Commodifying Love

commodity

Dalrock gave me something to chew on recently:

In my first post of 2014 I introduced the topic of the ugly feminist.  As I explained at the time, this is an old charge but is typically aimed at the superficial instead of the core problem.  Feminists are ugly because the philosophy of feminism is ugly. It is based on avoiding caring for others and being miserly with love.  Several commenters pointed out that this is a devastating charge against feminism, as they could see no viable counter argument for it.

I’m not going to try to offer a counter to Dal’s assertion because in essence I think he’s correct. However I will suggest that this ugliness is the result of a commodification of love (and with it sexual access) that’s resulted from the unfettering of women’s Hypergamy. Love and caring is the commodity women’s Hypergamy uses to fulfill their dualistic sexual strategy.

To this day my most contentious post (and chapter in the book) on RM is Women in Love. This is primarily due to first time readers taking my assertions to their literal extreme. Women’s concept of love stems from opportunism, men’s concept stems from idealism. Most women and Blue Pill men take this to mean that women cannot actually love a man, and absolutist men angry with themselves for having never understood it think much the same thing, “My God! I knew it all along, women cannot actually love a man.”

I assert neither of these positions (really the same position) in that post, nor any of the followup post (that no one seems to want to read once they make up their minds), but what I do assert is:

Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.

In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.

Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

In prior posts I’ve also made the case that men’s idealistic perspective of love stems from an unending need for performance to merit a woman’s opportunistic love. It’s not that men want an unrealistic, unconditional love, but rather they want a woman’s love to be a refuge from having to perform up to, above and beyond the requirements of satisfying an unending optimization of her Hypergamy. It’s not unconditional love they idealize, it’s a love that’s not predicated on their burden of performance.

What frustrates this love idealism is that men are popularly sold the idea that women’s love is based on a mutually similar model. From Disney movies to romantic comedies, to Shakespeare and epic stories, to popular music and the daily talk shows, the message is that love (if it’s real love) is omniscient, conquers all and overcomes all odds. It’s a very seductive message of hope for men whose lives and existences are evaluated on constant performance.

“Could she really love me despite all of my glaring inadequacies?”

“Does she love the real me or is it my money and the lifestyle I provide for her?”

The fact that these themes are a constant in human history illustrates the subconscious, peripheral awareness we have of the differing models of love each sex bases their understanding of love on.

The Commodity

What this selling of idealistic love does for men is keep them in a state of perpetual hope that this idealism is shared by both sexes and they can realistically achieve that ideal goal of a love not founded on his performance. It’s important to note here that this performance isn’t necessarily something a man must make a constant effort to maintain (though this is the usual case), but rather what he represents, not who he is personally. It may be that his effortless looks or inherent status represents a cue for a woman’s optimal hypergamous satisfaction, or it may be the result of years of dedicated performance effort – either way it’s what that man represents; remove the factors a man possesses that satisfy a woman’s Hypergamy and her opportunistic model of love will reveal itself.

Feminists are ugly because the philosophy of feminism is ugly. It is based on avoiding caring for others and being miserly with love.

Dalrock’s observation here is profound in that it illustrates exactly the state of opportunism on which women base their concept of love. On some level of consciousness women understand the inherent value their love, concern, attention and caring has for men. It’s repression or expression is a commodity that has reward value for men who also have an awareness that their performance is what merits a woman’s love.

The popular criticism is that this want for an idealistic love is really a man’s preoccupation with his need for sex, but this is to be expected from a fem-centric culture that needs women to ration love and caring for men in order to ensure its social dominance. And God forbid a man express his desire for a performance-less based love and caring; he’s ostracized for wanting a mother’s love (Freudian), being necessitous (thus powerless) and revealing his deficiency in performance.

As Open Hypergamy becomes more proudly embraced and normalized in society, so too will women’s sexual strategy be laid more bare. And in laying that strategy bare, so too will women’s opportunistic model of love become more apparent to men. This new apparentness is already conflicting with the old-order messaging that kept men hopeful of realizing their idealistic love state.

Women cannot sell Open Hypergamy and the love-conquers-all ethereal ideal love at the same time.

Dal is correct, the philosophy of feminism is ugly, but it’s important to consider that feminism is just the current social operative of the Feminine Imperative today. For the moment women can be miserly with love and caring. They can even express resentment for having to be so with men who they doubt are meritorious of it, or for those who don’t measure up to the rigors of an increasingly open and increasingly demanding Hypergamy.

They can do this because they understand that the hopeful, idealistic love they have men convinced can be achieved is still a commodity to men.

Before I close, I’m going to give you a bit of Red Pill hope (again). Men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. My point with this essay is to reveal how this love develops and the conditional environments it comes together in. In spite of the strongest bonds, there is a threshold at which men’s loving idealism and women’s performance requirements can test, stress and break that bond.

Men’s idealistic love can be strong, as can women’s opportunistic love – the two models are not mutually incompatible, and it’s my belief that the two are even complementary to each other. Neither is a right or wrong way to love, and neither is the definition of real love. Bear in mind these are models that predicate a condition of love, what happens after that is up to the individuals.

Where these models become incompatible is when one commodifies and exploits the condition of love that the other holds. In an era of unapologetic feminine primacy and unignorable open Hypergamy, this commodification undeniably rests with the feminine.

For further reading see the Love series of posts:

Women in Love
Men in Love
Of Love and War
Burden of Performance
Love Story

250 comments

  1. Great to see you giving some “red pill hope” as I think too many guys get discouraged and feel that women can never truly care about them based on this model. The truth gets far more complicated than that, once the “conditions for love” are in place.

    One thing that I think is symmetrical for both men and women is the ranking of “value.” Yes, men and women evaluate each other based on different criteria, but I believe in either direction, believing someone to be at the high end of the sexual market value you can capture in a partner goes a long way toward solidifying the glue of a relationship. If you are sexy to a woman, and perhaps the most attractive overall lover she’s ever had, you will have a lot more wiggle room in your burden of performance. And maybe “performance” doesn’t have to be what job you have, how much money you make, etc. But your continued ability to “game” her and create stimulating emotional and physical experiences. That just sounds like fun (to create it as a man), not necessarily a burden. We should reframe the way we look at this!

  2. It is based on avoiding caring for others and being miserly with love.

    Words to live by… Care only about yourself, and do what is best for you and expect nothing more from anyone else, and you will NEVER be surprised, or disappointed. Just set it up so that benefits you, and you’ll be golden. Don’t expect women to ever live up to their publicity – expect them to always go with the least common denominator of what is best for them. Use it… Enjoy it…

    As long as you live by that philosophy of life, you’ll always come out on top. It’s the way of the world – so make it work for you. You don’t have to “like” it – just accept it. You’ll be a lot better off…

  3. Great post. I’ve been reading for a few months now, and this really clarified some ideas I hadn’t quite understood. I thought this line in particular was helpful: “Women’s concept of love stems from opportunism, men’s concept stems from idealism.” That’s an admirably succinct and elegant way of describing the sexes’ differing conceptions of love.

  4. re: “in a way he thinks she should be capable of”

    She *could* be capable if she really tried. Corollary: women cannot be expected to really try.

    There, I said it.

  5. re: “And God forbid a man express his desire for a performance-less based love and caring; he’s ostracized for wanting a mother’s love (Freudian), being necessitous (thus powerless) and revealing his deficiency in performance.”

    This is the crux of it. This is the *easy* way for women to love: as a mother.

  6. Rollo – “In spite of the strongest bonds, there is a threshold at which men’s loving idealism and women’s performance requirements can test, stress and break that bond.”

