Women Behaving Badly

behaving_badly

This week Black Poison Soul has decided that Hypergamy is less about the well established, biologically sound  and well-studied aspects of feminine Hypergamy and all about women behaving badly. For the most part this essay is so scattered, angst-ridden and poorly reasoned it hardly bears responding to – the author is obviously unfamiliar with the well documented biological, neurological and hormonal influences of ovulatory shift – however he does provide an excellent illustration of how sociological dynamics have also evolved to compensate for women’s inherent mating strategy:

Let’s look at it from a different angle. Let’s say that these characteristics attributed to hypergamy are simply learned bad behavior – or a lack of learned good behavior. Let’s say that these characteristics are becoming more commonly-noted because society has gotten a lot easier on women simply because they’re women (aka we give them the pussy pass).

Take a dog. It develops bad habits. Do you leave it with those bad habits? Shit no! You train it. Positive and negative reinforcement, depending upon what’s appropriate. Eventually you end up with a well-trained and well-behaved dog.

In the old days they had ways of controlling (training) their women. Punishments. Social ostracism which was a force that actually meant something. They were married young before they started messing around, then it became the new husband’s job to train and deal with her appropriately. Even boot her out if she was far too obstroperous, the children (if any) going to him because he had the income and could afford to raise them.

Hypergamy is an evolved sexual strategy that’s worked for women for millennia. The behaviors associated with women’s sexual strategy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) is a deductive manifestation of Hypergamy. On a societal level, the very fact that men would need to effect social control of Hypergamy validates the inherency of Hypergamy in women.

In the past polygamy, arranged marriages, courting rituals, petitioning a father for permission to marry his daughter and many other traditions that are now characterized as oppressive and antiquated were direct contingencies for men’s ambient awareness of women’s innate predilection for Hypergamy. It’s interesting that BPS should analogize women as untrained dogs without considering a dog is still going to do what a dog’s going to do. The operative condition being that a dog is going to be motivated by what’s been coded into its instinctual firmware as a result of what’s been evolutionarily beneficial to the survival of the canine species. The operant conditioning is training that dog to perform desired behaviors counter to that instinct.

But, I get it, there’s a real want for men frustrated by women’s Hypergamously motivated behavior to effect control by appealing to notions of personal responsibility. BPS makes the common error of (indirectly) appealing to women’s reason, as the rationally independent agents, who should logically want to be personally responsible for their bad behavior, or need some extrinsic correcting of them. A lifelong conditioning of egalitarian equalism has taught them that women should be as equitably deductive as men.

Men shouldn’t need to train women to act in both sexes’ best interests; as rational agents they should want to do this of their own accord.

It just doesn’t make sense that women would publically express a logical interest in, and desire for the comfort, dependability, provisioning and nurturing of a devoted Beta, yet overtly behave counter to that sentiment during the proliferative phase of her ovulatory cycle by directly inviting the sexual attentions of the most Alpha men her attractiveness can afford her.

What BPS has inadvertently illustrated here is the base conflict in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

For the better part of human history, by violence or by social convention, men controlled, and instinctually understood, women’s Hypergamous natures. By rape, religion or resources men effectively made women compromise their sexual strategy. In fact to be a man was to understand one’s social station as being above, and responsible for, directing that of women’s.

Prior to the advent of courtly love, bastardized chivalry and romanticism being promoted to the highest ideal of love, Hypergamy was very pragmatically controlled by men. Dalrock has published some very convincing material on how romantic love has dethroned this old-order practical model.

What nearly all modern Christians have done is place romantic love above marriage.  Instead of seeing marriage as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex, romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage.  This inversion is subtle enough that no one seems to have noticed, but if you look for it you will see it everywhere.

Lifetime marriage, with separate defined roles for husband and wife and true commitment is what makes sex and romantic love moral in the biblical view.  In our new view, romantic love makes sex moral, and the purpose of marriage is to publicly declare that you are experiencing the highest form of romantic love.  Thus people now commonly refer to a wedding as “making our love official”.

The gradations we now apply to romantic love are symptomatic of the problem.  We take great care to distinguish between “pure love” or “true love” and mere “infatuation” or “puppy love”.

[…] Because it is love and not marriage which now confers morality upon sex, sex outside of marriage is now considered moral so long as you are in love.  Thus we have the modern harlot’s defense/anthem “but we were in love!”

When you remove the moral connotations, what Dal describes here is an excellent parallel to the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies. On a meta-societal scale, contemporary men have abdicated any claim to directing the process of how or with whom their genetic legacy will be preserved. And while the Feminine Imperative will expend great efforts to convince men, socially and legalistically, that their involvement in that decision making process isn’t important, on a societal level the fact remains – men must be made to (sometimes forcibly) abandon their sexual strategy and their genetic interests in favor of feminine Hypergamy.

One reason a father would symbolically ‘give’ his daughter away to her husband as part of the marriage ritual was a tacit acknowledgment of his approval of this man’s quality and direction of his genetic potential. Similarly, a suitor asking a father’s permission to marry his daughter was part of the qualification. In both instances, there is a presumption of a male-directed process of directing a woman’s Hypergamy and prospectively directing his involvement with that new family. The presumption was one that men would directly influence feminine Hypergamy.

As human society evolved a precedence for romantic, feminine-controlled Hypergamy gradually supplanted this male-directed Hypergamy. I’ve written in the past of how courtly love’s bastardization of the original intent of chivalry was indirectly designed to be the feminism of the middle ages. By co-opting men’s sense of chivalric honor with feminine social importance, (if not primacy) the Feminine Imperative gradually established the social conventions that would lead to a feminine-primary direction of Hypergamy.

Romantic, feminine-defined love progressively delegitimized the old-order, male-directed definition of love. Marriage ceased to be the condition in which romantic love could be experienced and was supplanted by the prerequisite of a romantic love condition in order for a marriage to be legitimized. In so doing the meta-social dynamic of the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies shifted to feminine control.

At this point, I should note that the socially legitimized definition of love is not the same as each sex’s concept of love which is mirrored in either sex’s evolved sexual strategies. It’s important to remember the latent purpose of ensuring control over Hypergamy is the motive of forcing the romantic definition on a larger social order to the benefit of the feminine sexual strategy.

For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed, the other gender must compromise or abandon its own. In the old-order, men controlled  and directed Hypergamy to a large extent and women had to compromise their strategy. In a post-sexual revolution social order, where women have effected a socially mandated, unilateral control over the direction of Hypergamy, a majority of men are forced to abandon their sexual strategy, and even the elite minority must eventually compromise their own. Legally, socially and psychologically men are expected to relinquish any claim to directing their own sexual strategy while deferring to women’s Hypergamy. Today, women qualify men for their Hypergamy with a right swipe on a Tinder profile.

The frustration BPS is writing about stems from the Old Set of Books expectation that women are predisposed to the functional, equitable equivalents of men’s rational based decision-making. The evolutionary nature of Hypergamy makes any notion of equalitarianism a recipe for men’s frustration. Hypergamy isn’t just a label, it’s a useful term for the very real dynamic of women’s sexual strategy.

BPS isn’t the first guy in the manosphere to blame men for their complicity in women behaving badly in their hypergamic interests. He’s lamenting a lack of men’s control over Hypergamy by making appeals to how it was in the good ole days and how men need to put their foot down and demand women to shape up or else they’ll stop playing their game. It’s bad men who permit women to behave badly and raise the next generation of yet more boys and girls who’ll behave even worse.

This then leads to the very appealing concept of personal responsibility – men are responsible for women’s irresponsibility, and exploring the nature of Hypergamy seems to only amount to a “the devil biology made her do it” excusability for that irresponsibility.

 

The Devil Biology Made Me Do It

A large part of the red pill perspective leans on evolutionary psychology. Of course evo-psych isn’t the only factor in red pill awareness, but for the vast majority of Game deniers (people unaware of the origins of their conditions) this poses a problem of convenience. When the revelations of evo-psych agree with our comfortable social models and ego-investments we’re all too happy to embrace the science. But when the science shows us the more uncomfortable truths about evolved human nature, the reaction is to either question the ‘science’ or blame the moral conviction, resolve and character of the person/people expressing that aspect of human nature.

