote from BadPainter (emphasis mine):

George – “She prefers a dual pluralistic feminine sexuality where she can express and enjoy greater sexual freedom and an artificial feeling of control and dominance.”

Because giving herself sexually to a man who is a provider either makes her a whore (trading sex for material goods), or a slave (giving up power to submit to a dominant man). By chasing Alpha Fux she can submit in that moment and maintain the illusion of independence. By accepting commitment from Beta Bux she gets the very highest price for her sex and can aintain the illusion that’s she is not a whore. Combining the two, Alpha Fux and Beta Bux means accepting a submissive position to a man who provides with an expectation of sex.

This is antithetical to entire feminist paradigm of equality with, and independence from, men. To achieve this ultimate feminist goal women achieve equality, and equality of outcome by political policy, and they achieve independence by becoming lesbians.

George’s response:

Well put, agreed. I wonder how many women really are successful with this plural hypergamy and how many really aren’t. We are seeing many media examples of this and examples of young girls in traditionally masculine leadership fantasy roles (hunger games, etc.). However, I personally know very few real females who are successful with “open hypergamy” and none who characterize real leadership traits. The ones attempting to practice this plural hypergamy expose themselves as the untrustworthy sluts they are, divorced, etc and no man worth a shit wants anything to do with them. They end up extremely insecure bitter hags in short order.

Again BadPainter:

George – “They end up extremely insecure bitter hags in short order.”

This seems to be the case amongst all women who hold to the feminist notion of equalitarian relationships. And I think generates similar results amongst women who don’t actively subscribe to feminism but willingly accept the benefits of feminism. And I think it’s the career track reality that does it.

A woman working outside the home must submit to the hierarchy of the work place. The workplace is the Alpha of her existance because it can and will dispose of her as soon as she is unwanted/not needed. The workplace is dread writ large. When she goes home she can’t as easily submit to her beta husband because she knows he can’t and won’t dispose of her so easily, especially if there are children involved. This is a source of disrespect, she gets away with it because she can. She resists because she has been playing that submision game all day and refuses to simply give in at home.

Likewise a man having to walk the tightrope of workplace politics being both a good follower and showing initiative, and leadership irrespective of rank and position, has little desire to fight those same battles at home. So he gives in out of exhaustion what he wants is a moments peace where his way is the only way because he’s the king of his own castle at least in his own mind.

Both man and woman are ultimately played against each other in this situation. The woman is more resistant to submit, the man more reluctant to dominate because he now has to be more dominant than the woman’s work place without the benefit hard dread sans consequences.  In the past the practiced amount of domestic dominance required would be reduced or mitigated by the economic reality of the woman’s dependence on the man for her material standard of living. Not so today when divorce law favors the woman, and domestic violence laws, and standards for defining abuse only apply to men. Today those influences plus the nuttiness of feminism makes a challenging situation worse as the the gender roles are now competitive instead of complimentary and collaborative

I realize I may raise a few hackles with today’s post. And while I wont apologize for what I’m going to propose here, just know that my intent isn’t to offend or injure, but rather to strip away a degree of what I think is a very pleasant, but sugar coated fiction.

Whenever I read or hear a man consistently refer to his wife as his “bride” it alerts me to his Blue Pill state of mind as well as his conditioning. This is a relatively new colloquialism for the Christian set (“christianese”). Generally I hear and read this from Evangelical Christian men because their context (or domain) is one of a self-enforced reverence for their wives. Usually it’s meant to be a not-so-veiled attempt at pedestalizing their wives in casual conversation with people they think will appreciate it (and hopefully earn cookie points with the wife), but what it reveals in my Red Pill lens is a guy who believes his “voluntary” deference to her makes him more respectable to her.

Before you think I’m unfairly highlighting “Christian Beta Game” there is a similar, but more pervasive dynamic in the married-man set of the manosphere. Whenever I read a man (I’ve never heard a guy verbalize this) refer to his wife as the “First Mate” or “First Officer” it similarly sets off the same sensitivity I get with the “brides” men – and for much of the same reasons.

Any man with a cursory experience in the manosphere recognizes this buzz-term from Athol Kay’s Married Man Sex Life. The principle of the term stems from the idea that a husband needs to be the ‘captain’ of his marriage, his family and the director and decision maker of where that unit will go, what their goals are, etc. On the face of it, this male headship positioning stresses what men (and wives) interpret as an old-order conventional complementarity between the sexes.

A strong male leadership role is very appealing to both men and women, and I’ll be the first to cosign the need for a man’s ‘captaincy’ as it were in his marriage and his life in general. This ‘Manning Up’ into a headship of his relationship hits the right buttons for a man predisposed to Beta complacency (not to mention it gives him a faint hope for resolving a sexless marriage), but also for women who are encouraged by the ‘new’ Alpha-ish husband they hope will take the lead (usually from her) and potentially generate the tingles he’s never quite been able to do for her.

Unfortunately, this push for ‘captaincy’ is self-defeated by the equalist-mindset compromise of allaying a woman’s inherent insecurities by giving her assurances that she will be the “first mate” in this new arrangement. Even in a position of instated headship (relinquished or otherwise), men predisposed to an egalitarian equalism still want to ‘play fair’ and offer an appeasement for being allowed to be the head of the home.

Her voice will be heard, her input will be considered, because he just “loves her that much”; this is the self-satisfying rationale for being allowed to direct the course of his marriage and family. The problems inherent in this are rooted in the compromise of his assuming all accountability for the failures of that arrangement while still granting her his magnanimous assurances that he’ll always have her best interests in mind.

Father Knows Best

I overheard a young woman explain what amounted to open Hypergamy to a Beta kid I know over the holiday. At one point she said, “It’s women’s job to get away with everything they can in life.”

Then the kid asks, “So what is men’s job to do in life?”, “Not to let ’em” was her reply.

I’ve always stressed that the Frame in which you begin a relationship will set the overall tone of that relationship. That’s not to say the predominant Frame can’t be altered (indeed many men fall victim to their own Beta backsliding in marriage), but that tone, that predominant directorship of who’s Frame will set the course for where it goes and how it develops is set before you sign on to monogamy in its various forms. It is either your reality into which a woman must enter, or hers that you must enter. Their may be compromises, but these will be colored and characterized by whose Frame is the dominant one in the relationship.

Know this now, your wife, your LTR girlfriend, doesn’t want to be your “First Mate”.

While you may think you’re flattering her with your self-styled magnanimity, this compromise only reflects your Blue Pill equalist hope that she will genuinely appreciate the sacrifices you make in considering her Frame. The dominant Frame (hopefully yours) is what matters. While a wife’s input may present you with insight you may have overlooked, she must ultimately acquiesce to your Frame’s primacy.

When you consider her a co-equal actor in what you believe is a mutual Frame (or what you’ve convinced yourself is really your Frame to maintain that relationship) you will own your mistakes and failures, but she will share in, and at times take an equal credit for, your successes.

There’s a reason that the cliché is “Behind every great man is a woman” and not the other way around. Any man claiming a supportive responsibility for a woman’s success – or even being graciously acknowledged by her for it – is perceived as a coattail rider. When it comes to a comparison between Sensitive New Age Guy® and Strong Independent Woman®, a woman is always a support system for a man’s success. Men’s genuine support is emasculating because ‘support’ is a feminine role in either an egalitarian or a complementarian relationship.

Down with the Ship

While it may be comforting for a woman to believe her opinion is valued, or that what passes for her newfound submission to his direction is guaranteed by his considerateness, very few  ‘first mates’ are willing to go down with the ship once it starts taking on enough water. The ‘first mate’ notion is really a win-win situation for women who are already virtually guaranteed of long term support whether her ‘captain’ sinks the ship or not. With so many reassurances of social, emotional and financial support women can always reserve the right to jump ship should her husband’s fates and fortunes not live up to his headship.

When she goes home she can’t as easily submit to her beta husband because she knows he can’t and won’t dispose of her so easily, especially if there are children involved. This is a source of disrespect, she gets away with it because she can. She resists because she has been playing that submision game all day and refuses to simply give in at home.

In other words, the ‘captain’ is really on his own regardless of his ‘first mate’s’ input.

She’s absolved of his failures and shares in his successes – which are made all the better when he convinces himself that the directives of her Frame are really his own. Any consideration for real mutual input will always be mitigated by this foreknowledge of a relatively ensured support should he not live up to the performance demanded of a ‘captain’.

Forgetthesky from last week’s comment thread:

I think George and Badpainter bring forward an interesting hypothesis above: the idea that women are pursuing an AF/BB strategy so relentlessly not only because a man to exemplify both sides are so rare (though they are unusual), but because women would generally avoid such a man – because she would have no power over him, he would command all spheres. And modern women fear submission greatly, they’ve been trained to. And they’ve often enough never experienced it positively, with so many absent and beta father’s around.