    A threshold that is largely influenced by factors outside of a man’s control. The social/legal structures shifting between the poles of idealism (duty) and opportunism (empowerment). Currently those structures support opportunism, and thus men must be as opportunistic as possible to survive. This creates the Everyman for Himself environment which is ultimately a winner take all system. This negatively impacts the natural competitive collaboration of men by emphasizing competition and devaluing collaboration.

    In the previous comment thread several posters told Mentats! he couldn’t leave the game. This is true, but that doesn’t mean he can’t take the opportunistic approach and stop playing the “popular” version of the game, and focus exclusively on what he sees as the type of game(s) most beneficial to himself. He can ignore the referees and evaluators, and write his own rules. In an primarily opportunistic system he has great latitude to shift focus, goals, and investments because must only be concerned with how he is affected.

    Opportunism is the future! I have had several women tell me they can’t stand hearing a man say “I love you.” I never understood exactly why until now. It’s because women assume it means the same as when they say it. They understand the opportunism, and the performance expectation necessary to get such a confession, so what they see is attached obligation. They’d rather have the stuff unless they themselves are experiencing love for the man in question, at which point idealism is indeed perfect.

    For the common man abandoning idealism wholesale in this realm is necessary to survive. To be successful, to maintain frame, to avoid becoming a chump the fastest route is to love as opportunistically as women do. Of course being men that opportunism will be exceedingly harsh because idealism is man’s default and the criteria of her pperformane evaluations will be based on ideals. Women who develope feelz will be crushed by men who dismiss them because of poor oral skills, gaininng five pounds or not being able to cook. Opportunism is best expressed by seeking, and being receptive to “better” or simply more options. Commitment is not a growth opportunity for a man.

  7. re: “Neither is a right or wrong way to love.”

    Well, no. To say so is to excuse women for commodfying love, and is white knighting. It’s exactly the same as excusing any toddler for bad behavior “She couldn’t help it; that’s just the way she is.”

  8. Besides the motherly love that women can excel at, a woman’s romantic love for a man is vestigial compared to his romantic love for her. Women hate this fact, i.e. the fact that they cannot latch romantically like oneitis man so easily do.

  9. @Badpainter re: “Opportunism is best expressed by seeking, and being receptive to “better” or simply more options.”

    Correct. This is a man’s version of commodifying love: demanding better treatment by seeking options i.e. spinning plates.

  10. The hugest error that women make regarding, and AWALT, is to project in this way: women believe that the more difficult it is to fall in love, the harder you fall when you do fall. The opposite is true.

  11. Take the case of Jaycee Lee Dugard, the girl who was kidnapped for 18 years and who gave birth to two girls while in captivity. After her rescue, she simultaneously expressed that she hated the kidnapper, while absoutely loving the two girls she bore – (who were both 50% DNA of the kidnapper need i remind you). Dugard was given 20 million dollars by the state of California as a settlement without trial, a free gift. That equates to a $1.1 millon income per year for 18 years of captivity.

    Its pretty obvious that the female imperative allows women to bear children and love them- even if they are 50% comprised of the evil that subjugated them.

    Meanwhile there are thirsty betas who will beg to date and pay for a chance to date the two girls, thereby casually accepting that they are dating girls who are 50% spawn of evil.

    Everything i’ve written above is logical and valid. But definitely not aligned or framed from the female perspective.

    it leaves me scratching my head as to associating with other men (who might find it perfectly acceptable to fuck girls descended from evil) or women (who might empathize with Duggard and her loving relationship with her 50% evil children)

    In the above society, tread lightly when defining love.

  12. I recommend you guys read this:

    http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2015/01/found-on-rooshs-forum-guy-does-3000.html

    Somewhere in that post is a very profound red pill truth. Can you find it? This goes beyond “performance” and goes right at the heart of the matter in regards to a women’s notion of love. Women are, to put it bluntly, machines made for acquiring the best genes possible. That’s it. It is men who tend to disregard this truth for other romanticisms and idealisms (she loves me for my personality or game).

    I’d wager that women are actually way more rational and not more emotional than men at the start of a new relationship. How many times have we all heard “women are more emotional than men, just give her good feels and you’re good to go”? I still think that’s bullshit given how much we know about a women’s hypergamy strategy.

    For women, love has a very primal and direct focus to a man’s…genetic stock. Women and men are really no different in what inspires love to begin with (your physical characteristics), hence “it was love at first sight.” Now, where they do differ is how each sex has its own ways of sustaining and optimizing love.

    I won’t deny that men really have a heavy burden (even for things that are not directly in his control) in performance. But hypergamy doesn’t care. In a way, as ruthless as it is in ensuring its proficiency, one can’t help but marvel just how women were shaped evolutionarily for it. Our ancestral past must have been very unforgiving and women had to continuously build their hypergamic model to near perfection, or risk the extinction of the species. The irony here, is that hypergamy will also ensure our extinction if it goes unchecked for too long (see: sub-replacement fertility)

  13. Excellent stuff, as usual. I think The Last Psychiatrist looked at this from a different perspective, although I could be misreading him. He seems to believe that is more important for the man to think that the woman views him as superior than it is for her to actually think that. For example:

    This is what every man and a certain kind of woman asked in 1998: “Bill Clinton was President, he could have had any woman he wanted, he chose Monica Lewinsky?” No, he had to become President to be able to get Monica. That’s the size of the power differential that was necessary for him to feel relaxed and confident that a woman liked him. If he had tried to get someone like, say, Cameron Diaz (who was also famous at that time for doing nearly nothing) he would be thinking, “oh my God, this woman can totally see I’m a dweeb.”

    That was part of a larger article examining Tiger Woods here: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/12/tiger_woods_part_2.html

    Any thoughts?

  14. Care only about yourself, and do what is best for you and expect nothing more from anyone else, and you will NEVER be surprised, or disappointed.

    You’ll probably never be happy, either.

  15. @McGregor re: “Our ancestral past must have been very unforgiving”

    I’ve been leaning heavier and heavier in the direction of generations of human females having to survive being war brides, and being raped. I can’t think of a sharper Occam’s Razor that explains women’s universal preference for sex with bad strangers, and for women being able to fall out of love so very easily (since the bad guys are going to come and kill her mate and carry her off).

  16. Roughly speaking, all of morality boils down to advising women to go against their natures and try to prefer nice guys, and to advising men to try to be nice guys even when they see it doesn’t work with women.

    Unfortunately somewhere along the way this message got distorted into pretending that women *do* already prefer nice guys.

  17. Commodification cannot happen until after quantification.

    How Big Is Your Love? (the song writes itself)
    and how do you measure it?

  18. tsotha – “You’ll probably never be happy, either.”

    A quote from movie Rush answers this:

    Lauda talking to his wife: “Happiness is the enemy. It weakens you.”

  19. IROT #6 is perhaps the hardest thing for men to realize. And when the woman does not love you the way you feel she should, most men revert to a whiny little girl and kill the relationship even more.

    A sick, sad joke nature has placed upon humans.

  20. Jf12, I posted a bit on the nature of war and how it may have helped women evolve their tendency to be able to shut out the love they felt at one time for a man when they move on, to posts ago I believe.

    Not only the rape factor, but also the percentage factor, more women, less men, even mediocre men now become valued. More men, pity the chap who is not in the top 40 percentile.

    Yes, women can be very rational.

  21. I think some of the problem here, also noted by Dalrock’s “miserly with love” observation, is that women are being trained to change tactics when dealing with men. Historically, women were taught to use more of a positive reinforcement strategy with men, rewarding a man’s good performance with expressions of love and caring. This approach allowed the man to believe in his idealistic notions of love and also motivated his continued performance to support the woman’s opportunistic needs too.