[…]Hypergamy (an evolved species-survival schema) doesn’t care about personal conviction, freewill or definitions of moral behavior, it just is.  So in the interests of perpetuating the best interests of one sex (and by extension the entire species) social and cultural norms fluidly evolve around it to accommodate what’s really an uncomfortable aspect of our humanity. Can Hypergamy be controlled? Can men’s sexual impulses be tempered? Of course, but not without the effort of freewill, conviction and social structures. I know of precious few men who’ve blamed their infidelity or sexual impulsivity solely upon their biological makeup. With the exception of the more natural Alphas, more often than not it was a carefully calculated (Game) and coordinated event.

153 comments

  1. All is not lost if you can get bestitis from a woman. Dominance can do that. But it is work when the social conventions do not support it. So what does that mean now? Alpha traits – in so far as they are genetic – will be better represented in the next generation.

  2. BTW what is it with the brides maids Ds and Es and the bride barely a C. Is it supposed to be some kind of signal? The flatter the chest the more “virginal”?

  3. BTW male infidelity is very useful in taming female hypergamy. But you have to be careful. Best if she can see your wanting other women helps her strengthen her bond to you. Assuming she wants to be bonded.

  4. So, Does anyone believe that females as a species are capable (willing?) of recognizing the destructive effects of hypergamy and as a group redirecting it themselves?

    Or, is the only option male control?

    Are we talking about something that *must* be reigned in by the opposite sex, or something that more modern “evolved” equalist women could realize is best compromised on?

  5. That a woman would live with a dad but lust after a cad goes hand in hand with the belief in the blank slate. It’s pure post facto rationalization: “Sure he was a rough biker/musician who’s in and out of jail but I know it’s just because he had a bad childhood. If I just raise his babies with the right amount of love and tenderness they can be lawyers or engineers just like my new hubby!”

  6. @Jeremy
    who cares if they can recognize it, they have no incentive to change. That’s why they “don’t recognize” it. They all KNOW hypergamy is real, it exists, they swim in it, and they work en masse to deny it, to distract to re-direct.

    “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn’t exist” added to “The devil / true love made me do it” = modern hypergamy

    Is male control an option? Well ISIS would suggest that yes it is for them on a societal level, we’ll see how they do with that.

    For my part is Male control an option? I suggest yes, as I have to maintain some degree of irrational optimism to make a marriage with children work.

    So I employ game and dominance to improve my odds of an outcome that is favourable to me. I never consider that it’s entirely in control, I always assume the relationship is driving down a winter road and could hit black ice at any time. I stand ready to operate the wheel deftly and to not hammer the brakes and put it into a spin. As for dominance, I think she is due for a good flogging or spanking very soon to reassure her who exactly is in control of her world.

    Rollo often relates the strategic imperative of “for one’s sexual strategy to work the other’s must be compromised or abandoned”.

    A tactical offshoot of that I once learned is that one way to win is “to deny the enemy the will to fight”.

    So I also try to take this approach as part of the execution of game. Soft dread, occasional hard dread and a clear willingness to next her ass if she acts up tends to tamp down wild ideas of straying. Careful monitoring of comms and journals helps to understand the psyche at work and allows me to do some psy-ops. It’s important to understand what “winning” is to her at any given time in her lunar phase or life cycle and be attuned to those changes, needs wants and desires. Deliver some of them seemingly at just the right time and restrict the ability to find them elsewhere when and where possible.

  7. We all know what Rollo says here is true. There was a time when hypergamy was kept in check but the cat is out of the bag now. Game gives us a way to balance hypergamy out but to me it feels more like a patch than a true fix.
    My question is where is this going to lead if left unchecked? It’s my view that it’s not going to lead to a better world. So what can we do to reestablish balance? How do we fix this mess.

  8. @agent p

    …they have no incentive to change. That’s why they “don’t recognize” it. They all KNOW hypergamy is real, it exists, they swim in it, and they work en masse to deny it, to distract to re-direct.

    What I think you’re saying is that unchained hypergamy is not only the current state, but one of a number of metastable states wherein the male sexual strategy is nearly fully compromised. Hence, any perturbance to move out of the FI ideal state won’t come from women.

    My first question was perhaps my only worthwhile one…

    Does anyone actually believe that women are capable/willing of recognizing the destructive effects of hypergamy and redirecting it in a constructive manner on their own?

  9. @Jeremy: Women don’t see the destructiveness of hypergamy. They may end with a lot of cats and antidepressant in their old days, but they don’t care if they only get their alpha-fux and can follow their hearts. The hamster will do it’s job.

    And once you got away from the equalist perspective, you may even have to accept their different perspective and interests. In the end it’s a question of power who can succeed with his sexual strategy. The problem I see is, how following red pill advice, playing LTR-game etc, is just accepting the victory of the female strategy. The alpha-playa is the wet dream of the rising matriarchy. Mrs. Tomassi got everything she dreamed of, at the expense of Rollo’s effort. Making him believe he would be the boss at home seems a minor price for that. Pragmatic necessities are a good reason to go that way, but in the end I can’t see this as a desirable outcome for men.

  10. @lh

    …Mrs. Tomassi got everything she dreamed of, at the expense of Rollo’s effort. Making him believe he would be the boss at home seems a minor price for that. Pragmatic necessities are a good reason to go that way, but in the end I can’t see this as a desirable outcome for men.

    Unless I fail to understand your perspective, you seem to be saying that Rollo has had to make *all* effort at controlling Mrs Tomassi’s hypergamy, and that ultimately it’s not worth it for most men with most women. Correct me there if I’m wrong.

  11. Sisyphean
    March 6th, 2015 at 9:20 am

    You beat that by being the bad boy engineer. Not a common combination I grant you. But achievable. If you want it bad enough.

  12. lh
    March 6th, 2015 at 10:14 am

    Of course women control. You want your genes represented in the next generation or not?

    That said you can tame the hypergamy. With considerable effort and attention. And that is about the best you can do under current circumstances.

    “But that is SO unfair.” And your point is?

  13. Jeremy
    March 6th, 2015 at 10:13 am

    Does anyone actually believe that women are capable/willing of recognizing the destructive effects of hypergamy and redirecting it in a constructive manner on their own?

    There are probably believers. It won’t do them any good.

  14. Hi Rollo, earlier today, I was thinking about the whole male/female dichotomy. Up until about 150 years ago, the human race was susceptible to nature. That is, up until about 150 years ago, there was no separation between humanity and nature.

    It was only after we, as men, built a wall between ourselves and nature, that women began to push for ‘equality’. Up until then, women accepted masculinity as the default power.

    In other words, it wasn’t until men built a wall between humanity and nature, that women stepped up and decided that they were suddenly ‘equal’ to men. Because there was no threat to them doing so.

    It was only after men provided women with the ability to safely move outside what they perceived as their boundaries that they started to demand ‘equality’.

    The point? Equality is a luxury provided to women by men as a result of men building the foundation that allows women to expand their boundaries.

    Essentially, what we (as men) have done over the last 150 years, is to build a wall between humanity and nature. What we have done is to provide a barrier between ourselves and nature, which in effect has allowed women to settle into a false sense of securtiy, in that they are no longer threatened by reality outside of what we, as men, have provided for them.

    What is the ultimate conclusion we’ve come to? The wholesale degradation of masculinity and a tiny pocket of ‘real men’.

    In my opinion, the ‘manosphere’ is disgusting. Not because there is a small percentage of men that are aware of their manliness and act accordinigly, but that, as a race we have gotten to the point where we have gotten so comfortable with our superority, that we have discarded evolution in favour of… what? Being a pathetic race of weakness and complacency.

    Whenever I meet a woman that insists she is my equal, I put this challenge to her: Let’s split the world into two and put all the females on one side and all the males on the other. The two sides are not able to communicate with each other.

    Then let’s see which side lasts the longest.

  15. This is quite the conundrum. I’ve only recently begun reading this and other RP literature so I apologize for my naivete, I’m probably way off base but it seems to me that in this shifting societal paradigm the most successful mating strategy for men would be to try to find women that earn more than them and have more social status, subverting women’s innate hypergamous strategy. Given the direction of society towards a more egalitarian bent, stay at home men will become increasingly accepted and even desired. As women take on more and more “traditional man roles” that may be the natural progression. Do you need cultural markers of success to be an alpha fuck rather than beta provider… I’m going in circles. I don’t know.