A Man needs to command all spheres to genuinely be the ‘captain’, and ultimately this disqualifies any validity of his woman’s considered influence on him.

The idea of a needed balance of including a wife or LTR in a man’s decision making process is not just the result of an equalitarian mindset, it also serves the Feminine Imperative. While equalism is the root belief, the notion of a mutual (though nominally lesser) inclusiveness works on much the same level as Choreplay. If a man “plays more fairly and evenly” the expected reciprocation should be a reward of more of a woman’s love, respect and pussy. In fact this is the sell for both equalist Purple Pill inclusivity and doing a feminine defined set of equalized chores.

The problem then becomes one of the observer effect when a woman is constantly aware of the inclusivity, captain-first mate Game that she and her husband are both overtly playing. Observing the process will change it, so any assuming of ‘captaincy’ and any presumption of a roleplaying legitimacy on his part become suspect of both he and his wife’s genuineness. Truly submissive women want a decisive, unapologetic man with masculine determination and ambition for his life, who doesn’t need to be told he needs to be so. He ‘Just Gets It‘, and so much so that his Frame is the dominant one from the outset of the relationship without any back and forth about captains or first mates. She enters his reality, or she doesn’t associate with him.

Women don’t want to be overtly reminded that they’re “being included”. This is pandering to women who already know they have the blameless option of abandoning or jumping the ship. This overtness then inevitably script-flips to male ridicule.

“I’m the king of the castle. My wife told me I could be” is how the joke that men tell themselves goes, but the self-observation is really one of abdication to a woman’s Frame while he lamely grasps at an authority he doesn’t believe he’s ever earned.

No one laughs at his joke.

292 comments

  1. Pingback: Mutiny « PushUP24
  2. From post:
    “When she goes home she can’t as easily submit to her beta husband because she knows he can’t and won’t dispose of her so easily, especially if there are children involved.”

    I can’t agree with this line of thinking. The best word I can think of for women working is “resentment”. Women seem to resent having to work if their work is required to make ends meet.

    In my work life I lead a large staff. I would never characterize a female subordinate as “submitting” to any hierarchy. This is not HR BS it’s just my observation (note this is in office professional settings only). In my experience it’s the females who need the most deference to make sure their opinions are heard and making unilateral hierarchical decisions typically don’t fly. It truly is a about consensus around a decision that is usually driven by corp direction(and that direction was from a focus group). But still the ladies do find ways to put pretty bows on everything.

    My best female staff are the single no kids followed by the recently married with 1 to 2 kids. (go figure I have no single women with more than 2 kids)
    The new Marrieds no kids are middle of the road and Divorced with no or few kids. The worst performers are always the older Married with kids ladies (except for Admins, Married Mothers make GREAT Admins).

    Resentment is palpable during review time to hear the excuses. How “soon to be ex” or “lazy hubby” is responsible for 3 missed deadlines on a project and young hot stuff college grad had to pick it up and complete it in a WEEK.
    The married with children actively act like they DON’T want to be working. Whether it’s due to increased children issues (teenagers and drugs usually). Or it’s a no longer young lady dealing with getting older. The working world is really tough on the middle aged ones.

    Here’s a bit of advice for all you guys who are married with wives working. DON’T EVER have an extended unemployment event. You WILL be divorced it will happen, 10 for 10 in my office alone. At about the 3 month mark it gets pretty obvious the wife is getting anxious. At 6 months the “serious” conversations the wife is having with unemployed hubby are grist for office gossip. And within 9 months papers have been served. And it does not matter how many dishes you did or meals you cooked..

    A lady that works for me went from below average to stellar performer during her divorce. I tease her about this transformation (we are friends of a sort). But she said “I made a choice to support myself so I have to make this work”.

    I have thought ofter about her words and this is the best thing I can come up with. Men will have a vestigial support reflex towards vulnerable women. But women by contrast have ZERO compassion for a vulnerable man. Women seem to feel that if they are the sole breadwinner the man is now optional. (after all you can hear their hamster squeak… what does he good for besides producing a steady paycheck?).

  3. When the realization of just how far you have dropped your standards for that emptiness between her legs hits, you can only hope there is enough life left to climb back to your feet.

  4. Women don’t want to be overtly reminded that they’re “being included”. This is pandering to women who already know they have the blameless option of abandoning or jumping the ship. This overtness then inevitably script-flips to male ridicule.
    ~Rollo Tomassi

    Countless artists have stated that their work was written in a short period of time. Sylvester Stallone famously wrote the first draft of the “Rocky” script in three days. @LadyGaga has stated that her song “Edge of Glory” was inspired by “Rocky” (the movie).

    This amazing work by Rollo Tomassi has clearly been inspired by an out of this world power.

  5. No True Captain has only one underling …

    Possibly the “first mate” idea is ok IF it is a large patriarchal household, i.e. many children underfoot, several generations, etc. The first mate is perhaps delegated authority over babies and little girls, for example.

    Otherwise the nonequalist reality is that one person is in charge and the other person is NOT in charge, period.

    P.S. “Underling” as a new term of endearment. I’ll have to try it tomorrow.

  6. Apparently these women think it’s both funny and responsible to talk about sex as IF they were sluts (one was dumped some time ago by her last boyfriend and hasn’t had any sex for over a year, and the other has been living with her ltr guy forever). Neither would be good for anything but walking the plank, arrr! Bad word alert.
    http://www.salon.com/2014/12/28/feminism_is_just_owning_your_s_and_feeling_good_about_your_decisions_salon_talks_with_the_hosts_of_guys_we_fked/

  7. Been reading RM for about 18 months now, it just keeps getting better and better. Thank you Rollo you truly are a deliverer of great knowledge.

  8. This article makes a lot of sense, but one thing seems confusing:

    “Combining the two, Alpha Fux and Beta Bux means accepting a submissive position to a man who provides with an expectation of sex.”

    Why wouldn’t the “Beta Bux”, in this case, just be an afterthought, since he wouldn’t actually be providing “with an expectation of sex”?

    The sex and accepting a submissive position come first, because her man is Alpha. As long as he continues to keep her as an Alpha’s woman, as his property and perhaps even as part of a harem, why would the facts that he is not discarding her, and that she is being kept well, even bubble up in her mind as a problem?

    (This is separate from the problem of parts of society fucking everything up by acting as impersonal and artificial “Alphas”.)
    .

    “This is antithetical to entire feminist paradigm of equality with, and independence from, men.” … “And modern women fear submission greatly, they’ve been trained to.”

    This is true, and for a pretty feminist this paradigm lasts exactly until she is tingled by her first Alpha, at which time her female nature takes over and she remembers that principles are just silly.

    Also, when a woman submits to an Alpha, she is simply doing what feels right and, as long as he remains Alpha, she will label and rationalize her actions in very creative ways.
    .

    As Rollo said, “Truly submissive women want a decisive, unapologetic man with masculine determination and ambition for his life, who doesn’t need to be told he needs to be so. He ‘Just Gets It‘, and so much so that his Frame is the dominant one from the outset of the relationship without any back and forth about captains or first mates. She enters his reality, or she doesn’t associate with him.”
    .

    Also, Rollo, I was not switching identities on the previous thread. I was just using a different computer and didn’t notice that it had plugged in “Ares”.

  9. Thank you for this article Rollo. While I value its underlying message for its own sake, I also admit that I’ve taken bit of glee at your mockery of the term “first mate” since I have found its use by some of your regular commentators (ahem… M Simon… ahem) to be remarkably pretentious.

  10. Yes, I have always disliked those terms. They are twee. I can’t imagine a woman really wanting to be a First Mate. For starters, most women do not read about Captain Jack Aubrey and think in naval terms. Also, it is not “hot”. I can’t imagine Christian Grey saying to Anastasia, “you can be my First Mate”.

    Either treat her as a full equal or as distinctly inferior. She is not your First Mate. She will never be promoted to Captain. As a goodish woman I know wrote, “if my husband were to abandon his place as head of house, I would not try to step in and wear the pants”. (similar words)

    A pope in the 1940s referred to the husband as “he who commands” and the wife as “she who obeys”. I can’t improve on that.

  11. eon – “Why wouldn’t the ‘Beta Bux”, in this case, just be an afterthought, since he wouldn’t actually be providing ‘with an expectation of sex’?”

    So long as an LTR never becomes a marriage.

    I think it’s more than an afterthought because there’s no chance of him providing without an expectation of sex regardless of his Alpha cred. Women are taught to avoid this transaction. It’s one thing to accept gifts, or even co-habitate, but marriage would be public, contractual obligation to mutually exchange personal goods and services in a committed relationship. So long as there’s no marriage she can entertain the illusion of the whole thing being an “at will” agreement where his provisioning is a gift and not a maintenance fee for ongoing services.