    At present, women are being socially encouraged to move to a negative reinforcement strategy. Specifically, they are taught to voice their dissatisfaction, nag, and belittle a man, only letting up briefly when he performs well. This type of reinforcement is more “miserly”, in that the woman does not have to offer anything positive of value in return for the man’s good behavior. She simply has to stop belittling him when he performs.

    Unfortunately, negative reinforcement is not as pleasant for the man. There is a big difference between performing to get a carrot and performing to stop getting whipped. As a result, hope for an idealistic love (or even satisfaction) in such circumstances is harder to hold, particularly given that such treatment can erode a man’s self-esteem and feelings of worth.

    However, negative reinforcement still does fulfill a woman’s opportunistic needs, because it still gets a man to perform. In fact, it may be even more popular today because all women can use it “equally” well. While positive reinforcement depends on the value of the reward (e.g. the woman’s SMV), negative reinforcement simply depends on being noxious. Put another way, negative reinforcement is a power anyone can wield, because it requires taking…not giving. Of course, that is why Dalrock’s “miser” is incompatible with Rollo’s “complementary” relationship…and why relationships are becoming less ideal and satisfying for men.

  22. @DrJ re: “Specifically, they are taught to voice their dissatisfaction, nag, and belittle a man”

    Oh come on, dude! You KNOW that’s innate; it doesn’t have to be taught!

  23. re : “performing to get a carrot”

    You’re not grokking this whole commodification thing, are you.

  24. jf12 – “…generations of human females having to survive being war brides, and being raped. I can’t think of a sharper Occam’s Razor…”

    Although it’s the most politically thing incorrect to say I’ll say it.

    Rape is a viable, and naturally logical sexual strategy.

    Since male violence is the corallry of hypergamy it should be ovbvious how open unrestricted hypergamy invites a boogeyman like “rape culture” into being because the unwanted men really have nothing to lose in the SMP. Extreme expressions of hypergamy should and I would argue do bring an expectation, if not the reality of extreme rections on the part of men The legal consequences, and social prohibitions against rape are outside the discussion of why the fear exists. The fear however drives the politics of the discussion about how to mitigate, and prevent rape. And the fear only grows stronger when the full burden of cost of prevention falls upon all men including the unwanted. For any part of the prevention burden to fall on women as an expectation is actually a restraint on hypergamy.

  25. I offer up a corollary to Iron Rule of Tomassi #6 (Angry’s Doctrine)
    Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved. Because the only woman who loves a man as he wishes to be loved is his mother, Unconditionally. Therefore he is always in search of an ideal that will never be realized in another woman.

    THIS I submit explains the TRUE reason for strife between Mother and Daughter-in-Law! (giggle)

    Rollo, your recent posts have really inspired me to articulate what I experience daily. That is… as women age the ones who seem the happiest in my circle of acquaintance are the women who have multiple children of their own. And without exception Lesbians and never mothers are the most miserable females to be around without exception.
    AND I submit that while women may love a “man” opportunistically they love their children unconditionally. Could it be that multiple loved children by the same man has a knock on effect of inspiring a bit of loyalty?

    In my, granted limited, experience. It is the feminist philosophy of self-centered improvement and empowerment that is the driving thought towards Open Hypergamy, Is it no wonder that the leading figures in Feminism are lesbians? They have abdicated their procreative future and are foisting this lie of female empowerment onto unthinking hetero-females. Open Hypergamy emphasizes getting THE BEST GENES not the most stable environment for ones offspring. Oh and if you are only going to have 1-2 kids, girl you should make sure those 1-2 are really alpha bred superkids, right girl?

    The cracks in the Feminist Maginot Line are showing… just read a little about the Princeton Mom.
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/13/living/princeton-mom-book-marry-smart-matrimony/

    She ASKED a group of college ladies if they wanted a family. ALL of them said they did. But… none of them were in a LTR. Wonder why when all their lesbian professors are bagging on men every day in class.

    But no matter what femo-bull the current philosophy is. Women DO want to have kids (to love unconditionally). The man is relegated to being a sperm donor. Oh and as a bonus this OH feminist mindset institutionalizes the idea of Alpha Fux doesn’t it?

  26. To women, raw Masculinity is raw Power, and vice versa. They are identical.

    Because of women’s instinctual commodification, the more you share power, women will ALWAYS see you as more feminine .In this context, the more you show loving care, women will ALWAYS see you as more feminine.

  27. @Badpainter re: “The fear however drives the politics of the discussion”

    Yes the fear, and the dare.

  28. @jf12

    I believe women have a number of innate behavioral characteristics, across a spectrum of positive to negative. Which ones are routinely expressed depend on how they are raised, trained, and shaped themselves.

    As for commodification… I believe all relationships are an exchange. So, both men and women are always performing to meet needs and get them met in return. We have an emotional overlay above that, which can further drive behavior and obfuscate the exchange. At the end of the day though, relationships are simply a series of transactions. The only difference is whether they are driven by satisfaction and positive emotions (carrots) or punishment and negative emotions (whips). During a mutually positive exchange, however, people simply get lost in the feelings of doing good for each other and forget they are making positively reinforcing transactions…but they still are making an exchange, trade, sale, commodity, etc.

  29. @DrJ re: “During a mutually positive exchange, however, people simply get lost in the feelings”

    We can start there. I interpret Rollo to mean by “idealistic” in this context: love for love’s sake; i.e. for men the carrot is the internal feeling of love. In contrast “opportunistic” means *exploiting* the feeling of love to get something else *besides* love.

  30. Just musing now. Perhaps it is the commodification of love that breaks love, that causes it to be finite instead of renewably everlasting.

  31. On the subject of sexual strategies. I’ll recount a formative experience I had with my father and grandfather.

    I was engaged to be married and my Grandfather (who is now 91 by the way) said to me, “Have kids quickly because you never know.” My father amplified that by saying, “Yep keep her barefoot and pregnant”.

    Of course my modern college educated sensibilities were aghast at this advice. I mean how could I think of my lovely wife as simply a brood mare?

    Well nature has a way of making decisions for us and my wife was quickly pregnant and being from Europe walked around without shoes much of the time. Amusing my father when he came to visit I’m sure. BUT you know… I did (mostly accidentally) keep my wife pregnant throughout her twenties. AND it’s worked out pretty well. Why not consider that people from an earlier time had a better handle on female psychology than we give them credit for?

    What if Feminism is nothing but a smoke screen to confuse men from the fundamental biological truths that were obvious in a simpler time? Men should press to have women conceive children… because no matter what they will love the children unconditionally. And in that elemental truth lies the answer to family happiness.

  32. @ Badpainter
    January 2nd, 2015 at 4:37 pm

    “To be successful, to maintain frame, to avoid becoming a chump the fastest route is to love as opportunistically as women do.”

    Yea well reiterated, for this is KEY!! its what all the “Alpha Bad Boys” (Natural or Learned) have in spades! goes back to the abundance mind set mentality, the more plates you spin the easier this skill becomes. It takes such! a long time to master this though, I struggle massively with this, SO easy to slip down the slippery slope to accommodating not in control Beta mode again when you have a HB9 hanging off your arm….

  33. Women love high performing men because evolution valued that instinct. So instead of being cynical could we instead use that as useful information? I.E. High performing men are objectively better. There is nothing subjective about it. It wouldn’t make sense if women weren’t hypergamous. For the same reason beautiful women are better. There is nothing subjective about it.

    I don’t mean they are better as human beings but over the last 250,000 years they have been objectively more successful at birthing and raising children.

  34. ^^^^
    Long story short men should strive to be high performing and women should strive to be beautiful. Nature tells us that works.

  35. @jf12

    I guess I even see “love for love’s sake” as an exchange. For the man to experience an internal feeling of love, the woman still needs to perform in a certain way. Ideally, she praises and appreciates him in accordance with how he wants to feel. At the least, she has to avoid looking like she has anything else to gain, otherwise it diminishes his internal feelings. In any case, how she responds and acts influences how he feels inside.