  16. @ML
    Whenever I meet a woman that insists she is my equal, I put this challenge to her: Let’s split the world into two and put all the females on one side and all the males on the other. The two sides are not able to communicate with each other.
    Then let’s see which side lasts the longest.

    The obvious problem is that both sides will lose. Of course maybe if women’s side of the world included some sperm banks, they would actually prevail.

  17. Right, M Simon… so since no one actually believes that women will self-regulate. Since none of us actually thinks, “yeah, whatever behavior women have that is advantageous to them, they will willingly sacrifice it for the good of all men.”… then there is no “training” it. There is no “doggie school” for women. The only option I see left is that it must be controlled through the assertion of male sexual strategy.

    Try to imagine the converse situation. A culture ruled by polygyny, wherein men had a pathetically easy time getting access to sex and leaving women when they behaved contrary to a male sexual strategy. Would you ever rock that boat? Would any man ever rock that boat?

  18. Hi Calvino, I respectfully suggest you read The Rational Male from top to bottom, then you will understand why your opinion isn’t realistic. Women, despite what they say, do not look eye to eye or down when looking for a suitable mate, whether that is for a ONS or LTR. If you (as a potential mate) are not considered above her, she will discard you for someone who is.

  19. Hi Calvino, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that both sides would lose. Let me explain. If you look at our society as it exists today, how much of the ‘heavy lifting’ is done by men. Easily the overwhleming majority.

    I have a list of jobs done by men that keep our world going today, unfortunately I can’t post it right now, however if you want, I can do so in the next few days. But trust me, if men collectively stopped going to work tomorrow, society as we know it would fall apart within a matter of hours.

  20. @Jeremy: Yes, that’s what I meant.

    @MSimon: “Of course women control. You want your genes represented in the next generation or not? ”

    I don’t care for that at all. I’ll be dead then anyway. Caring for your genes is just another male idealism. Male hamster at work to justify your evolutionary programming. Beyond this idealism humanity is about a gene-pool anyway and if I have children too or only my sisters doesn’t matter for that. If your ego needs lasting influence on humanity, better do some scientific advancement, write a book, fight a battle.

    My point is the shift in that power-balance that happened in the last 50 years. Ok, it probably started already in 17xx, but it got ever worse. The problem isn’t even feminism, but birth control and a social situation where most single moms will find an easy way to feed their children. Men got stripped of most of their powers in that equilibrium, leaving only better rational thinking and some emotional/hormonal tools. The less violent and dangerous the world is, the more power the FI has. And the more power it has, the bigger the burden of performance will be. It’s men competing to no end. Of course I want a lesser burden too. But it is also clear how destructive and unrewarding for every participant unlimited competition always is. Leaving hypergamy unchecked will only bid up the price for pussy up to point where it will not be worth the effort. That’s simple economics.

  21. Rollo:

    I don’t know why you’re criticizing BPS. BPS didn’t address hypergamy’s origins. He took them as a given and described what happens with the removal of the social and other structures that normally contain and channel hypergamy.

    You and BPS are talking about two different things. You’re both correct.

  22. At some point you have to “Just Get It” become Subtlety Dominant (Enlightened Self-Interest) and move on.

    Women will not change. They lack self-awareness.

    Learn this info. Pursue your self-interest. Let go of romantic notions of women. Women are the vehicle for you to have children. Imagining them equal partners is beyond silly.

    If you feel lonely, because the romance of woman partnership is what you want and no realize you will NEVER have, join a sports team. Grow some balls.

  23. Thats my believe, too.
    A Man has to dominate and to control…in his and in her interests!

    @ Calvina:
    If you do what you have suggest, then you cut your balls off……cause you dont need them any longer

  24. lh, competion is the foundation of where we are today. I suggest that feminism and birth control are merely side effects of the overall progression we have made. In todays society, essentially, we have the haves and have nots.

    Loosely speaking, the West is the haves and the rest of the world is the have nots. The Feminine Imperative is a Western notion and this is not an accident. What we are seeing now, with the spread of globalisation, that is the Westernisation of formerly third world nations, with the spread of feminine entitlements is a natural progression of what has come before.

    As I stated in my previous post, the spread of comfort, by that I mean, the extention of the wall between humanity and nature, extending the idea of feminine entitlement is not a coincidence. As long as (male) progression continues to push the boundaries, feminine entitlement will follow.

    As Rollo has provided in many posts, hypergamy trails where male progression pushes the boundaries. In other words, where there is a great man, there is a woman riding his coattails.

  25. @Jeremy

    Does anyone actually believe that women are capable/willing of recognizing the destructive effects of hypergamy and redirecting it in a constructive manner on their own?

    No. Imagine your typical 17 year old girl. You’re expecting a collective group with that level of maturity and personal responsibility to even think about these things at the societal level? Then to take action on it without being capable of recognizing the problem to begin with?

    The most responsible teenager in the house is still a teenager.

  26. @deti, there’s a trend in the manosphere of evo-psych denialism, and it’s often promoted by very men who acknowledge and benefit from the application of those same “theories”.

    The argument becomes one of freewill & personal responsibility vs. biological determinism, the extremes of both are in error.

  27. When we look at modern behavior, we are quick to refer to caveman evolution for contrast. That’s a big jump, and in matters such as these “behavior” issues, we need to better understand the modern variables, the modern influences on women, otherwise we get into a chicken-or-egg conundrum.

    In my quest for a red-pill hero, I stumbled onto a perfect historical “villain” to fit the bill:

    Donatien Alphonse François
    (2 June 1740 – 2 December 1814)

    You’ll recognize him as “The Marquis de Sade”. This dude lived in a time where he was jailed for his red-pill lifestyle: “50 shades of grey” might just as well been written as him being the hero.

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/marquis_de_sade.html.

    Go here and read both pages and see for yourself if every quote on there isn’t red-pill gold.

    “Let us give ourselves indiscriminately to everything our passions suggest, and we will always be happy… Conscience is not the voice of Nature, but of prejudice.”

    Conscience, he is saying, is nurtured, as is woman’s behavior. Our social behaviors are prejudices, we learned them, women are no exception. It’s fairly understood what lies deeply in human nature, so, regarding the chicken v. egg dilema with women’s behavior, let’s start with our greatest modern influence: WWII.

    A huge chunk of society, mainly male, away from their homeland, doing crazy masculine shit, shoulder-to-shoulder with men in the same dire situation, “pedestalizing” women in their fantasies while in the bloody trenches facing death as a reality, not a concept.

    Meanwhile, in the void, women are tapped to keep the war effort moving. Women left their cozy, estrogen-friendly lifestyles, and headed off to factories. Rosie took off her apron, took up her hammer, and stood shoulder-to-shoulder in testosterone promoting roles that were vacated by men that went off to fight.

    Then, men come back from the front expecting to see the girl of their fantasies, and find instead that Rosie isn’t the sexy goddess he had left behind (and embellished a bit in his dreams). No, Rosie is now a hardened factory worker, jacked and swole from testosterone and hammer swinging: she’s not a housewife anymore, she’s a ironworker. Her and her co-workers are now pseudo-men, proud, and had plenty of time to stand next to other women and unionize.

    Having the “fight” drained from them, men returning didn’t see a “sassy” wife in the same way as a Nazi with a gun. So, they were just happy to be home, not getting shot at, and happy to see their kids for the first time. Women were left in the same war-time mode: they didn’t get any sort of military de-briefing. They didn’t get any coaching to leave the horrors of war behind them and get back to being women. So, they stayed in the new pseudo-man mode, and dealt with shell-shocked men who likely had their frame’s changed a bit by watching dudes’ heads getting blown off.

    Well, then, Rosie, unchecked, taught her daughters, those daughters taught their daughters, and we are now dealing with the daughters of Rosie’s daughters – daughters.

    And, we’ve lost touch with that “old school”, “June Cleaver”, sort of femininity. Now, when dudes are out in clubs gaming, where they are looking for June Cleaver femininity, they find only instead Rosie the ironworker pseudo-men.

    The modern feminine imperative is a result of Rosie the ironworker unionizing while men were away. What did you think they were talking about on those assembly lines? Did you think they were exchanging recipes and sharing tips for whiter whites?