    The problem is women prefer to avoid overt obligations which as a wife she would have. It’s an issue of plausible deniability, and actively publicly forgoing all other options. The purchase price of her sexuality is now a matter of the opportunity costs of exchanging her SMV for her MMV. Remember marriage is a dead concept, and athough true love doesn’t exist the illusion of its existance must be maintained.

  12. Ang Aamer – “I would never characterize a female subordinate as ‘submitting’ to any hierarchy.”

    Sure, but from her perspective she’s overworked, underpayed, and under appreciated and follows the rules, and can’t just quit. Her perception is that she is submitting. And perception is reality, or at least feels like it. That’s what counts; feelz über alles.

  13. Well that is interesting Rollo,

    I’m trying an experiment with the first mate (heh). I’m working on teaching her to be a willfully submissive female. I have explained to her that to be submissive in a way that makes her happy and do it all the time she must be really strong. That a weak woman can’t submit.

    BTW I’m a Navy man. Thus “first mate”. Of course she isn’t my first, not even 45th. And in our dating period I did other women. So what am I making her submit to? “You will bring me a very beautiful woman with Ds and help me bond with her. Then you will win me back by desiring me more than the other woman does.” So far it is working. But there are also signs that it may not keep working long term. What I’m holding out to her as a prize is “For now you are just a fuckbuddy. If you want to become my girlfriend you will have to remain submissive on these terms for a very long time. If you remain submissive as my GF for an even longer time I will treat you as a wife.”

    Can this work? Well of course the odds are greatly against it. But in the mean time she knows her worth to me – “fuckbuddy” – and that dread helps. Generally.

    I want to see if I can train her to be submissive all the time because she wants me so bad (a part of her does). I want to make that part her full time personality.

    Of course there is more to the dynamic than can be run down in a comment. But those are the general outlines.

  14. Women in business. Esp. a STEM related business. Well they don’t think logically. In public forums with mainly male commenters. This is all too obvious. An embarrassment. Plus they have belief rather than verified facts. A real weakness if they are unable to change their world view to conform to new facts. A trait that is critical in engineering. Women can adopt a position but rarely can create one.

    And if in a position of authority they can give orders but they can’t lead. And they don’t work well with alpha men. At all. The alphas get run out as threats. The organization looses dynamicism and is on the road to failure.

  15. BTW I have explained to the FM that I’m training her to be the Yin to my Yang. Receptive, Feminine. / Creative, Masculine.

    My model is the relationship my father had with my mother. He was the leader, but they both worked together to accomplish their mutual goals. Things that HAD to be done for life on the frontier. The Captain needs a strong First Mate so when he leaves the ship from time to time it is in capable hands. But when the Captain is on board he is the absolute Master.

  16. While it may be comforting for a woman to believe her opinion is valued, or that what passes for her newfound submission to his direction is guaranteed by his considerateness, very few ‘first mates’ are willing to go down with the ship once it starts taking on enough water.

    My ship has been taking on water for the last 15 years and I’m just starting to get the bilges pumped. She is still with me. Why? She is not interested in ANY other man. Other than economics I’m EVERYTHING she wants in a man. As she puts it “the economics has been barely tolerable”. But in every other way I match her vision.

    There was a time I encouraged her to find a better deal. She never did. We often discuss the options she had (other men) when she was making her final decision. She has been very unhappy from time to time. But never unhappy enough to get a better deal. Or just break this one and live on her own. Part of that is that she came from a home where she had a stepfather. She didn’t want to do that to her children. Her desire to maintain an intact family has been very strong.

    I can still give her the tingles. Every day. Sometimes 20 times a day.

  17. I think Christianity is like programmed beta. Just look at what it did to the wild Norsemen. The kings imposed it to better control the people. It seeks to hide most or all outward signs of sexuality (long hair, beards, cover bodies, and discourage obright showy clothes). Encourages meekness, tolerance, and love of all. /the only way they could be more beta is to cut off all the baby male penises.

  18. I see Rollo’s interaction with his commenters very encouraging. Here’s mine.

    It’s been almost ten years that I read all possible shit on human nature through the lens of understanding it. Outside me and inside of me, of course.

    Rollo’s writing is closest to this goal. I like the rational approach–it’s very masculine and that way it gets into our heads more easily.

    Reading your posts makes me feel like a balanced man has only one workable option–focus on yourself only and suppress the idea of being here mainly for the woman–have this natural or automatic after some rational and conscious transformation. Be pragmatic. Love reality. Avoid being emotional in sizing situations and later making decisions. Be active in pursuing your goals. Period.

    Any other behavior comes from being feminized.

    – K

  19. teenagers and drugs usually

    Drugs are never the cause. They are symptoms. Think of it his way. Insulin is not a cause. It is a symptom. Drug taking (or alcoholism for that matter) is self medicating for a problem.

  20. Here is the paradox:

    The more naturally mean,self centered, and cruel you are as a man, the more naturally nicer and kinder your mate will be as with the girls you attract.

    Yin/yang, Nature abhorring a vacuum…etc.

    Be a pussy, attract a shrew.

  21. In some ways, all this is boiling down to the ‘burden of performance’ for me. I have been “off” for the past month, letting worries and other negative emotions take me off my game. With a Red Pill mindset, I’m less forgiving of this in myself than I’ve ever been. One of the hardest things I’ve seen this month is how permissive I’ve become about my ups and downs and emotional state, and how I let myself off the hook for performance and self-improvement too readily.

    When I really looked hard at it, it was simple. I had a lot of adversity and I let down my discipline and resolve for tick or two, and in flooded all the negativity and old patterns of thinking. I’ve shaken it off now and am returning to the place of enjoying the game and playing it seriously again. But what’s ringing in my head is how vigilant a man must be in this world to actually live an empowered and enjoyable life.

    It probably is never more true than in a marriage. It seems to me that this all boils down to maintaining frame. Sadly, I’m so reflexively Blue-Pillized after a life of being batted around by the FI, I’m simply not in the habit of maintaining my frame strongly. In fact, probably the biggest failing of my life, personally, is not managing my own frame and maintaining a good one.

    Even more deeply, I realized a fundamental truth about my own emotions and view of women. My Mom died when I was 11, and she had been my protector from my terroristic and horribly abusive Dad. Consequently, a woman’s love and affection WAS really like heroin for me for most of my life. This basic need crept up and shaped every interaction I had with women, and if I’m not careful I just slide back into this needy frame. I’m sure this is true to some degree for all men, that their relationship with their mom has a lot to do with how they relate to women. But here’s the paradox – I can’t get that affection by being open and vulnerable. In fact, need and “thirst” are the fastest way to send a woman running.

    Women resent me wanting emotional support of any sort from them. I know that now. In a way, I think that women walk around craving dominance but they just don’t see many men worth submitting to so they settle for provision – which they then resent. And being able to provision for themselves makes this bargain even less attractive, which only increases their loathing of the beta they settle for. Which brings me back to my first point. It’s all about performance for men. Our entire lives are about producing, providing, entertaining, leading, creating – we don’t get a break. You take a break, and the pack eats you alive or another, better man steps in and shoves you aside – and “your” woman will welcome him if you’ve not maintained your dominance. And if she sticks with you for other reasons, she will hate you for it even more. That’s every man’s life.

    It really is a brutal, stark truth to digest and actualize. I’m off to the gym now for a penalty interval training session… I put 4 lbs back on in 1 month of laziness, grrr. It’s okay, I’ve stopped the slide but it’s also horrifying to see what a little bitch I can be sometimes.

    The Red Pill is an inside job. The Red Pill is an inside job. The Red Pill is an inside job…

  22. @ M. Simon – Hey. First let me say I thought it was weird to take your “first mate” stuff on the way Rollo did. And it turns out that you don’t use it with your wife, so it seems it may not be an analog to the use of “bride” by evango men.

    But your reply left me with a big question for you, M. You seem to be attempting to negotiate your wife’s submission overtly, to convince her that submission is good for her. Now I do get that you are dominant in the relationship in real ways, so I’m not accusing you of being some beta pussy, but still, “the medium is the message”. In sales I always say, “Show, don’t tell”.

    How can you be dominant AND ask her to be submissive? If dominance has to ask to be submitted to, is it really dominance at all? Or is it equalism posing as dominance? I’d say it’s the latter. I submit to dominance because I have to, whether I want to or not…

    I can see so clearly how I complete mismanaged my dominance and status inside my relationship with my wife. The time i induced the most dread in her turned her into the best submissive, sexy, home-making and compliant mom and wife a guy could ever want for about 2 months. Fyi, she was a 9 at the time, and I didn’t get that what she was really saying was “earn me”. I thought she “owed” me because I married her and provided for her. Crazy how clear it all is now. The competition continues once you are married, that is perhaps the best thing a married man can learn.