    Thus, anything for the “sake” of doing it (doing good, love, altruism, etc.) still has a payoff. We try to conceptualize it differently, because “ulterior motives” diminish the experience of pure emotions that we feel (due to cognitive attribution processes). Nevertheless, it is just a false distinction. Whether you are performing to feel a positive emotion “directly” or via some other need being fulfilled, you’re still performing for some type of carrot.

    The only problem I see with all this it is that it causes unbalanced exchanges. Trading an “internal feeling” for a tangible benefit is not a good idea. The “worth” of those carrots is not the same. That is where a distinction needs to be made in my opinion. Building a house for a woman because she “loves you”, as opposed to the tangible benefits she will bring to it, is a lopsided trade. Personally, I don’t go out and buy groceries because my girl tells me she loves me. I buy them because she cooks me good food with them. I tell her I love her when she tells me she loves me. That way, I’m always trading apples for apples…even though it is always a trade.

    Thus, I think the issue with men being idealistic and looking for love for love is just another way that they have been taught to devalue themselves and sell themselves short. It is not a problem that everything is a trade…it is a problem that men have been encouraged to make bad trades that do not work for them. They have been conditioned to move mountains in exchange for nothing more than “atta boy”…and now they don’t even get that. Instead, they get 2 minutes of peace before the nagging resumes.

    So, we’re really discussing the fact that women often negotiate and trade better than men. They are more persuasive and influential. The fix is simple. Learn to trade idealistically for idealistic things (love for love) and opportunistically for opportunistic things (stuff for stuff).

  36. A man will generally endure extreme suffering and even sacrifice his life, figuratively and even sometimes literally, for his woman (and offspring) if necessary.

    A woman generally will not, the exception being when her emotional state is such that she has convinced herself, in the heat of the moment, that she could not live without him/them.

    NAMALT / NAWALT yeah yeah yeah, but…

    John 15:13
    “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

  37. It’s amazing the blatant display of commodification of love/sex that is out there, if we would only see it.

    Available on Amazon:

    http://www.amazon.com/Love-Languages-Secret-That-Lasts/dp/0802473156/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420244152&sr=8-1&keywords=love+languages

    “Marriage should be based on love, right? But does it seem as though you and your spouse are speaking two different languages? New York Times bestselling author Dr. Gary Chapman guides couples in identifying, understanding, and speaking their spouse’s primary love language—quality time, words of affirmation, gifts, acts of service, or physical touch.”

    Sure, it is no doubt dressed up in the book, but basically, if you want some affection or sex, one has to provide goods or services in exchange.

    Funny, I would have thought both partners would want affection and sex in marriage. Apparently, though, one has to mow the lawn in order to get her in the mood to plow her field as it were.

    My spouse got me to take a test in the back of this book, which I did. My red lenses then snapped into place and I saw it for what it was:

    A rate of exchange for sex.

  38. @Rollo – This seems very inconsistent to me. How can this be true – ” Men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. ” While this is true? “In an era of unapologetic feminine primacy and unignorable open Hypergamy, this commodification undeniably rests with the feminine.”

    As jf12 commented, this sounds like you trying to defend some women. I know you don’t talk about your own life and marriage in detail here for obvious reasons, but it seems to me that you are trying to have it both ways.

    To my thinking, it’s much better to see these innate drives as being bounded to some degree by circumstances. I think they also are affected by the SMV gradient between the man and woman. In my case, I punched way above my weight and I think in a sense my ex was much more prone to act out on her hypergamous nature because she had so much opportunity. I also know that I felt relieved of the burden of performance once I was married, rather than understanding that I always had to earn it. What I’m trying to say, if it isn’t clear, is that wrt hypergamy AWALT. The impulse is there and whether they stray or leave or not has more to do with these other factors than the power of an individual to overcome it.

    I also think many guys who think they have their marriage under control are kidding themselves. Study after study shows that women lie about the number of partners they’ve had, and most always have a Plan B man in the wings, and now are at least as unfaithful as men are. Your nice wife who some of you think you are controlling? She’s fucking the guy down the street when you are at work. Thinking your wife is different and not liable to do this is to kid yourself.

    @McGregor – If “women are machines” seeking the best genes, what are men? Machines seeking to propagate their genetic lineage?

  39. @badpainter

    Agreed. IIRC Vox Day has repeatedly stated that the endgame of feminism/SJW is either the brothel or the burkha.

  40. zdr01dz – “So instead of being cynical could we instead use that as useful information? I.E. High performing men are objectively better.”

    Who defines High Performing?

    If say magically in a generation all men performed at the highest level possible in 2015 then so what? The 80/20 rule woudn’t magically cease to apply.

    So what’s the most efficient strategy making yourself high performing, or merely focusing on sabotaging/eliminating your competition?

    So long as the FI gets the exclusive right to define High Performance, and so long a men accept the wisdom of those evaluation we are collectively screwed as there is no real evaluation or criteria which women must conform to.

  41. Seems like Ironwood’s writeup on “caritas,” plays into this discussion. Also, while many of us have been and may remain deeply hurt by our interpretations of aparrently unloving female behavior, I am reminded of an interesting scene from The Rapture wherein Ms. Rogers’ character chose to believe in a Loving context despite recent tragedy. To consciously choose a path that includes space for Love does not imply groveling or weakness or operating on feminist terms. I find it requires great strength on my part to hold space for Love despite much evidence of potential futility. Yes, Love exists, yes, we presume to analyze it and allege to understand it, yes, it simultaneously involves pain as well as pleasure, yes, there is in all this a koan and cognitive dissonance, and yes, we strive nonetheless against the un Loving, feminist or otherwise.

  42. @zdr01dz

    “Women love high performing men because evolution valued that instinct. So instead of being cynical could we instead use that as useful information? I.E. High performing men are objectively better. There is nothing subjective about it. It wouldn’t make sense if women weren’t hypergamous. For the same reason beautiful women are better. There is nothing subjective about it.”

    I agree with you here, and share the same viewpoint. I find a lot of people are attempting to argue this fact or somehow looking for a way to “solve” this issue inherent in females. We need to instead take it for what it is and adapt ourselves using this information to be better.

  43. @ Badpainter
    Who defines High Performing?
    Over the last 250,000 years of human history natural selection decided what was high performing. Females evolved the ability to detect traits that nature deemed advantageous. So essentially women’s desires tell us what is high performing. The only wild card is they are attracted to traits that were high performing in largely primitive environments. Farming is only about 10,000 years old.

    So in my eyes my the problem isn’t the game. It is what it is. My problem is that men aren’t allowed to know or discuss the rules.

  44. @Badpainter

    “So long as the FI gets the exclusive right to define High Performance, and so long a men accept the wisdom of those evaluation we are collectively screwed as there is no real evaluation or criteria which women must conform to.”

    I don’t think its the FI defining high performance at all, I believe the notion of high performance is purely RP in relating to what men need to do in order to maintain a male/female relationship.

    In terms of your second point for evaluation or criteria for women, I personally believe there is no such thing. We are in essence only fighting the fire, we are only reacting to years and years of female evolutionary phycology and mitigating ways to come out ahead.

    If you are looking to somehow find a definite solution to women’s innate behaviours and hold them to a evaluation or criteria to conform to, I hate to say it but its not possible.

  45. @ Bromeo
    We need to instead take it for what it is and adapt ourselves using this information to be better.
    Bingo! And the first step is to know the rules. When I give me sons the facts of life talk it won’t be about sex. It will be about women, what they find attractive and why that will matter to them.