    Not unlike “deer camp widows” get together and hit strip-clubs and ladies’ nights while guys are off deer hunting, the cat was away, and the mice played.

    …and played, and played, and unionized further, burned their bras, outlawed back-handing them when they need one, and are still playing to this day.

    Women have maintained that solidarity with Rosie the ironworker.
    At the same time, Men threw out their solidarity with the “bath water” of memories/experiences/horrors that was WWII.

    A lot of sassy wives needed backhands, but dudes couldn’t bring themselves to anymore violence, simple as that. Those little grains of snow kept rolling downhill, unchecked, and we are now trying to dig out of the avalanche that was the 60’s-70’s.

    Ok, ladies, you can put down your hammers now. The war is over. I can cook better than any woman I’ve ever dated, and sew better, too, in fact. I appreciate that you can rivet a structural I-beam in my stead, but that doesn’t mean I want your hands calloused, or to sew in YOUR stead. My fingers are too big to handily thread needles.

    Are “traditional gender roles” really all that oppressive? I mean, I’d happily do the dishes if you cut and stack the firewood. But, my testicles and consequential hormonal balance lend me physically better capable of the big lifting.

    Women need some disillusionment, or at least a new goal. Otherwise they’ll continue to strive to swing hammers as well as men can, despite their naturally obvious misgivings. Can you imagine, as a man, how you’d behave if men’s collective aim was to be women? Can you imagine how conflicted you’d be if your aim was to deny your gender and strive to be another gender?

    Well, to truly be on a modern woman’s level, we’d need to cut off our cocks and get on some hormone therapy. I mean, look at all the plastic cocks in women’s nightstands! They are already on the hormone therapy that is the testosterone-jacking workplace, all they need now is to carry those plastic cocks around in their pocket and they are BETTER than men. At least they can take the cocks out of their pockets: they can have their cake, and ours, too.

    I’m going to run out and get one of those “fleshlights” I keep hearing about. That way, when I find a plastic-cocked adversary, I can let her plastic cock fuck my plastic pussy, and we can keep everything “equal”.

  28. I would agree hypergamy is hard wired into the female operating system. When society imposed limits on it (sex outside marriage was social suicide, divorce was also social suicide) this kept a cap on things. Women would then channel her hypergamy into choosing young the best mate she could land and then putting her energy into improving her spouse’s social standing to improve that of herself and her kids as her way to exercise the fi. Did she also do the milkman? Maybe some did. But back then the other women also kept tabs on each other, so no secrets lasted too long. With “go girl” culture, the women are endorsing hypergamy rather than chastising it. Unchecked hypergamy is like all hell breaking loose. It’s bad for women and for men and its really bad for children. It’s true in a safe society women don’t realize how much they need men. But we do. That becomes crystal clear the minute hardship arises.

  29. It is hard-wired because the very sole reason female seeks for a partner of high status is to procreate and create / make sure to receive safe environment to raise her kids. It is no any kind of conspiracy, just pure nature.

    I always say – you can’t cheat the nature.

    And it’s true. 😉

    We as men are also hard-wired. But not like females. Our hard-wiring urges us to ‘spread our seed to every single one of them’ 😉

    People are not monogamists, but the whole human nature and development of our brain makes it more complicated than that. (if only we were average chimpanzee most of these dilemmas would not exist)

    https://redmalehummingbird.wordpress.com/

  30. I’d wager that, despite being a closet MRA, redpillgirlnotes “goes with the flow” on GNO, rather than stand up as a healthy leader for the sake her race.

    If I’m wrong, hey, I’d like to shake her hand…

    but only to check the length of her index and middle fingernails.

  31. @lordhighbrow: “competion is the foundation of where we are today”
    I agree with that. I even think female hypergamy may be the evolutionary force that lifted mankind so far above the other animals. Our evolutionary filter isn’t the ability to survive in the environment, but the ability to attract a female out of a competition to breed children. But I would argue what was once a feat has become a burden. The world changed faster than female instincts can adapt. Given how the world is today, it would probably be evolutionary better if women would dig intelligence. But out of MIT come 30% male virgins while the chicks bang violent stupids. Civilization means taking control of that and it did for the as far as we know back.

    “As Rollo has provided in many posts, hypergamy trails where male progression pushes the boundaries. In other words, where there is a great man, there is a woman riding his coattails.”

    There is great truth to that, of course. But it also has limits. Women live in the moment while the great man doesn’t. Of course you can define “great man” as the man women choose in the end. But most great things in our world weren’t build by “alphas”, but by the betas willing to provide safety and comfort. And when you don’t trust women in anything, do you really want to trust them in choosing what a great man is? The great men I know all had to perform at home, maintain frame at all times. And where they failed for some time, which can for hormonal reasons easily happen after the first child, even the truest alpha I know had to fuck around and game a lot to get his wife (my aunt) back in check.

  32. I like the post but went and read Dalroc’s post and I think its just a big whine fest for betas.

    Post says that the only way hypergamy has successfully been controlled is through male dominance, and we need to return to a culture of male dominance.

    This is only 1/2 true. Even before feminism, AF/BB was always going on.

    Doesn’t matter what social implications were and throughout time. Its the biological order of things.

    Women are hypergamous. Saying you think you can impact this on a societal level is tilting at windmills.

    What this post says to me is that the only way that beta males could successfully maintain mates is through male induced social controls.

    The tl;dr still goes back to /r/theredpill.

    Be as alpha as fuck, focus on being the AF from cradle to grave and you will be less impacted ( if not even the benefactor ) of the natural state of man/woman relations.

  33. lh, some interesting thoughts there. What I meant by “where there is a great man, there is a woman riding his coattails” was not individual men, but males as a whole.

    In relation to our progression as a species, for every ‘Alpha’ there are 1,000 Betas who are working behind the scenes to make the Alpha vision a reality. So while the Betas toil, the Alpha collects the spoils. This is not a bad thing. In order for progression to occur, we (as a species) need a leader to carry the weight of that progression on our shoulders.

    The Alpha steers the ship, while the Betas ensure that the ship doesn’t sink. Ultimately, when said ship meets its intended goal, the Alpha enjoys the spoils, because it is he who accepts responsibility for the potential failure.

    Betas are what they are because they choose to accept second place as a consolation for not having to carry the load. Alphas are willing to take on the risk of failure for the promise of the spoils should they succeed.

    This is the premise of success. It is universal – those that succeed all tell the same story – they were the ones willing to take the risk and fail in order to succeed. I’m not talking purely about success with women, but in any area – women, business, physical strength, etc.

    Being successful in any of these areas takes a great deal of risk and women are only interested in the end goal. For example, look at a man that has succeeded in business – women aren’t attracted to a man who is just starting out on the journey, when he has nothing and works day to day to try to stay afloat, they are only interested in sharing in the spoils of his success, once it has been achieved.

    At the same time, no man has achieved his goals (business or otherwise) on his own. He has had a multitude of lesser men helping him along the way.

    In relation to one on one male to female relations, an individual man will do what it takes to make himself more attractive to women, but the unspoken truth is that this man relies on a multitude of other males to remain complacent so that he is able to separate himself from the herd. If all males took on the lessons of masculinity, then no man would stand out.

  34. But when the science shows us the more uncomfortable truths about evolved human nature

    In his seminal paper published in 1983, “The Demise of the Demarcation Problem”, Larry Laudan examined the definition of the word “science” and showed that it is hopelessly vague and useless to convey meaning. The only use that the word has, per Laudan, is rhetorical, as a rhetorical club to beat opponents over the head. Or to use to pound the pulpit.

    The term “evolution” is similarly vague and lacks authoritative agreement on the main plank of natural selection. [Cue Richard Lewontin.]

    So, let’s try reading Rollo’s phrase with the knowledge that we have from authoritative, published sources.

    But when something really, really important and authoritative shows us the more uncomfortable truths about some supposed-but-controversial-and really-really-authoritative-developmental-mechanism-that-we’re-not-sure-even-existed-something-or-other-that-attempts-to-explain human nature

    I could go on about how Paul Feyerabend showed the absurdity of rationalist claims about some supposed “scientific method”. Or I could discuss Thomas Kuhn’s takedown of a rationalist approach to philosophy of science, but tl;dr.