    And you know what? Here’s an even deeper truth. I had it all, a good woman, family and burgeoning career by age 28, and I fucked it up because of Blue Pill programming. My ex responded very well to my occasional, reflexive dominance – I just didn’t understand it. I’m even re-evaluating the idea that she has a psychological disorder “covert narcissism”. Could it be that she was so nasty because she really did have better choices than me and was tired of giving me the chance to earn her? I never understood any of it. In my core, I had swallowed the equalist fallacy the FI imposes and dealt with her like we were negotiating a deal. Or better said, any time she didn’t just give me all the love and sex I thought i deserved because I married her, I acted like she broke a promise she made to me.

    I expected her submission rather than just dominating her.

  23. “I think Christianity is like programmed beta.”

    Depends on who’s teaching it. Jesus was a meek and humble man, but He wasn’t a milquetoast; the tax collectors in the temple found that out the hard way. The Book of Ephesians also states that the husband is the unequivocal head of the marriage and household.

    The problem is that it’s becoming harder to make a distinction between the collective Church and secular culture, and not even the Church is immune from the Feminism virus anymore.

  24. …she said, “It’s women’s job to get away with everything they can in life.”

    Then the kid asks, “So what is men’s job to do in life?”, “Not to let ‘em” was her reply.

    In the hills beyond Bragg’s ranch, I saw the Appaloosa, nervously herding his mares along toward fresh pasture. He’s got the mares, I thought. But the mares got him, too.
    (Robert B. Parker, Appaloosa)

  25. Rollo,

    How do we (I) will this organic relationship war (there was peace until her rebellion).

    A bulleted list man.

    Please. Operationalize it:

    Gym until you are jacked
    Own your millionaire business
    Attitude of my reality or gtfo

    Where is the minimum threshold for “performance”

  26. I like this article. I’d like to contribute what I intend to be an augmenting perspective:

    All people, regardless of gender, do have an internal sense of self that demands expression. A person’s well-being and happiness is to a large extent a function of the extent to which he can achieve unobstructed and socially harmonious personal expression and self actualization. This is true for both women and men, but the optimal mechanisms for achieving this are different for men and women.

    A woman, essentially, has two choices for self-actualization that don’t deny her the equally prominent drive of mating with and basking in the status of a high status man. She can 1) choose a man who embodies all of her most deeply held values and completely submit to him, thereby fulfilling both drives simultaneously (although this is probabilistically challenging to pull off), or 2) she can choose a man who is very committed to his own course and who can accomplish what Rollo outlines above but who is at the very least aware of in-tune with her own internal sense of self, even if it is at times at odds with his. He might not take it into account frequently, and she might have no guarantee from him that he will prioritize her preferences when push comes to shove. However, if he hopes to secure on-going submission from her, he at least needs to give her the impression that he “gets” her and, perhaps randomly, doll out hope that he can help her express her most highly cherished desires for self expression. This is not something that is unique to male-female relationships, either. This is just a principal of effective leadership and control.

    TLDR; a woman is not going to submit to a man for any length of time who doesn’t give her the impression that he is, directly or indirectly, a ticket to her own self-actualization. This is because while women in part very much want a dominant partner and to submit, they also possess human, gender-neutral properties, e.g. a personal essence and desire to express it. It’s too limiting to look at all personal attributes and values through the lens of gender.

  27. Language tells like “bride” and “first mate” always end up with me rolling my eyes involuntarily.

    Reminds me of a conversation with my niece about a boy she likes. She started calling him “the boy” during the conversation. I laughingly asked her why she wouldn’t refer to somebody she likes by their name. Was she ashamed of her feelings? Of course, she’s young and I could be the goofy, roundabout uncle about it and she opened up a little.

    Same principal. It’s poor framing, I think. It reveals both intent and insecurity.

  28. “It’s all about performance for men. Our entire lives are about producing, providing, entertaining, leading, creating – we don’t get a break. You take a break, and the pack eats you alive or another, better man steps in and shoves you aside – and “your” woman will welcome him if you’ve not maintained your dominance. And if she sticks with you for other reasons, she will hate you for it even more. That’s every man’s life.”

    And to the man he said,

    “Since you listened to your wife and ate from the tree
    whose fruit I commanded you not to eat,
    the [world] is cursed because of you.
    All your life you will struggle to scratch a living from it.
    It will grow thorns and thistles for you,
    though you will eat of its grains.
    By the sweat of your brow
    will you have food to eat
    until you return to the ground
    from which you were made.
    For you were made from dust,
    and to dust you will return.”

    Then he said to the woman,

    “And you will desire to control your husband,
    but he will rule over you.”

    Men are always looking for relief from their curse but if they try it with women, woman’s curse kicks in.

  29. If a man wants to be Alpha at home he needs to be successful in life. Game is a helpful skill but over the long run it is not enough. Success in your career is what keeps you on top at home. It’s that simple. Put simply being on top at home is made possible by being on top outside of the home.

    As an aside I have always been shocked by how many men from the WW2/Korea generation openly defer to their wives authority. Many almost seem proud of it. I’m 45 and I don’t think guys from my generation are as bad.

  30. Glenn:

    I realized a fundamental truth about my own emotions and view of women. My Mom [was] my protector from my terroristic and horribly abusive Dad. Consequently, a woman’s love and affection WAS really like heroin for me for most of my life. This basic need crept up and shaped every interaction I had with women.

    Indeed, same here. Only after a lifetime of beta/gamma misery, and 20 years of chronic illness, am I old/tired enough to have only remnants of libido left, and thus able to begin to see females realistically. And realize that I am profoundly grateful for my relentless failures with women, which have left me without a yoke around my neck, free to follow a higher calling than endless slavery to the FI. I still feel the attraction – nothing is more deeply programmed in our genes, after all – but now I can observe it and let it pass.

    It’s all about performance for men. Our entire lives are about producing, providing, entertaining, leading, creating – we don’t get a break. You take a break, and the pack eats you alive or another, better man steps in and shoves you aside – and “your” woman will welcome him if you’ve not maintained your dominance. … It really is a brutal, stark truth to digest and actualize.

    Indeed it is. The pattern is the same everywhere, in any species where females maintain relationships with specific males – either monogamous or polygynous (harem style). Among lions, for instance – the “king of beasts”‘ reign is short and overwhelmingly stressful, as he must guard every second against another, younger, stronger male’s challenge. And when he is inevitably replaced (and often killed in the process – not that his subsequent life, if he survives, will be any fun), the new “king” must kill any young in the pride, so he can father the next generation. Everybody (both sexes) is a slave to the Female Imperative. (And the same is true in promiscuous species, e.g. chimpanzees, though the patterns are different.)

    Nature (the very Goddess the feminists want us all to worship) is truly merciless. Not malevolent, just merciless. To females as well as to males.

    Only humans have the possibility of choice about this. In my view, the Buddha was the ultimate MGHOW (and thus the ultimate Man): He set out to find a solution to the problem of suffering, and when he did, he did not return to the “household life” – the world ruled by the FI. He was truly free. He blazed the trail out of the prison camp, and left markers that anybody can follow.

    “So long as the last underbrush of a man’s desire for woman has not been cleared away, his mind remains in bondage, like a suckling calf following its mother.” – Siddhartha Gautama, known as the Buddha, ca. 500 BCE (Dhammapada 284)

  31. ‘In other words, the ‘captain’ is really on his own regardless of his ‘first mate’s’ input.’

    He’s on his own with the final decision…but only a fool would disregard important input. Especially if this person is meant to help you.

    Do you do that with male colleagues on a job?

  32. I’ve been observing a couple lately. The guy constantly refers to his girlfriend as his ‘bride,’ constantly agreeing with everything she says and telling her how awesome and intelligent and special she is, constantly fawning over how beautiful she is, calling her ‘my wife,’ ‘my beautiful _____’, etc…

    I admit I’m still a little plugged in, as I’ve seen girls with guys like this for years and I get jealous. A lot of pretty girls I knew from high school have been in multiple relationships with guys I’d classify as chumps. Relationships come and go, but I still can’t get over the “he looks and acts like that and is tapping THAT ass?”

    Like seeing a scrawny, fawning toothpick of a man with a beautiful girl. Acting like a complete blue-pill beta faggot, gushing over his ‘beautiful bride’ as if HE was the girl in the relationship.

    Completely giving her the frame and making her the center of his universe. Even if he isn’t getting her ‘best’, it still pisses me off that I NEVER act like this and I’m still not even getting one iota of pussy. Why can’t I get even a little of what these blue-pill, fawning manginas get? It doesn’t make sense to me. And it’s infuriating.