    I don’t want to be the father who tells his fat daughter that she is beautiful just the way she is. Bullshit. Nature says otherwise. We owe our kids the truth even if it needs to be presented in a thoughtful, caring way.

  46. To become (and remain) attractive to women a man must be…

    A) Taller than she is
    B) Stronger than she is
    C) Smarter than she is
    S) More talented than she is
    D) wealthier than she is

    This is kind of simplistic but if a man isn’t most or all of those things he might as well assume he isn’t attractive to his wife/girlfriend. Hypergamy is a bitch but it does help to know the rules.

  47. @Glenn
    If ‘women are machines’ seeking the best genes, what are men? Machines seeking to propagate their genetic lineage?

    It’s simple once you understand this basic premise: Men display; Women choose.

    You could say that men are evolution’s guinea pigs up for testing. There’s also reason why it’s also much easier for a woman to be born attractive but much more difficult for a man (biologicaly speaking). Mind you, this is from a genetic perspective and not one based on choice (where men find the majority of women do-able but the majority of women find most men unattractive).

    Nonetheless, I recommend you see this link below:

    http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/articles/%28article%29how_females_choose.html

    Here’s a telling quote from that article:

    When males provide no obvious resources, such as food or protection, females may choose to mate with the males that appear to have the best genes. How do they know which males have good genes? And why don’t males just cheat by faking the traits associated with such genes? In 1975 Amotz Zahavi of the University of Tel Aviv in Israel suggested that females assess only those traits that are honest indicators of male fitness–a hypothesis known as the handicap principle. Honest indicators, which are “costly” to produce and maintain, should be associated with the most vigorous males.

    Once females have expressed a preference for a certain trait, a process called runaway selection can occur. The model, first brought to the attention of evolutionary biologists by Ronald Fisher in 1958, suggests that a male trait and the female preference for that trait coevolve. For example, females that prefer to mate with large males should produce large sons as well as daughters that show a preference for large males. Under certain conditions, this process can escalate, producing increasingly exaggerated male traits and stronger female preference for those traits.

    The female preference for increasingly exaggerated male traits are the times we’re living in today. Hence, the whole: “The top 15% of guys are getting most of the action right now” talks we see so frequent in the sphere.

  48. @ McGregor
    Hence, the whole: “The top 15% of guys are getting most of the action right now” talks we see so frequent in the sphere.
    I’m 45 and by no means am I a George Clooney lookalike. I’m a little over 5’7″ and In highschool most girls wouldn’t talk to me. However my body-fat is around 12% (I have a special scale that tells me) and I have a decent, athletic frame. When I was young that didn’t mean much but today that probably puts me in the top 10% of middle aged guys. With a little self control any healthy man can raise their SMV by quite a bit. My results are almost entirely because of diet, not exercise. So with some consistent work many men in the bottom 85% could boost themselves into the top 15%.

  49. I find it funny but not surprising that whichever RP topic we are discussing when traced back to the root it always leads to hypergamy. It may very well be the single most important truth in the manosphere.

  50. @ Bromeo
    Good point. I think maybe this is in part because men have no innate desire to marry up. Hypergamy doesn’t compute for us. I know what hunger feels like and I assume women feel it the same way I do. I’m empathetic to poor, hungry children because I know what they’re feeling. However I have no idea what hypergamy feels like. I’ve never felt it’s pull.

  51. @ zdr01dz

    There no vacancies in the top %15. You must work to displace someone from the top 15%. Athough that might seem a distinction without a difference it is not merely a matter of meeting a particular standard, but also never ending improvement to retain position.

  52. @ Badpainter
    There no vacancies in the top %15.
    I definitely hear what you are saying but I think that isn’t entirely correct. If all men were built like Olympic swimmers all men would be attractive to women because they are genetically programmed to find that shape desirable. Many variables in life are comparative like wealth. But I think with other variables there is an obvious, winning hand that is automatically attractive.

  53. @ Bromeo

    The FI gets exclusive rights to define high performance because men stopped doing so. Men also stopped expecting anything of women. The result is men who chase approval/validation from women, men who say “fuck it” and drop out, and women who are only good for NSA sex.

  54. @ zdr01dz

    I want to agree. But I see these positive SMP as being like education credentials. 100 years ago an 8th grade education was good enough, by 1950 a high school diploma, by 1980 a BA/BS in any subject, in 2014 a Masters degree is necessary. We are graded on a curve, and hypergamy will seek the top men regardless of how objectively good all men are because the standards continue to rise raising both the floor and ceiling.

  55. @ Badpainter
    We are graded on a curve, and hypergamy will seek the top men regardless of how objectively good all men are because the standards continue to rise raising both the floor and ceiling.
    As far as wealth is considered it is definitely a relative comparison. Good looks are semi-relative and semi-absolute. Beauty is based on mathematics and that’s an absolute. By the same token I’m not the best looking guy but my face looks young and I’m in great shape. That gives me a relative advantage because just about every other 45 year old is fat or obese, hehe.

  56. We would all better off if we worked towards replacing the word ‘love’ with the Greek words ‘érōs’ and ‘agápe’ depending on context. Éros is sexual passion, attraction, appreciation, arousal, and intimate association, but it’s never defined as unconditional. In regard to relationships between men and women, Éros is what we are talking about in the manosphere most of the time. One of the biggest problems with the English language that causes confusion to all involved (especially between Christians and non-christians) is the multiple meanings of the word love. The word ‘love’ is used to define the conditional feelings of érōs, but the word love is also used to define the Christian philosophy of love, which is agápe. Agápe is the way God feels and acts towards man. It’s feelings and actions are self-sacrificing, charitable, and is specifically defined in the Christian context as unconditional. It is the way God loves man and the way He expects man to learn to love those around him. Éros is what brings men and women together, but Agápe is what is keeps them together when one party is failing to meet the conditions for érōs. From the Christian point of view, there is no such thing as conditional “love”. If it was conditional, it fell short of love and was something else altogether.

  57. @ Glenn

    “Your nice wife who some of you think you are controlling? She’s fucking the guy down the street when you are at work.”

    This is unnecessarily nihilistic. Its ridiculous to think that every women is unfaithful. Jesus, this is the Manoshpere at its worst. Glenn, it sounds like you were a pathetic beta pre-red-pill. Not every man comes from that sad a background. I didn’t. I was a normal beta type that while not great with women was no Incel. My life would have been fine without Game, although it has been better with it. There are actually many normal betas out there with enough character strength to have decent marriages. And there are decent women out there as well that are not corrupted by Leftism. Yes, even in America.

    @McGregor

    “Hence, the whole: “The top 15% of guys are getting most of the action right now” talks we see so frequent in the sphere.”

    This needs to be placed in context. What you can say about a Pareto distribution in the sexual market is this: in the short term sex market (Krauser’s “r-selected” market), perhaps the top 20% of men are satisfying the short term sexual urges of the top 30 or 40 % of women. That means that the top players are giving the prettiest girls their adventure sex. But it does not mean that 20% of the men are having sex with 80% of total women. That is RETARDED. If that were say, civilization would break down. There would be too much intra-male competition, ie WAR, for humanity to be a civilization building species. IMO, humanity is FAR further towards K-selection than R. If it weren’t that way we would be a harem building ape and we would still be swinging from trees.

  58. Somebody above wrote something like:
    Men love women.
    Women love how men makes them feel.

    I think both men and women love how the other makes them feel.
    I don’t love women in general, as a man I hate hypergamy and other concepts named by the manosphere associated to women, but I love how they can make me feel in some moments. It’s biology.