    Rollo’s SMV graphs are indisputable and gold. His “scientific” explanations are controversial and weak.

  35. @ vulpine, yes I do advise women to avoid divorce and I speak the opposite of “go girl” bc I know the dangers ahead if they don’t. It’s not eat pray love. My middle finger is longest, curious why does that matter?

  36. @Mark Laszczuk

    That’s exactly how I see it, once that wall was built it has been all downhill from there.

  37. @ Rollo:

    Eh. It’s all much ado about nothing, IMHO.

    I know there are those who deny evo-psych. So what? Everyone knows that female hypergamy is a feature, not a bug. It only becomes a “bug” when not harnessed and channeled for her benefit.

    And whether hypergamy is evo-psych to the level of instinct or not (I think it probably is), that doesn’t excuse women’s bad behavior. Women are still fully personally responsible for their conduct, even if hardwiring and biology drive them. Women are full moral agents, whether they like it or not, whether they want to be or not, and whether anyone else thinks they are or not.

  38. @redpillgirlnotes:

    I’m very glad you aim to be a healthy model for your peers to emulate, and thank you, even.

    Had you admitted otherwise, nothing personal, I would’ve questioned your motivations. A check of your fingernails could establish, not only what brings you to the manosphere, but also what motivates you to go to the Girls’ Night Out.

    I keep my index and middle fingers’ nails cut short, and free of dirt. And, women tend to notice, regardless of whether they like men full-time, part-time, or not at all.

    Shall I go on?

  39. @ marriedalpha

    My parents (now in their late 60s) have stories of people they knew that involved Hypergamy, AF/BB, Alpha Cads and Married Men losing Frame.
    I think some Men want to imagine the past as a utopia so they can fight to bring that time-period back instead of actually trying to become better.

  40. You aren’t going back far enough, look at tribal societies, its no-holds barred sexuality. And I’m not talking just theory here, but what I’ve read and what I’ve seen first hand. I slept with a full blooded Indian once, and she was a total pornstar, doing the dirtiest with eagerness. I talked to a guy who worked as a social worker for an indian tribe in the US and he said it was incredible the amount of rape and statutory rape there was. I believe in tribal society it was the sex that united them, and the way that women still managed to get the best genes was just by being selective only when she was fertile. Alpha and Beta Fux Alpha Baby. By sleeping with the betas, it created social bond, and still gave them the possibility of passing their genes on. Remember that probably 95% of what you think you know about Natives, was written by a white man who probably had no experience with them. Its interesting to note that modern Swingers actually started with airforce pilots, who had an incredibly strong brotherhood, and a high death rate. Often it was understood, that if a man died, his wife was to be taken care of after by the others. This seems like a very similar dynamic to tribal life, and explains what for most people is unimaginable..sharing your wife or gf with another man. Sharing your wife or gf with someone who you’ve known your whole life and would give his life for you changes the equation quite a bit. Unfortunately now we have the worst of both systems, no brotherhood and slutty women.

  41. @thedeti

    Women are full moral agents, whether they like it or not, whether they want to be or not, and whether anyone else thinks they are or not.

    Don’t tell them that, you misogynist patriarchal oppressor.

  42. Sophisticated.

    The existence of a priori knowledge can be argued to trump all. So, innate behavior can and does over rule everything. Does it? Nature over nurture argument. If biology has a species hardwired for a particular conditioning. Can it be changed? Can it be diverted?

    Street shit.

    A woman that cares, shows it by becoming a Provisioner. If she gives you money. If she pays your stuff. If she brings you gifts. If she gives of herself instead of continuously asking. Watch the actions. Money talks.

  43. @Amit

    Heh…

    Like, “Wyle E. Coyote (Super Genius)”

    Thanks!

    Anyway, off-topic:

    I hope you (and the rest) followed that link, and read up on the Marquis de Sade.

  44. @ vulpine I see. My nails are in painted, with gardener hands, I have a small farm/agrotourism biz. I have not been on a girls night out in ages, not much for nightlife, actually. Clubs and dancing have never been my thing. I might hit a brewery w friends or go hear a band.

  45. @thedeti

    …And whether hypergamy is evo-psych to the level of instinct or not (I think it probably is), that doesn’t excuse women’s bad behavior.

    To me, this is the split you see. A lot of guys are not willing to consider the evo-psych stuff because it smells like just another hamster spin. It reeks of yet another justification for “just how things are” that is shovelled onto the guys to get them to accept having to optimize hypergamy for the ladies. It removes some of the responsibility for how bad things have gotten from the women who came before and let their truly ugly sides out for a gigantic societal shit test.

    The real question that I would love people to write about in the manosphere, and I find it impossibly difficult… is how much hypergamy should men have to deal with? What is optimal? It was mentioned earlier in this thread that people believe that Rollo simply did *all* the work handling the hypergamy of his wife. The implication by many (even on the previous thread) is that even manosphere solutions of gaming women to have successful LTRs just ends up being male slavery to the FI in some fashion.

    I am of the opinion, but I have my bias (and distorted background on this topic), that the amount of work that goes into successfully gaming women is many times too much. So from this perspective, I find myself sympathizing with the MGTOW/Isolationists like Vulpine (sorry if I’m speaking too much for you Vulpine). However I’m not willing to let myself give up on women based on my pathetic effort to this point.

    I think this was the real topic of Rollo’s last thread, which I don’t feel like we covered very well in the comments. How much hypergamy optimization should men be reasonably expected to do to deal with women long-term? Clearly, at the moment, women are just asking too goddamn much of us, and valuing themselves far too high in the process (Denmark just came out with commercials encouraging their citizens to have sex, lol… men are abandoning women en masse, it’s happening).

    However, the amount that men need to do to keep hypergamy in check is not zero, nor should it be.

  46. How much hypergamy is too much is for all red pill men to decide for themselves, be they MGTOW, PUA or Jackson Browne “Fountain of Sorrow” Beta.

    But dealing with it – or not – is something you must do, because it is WHAT IS. Your liking it matters no more than whether you like gravity. My keyboard now is busted from auto-typing Lenny Bruce’s mantra: “There is only WHAT IS. What SHOULD BE is a dirty filthy lie.”

    And let’s not derail by going down the dark tunnel of “science is not science” and not use the word “evolution” because Jesus rode dinosaurs and Mohammed said salt water and fresh water can’t mix. That is no different than the SJW Lysenko-ists who posit that “gender is not gender” (with 57 different Facebook varieties), that the Glorious Mao-ist collective should raise all children to be Good Epicene numbers-for-names Workers for the Sector, and that cis-heterosexuality is a Disease We Will Stomp Out In Our Lifetime. If you must go there, then good luck growing coffee in the Arctic.

  47. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that people believe that Rollo simply did *all* the work handling the hypergamy of his wife. The implication by many (even on the previous thread) is that even manosphere solutions of gaming women to have successful LTRs just ends up being male slavery to the FI in some fashion.

    You know I’ve addressed this more than once in the past.

    https://therationalmale.com/2013/02/18/taming-the-beast/

    Hypergamy Unbound

    One common misunderstanding I think most guys have about hypergamy is that it requires a constant attention. Most MGTOWs follow this logic to some degree, thinking that the effort necessary to contain women’s hypergamy means this endless mindreading and jumping through vaginal hoops in order to maintain some balance and harmony in any relationship with a woman. They think the pay off isn’t worth the effort, and by their individual case they may be correct, but what they don’t account for is the natural balance between the genders that is already existent. Hypergamy is far easier to contain the less a woman is able to capitalize on it.

    Imposing limitations on women’s hypergamy is really a matter of application. Why is our reflexive response to label possessive men as ‘insecure’? Because underneath his overt controlling we believe a man lacks the capacity to inspire genuine desire in his woman, thus prompting her to self-regulate her own hypergamy. Yet, we still consider Mate Guarding to be wise in a measured application. So there you have the line in controlling hypergamy – like virtually anything else in Game, apply it overtly and you appear ‘insecure’, apply it covertly and you seem confident and in control.