    In my mind, guys like that aren’t supposed to be getting ANY sex. Even if they’re getting subpar, unenthusiastic sex, they’re still getting SOME. And the more I see this happening around me — and I see it a lot — the angrier I get.

    Although with that couple I mentioned, I did get the girl he’s with to talk to me very openly about her sexuality. She says how he’s more passive, isn’t imaginative, she wishes he would take control more and was more aggressive, and she also mentioned how she’s bisexual but he doesn’t like that because he gets jealous of her wanting to have sex with other girls.

    I’ve also seen her shit test him — which he fails every time. She even told me that she knows his weaknesses and a lot of times will DELIBERATELY say things to him that she know will hit him in his most vulnerable areas, just to make him feel horrible.

    Just the other day I saw her make a ‘joke’ to him that he’s replaceable. A comment on his Facebook page. She tried to make it ‘funny’ by saying something like “I’m sooo mean, omg, I’m so sorryyyyy”

    She didn’t delete the comment about her saying he was replaceable, and he didn’t “like” it or even respond to it. Just ignored. She also told me how she’ll throw things at him, try to beat him up, etc., just push all his buttons — and he just lets her do all of that, whatever she wants, and just responds by turning the other cheek and telling her he loves her.

    This is the same girl I was talking about sex with, we even started trading some stories, she would be really open about telling me how turned on she was, how horny she was, etc., “I need dick so bad right now,” etc.

    So in that sense, I can see it in a Red Pill lens: the relationship is doomed from the start. My anger subsides when I pull myself back to reality and realize that being in a relationship like that is NOT WORTH IT.

    She doesn’t live around me, and even if she did, I don’t know if she’d fuck me. She’s a virgin and has an extremely low N count, so it’s possible she hasn’t been corrupted enough to so readily abandon her relationship with this guy. Or compromise it. But I don’t know. All I know is I wouldn’t want to be in his situation with her. The plugged in part of me is jealous that she seems so “in love” with him and seems to eat up all his compliments and fawning over her, and seems to be so irrevocably attracted to him.

    It’s very hard for me to see that that’s an illusion, and it could take years for their relationship to crumble as a result of his continued blue-pill attitude. But it still bothers me that there are guys out there just like him that are getting pussy from beautiful girls. It doesn’t make sense to me.

    Even though I’m not getting laid, I’m not stuck in a blue-pill relationship like that. Even if that guy is getting some, he doesn’t know anything about my ‘secret’ conversations with her, and he doesn’t have a clue of how dissatisfied she is — hell, even SHE doesn’t. Not on a logical, rational level, anyway. Probably on a subconscious, intuitive level she does, maybe not quite enough to verbalize it.

    Although she did tell me about another guy she was with who was ugly. But she was turned on by him because he was so dominant and aggressive. I got her to admit that girls like dominant guys — she agreed completely. I also dropped the line about having to tell guys like her boyfriend to “be more aggressive” defeated the purpose of it, because it means he doesn’t “just get it” — and she was all “Oh my god! You’re so right!”

    Hell, one of my friends who I’d definitely type as a natural Alpha (N count WELL into the hundreds), his marriage blew up after 18 years and two kids. He told me later that after the divorce he found it nice that he could make a sandwich at 1 in the morning and not get nagged and yelled at. That was a big red flag to me.

    It’s hard for me to imagine too because normally he’s a true alpha. I’ve mentioned it before, but out of the HUNDREDS of women he’s slept with, the only one that things REALLY went south with, were the THREE GIRLS in his ENTIRE LIFE — the only ones — that he told he loved them.

    Only those three. His first girlfriend (who he cheated on with at least 20 different girls when he was 16-17), his second major girlfriend, and his ex-wife. Things only blew up and went to hell with them. He got sucked into their frame one way or another and placed a ‘special value’ on his relationship with them….and look how well that worked out.

    So I do feel the anger at blue-pill guys who are getting somewhat laid —

    — but it subsides as I remind myself that this really is the truth. Their relationships look way better on the outside to someone who isn’t getting laid than they actually are.

    And if I was getting laid and really enjoying my life as a single guy I’m sure I would see it COMPLETELY differently: probably feel sorry for those guys that they aren’t me. Which I do feel to some extent sometimes, which is a good sign to me. A very good sign.

    This is one of the last hurdles for me: the illusion that blue-pill guys in blue-pill relationships are the ones who “lucked out.” I see it all the time. Even with relationships ending here and there it still pisses me off to see all the mangina comments on girls’ Facebook pages, the guys that the girls are in relationships with — and some of them have been together years, most of them months….

    ….and they’re presumably getting at least SOME action, Joe Schmo over here who looks like a fucking toothpick and acts like he has a fucking vagina, while I’m over here jerking off. Makes me so fucking angry.

    I don’t want to be in a relationship and I don’t want what those guys have, or even dream of acting like them to ‘get what they have,’ because I know in the long run they’re screwed, and a lot of times it becomes obvious that AF/BB is true as it ever was.

    Talking to that guy’s girlfriend and having really dirty conversations with her was an eye-opener, though. My own little taste of AF there. I’m not with her but I had zero qualms about chatting it up with her, flirting with her and making tons of dirty comments that seemed to really get her excited, and her telling me things like she wishes her boyfriend was as imaginative as me. And she would also take a lot of digs at him behind his back, and also thought it was funny that we were having really dirty conversations behind his back, and that it seemed to make him nervous because he didn’t know what she was doing spending so much time talking to me.

    So the unplugging continues. I think a lot of guys who aren’t fully unplugged yet could relate a LOT to everything I just wrote.

    I’m not sure how I feel about “Open Hypergamy.” Maybe it’s becoming more open. But AF/BB being ‘secretive’ still seems to be the MO to me.

    If the girl can lead a Beta guy on to thinking that she desires him as much as she would an Alpha guy, and string him along without him knowing — you bet she’ll do it.

    And guys who aren’t aware of the Red Pill will think that guy is so lucky for ‘landing’ such a great, beautiful girl. Not being aware of what she’s capable of.

    I get pissed because I’m not getting laid, and knowing guys are getting laid who I think shouldn’t be getting laid based on their mangina behaviors — it’s frustrating, but seeing things in a Red Pill lens helps calm me down.

    Would I want to be in their shoes? Is it worth getting pussy here and there from ONE GIRL, who’s also a nag? Mostly because of my own pussified behaviors? Would I become a pussy in order to get a marginal amount of pussy?

    No. I have more respect for myself than that. Part of unplugging is realizing the ‘old set of books’ is not only obsolete — it’s disrespecting yourself in this day and age. Emasculating yourself is what you’re doing if you follow the old set of rules.

    Because it’s no longer rewarded. It’s sacrificing your balls in the hopes that you’ll get a little action on the regular. Settling for table scraps. Becoming a pussy in the hopes that you’ll get some pussy.

    I have to learn more Game and apply it more and build my confidence. But even in my moments of jealousy of blue pill guys with beautiful girls, I can still at least say I DON’T wish I was them, because I know what’s been in store for them from the start, as they entered the relationship with that mindset. Things look peachy now but the fire and brimstone have been on their way from the start. When I remind myself of that it calms me down and centers and grounds me. My anger is misplaced — and then I remember that the more peace and clarity and awareness I have, the more personal power and control I have. And in the long run I’m really the one who’s better off. Blue pill relationships look nice on the outside when you have no idea what’s going on at a more subtle level, and what that relationship is ultimately building up to.

  33. I would submit (!) that the MMSL model of “captain/first mate” (or XO) is a decent prescription for men trying to right a foundering marriage. The error is to publicly use the moniker as some kind of social proof. In that instance it does come off as no better than “the boss” or “my bride” or She Who Must Be Obeyed. Which yes, all sound twee and fake, wince-worthy.

    That said, let us not be too hung up on policing our language for “happy thoughts only” names for things as intersectionalists, SJW’s and even rabid Tea Partiers do. We deal here in WHAT IS, not to maintain a happy socialist workers paradise mindset, for which you get no prize other than the opportunity to work harder digging potatos for the good of the anarcho-syndicalist commune.

  34. ‘Why can’t I get even a little of what these blue-pill, fawning manginas get?’

    I get that feeling sometimes too..but I remember:

    ‘Would I rather be abused and mocked behind closed doors…or alone and at peace?’

    And the upside is if I ever got into a relationship I know better than to become the fawning mangina.

  35. For what it’s worth, I didn’t write this as a dig on you M Simon. I know you use Athol’s Star Trek ‘first mate’ reference often, but I’ve had this warming up in the notebook for a while now.

    It was actually George and BadPainter’s exchange that helped it along while I was coming back to it.

  36. She started calling him “the boy” during the conversation. I laughingly asked her why she wouldn’t refer to somebody she likes by their name. Was she ashamed of her feelings?