    Is the nature of love (feelings) that is different. These concepts were already brilliantly described by Rollo and fellow commenters. What I can add is that even knowing that there is no one, there is hope: perform, be a MGTOW. My experience tells me that you’ll get the best feelings (love) that a woman can give you whether you are an alpha or a recovering beta, even if sometimes are only temporary blue pill allucinations. There were moments of my life that I felt like a king. I don’t believe that by being an alpha with women but a loser in life you can achieve such a great amount of positive feelings as with a combination of ‘love’ and goals seeking. Just know that is temporary and conditional and most important: accept that.

  59. @DrJ re: “Building a house for a woman because she “loves you”, as opposed to the tangible benefits she will bring to it, is a lopsided trade.”

    The things we do for love. Not merely houses plural, I essentially I built whole *lives* for women for love. I wish I could think of some tangibles they brought to the table, besides what they brought to the bed.

  60. @zroidz re: list
    “To become (and remain) attractive to women a man must be…

    A) Taller than she is
    B) Stronger than she is
    C) Smarter than she is
    S) More talented than she is
    D) wealthier than she is”

    No. This is true of almost all men; in fact the majority of men are taller and stronger and smarter and more talentened and wealthier than most women. It’s simply not true that a 5’4″ woman finds 5’6″ men tall enough.

  61. re: honest indicators.

    Until very recently the *only* truly honest indicator, “costly to procduce and maintain”, was being a family man. Seriously, the burden of being a husband and father and provider and protector and all that entails, has been the world’s biggest most elaborate peacock tail ever.

    And it’s not arousing in any way to any woman, at all. And I hypothesize it never has been arousing.

  62. @jf12

    i would feel used, and ashame of myself in that situation. That opportunistic love is too much for me even in the betaest of my days. Anyway thank you for the brutal honesty.

  63. Women do not want love from men; it is too easy for a woman to get love. Men want love from women. Women want strength from men, and NOT “loving strength” either. Just strength.

  64. @wideawake re: “Agápe is what is keeps them together when one party is failing to meet the conditions for érōs.”

    That’s what I was taught too, but it’s wrong. What keeps men around is the hysteresis of eros: men are latched to the point of limerence when in love.

  65. @jf12 re: “No. This is true of almost all men; in fact the majority of men are taller and stronger and smarter and more talentened and wealthier than most women. It’s simply not true that a 5’4″ woman finds 5’6″ men tall enough.”

    I agree with everything but the wealthier part. A lot of women are on par or exceed men in income these days because of the subsidization of women’s success. I would say than men have greater wealth potential, due to their innate superiority as a provider.

  66. …slightly off topic:

    A professor at MIT who is renowned in his field complained about feminist nerd shaming and the effect such rhetoric had on him in making him, as a shy male nerd, feel fearful about making sexual overtures. Amanda Marcotte and Laurie Penny attacked him for this.

    Another nerd comes along and defends the MIT guy (Warning: LONG) and takes down a lot of feminist rhetoric at the same time:

    http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/

    The comments are pretty interesting mix of feminists, rationalists, some red pillers, etc. There’s a moving comment from a google engineer who complains about being low status for women/dating.

    Curious thing about that MIT guy is he *only* managed to find some romantic success in his mid 20s *after* establishing himself as a super-star in his field, but the pain of being out in the cold from his teen years to his mid 20s are still with him.

    I share this because that essay on Slaterstarcodex (and the writings from that guy–Scott Alexander) are some of the most cogent rhetorical takedowns of 3rd-wave feminism.

  67. @Glenn re: “Thinking your wife is different and not liable to do this is to kid yourself.”

    Well, when I’m at work my long-post-menopausal wife tends to stay busy online, especially instagram and pinterest, as I can see at any time. Of course, I’d prefer her to be doing stuff around the house for me, but.

  68. @jf12

    I hear you brother. I went through it myself too. That is why I harp on the exchange perspective so much, even though it is not very emotionally appealing. It is the only perspective I have found that keeps guys (including me) grounded in reality, getting what they are worth, rather than giving the farm away for just a wink and a smile. Besides, even if the rest of the world wants to deny it or devalue it, we men should always remember how valuable it really is to be able to build a life for someone else – and take pride in it by putting the appropriate price on it, rather than simply getting manipulated to give it away.

  69. @10×10

    The Pareto distribution idea does get skewed in these circles. Here is where I think it comes from…

    If you look at lifetime sexual activity, about 30% of men and 10% of women are sociosexually unrestricted (high partner count, r selected). An additional 60% of men and 80% of women are sociosexually restricted (medium to low partner count, K selected). Finally the remaining 10% of men and women remain virgins.

    The problem (and the Pareto) comes in because the 20% or so r selected men who are not partnered with r selected women have to dip down into the 80% of K selected women for their sex partners. In other words, for the sex partner numbers to match up statistically, about 1/4 of the usually selective and restrictive women, who most likely will end up with a similarly restrictive and K selected man, has to have a sexual experience or two with a sexy cad in her lifetime. Thus, a quarter of this group of restricted women are actually “mixed” in their mating because, although their total partner count is low-to-medium, they did not always mate with similarly restricted men, nor did they always mate in sexually restricted ways.

    This does not mean that 20% of men are sexually monopolizing 80% of women. It also does not mean that those 80% of women are having dozens of partners (or “riding the carousel”) either. However, it does mean that, among the 80% of women who are generally restricted in their sexuality throughout life, roughly 20% will have a sexual experience with a sexually unrestricted man. So, although they do not monopolize them, the 20% of men do seem to have their short-term pick from among the 80% of women that other men will have to work and invest in long-term to get. This is what causes all the friction, anger, and even desire to be in the “top 20% of guys”.

  70. @jf12 re: “That’s what I was taught too, but it’s wrong. What keeps men around is the hysteresis of eros: men are latched to the point of limerence when in love.”

    It’s not wrong, it’s just difficult. Agápe is the conscious choice to embrace the self-aware human and bind the instinctual beast. It is extremely difficult to practice in this age, when the context of human existence is increasingly defined by moral relativism, evolutionary psychology and atheism; whose teaching leaves man feeling a fool for choosing anything other than his beast.

  71. @Badpainter

    “The FI gets exclusive rights to define high performance because men stopped doing so. Men also stopped expecting anything of women. The result is men who chase approval/validation from women, men who say “fuck it” and drop out, and women who are only good for NSA sex.”

    Your describing the current state of our society basically in those three types of scenarios for men. But this is exactly why we have RP and why we need to start becoming high performance in order to rise above FI.

  72. @DrJ re: “That is why I harp on the exchange perspective so much, even though it is not very emotionally appealing.”

    Actually the “love for love” exchange, as you said, is very emotionally appealing. I think Rollo is saying women are generically incapable of that exchange. Or maybe you’re saying women devalue men’s love.

  73. @wideawake re: “It’s not wrong, it’s just difficult.”

    No. I’m supposed to have the same agape love for my neighbor’s wife, but that agape love is NOT supposed to “keep me around”!

  74. Great explanation by Dr. Jeremy of what we *hope* the numbers mean. “However, it does mean that, among the 80% of women who are generally restricted in their sexuality throughout life, roughly 20% will have a sexual experience with a sexually unrestricted man.”

    I think it’s a lot more than 20% of women, and more than one unrestricted man per woman too.

  75. Red and Silver
    January 2nd, 2015 at 2:19 pm

    Men love women.

    Women love how a man makes them feel.

    Not even that these days. Women want to be men.

    The fist mate was complaining today, “You never do acts of service for me.” I responded, “You mean the foot rubs, back rubs, and shoulder rubs you tell me I do so well don’t count?” Her, “Uh, uh, uh. Well sure they do.” Not meaning a word of it. Me, “OK. From now on we will trade acts of service. Every time you want a massage you will give me a BJ first.” She – wailing and gnashing of teeth. Heh.