    To really grasp this you have to also take into account the Alpha/Beta response dynamic. Women’s hypergamy will predispose even the woman with the most secure attachement to her mate to shit test him. When men become aware of this their rational minds see it as insecurity and a nuisance that they will constantly have to deal with. However, nature has engineered into our own psyches the means to deal with these tests in ways we’re not really aware of. I’ve experienced even the most beta of men put their foot down after a particularly mean shit test and basically tell their wives or GFs to STFU. It came from exasperation, but that provokation and the response their woman got for it was exactly passing the test. They didn’t realize they were doing it, they were just pissed, lost their temper and later maybe apologized for acting so brash, but this was exactly what their women’s hypergamy needed to confirm that he isn’t a pushover.

    People seem to think I do all the work, but I’ve explained before, a good relationship is effortless. Especially when you’ve internalized the Red Pill and Game just becomes part of your nature.

  48. The behavior of women disgusts me as it does any other logical and intelligent individual, but: Is it not due to the weak betas that the society and women’s behavior is the way it is in the first place? Is it not due to them willing to sell anything and their own soul for a chance to stick one of their appendages into some mucus lubricated meat tube? is it not the betas and other weaklings and those even further lower on the totem pole that have sold their own gender for a chance of some intimacy?…

    We as a species are basically pack animals. Back in our origins, a few thousand years ago, there would be an alpha in the pack and he would mate will all the females passing on his Superior genes, while the betas would be beating it somewhere in a corner while watching him… Unfortunately one of the drawbacks of our modernization was that betas were allowed to breed (culture has its drawbacks), producing offspring from their inferior sperm. Which lead to a larger and larger percentage of inferior specimens of our specie… Thus, is hypergamy not a good thing for our specie? Hypergamy is in my favor, I get to fuck your women, and you pay to raise my offspring. This way, your resources can be used for the purpose of raising offspring produced by those genetically superior to you, males like me (weight lifting, boxing, have a PhD, very easily talk and hit on women, and have very easy time getting laid).

    Back in the days it was usually Alphas mating with all the females anyway… this new cultural thing where betas also got to mate was not an optimization of our genetics, but due to bastardization of a better working setup where only Alphas got to breed. This is in the same way that afterwards there was further bastardization, for example the most recent one is due to feminism… (Note when I use the general term you, I mean the betas reading it, since majority of you are betas and those lower… that’s just the bell curve distribution of genetics at play).

    So, my question to you Rolo (Love your blog and book by the way, I bought 2 copies), what’s with all this whining coming from betas? Betas should not be breeding in the first place, and the reason the males today are the weaklings they are, is because betas got to breed… and this whole mess is the result…

    I never get attached to any women that I fuck, and I understand that they are unreliable, to me women are just an entertainment, something I keep for a few months and enjoy, knowing that at any time I can find a new girl that I will like better, and she can find someone else as well, after all, diversity is the spice of life is it not. Women can no be trusted or relied upon, they are like children or lower animals, any intelligent man knows this. So why are you all whining? You’re not alpha, you have no social skills and your body is frail, and for some reason you believe that women should be unconditionally loyal to you because you buy her some stuff, like in the good old days? No, that’s not going to happen, and that’s normal, she’ll want to fuck someone like me, I have better genetics… but why let your resources go to waste, instead they should be put to work to raise offspring from superior males. Cuckolding is as it should be, it is essential so that the resources produced by genetically inferior males do not go to waste in a society and culture that lets betas breed. Back in the day that so many of you think would be great to go to, and for some reason you believe you’d have a better life, little betas like you would be getting killed and slaughtered by their superiors (read up a little bit on history, betas then were openly despised, as they should be), because guess what, you’re a weakling in modern time, and you’d be a weakling back then as well, but there would be no society and all those feminine new rules and laws we have now to save you from people like me. Make no mistake, I’d love to go back to the good old days too (make it a few hundred years, half a millennium) , because I enjoy violence even more than sex.

  49. If monogamy is an artificial social construct that runs counter to nature then why are we complaining about hypergamy? Is it because of performance burdens? The fact so many of us are losers?

    I think we men have given up too much in pursuit of pussy and unwittingly unleashed hypergamy from all plausible forms of constraint. Namely we, by virtue of brainpower made giving live birth safe rather than a very lethal extreme sport. We’ve made infant mortality a historical curiosity. We made sex purely recreational. We’ve made adultery a legal or psychological matter instead of risky act that all but assured lethal violence when discovered.

    We made world safe for hypergamy, and we continue to maintain and improve that world thus ensuring it’s continued dominant social influence.

  50. Just Say No to Hypergamous Con Artists

    Picture of Independent, Strong Women:

    Most everything told to men hurts men. Go to gynocentrism.com and read, read, read. Men have been sold a pack of lies for centuries. Why? Gynocentrism. Women are just as capable of betrayal, deceit and rape as any man. Most women can’t rape a fully grown man, so the female rapists instead go after underage, naive boys – kind of like some of those Catholic priests. Google ‘woman charged sex boy’ and read, read, read. Google ‘false rape’ to learn the incredible power women have been given to destroy men’s lives – and the numerous examples of that happening in reality.

    There is nothing more damaging to the vast majority of men than white knight/chivalrous men. These men are naive fools. Men in power will gladly throw the majority of men under the bus to gain favor with the gynocracy, to keep their jobs (get re-elected) and to maintain the status quo. Alimony, child support and default maternal custody are constructs of men and constructs of a time when women could not support themselves financially. It was mandated by society that men be providers and protectors of their families, just like women were mandated by society to be homemakers and caregivers. Alimony and child support have been severely abused since the advent of women’s lib. The patriarchal structure was designed to benefit women and those men at the top – and to make the majority of men disposable.

    MRAs, tradcons, feminists, anti-feminists, the gynocracy, the patriarchy, liberals, the matriarchy and white knights all work to fit men into whatever slave mold best suits their agenda. Each works in the best interests of women and against the best interests of men. As long as powerful men behave in a chivalrous, white knight manner, the majority of men will suffer. The majority of men have always been the oppressed class. Keep clear of white knights and the feminist boots they lick. As feminists gain more and more power, expect them to be even more oppressive towards men than the powerful patriarchs they replace. Expect statistics to become heavily falsified to benefit women in law and policies (see 1 in 5 and ‘yes means yes’).

    Ironically, the kind of coddling of women as children going on today is an example of the patriarchal structure and the Victorian era. The same is true of ‘yes means yes’, AKA ‘affirmative consent’. Deeply falsified statistics designed to protect feminine virtue – as if women don’t have more sexual partners than men these days.

    Feminists and anti-feminists are two sides of the same coin. Each hopes to hold onto the aspects of the patriarchy that benefit them the most while eschewing the aspects of the patriarchy that benefits them the least. The only difference between the two is their agenda and angle of attack. Women are not sugar and spice and everything nice.

    It’s time men learn the real truth and not the narrative of the “liberated, strong women.”

    Picture of Independent, Strong Women:

    Equality and Feminism:

    http://bjsparky.deviantart.com/art/Feminist-Equality-Or-Feminist-Hypocrisy-517720674

  51. Maroon 5- Sugar:

    I’m hurting, baby, I’m broken down
    I need your loving, loving
    I need it now
    When I’m without you
    I’m something weak
    You got me begging, begging
    I’m on my knees

    My broken pieces
    You pick them up
    Don’t leave me hanging, hanging
    Come give me some
    When I’m without ya
    I’m so insecure
    You are the one thing, one thing
    I’m living for

    LOL…. cringe worthy.

  52. I have realized in this post that Rollo indeed knows his audience and it isn’t patience he has, it’s a tuned delivery model. The manoshpere was built for Beta’s and I suppose that to reach that audience you need longer explanations that I need. That’s on me.

    I’m a dick and I don’t build my competition BUT in this case I realize that the Beta brainsmoke doesn’t trust it’s own judgement and NEEDS the interaction. Ergo, the risk of many using and gaining traction with what I am about to say is so low that I’m actually more interested in implementers than worried about giving away the simple, ineffable wisdom.

    I’ll distill Rollo’s post (and Hypergamy) with a twist:

    A human being will ALWAYS make the best choice it is presented with in EVERY decision it is faced with.

    This is a clue. Job, money, women, family……life itself. Affect Mandelbrot modeling and assess every macro/minor interaction you have where a decision is made for 2 days. Prepare to deal with an attack of nihilistic guilt if you can break the psychological barrier you will be presented with.