    There’s a reason ranchers never name their livestock. It makes it easier when they go to slaughter.

    Women objectify men in far more ways than men will ever objectify women.

  37. “First Mate”……”Apprentice”……”Significant Other”…..and…”Subordinate”…and many other words have been employed during the past 150 years…..as we struggle to define the new meaning of CHATTLE.

  38. Badpainter,

    “So long as an LTR never becomes a marriage.”

    I agree with what you are saying about LTR versus marriage, which is why I was trying to separate the Alpha Fux + Beta Bux itself from the ways in which society is now structured to de-Alpha (replace-Alpha) a man.
    .

    “I think it’s more than an afterthought because there’s no chance of him providing without an expectation of sex regardless of his Alpha cred. … So long as there’s no marriage she can entertain the illusion of the whole thing being an ‘at will’ agreement where his provisioning is a gift and not a maintenance fee for ongoing services.”

    It may be that context (his frame) is the toggle between causation and association, so to speak, in her mind.

    My approach is that my gift to Redhead is that she gets to belong to me, and provisioning, per se, is just a utilitarian* necessity.
    .

    “The problem is women prefer to avoid overt obligations which as a wife she would have.”

    Redhead’s “overt obligations” were established from the very beginning, and have not changed since.

    And I don’t think that “obligations” is actually applicable, because our complementary (very dominant / very submissive ** ) dynamic became our complementary relationship, and it energizes us both, equivalently.
    .

    * This is pretty much literally true, because she is an outlier who remains a farm girl at heart and still loves to make her own long and flowy dresses, and gifts of trivial stuff to her are essentially self-serving, because I really enjoy how they make her goofy-happy.

    ** This is not immediately obvious to external observers because it involves a lot of my taking care of her in a masculine way, and her taking care of me in a feminine way. (In previous threads, I have talked about the essential underpinnings that make this possible).

  39. He’s on his own with the final decision…but only a fool would disregard important input. Especially if this person is meant to help you.

    Do you do that with male colleagues on a job?

    I expected this. There’s always going to be the paradox of receiving outside wisdom vs. basing personal decisions on that ‘perceived’ wisdom.

    In the end though, whether that decision was based on that imparted advice or not, you still own the consequences of that decision, succeed or fail.

    Succeed and it was sage advice, fail and you were just stupid to have considered it seriously. YOUR discernment is what matters.

    And yes Earl, your wife is ‘meant’ to help you, in your Frame, towards your direction. Precious few wives trust their husband’s direction implicitly, and those who do usually have little recourse not to.

  40. The whole cloying “First Mate” thing bothers me because it assumes a rational interplay of two actors managing a ship.

    In aircraft this is Cockpit Resource Management; this ethic of strategic interplay makes flying safer, as it restricts the ability of the captain to act unilaterally, emotionally, or otherwise stupidly. So the first officer has authority in that cockpit, and the captain is required to verify, listen, interact.

    CRM is now being adapted to operating theaters, again to provide some checks, balances and other benefits in surgery.

    However, in both cases, CRM is highly structured, and highly limited; the protocols for communication and interaction are clear and objective.

    There’s something just flat patronizing and stupid about applying this management model to an emotional relationship with a woman, who prioritizes feelings in ways no man does. It’s one thing to patronize female staff, who waste untold hours making people feel included and comfortable while threatening men who cut to the chase. It’s something else again to pedestalize open hypergamy within the home or LTR.

    The role of Game in the LTR is to maintain some personal integrity as well as creative tension.

  41. Rollo’s ‘heads I win tails you lose’ trope, what with the woman having a claim on success but the option to ‘put’ the marriage contract if she decides it’s insufficiently gratifying, is really central to intersexual dynamics.

    Women have successfully accumulated one-way options in their efforts to install the feminist state and workplace. One-way options:

    a. to be a SAHM
    b. to work full or part-time
    c. to divorce unilaterally, without penalty
    d. to accuse a spouse of violent assault
    e. to be or not be a custodial parent
    f. to (with Yes Means Yes) decide if sex is consensual or not.

    (I think that women also believe they have the option to put a man in the AF column, or rotate the same man into the BB/security column. But perhaps that’s a longer subject and merely a personal anecdote.)

    Good dealmakers do not give away free, one-way options. Our romantic landscape has been upended by their prevalence, all seemingly sold as social innovations designed to foster equity. It’s a curious, and highly successful, political rhetoric that explains unilateral agency, and the assignment of one-way options, to one sex, as a notable quest for “equity.”

  42. ‘Succeed and it was sage advice, fail and you were just stupid to have considered it seriously. YOUR discernment is what matters.’

    I agree…so it is important to know where your discernment is coming from.

  43. @Rollo’s “Mutiny”

    “She’s absolved of his failures and shares in his successes”

    This is absolutely the truth on many levels. The Internal Revenue Service provides a “No Fault” form for spouses. This form allows spouses (almost always the female) to claim “No Fault” regardless of whether they signed an erroneous or fraudulent return and regardless of whether they financially benefitted form tax evasion or not. No proof is required, only the claim made by filling out and submitting the form. Typically the female is at “No Fault” and enjoys whatever financial benefit without persecution while typically the male is persecuted and stuck with the bill.

  44. Great blog. One thing I like about it is all the good comments posted here (some of the other good manosphere blogs, unfortunately, have too many knucklehead commenters).

    Anyway, I get what Rollo and others are saying about the flaws of that concept. The Captain bears ultimate responsibility for everything that happens in his domicile. Even being a First Officer requires ability to handle ultimate responsibility. Yet, women are masters at evading direct responsibility for their actions, so how anyone can expect them to handle ultimate responsibility is beyond me.

    I don’t remember which blog I read this on (may have been RoK), but someone posted that women should be treated the same way you would a responsible 17 year-old. Think of the high school girl on your street who’s in the band and the honor society and all that stuff. Chances are, you’d trust her to watch your kids and your house for a while, you’d trust her to drive a car, hold some kind of job, etc…but at the same time, she’s going to be idealistic, doesn’t totally understand how the world really works, and if push came to shove, she would swear the dog really ate her homework.

    Once you understand that few women ever progress beyond operating that way, holding frame becomes easier.

  45. Glenn wins for clarity: “How can you be dominant AND ask her to be submissive? If dominance has to ask to be submitted to, is it really dominance at all? Or is it equalism posing as dominance? I’d say it’s the latter.”

    From the beginning, Genesis Chapter 1, and always, dominance literally means stomping down: boot on the neck, treading on them. This is precisely what women insist you have to Just Get: be a mean ogre to her whenever you feel like it regardless of her feelings. This is the ONLY thing women have ever meant by a man’s power, a man’s strength. And it is women who are constantly befuddled why men will not do it to them. If women are indeed craving dominance, this is what it looks like: ruthless stompage.

  46. Dominance is the intended and expected punishment for her lack of submission; it is what her lack of submission is supposed to provoke. In contrast submission is intended to ward off dominance. That’s why it is much more important for the woman to submit than for the man to dominate.

  47. While you may think you’re flattering her with your self-styled magnanimity, this compromise only reflects your Blue Pill equalist hope that she will genuinely appreciate the sacrifices you make in considering her Frame. The dominant Frame (hopefully yours) is what matters. While a wife’s input may present you with insight you may have overlooked, she must ultimately acquiesce to your Frame’s primacy.

    I would venture that it is a requirement for valuable insight to come from an external and subservient viewpoint. The dominant frame saturates the thinking of the one from which is comes, and can without such counterbalance cloud reality out. In fact, women’s true value as companions comes from providing that viewpoint to a dominant frame, not in attempting to impose their own.

    A true first mate on a ship is a yes man, a subordinate.

    In this analogy, women are better described as the ship on which men are captain. A ship doesn’t sail itself, usually whines in increasing volume depending on the weather, and requires vast amounts of resources to keep happy.

  48. @BuenaVista re: “It’s a curious, and highly successful, political rhetoric that explains unilateral agency, and the assignment of one-way options, to one sex, as a notable quest for “equity.””

    Clearly, women (and their supporters) believe that a man exerting dominance would still work well, since everything they do is to counter it.

  49. Picked this comment up from the TRP mirror thread, too good not to repost here:

    …it is physically impossible for men to be the commander of all spheres in this day and age. It is impossible, at best highly challenging, for a husband to compete with his working wife’s boss(es) in terms of dominance. Her boss can dispose of her for any given indiscretion, while a husband has had his hands bound by the law, and that simple fact will prevent him from measuring up to those types of men in her life. Her view of those mens’ SMV will be higher than that of her husband’s. This brings up many risks that we have discussed here, infidelity being a primary concern.

    And this is about men who do have steady jobs/careers.

    God help the men who’ve been convinced that they’re ‘fulfilled’ by being a househusband / SAHD.