    As you might guess my efforts to teach her how to be a woman (submissive) have come a cropper. Interesting while it lasted.

  76. Gurney Halleck
    January 2nd, 2015 at 11:14 pm

    Glad I never went to school (in the usual way). The first mate was looking for an outlaw biker nerd. She found me.

    But the guy at the link sounds like he is in real pain. Ah. Well. More for me. If I was in the market.

  77. And God forbid a man express his desire for a performance-less based love and caring; he’s ostracized for wanting a mother’s love (Freudian), being necessitous (thus powerless) and revealing his deficiency in performance.

    Here’s the part I don’t get. I understand (from extensive personal experience) where this kind of man both in past civilizations and modern civilizations is a liability. It honestly makes sense for women to not want these guys. What I don’t get is why build society around a philosophy of explicitly pushing this kind of thinking on men? I know we look at it as a meta shit test, but that just strikes me as self-aggrandizing on the part of the manosphere. “Oh look how smart we are to pass THIS shit test!” It just doesn’t add up.

    Think about it. The reason women exclude this kind of personality is that it’s a liability to a relationship, to the individual, and to society as a whole. Wouldn’t females be better served by a larger population of men not exhibiting these traits? Wouldn’t this increase the probability of each individual woman finding a man that is better suited to performing in a relationship? Why then is the continued betafication of generations of men the order of the day? Is it just a huge blind spot in feminist thinking? Was there just some downside to having less pussified men that made the up side of a more realistic, less clingy, more aware man insignificant? What the hell am I missing here?

    @badpainter
    Rape is a viable, and naturally logical sexual strategy.

    While I would still call bullshit on rape culture regardless, it blows my mind how much more logical your statement is than any of the feminist rhetoric surrounding it. You are dead on that the less agency men feel and the less power they have over a critically important part of their own health (sexual satisfaction), the more rational sense rape makes as a strategy. Even from the perspective that rape isn’t about sex but about power, men are becoming disenfranchised at an alarming rate. Disenfranchisement equates to a loss of power, and rape is according to many shrinks about getting power.

    Bottom line, feminists are creating their own crisis then screeching about it and exacerbating it in their failure to take responsibility for it by doubling down on the policies and conditions that might create it. The irony would be hilarious if it weren’t so incredibly damaging to society. I give them credit for predicting one thing though: while we aren’t actually at the point of a “rape culture” yet, if they keep getting their way we will be. It’s honestly kind of sad when I look at it that way.

  78. @Dr. J
    ~70% of women are overweight these days. Another 7-10% are single mom’s, and probably 5% suffer from psychological illness that makes them unfit for relationships. This probably leaves 15% that, assuming an even distribution of looks regardless of the other characteristics is composed probably of 75% hb5 or below, 25% hb6 or up. TL;DR: probably less than 5% of the US female population is an hb6 or up.

    I think our real problem is really simple: where in the past 80% of men would compete for 20% or so of women, now with fat consuming such a huge part of the population we’re down to the same 80% competing for less than a quarter of that. It’s not unrealistic to say that every single attractive woman on the market is either taken or “focusing on her career”. With so few genuinely attractive women available, it’s entirely possible that’s what’s happening.

    What’s worst is that in a society busy shaming men for “being shallow” while telling fewhales to “have standards”, it’s gonna be impossible to have a widespread dead honest conversation about the problem.

  79. >>>I think both men and women love how the other makes them feel.
    I don’t love women in general, as a man I hate hypergamy and other concepts named by the manosphere associated to women, but I love how they can make me feel in some moments. It’s biology.

    Gotta disagree with that. Women as a group don’t know what they like or want. They tend to be bitchy and aggressive in a bad way, and not to understand which traits men value about them. Unrestrained hypergamy and solipsism makes modern women, as a group, shitty to be around. It’s the thoughtlessness and the selfishness. Even when they’re trying to be good to a man, they tend not to be very good at it.

  80. @Sun Wukong

    “Think about it. The reason women exclude this kind of personality is that it’s a liability to a relationship, to the individual, and to society as a whole. Wouldn’t females be better served by a larger population of men not exhibiting these traits? Wouldn’t this increase the probability of each individual woman finding a man that is better suited to performing in a relationship? Why then is the continued betafication of generations of men the order of the day? Is it just a huge blind spot in feminist thinking? Was there just some downside to having less pussified men that made the up side of a more realistic, less clingy, more aware man insignificant? What the hell am I missing here?”

    You seem to be using feminism and the feminine imperative interchangeably which I don’t believe is correct. I see the FI as accepted by all women in society and feminism being a smaller group within it with its own agenda but one of which that also shares and pushes FI. I think its important to have that distinction since not all females are feminists.

    In terms of your other point regarding why the FI is aiming for betafication of men, I cant say for certain but like you said, it could be a meta shit test in order to keep the divide of alphas and betas in society. Possibly down to they biological nature for centuries they are hardwired to instinctively know that there can not be too large a population of alphas in order to properly mitigate FI.

  81. Bromeo – “Your describing the current state of our society basically in those three types of scenarios for men. But this is exactly why we have RP and why we need to start becoming high performance in order to rise above FI.”

    Yes, and I agree men generally, today, have allowed themselves to fall into a place of lesser value and importance. BUT I think it’s a fool’s errand to make the focus improvement (either individually, or collectively) about women. Their standards, thoughts, desires, and opinions should far from the top of the list of reasons for our introspective evaluations and programs of reform and improvement. Seriously considering the fleeting whims of women runs counter to the sort long range dynamic, and visionary creativity men typically pursue. We should be making ourselves better men to build better societies, and material civilizations, and we should be doing that because we, WE the men, want to, not just to be sexier hosts for the malignant parasites that the FI currently allows women to become.

    They say you can’t legislate morality, and I agree, but you can eliminate all of the safety nets that allow and subsidize poor behavior. We can’t make women better, but we can demand that if they want to be a part of, and benefit from our creations and our labor that they play by our rules and live up to our standards. That means men policing men and enforcing standards and amongst ourselves. That means we need a mission both individually and collectively. And men must to respect one another’s individual missions, and individual dignity, FI operating in an environment of open hypergamy respects neither, and therefore with intent plays all men against each other in a game that is ultimately not worthy of our participation.

  82. Opportunistic love may pertain to betas but alpha love is a different kettle of fish altogether.

    An interesting observation of animal behaviour has recently made its way into research on human behaviour, the research is only in its preliminary phase and no conclusions have been reached yet but the topic is interesting nonetheless, sex role reversals.

    Cracking the sex role reversal mystery
    http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/cracking-sex-role-reversal-mystery

    Now remember this is about ‘roles’ not the genetic substrate that makes people tick, this is about behaviouralism.

    Take away natural biological and environmental limitations on female reproduction and women begin to behave like males and vice versa.

    Trivers’s Parental Investment Theory
    The sex with the greater expenditure in child rearing (in nature, females) will be more choosy in selecting mates and the more coy sex. Basically sex is expensive for females compared to males.

    Contraindications:
    Copulation is no longer ‘expensive’ for females – contraceptives.
    Paternal investment is no longer a necessity – welfare/employment.
    Arguably the male now bears the larger burden in child rearing, effectively the male has more to lose – child payments.
    The supposedly coy sex (females) is now having more sex than the bottom 80%.
    The more valuable sex usually has more drab displays, modern females show inordinately high sexual displays compared to the past.
    Females are today less concerned with procreation and more invested in status (typical male behaviour).
    Females today typically show more infidelity (typically male behaviour).
    Today sex is expensive for betas, rape accusations, cuckholding, divorce, sexual harassment etc.

    Could it be that we are today witnessing the evidence of sex role reversal behaviour, where females used to be the rate limiter of male sex, alphas are now the rate limiter of female sex.