    Never say I never gave ya nothing 🙂

  53. The saddest day in a man’s life is when he gets down on bended knee for the undeserving.

    The saddest day in a man’s life is when he says to himself, “All men marry up.”

    The saddest day in a man’s life is when he loses his self-confidence and devotes himself to a life of ridicule and usury, by a parasite.

    —————————————————————————-

    The best day in a man’s life is when he realizes that he’s better off without an entitled, sociopathic, narcissistic parasite ruling his days and ruining his future.

    The best day in a man’s life is when he wakes up on Saturday morning and is glad that she’s no longer there.

    The best day in a man’s life is when he realizes he rules his own destiny, has little need for a crutch and he doesn’t want anyone screwing that up.

    This is a free man. This is a free man.

  54. @Calvino,

    “Given the direction of society towards a more egalitarian bent, stay at home men will become increasingly accepted and even desired. As women take on more and more “traditional man roles” that may be the natural progression.”

    45 years of extraordinarily lopsided investments in gyno-mobility (that has had ZERO payoff) says you’re wrong. Women haven’t naturally progressed at all. It’s been a government mandated progress, not ‘natural’. The lack of innovation (a man’s role, yeah?) from women has been so total that it never even makes it to the table for discussion. Name a significant invention by females after however many hundreds of billions tilted into their education to the debt of male education…….

    ……

    ……

    ……

    ……..The Kevlar lady!

  55. @One Who Knows Better,

    Very inspiring stuff for a post 40 single freak like me to read.

    The ‘all men marry up’ quote reminded me of a moment in my life. It was a football weekend. Three married couples and me. They all had kids with names like Madison, Jaleb, Tanner etc. You know the type. I knew one couple well. The other two were okay to me but a bit dismissive. A few jabs here and there directed at me. A laughy “Hey, just joking” insinuation that I’m gay because I’m not married. The usual. I’ve come to expect it. The set of women was unusually decent looking for American 30 somethings but still having a prefight staredown with the wall or already clashing. One made a half-hearted attempt to interest me in an unmarried 35 year old friend. No thanks. I was heading back to Asia in a few weeks anyway. So mostly I’m quiet while these people try to subtly out-couple each other a bit, but also mutually celebrate their blue pill awesomeness. Finally the guys (seated on the floor) decide to toast their women (elevated on stools, no kidding). “We married up,” while holding up their drinks. The women took it okay. No snark or anything. A latin girl would run over for a smooch after that kind of compliment but this Anglo set was so used to having their rings kissed. I think so many men are developing a submissiveness tingle to replace healthy physical sexuality. These women were good for America. But two of them could have dropped 20. The other was one of those cross-fitty, vascular cardio nutjobs. I think the men take that inferior role to maintain a spark somehow. Since their wives’ demeanor certainly won’t be sparking much. It’s like having a live-in Dom-Sub game going. I’ll be keeping tabs on all three.

  56. Can you imagine a world in which women had ten times the testosterone levels of men? Really think about that for a while. It explains so, so many things. It especially explains the possible existence of Big Foot.

    Men and women exist on two opposite ends of the hormonal spectrum.

    Take away a large percentage of a man’s testosterone and he becomes a chick. He becomes emotional, clingy, parasitic, air headed and an emasculating banshee.

    Add a large percentage of a man’s testosterone to a women, and she becomes reasonable, logical, good with computers and math and beer worthy.

    Don’t believe me? For each of you that said I’m wrong, start chugging anti-androgens and estrogen. You won’t do it, will you? Know why? Because you know what I write is true. For every women that says I’m wrong, slather on the androgen gel. Women won’t dare touch androgens. Why? Because it casts them in the mold of their future targets.

  57. @melmoth

    Post 40 single freaks are the best. They’ve dropped their hubris, aren’t aghast at the thought of being wrong and hope to benefit others with whatever they have to give.

    Everyone, one day, ends up a post 40 single freak. This is good.

  58. @OWKB,

    Thanks, man. Valuable pep talk. There is a loss of hubris. ‘The narrative was botched in a lot of ways, just admit it and live the day.’ That’s about how I try to self-talk these days. Way too much blue-pill for me to put a nice bowtie on my personal narrative. It won’t work but it’s okay. I’m actually much more comfortable with it all thank to the Manosphere in general. RT in particular. I just always felt like something was a bit off, but couldn’t justify it.I pretty much can by now. Enough about me.

    @lh

    “It’s men competing to no end.”

    That’s how I see it. There’s also a kind of zero sum effect with the genders and their respective intra-gender competition (not globally but certainly in our isolated N.A. culture. The isolation is a huge factor). The more men compete with each other, the less women compete with each other. Obesity. One word. It is never given enough significance as a factor in all of these discussions. Not even close. It never could be given enough analysis as THE major factor. I guess it gets too boring to discuss. “They’re fat. We get it,” I guess.

    (This isn’t as whiny as it is about to sound. It’s not a parody of the tenets of the manosphere, just hopefully a funny angle to view this from. Not anti-game or something. I love to lift, read, self-improve, work on faults etc. so this isn’t me trying to cop out. I don’t think.)

    In America;

    Men; Establish a foundation of Dark Triad, maybe do some time, steal cars, but not so much that your future wealth is jeopardized. Physique of an underwear model through muscle growth, deadlifts, not just a simple maintenance of your God-given 16 year old physique. Well-read but still tatted up and meat-heady too. Wealthy but not a nerd. Wealthy but free to live like a lone wolf. An apathetic asshole who can still analyze and understand female texts with the acumen of Freud. Well-dressed but still ‘bad’ and non-conformist. Rich but never supplicating to any customers or company. Well-established but an air of mystery. Multi-millionaire who cares about customers, obv, but borderline sociopathic. Workaholic but rebellious. Healthy but ‘no fux given’ but ‘fuxs given’ about eating broccoli apparently.

    That’s what men have to pull off.

    Women; Hair down to your shoulders. Don’t have the diet of an unattended five year old in a candy shop.

    Yet it’s men are pulling off their requirements at a higher percentage than women in the US.

    Luckily the opposite dynamic happens in countries where the women have surpassed the men in attractiveness. Asia, Russia etc. The competition only gets more keen among the women.

  59. The more educated and wealthy women become, the longer they stay single, the less they marry and the fewer offspring they bear. The more educated and wealthy women become, the fewer men women deem acceptable as potential mates.

    Most nations will become either a Sweden or a Japan. Sweden has some of the lowest marriage rates, highest out of wedlock birth rates, lowest indigenous birth rates, highest taxes and highest mass immigration. Same with Japan – only they don’t like sex either. It’s Sweden or Japan, folks.

    With matriarchies, you end up with declining marriage and birth rates, higher out of wedlock birth rates and mass immigration. Throw a bachelor tax on top and you just accelerate the decline.

    The only way out of this is a return to a real patriarchy. A socialized patriarchy (which means socialism in which government is the father) is going to eventually implode in on itself. To a large extent, sugar daddy government is already a huge part of the problem. Sweden is slowly learning this truth. Japan is getting ready to go the Swedish route.

    The more gynocentric society becomes, the less incentive men have to become educated. The more gynocentric society becomes, the less productive and interested in marriage men become. Men not married will often reduce their participation in society to the lowest level needed to sustain themselves.

    Tie all of the above with a society that favors women in health, education, employment and welfare and things are going to get much, much worse. That bachelor tax thing is going to create a whole lot of angry men to boot. The ACA already forces men to finance women’s maternity care and birth control – and men know it.

    It’s Japan or Sweden. Take your pick.

  60. March 6th, 2015 at 6:22 pm @Rollo
    “…..a good relationship is effortless. Especially when you’ve internalized the Red Pill and Game just becomes part of your nature.”

    The greatest benefit I have experienced from internalizing game an getting red pill aware via the manosphere is the effortlessness factor. Even being an introverted INTJ, I no longer have complex social interactions suck energy out of me. People become inanimate objects who can be gamed.

    I always had a large degree of mastery. Under Blue pill lack of awareness it was a struggle. Under Red pill awareness and internalizing game, professional, interpersonal and social life becomes much more an effortless endeavor.

    Thanks.