  50. @Rollo re: “Precious few wives trust their husband’s direction implicitly, and those who do usually have little recourse not to.”

    Basically, all of societal evolution since the 1950’s has been to remove the man’s ability to direct, and erode the woman’s ability to trust, and promote women’s recourses, enabling women to evade their responsibility to submit.

  51. The thing many of us miss in the Captain/First Officer model is that it is….A MODEL. It is NOT reality.

    The desirable reality is a submissive, feminine woman and a dominant, masculine man. That is the reality the Captain/FO model is trying to create and it is trying to get there from the standard Beta/Weak/Supplicating male establishing the proper dynamics with the Strong/Independent/Ball Busting female that society has created and we have allowed.

    So I agree with Rollo that if you are a true Alpha (TM) and you have a Feminine, submissive woman there is no need for this to be conceptualized as a model. Be the man, force her to be the woman. Where I disagree is for the other 90%-95% of us- because for the vast majority of relationships the model is helpful.

    Most women absolutely want to be the First Officer and if you approach most women as a suddenly changed uber Alpha who cares nothing for their input it is not going to work.

  52. @Tilikum re: the paradox.

    Yes, but it is so much more than mere paradox. The correct way is for a woman to fully submit to a man she trusts will NOT bother hurting her: she should prostrate herself and her place his boot on her neck WITHOUT him doing it. The wronger way is for the man to force her to submit by dominating her. The wrongest way is escalation, i.e. for her to remain defiant in the face of overt dominance.

    From an evo-psych perspective it’s easy enough to explain all this as women *expecting* to be raped.

  53. @bluepillprof, conceptually it’s flawed because it’s still a half-measure between true Frame control and an equalist compromising.

    Captian/FO is an effort in Alpha apologetics. For men starting from a Beta baseline the idea of Alpha dominance is either distasteful or ridiculous, but for a guy to accept the model it’s an easier sell if he can embrace the half-measure of thinking he’s still being diplomatic with his wife’s concerns.

    There is no first officer, there is either your Frame or her Frame that sets the tone for your relationship.

  54. The solution (alteast workplace dominance), select a partner who is below you in terms of career and salary so even if, her boss can dispose of her for any given indiscretion, she knows you will be there to lean on as the main dominant figure in her life.

  55. I always compared women to the role of a lookout. She sits far away, up in the crows nest, and yells down information. Unlike a first mate a lookout has no weight on the decision making process; they merely provide facts. They only give a different viewpoint that the first mate and I could not collect at the helm.

  56. I think with all the talk of how to relate the actual dynamic of the male and female in the relationship in terms of something else closely comparable (ie. captain/firstmate) we are losing the main focus on what’s actually happening/needs to happen in the scenario.

    Who cares what labels we use, hell im good with captain/firstmate, lets just get into the details behind why it is like that and how we should proceed.

    We can argue all day about different terms to use or what most closely relates to the dynamic but in the end in doesn’t really matter as much as long as we understand the basis behind it.

    Its similar to white knight in RP, im sure we can come up with several other terms that more closely relate to that type of beta but we have all accepted the term being used.

  57. FYI, Giardia, treating a man like your king means you acting like the peasant-servant. Not queen.
    http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20456256,00.html
    “All men want to be treated like kings in a relationship, and I think if women don’t indulge that sometimes, their men are likely to stray and look for someone who can give that to them.”

  58. Forestalling ALL the women, and ALL the White Knights, who falsely claim “If only you were more dominant THEN I would be happy to submit to you!”: Nope. Nope, nope, nope. Totally wrong, 180° from truth. If he is more dominant then he is more able to break you, to force you to submit unhappily. That is all.

  59. Which mutiny on the bounty movie is that picture from? The Clark Gable version or the Marlon Brando version? I think this is the first picture selection that I got right out of the gate.

    For those that don’t know the story… the first mate takes over the ship, leaving the captain stranded in the pacific on little more than a dinghy with no rigging, almost no food or water, and no charts for navigation (though they did have a sextant). The captain (and remaining non-mutineers) subsequent story of self-rescue is one of the finest stories of human navigation and survival in modern times.

  60. Advocatus Diaboli had a great article about Escorts on his blog once.

    Look at any any profile for an online ‘Escort’. Older Escorts in the 33-45 range tend to be more down to earth in the descriptions of what “services” they offer and why they offer them.

    Usually their pitch is one of flattering older, often married men who “work hard and deserve her special attention and appreciation for their efforts.”

    It’s interesting because many of these more mature escorts seem to better understand the submission/appreciation dynamic and how lacking it is for most married men.

    Granted a whore is a whore by any other name, but my guess is that these women acknowledge this need for men to be appreciated by the women to whom they’ve committed themselves to and they capitalize on it.

  61. @Rollo

    Regarding the escort ad’s, im not sure if the older ones acknowledge this need in terms of male/female dynamics. Im leaning towards them just being aware of what the situation is in terms of how to make the most money by providing the best sale pitch like selling the car based on its features.

    I see these same escorts living their normal lives as the very women they are putting down in the ads and not treating their male partners the way they so nicely market.

  62. @Rollo
    I think I understand what you’re getting at. Another way to explain it might me this: women only respect masculine displays of True Power, and True Power is never given to you by another person for their own interests. It is instead taken by you for your own selfish interests. It is a further continuation of the Enlightened Self Interest which should be guiding all your decisions regardless of a woman’s presence (or absence) in your life.

  63. @Softek – Dude, forget about the pussy other guys are getting. I do like how feisty you are getting though – use those balls to approach until you get laid. A few concrete recos for you.

    1. Watch this Krauser infield – see what he’s doing that you aren’t. http://youtu.be/9Hur5DM0hlg He opens beautifully, with a compliment that seems legit. But first things first – he’s only approaching a woman he got an IOI from. This is crucial. Just listen to how easily he picks up this bird. You can do this. When I last gave you advice, I suggested you do a PUA course and just go to work. Are you doing that? If not, sign up for Krauser today. Fyi, my comments about the claims of “science” when referring to Krauser in an earlier post don’t mean that I don’t think he’s doing useful stuff. I just think that with no control, you can’t analyze the data properly. Apparently this pissed him off so much he did a blog post supposedly debunking my assertions about the lack of rigor in any data he analyzed due to his lack of a controls – and he then just presented a bunch of other uncontrolled experiments as proof that I was wrong, citing the authority of Karl Popper to hide behind. Lol, he has no idea who he’s talking too (stats and Popper are my bag, baby). But he’s really great for guys who can’t get laid, and I think his course would be a great way for you to get over yourself.

    I bet you could fuck 10 hot women in 2015 if you did his course.

    2. This hot girl who’s talking sexy to you wants to fuck you. You just need to keep up the “R” selection approach with her. listen to how Krauser does this in the vid above. You also have to come up with a way to rendezvous. I don’t care how far she is – and make her do the traveling. Do not go to her, you have to have her want you and invest in being with you – if she’s broke you can buy her the train ticket or fill up her gas tank but do not chase her, whatever you do. Also, DON’T START QUALIFYING WITH HER. I suggest you text/FB game her into a froth first given the distance. You have to get this – she already wants you. Women don’t talk about sex in the way you describe to a man they aren’t wet for. But you have to get that if you try to “convince” her to be with you, you won’t get anywhere. Act, don’t talk. I’d also be tempted to be a bit on asshole with her over text/FB. You need to get her stirred up and then re-engage her in the dirty talk. Naked pix are next. Here’s a little trick for you to make that happen. This is truly magic, and I normally don’t give away my own secrets to other guys but I really want you to fuck this bird. I want you to be in her bedroom, naked, sitting there while she checks in with her BF right in front of you and then fucks you. You need to get how easily a woman will do this with you, or someone else.

    Text game:
    Softek – I’m bored, let’s play a game. Send me a pic of the part of your body you hate the most.
    (follow this up with a pic of your nasty toes or the back of your knee or your elbow).

    Her – blah, blah, blah (it truly doesn’t matter what she says or how she reacts).

    Softek – It isn’t your ass, is it? (before she sends the pic). While it’s a little wide, it does have a great shape. (you could say this about her nose or knees or hair – whatever you know she’s likely to dislike about herself).

    Do I have to explain the rest? The key with the ugly body part is to keep this all light and fun. Make her laugh about her worst body part. Then tell her to send one of her best body part.

    Or since you are talking to her about sex, send her a porn vid and ask her if she likes it. Tell her you jerked off to it… You need to up the sexuality – she will either play along or you never had a chance of fucking her in the first place.

    Part of what I think needs to happen to you, aside from getting laid, is to get used to being rejected and dealing with the sting of it, and letting it roll off of you completely. If I was your Zen master, I’d beat you with a cane every day until you did 50 approaches. Go now. To a coffee shop or a bookstore or a mall or a fucking bowling alley. Whatever. Do these three things. First make sure you look great. Then see who gives you an IOI. Then approach.