    If that’s the case then females may be engaging in idealistic love for alphas, that is they are expressing male behaviour.

    Interestingly sex role reversal may explain the grass eaters and MGTOW, as sex becomes more expensive they display the typical female behaviour of coyness.

  83. @Badpainter

    “And men must to respect one another’s individual missions, and individual dignity, FI operating in an environment of open hypergamy respects neither, and therefore with intent plays all men against each other in a game that is ultimately not worthy of our participation.”

    I don’t think it comes down to “worthiness”, regardless of how we perceive the current situation we are unfortunately players in the game. I do see the unfortunate downfall in this as it will undoubtedly pit men against each other to see who performs better but I think that competitiveness has been there all along since the beginning.

    I can see where you are coming from in terms of basically flipping FI on its head and the men overruling and calling the shots. Every single man out there would want this and be better off but I don’t see this happening as sad as that sounds. What’s the total percentage of RP men in society? maybe 1-5%? The rest are blue pillers and females. I am not saying it absolutely cant be done but the chances are virtually impossible. FI has become a cancer and has roots deep within our existence. It would basically take a destruction of our civilization to make any major impact.

    Im sure some of you will continue to fight to the good fight but im taking it for what it is, learning as much as I can about RP and using it to my advantage in my life.

  84. Joe Blow
    January 3rd, 2015 at 1:38 am

    Even when they’re trying to be good to a man, they tend not to be very good at it.

    Yep. The OL was giving me shite about “patriarchy”. I said, “But aren’t you happiest when you are dominated?” She, “Yes.” Me, “So what is the problem?” She, “That is patriarchy.” Me – laughs.

    They would rather be unhappy than live patriarchy. Women have collectively become more insane than can possibly be imagined. I can see it. Feel it. And it still makes no sense.

  85. Johnycomelately
    January 3rd, 2015 at 2:09 am

    Funny enough the first mate and I were discussing that very thing and both came to the conclusion that these days women want to be men. They don’t do it well. But it is what they want. Her take, “It is so competitive.”

    We did not discus the opposite side of the coin.

  86. @jf12

    Unfortunately, I have yet to get my hands on the raw data necessary for a more specific estimate. The problem is that the mainstream attacks the manosphere ideas, saying that certain phenomena (AFBB, 80/20) do not happen at all. The manosphere, in contrast, observes the phenomena but exaggerates them – making their argument emotionally appealing but easy to discredit.

    The “truth” between these two perspectives is that some subset of among the 80% or so of women who are usually sexually restricted have a sexual experience (or more) with someone from the 20% of men who are unrestricted. This is the only way the numbers match up. Again, this does not mean all these women have huge N counts – they do not. The range in this area is from about 1 to 14 partners, with the middle 50% falling between 2 to 6. It also does not mean that those 20% of guys get all the sex – although they arguably invest much less to get much more.

    Beyond that, yes, I am making a few assumptions conservatively to get that estimate. Particularly, I am using the mainstream assumption that individuals try to match mating styles where possible. In other words, some women would choose to have short-term sex repeatedly with members from that 20% unrestricted male group, while others would never do it – rather than a more equal distribution. This also assumes that women higher in number of sex partners within that range (and getting toward unrestricted) would be more likely to chose short-term mates repeatedly. Generally though, this 20% or so matches well with other statistics about women’s mixed mating too, so I’m fairly comfortable with it. Until I have more data, it is hard to get more specific than that general balance though.

    Given the percentages, however, we could suggest a rough probability based on the woman’s current N count. The greater the woman’s N, the greater the likelihood one or more of those partners was an unrestricted guy (roughly 1 out of 4). After a certain threshold beyond that (here I’m using 14), her N is high enough to be considered unrestricted anyway. So, most of the mixed mating type behavior would likely occur from women with an N of 7 to 14 partners (about 20% of women anyway). Those with 6 or under would be more likely to be more completely K selected – those over 14 (10%) would be more completely identified as r selected. This again would roughly relate to other statistics about women’s mating, marriage, and fidelity behavior too.

  87. Rollo, once again you claim that “women can actually love a man,” but you don’t describe that love or how it is given, except to say what it is not.

    I challenge you to actually state how a woman (in our present society) ever actually loves a man. In positive terms; not merely enumerating the many ways women can’t love men.

  88. @Bromeo

    In terms of your other point regarding why the FI is aiming for betafication of men, I cant say for certain but like you said, it could be a meta shit test in order to keep the divide of alphas and betas in society.

    Yeah but my point was that I don’t think it is one. It’s hard to explain, so bear with me. In a shit test, there’s an assumed level of capability a woman is testing for. She’s seeing how well you hold frame, how well you have learned the lessons a man should have learned.

    If the way raise young men defines the answers to shit tests with 100% wrong answers is no longer a test. You’re actually trying to make sure no one passes. That’s not a test, that’s sabotaging yourself and the test taker. It would be like teaching somebody English their whole life then telling them their college admission exam depends entirely on their knowledge of Japanese. But you wanted them to get in to college. You fucked your own objective over. There was no point to that test because you defined their entire reality improperly, all the while knowing you were fucking yourself over as well. It’s completely irrational.

    Thats my point: shit tests, while often cruel and unforgiving, make a sort of rational sense once you understand them. Modern society’s arrangement doesn’t. If it’s supposed to serve women by shit testing men as a group, it’s failing women miserably unlike individual level shit tests.

    As for FI and feminism, I was under the impression that feminism came in to being to serve the wants of the FI. If I’m mistaken then where should I be drawing the line between the two?

  89. @M Simon
    I pretty much insta-nuke any woman who lets the word “patriarchy” spew forth from her ignorant lips when talking about the first world these days. “Go live in a neighborhood in the third world where you get a face full of acid for trying to just learn how to read the word ‘patriarchy’, then get back to me on how oppressed you women in the first world are these days.”

  90. @Johnycomelately
    Interestingly sex role reversal may explain the grass eaters and MGTOW, as sex becomes more expensive they display the typical female behaviour of coyness.

    Unfortunately corners only works as a strategy if you have bait to offer. Beta males competing with alpha males have absolutely no bait.

  91. @ Sun Wukong

    Yes, there are other factors at work here too. I was just isolating one and discussing it as a possible source of the touted 80/20 rule around here. Beyond that, certainly prioritizing careers over family and obesity are having a huge impact on men’s mating opportunities as well. Nevertheless, society has chosen to generally value production and consumption above health and reproduction. So, until that changes, this is the game we’re playing.

  92. @M Simon,

    I think it’s somewhat ballsy of him to write this:

    “I believe that “the problem of the nerdy heterosexual male” is surely one of the worst social problems today that you can’t even acknowledge as being a problem—the more so, if you weight the problems by how likely academics like me are to know the sufferers and to feel a personal stake in helping them. How to help all the young male nerds I meet who suffer from this problem, in a way that passes feminist muster, and that triggers the world’s sympathy rather than outrage, is a problem that interests me as much as P vs. NP, and that right now seems about equally hard.”

    This is him:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Aaronson

  93. Gurney Halleck
    January 3rd, 2015 at 2:48 am

    I think

    Sun Wukong
    January 3rd, 2015 at 2:31 am

    Nails it with (roughly) “shit tests that no one can pass”. i.e. being interested in a woman is abuse. I avoided that 40 years ago with Game that made them come on to me at least for the final close. I must have been way ahead of my time. But still…

    ==========

    Sun Wukong
    January 3rd, 2015 at 2:38 am

    Well I’m married to her and had never heard anything like that before. It was rather a surprise to see how deep the rot has set in. None the less she admits she likes to be dominated. And seeing me with other women makes her hot. Which she admits.

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