    Rinse and repeat until you are balls deep in a hottie.

  64. @Glenn

    I think he is just on the fence regarding af/bb, seeing bb on the surface makes him angry but he also understands his anger is misguided as the male in the bb relationship is a chump. Not sure of is gaming abilities though, your advice sounds like a bunch of scripted pua jargon lol

  65. ‘From the beginning, Genesis Chapter 1, and always, dominance literally means stomping down: boot on the neck, treading on them.’

    I think you have dominance and tyrannical mixed up.

  66. @ Daedalus – As a lifelong sailor, I can tell you that a captain of any sizable vessel rarely is at the helm. The captain charts the course and makes sure the crew is doing it’s job – steering the boat is quite easy to do and in fact, with today’s auto-pilots, usually isn’t even necessary. He also makes sure the boat is in proper condition and that supplies are laid in etc. And when it really counts, I go up and look for myself as I don’t trust anyone else’s eyes. Being captain of a boat is most of all about exercising prudential judgment. The weather, the tide, the condition of the vessel, the limits of the crew – all these and many more aspects come into the decision-making of a captain.

    There is only one captain on a ship, and his rule while at sea is total. The “first mate” isn’t a co-captain, he just runs the crew according to the orders I give. I’ve done quite a bit of sailboat racing, and in fact the best way to fuck up running a boat is to have two captains. One of the boats I raced on had two owners and while we were on the race course it was always a battle for control. We didn’t win a single race that season and crewing on that boat was pure misery (crewing has a fair amount of misery to it under normal circumstances as race boats are not designed for the comfort of race crew).

    I let many people think they have input and say over how I decide things – that doesn’t mean they do.

  67. Earl – “I think you have dominance and tyrannical mixed up.”

    Dominance is a tyranny of dread.

    What seems to be key to making that, work without being oppressive, is to create an understanding that the man doesn’t need the woman. Nothing she can do can’t be done better or cheaper by contractors. She is attached to his project because she pleases him, and being pleasing is the entirety of her role. A role that needs to be filled but a role that can filled by many different women. Making clear her replacibilty is the baseline of dread.

  68. Jesus Christ Softek… I’m reading through your entire wall of text and thinking to myself the whole time that the hot little 9 who walks all over her boyfriend was throwing out a shit ton of very blatant IOI’s. My guess is she was DTF. I get the frustration though. As a super lone wolf, introvert, I used to be completely oblivious to women’s interests. Not anymore though.

    As for Gina de Laurentiis…

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/12/30/giada-de-laurentiis-husband-divorce-todd-split/21044183/

  69. One thing we should all remember and stay focused on is the fact that controlling our own lives (living within OUR frame not anyone else’s) is first and foremost the route to fulfillment. Controlling others behavior toward us is impossible without first being in control of ourselves.

    Rollo hammers this fact home over and over again from various angles.

    Thank you Rollo.

  70. One thing we should all remember and stay focused on is the fact that controlling our own lives (living within OUR frame not anyone else’s) is first and foremost the route to fulfillment.

    My mission requires me to go dancing both Fri. and Sat. nights. My wife thinks that I should stay home one night. “Married men don’t do that.” Constant insecurity testing.

  71. @Mentats!

    “Putting my dick in a vagina is not worth this amount of hassle. I’ll die a virgin and I’m okay with that. Fuck this shit.”

    LOL

  72. @theasdgamer

    “My mission requires me to go dancing both Fri. and Sat. nights. My wife thinks that I should stay home one night. “Married men don’t do that.” Constant insecurity testing.”

    I like it, its like permanent dread for maintenance.

  73. @earl, I suggest you reading the Bible about domination, starting as I said in Gen 1. Domination is what it is, i.e. boot on the neck. I don’t like it either, btw.

  74. @mentats

    “Putting my dick in a vagina is not worth this amount of hassle. I’ll die a virgin and I’m okay with that. Fuck this shit.”

    Do not loose heart. You are not ok with that. Isolation will lead to nothing but extreme regret leaving you unfulfilled and bitter.

    It is worth it when you understand the dynamic and to control your space. It is like taming and riding a horse. You must first understand the nature of the horse, recognize and embrace your power before you can gain respect from the horse. Observe, patience. There is much to be gained and enjoyed. Just remember the horse is never allowed to ride you. You have nothing to loose.

  75. @Mentats

    Real lasting appreciation from another is illusive and unreliable at best in all contexts. This appreciation sought after pales in comparison to self respect and the realization of your abilities. We are all formed and live as seperate beings. This is the reality and the essence of freedom. The world is both treacherous and beautiful. This is what makes the dance of life worth the effort. What may seem like work now can and will become play once you start taking the steps.

  76. @Mentats!

    Too much work with no reward. I refuse to work to gain the affection of someone who can never appreciate the sacrifices I make for them.

    Keep in mind before you say that, that even men cannot appreciate the sacrifices you have made. Humanity is solipsistic, not by intent, but by mental limitation. We exist as a tiny spec in a universe whose vastness we cannot comprehend, yet we go about our days as though what a single person said on twitter is the most important thing in our lives. If we had the natural capability of true multitasking minds and/or direct mental perception of the emotions of others, I doubt this blog would exist. What you’re upset about is not a bug of women, it’s a feature of humanity.

  77. ‘ I suggest you reading the Bible about domination, starting as I said in Gen 1. Domination is what it is, i.e. boot on the neck. I don’t like it either, btw.
    George’

    Are you referring to boot on the neck when it comes to sin in your life…or in matters when it comes to your wife?

  78. @George

    I don’t want to deal with women’s bullshit. I find interaction with people tiring and the idea of putting on this bullshit act to get pussy sickening. Love is a lie and marriage is slavery. So fuck it I’m avoiding all of it. There is always someone better and I’m not going to be used to branch swing.

  79. One thing I’ve noticed about the married alpha types is that they often didn’t enter the relationships as alphas but that their wives helped build them into alphas.

    A certain type of woman (dare I say good woman) will naturally defer to the man and allow herself to be lead. Being the object of deference (cooked meals, clean house, washing and ironing etc.) instills a certain obligation to reciprocate. For the infantry guys out there they know what it’s like to be a squad leader, you go from being a grunt to a leader of men, completely different mind set.

    The sphere has this notion that men mould women and any indiscretion by a woman is invariably the result of beta backsliding. I can’t fathom how anyone can expect a man (no matter how alpha) to override two decades of her formative years conditioning.

    Some women simply cannot be lead, ever, nowadays it’s probably most women.

    As a long time sports coach every year I go through pre-season and have to weed out those that aren’t team players, I’ve been in the game long enough to know the personalities that will self destruct or blow up the team. In my naive years I thought I could ‘fix’ those types but I found out otherwise the hard way.

    There’s a reason the Bible exhorts young men to be wary of ‘quarrelsome’ women.

    Heck, I’m from Eastern Europe and I can recall stories the from old timers laughing about women who used to get the living snot beat out of them and they would continue to backchat. Eventually they relented and just gave up and let the women rule the roost.

    You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

  80. …it’s easy to see why the MGTOW option seems like an understandable recourse for red pill men. It’s a very seductive temptation to think that a man can simply remove himself from the performance equation with regards to women. I’ll touch on this later, but what’s important here is understanding the performance game men are necessarily born into. Like it or not, play it or not, as a man you will always be evaluated on your performance (or the perception of it).

    I think what trips a lot of men up early in their red pill transformation is sort of a sense of indignation towards women that they should have to “be someone they’re not” and play a character role that simply isn’t who they are in order to hold a woman’s interest. I covered this idea in Have A Look and developed how women are like casting agents when it comes to the men they hope will entertain them.

  81. @ Bromeo – Scripted PUA jargon works. Just don’t make your life about getting laid. I basically learned much of the same techniques PUAs teach via NLP and as a trained sales person and some leadership training I did that started with linguistics and ontology. Scripts work to teach new sales reps how to sell, but no good rep uses a script. Ditto for PUAs.

    I got interested in it after taking the Red Pill and it’s helped me refine my approach with women and filled in some blanks for me. I’ve just read a couple of books at this point, I don’t need a course as I’m fearless, can and do talk to anyone, have an N over 100 and am really good with women in some ways. However, at 52, it’s completely different and actually game is helping me a lot, mainly because I’ve become better at detecting subtle IOIs, and being thoughtful about how I look and the impression I make on people.

    If you do okay with women without the PUA stuff, as I mostly did, then I get it, it’s sounds weird. But if you are a guy who’s completely fucked with women? LIke Softek? It could save his life. And your’s maybe – the poor guy is going to go postal if he doesn’t sink his cock into some cooz.

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