  61. @melmoth

    The more men compete with each other, the less women compete with each other. Obesity. One word. It is never given enough significance as a factor in all of these discussions. Not even close. It never could be given enough analysis as THE major factor. I guess it gets too boring to discuss.

    You could even call it the “elephant in the room” so to speak! Ba-dum-tish.

    It is a major part of the problem. As has been noted throughout the community, overweight rates top 70% in a big swathe of the US. Then add in another 10-15% of the single population that are single moms. Assume a normal distribution of what is generally considered good looking among the remaining 15% of women. So maybe 20-25% of that are HB6+… that’s less than 5% of the female population of the US that are HB6 or better, when in the past it would have probably been more like 20%. HB7+ is probably at best 1% of the population. HB8+ is well below 1%. HB9s are statistically non-existent.

    Is it any wonder HB7s have HB9 bitch shields when they’re just about as rare as HB9 was in the past? Is it any wonder men don’t have an abundance mentality naturally with numbers like that?

    But I think it’s not discussed often for a couple reasons:

    1) It’s pretty fucking obvious, and if you look close enough to get to those numbers above it’s just depressing. No guy wants to look at that for too long. It’s pure discouragement. It’s a really good way to psyche yourself out and give up before you even start.

    2) What can we do about it as individuals? Not a damn thing. It’s better to focus on things we can change to try and have a shot with women in that sub-5% group. That’s one thing about TRP community: everybody wants to know what they can actually do about a problem instead of just commiserating about it. That’s part of it being a distinctly masculine space.

  62. “Given the direction of society towards a more egalitarian bent, stay at home men will become increasingly accepted and even desired. As women take on more and more “traditional man roles” that may be the natural progression.”

    That sounds like the utter bullshit Sheryl Sandberg peddles. “Housework is Sexy” is the new outright lie she is peddling to men on the news network this week.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/sheryl-sandberg-men-who-do-housework-have-more-sex-2015-3

    The bottom line is housework makes a man about as sexy as his grey wrinkled grandmother. Don’t buy their egalitarian nonsense, it is simply another shit test..

  63. @thedeclineandfall

    “Great comment One Who Knows. Spot on matriarchal societies.”

    I take no credit. Many a scholar has predicted this path. Nevertheless, thank you for your praise. I’m one of the least deserving. Many a scholar on this site could easily expound on my limited wisdom. Many a scholar already has. I’m grateful to be apart of this group.

    “Why do my eyes hurt?” “You never used them!”

  64. @Jeremy

    March 6th, 2015 at 10:51 am

    …..so since no one actually believes that women will self-regulate. Since none of us actually thinks, “yeah, whatever behavior women have that is advantageous to them, they will willingly sacrifice it for the good of all men.”… then there is no “training” it. There is no “doggie school” for women. The only option I see left is that it must be controlled through the assertion of male sexual strategy.
    Try to imagine the converse situation. A culture ruled by polygyny, wherein men had a pathetically easy time getting access to sex and leaving women when they behaved contrary to a male sexual strategy. Would you ever rock that boat? Would any man ever rock that boat?

    Since human nature is to grab for more instead of self regulate, civilizations that become too successful eventually decline. Hence Aaron Cleary’s essay book about “Enjoy the Decline” (schadenfreude is a cold bedfellow).
    And Jack Donovan’s chapter in The Way of Men regarding the Bonobo Chimpanzees in the Congo( a matriarchal society). When a nation is in decline or it doesn’t require men to hunt and gather and men abdicate the patriarchy it becomes matriarchal. Then you have a society like downtown Detroit. Downtown Detroit is a matriarchy due to the abdication of men and is physically and socially bankrupt. The women took over. The scenario described by Jeremy above.

  65. What if the actors in porno’s, that all men watch, were actually enforcing FI and blue pill thinking. That would really fuck us up because it becomes associated with getting turned on and getting a hard on. I was just watching one and the story line was white knighting and shit.

  66. @ Black Poison in OP
    “Take a dog. It develops bad habits. Do you leave it with those bad habits? Shit no! You train it. Positive and negative reinforcement, depending upon what’s appropriate. Eventually you end up with a well-trained and well-behaved dog.”

    I like when men make analogies to training animals and Female Imperative. Because FI is so pervasively accepted that there is no consistent training to prevent females from “bad behavior”.

    There will always be men who excuse a woman’s open hypergamy and be a Beta Orbiter fluffing her ego while she preens for the attention of an Alpha. (perhaps it’s that way anyway)

    I have long thought it’s a teach your children and friends and let the sluts run as they are going to do anyway kind of world out there.

    Perhaps it is time to consider NOT allowing FI Open Hypergamy to be practiced around us. Perhaps it is time to realize that WE (the men who allow this FI/Open Hypergamy to happen around us). Are really enabling this bad behavior as much as society and sluts at large.

    I mean we don’t want our sisters and daughters to be Alpha seeking pump and dump victims but aren’t we just enabling this by staying silent to our female friends?

    For the longest time I have been an onlooker at the wasteland of the 30 something divorcee who wanted to “find herself” by dumping a faithful beta for another chance at alpha sex. Frankly in the early days I just played along for the free sex that no doubt would come my way if I was alpha and “non-judging”. But now I am not so sure… perhaps there is a duty of Alpha aware males to not enable or perpetuate this crap.

    Perhaps MGTOW is not isolation but really just men rationally going to an emotionally minimum safe distance until the survivors crawl out of the ruins of Open Hypergamy run amok?

  67. I wonder if this has been discovered already and discussed. I saw a Dior ad at the beginning of a youtube clip that is an exact, point by point, narrative of AF/BB and nearly all of the elements discussed here at RM.

    A young bride at a multi-million dollar expansive outdoor wedding apologizes to her dad and bails at the altar, sprints out into a field, strips off her wedding dress for a black dress underneath (oooh), waits at a clifftop for a black helicopter, rappels her way in (bad ass chick. Maybe you can’t rappel upwards but it was special forces style rope work anyway) then she kisses the alpha helicopter pilot who was her real lover with a feel of ‘Thank God you saved me from that loathsome piece of shit’.

    Okay, how are they selling perfume? I think it was some message about boldness etc. I was stunned with how tight the script was. The hatred/disgust for the beta stooge, the heroism of….breaking a vow (yup, it’s heroic), the freedom that was her due in life (not a touch of how much of an asshole she was), the solipsism of leading on a marriage then bailing just for her own drama payoff, then of course the alpha, the element of male badassery on her part, like of course she can handle any male role with ease. Plus her wealthy father (gov’t, beta society) financing it all which makes it so she didn’t need to worry about this reckless pursuit of an alpha.

    At this point, in 2015, if you marry and get burned, it’s on you. They are not even trying to hide their game plan. This is smash mouth football on their part, no play-action, no backfield motion, no stunts, no misdirection—just lined up and ready to run the ball right up the gut without even bothering to utilize any deceptive tactics. The transparency of AF/BB is laid bare. “We hate betas and we will gladly allow them to work their lives away to faciliate/secure our luxurious pursuits of our ideal mates.” They’re saying it directly. You have no right to complain. I can’t imagine the gov’t or society in general facilitating my life in a posh Rio neighborhood just so I can bang 18 year old mulatta models for 40 years. That’s the inverse and it boggles the mind.

    Okay, okay, it’s just a commercial but good Lord, what a tight script.

  68. Here’s more;

    I should have looked for it directly and just linked instead of that barrage up above. It’s some kind of running mini-film/advertisement series of sorts starring Natalie Portman;

  69. I have difficulties understanding the point of the article. I agree to all facts presented by Rollo.

    But it really is very simple – one could have stopped at the dog analogy?

    Ok, so women behave like X inherently (=hypergamy), have no rational insight, will twist society on a meta scale to anti-civilization etc. pp. for hypergamy fucks.

    We know that.

    Theoretically simple solution, just as with the dog (excellent comparison, btw., it really is like that with dogs):
    Women have to be controlled by men, because if that is not the case they will select according to genetic proxys that were beneficial some gazillion thousand years ago, but completly wreck modern civilizations – evolution doesn’t know “science”, “production” or “economies of scale”, thus hypergamy doesn’t know them or care about them.

    Who cares what women “think” (lol) about it?

    If a dog could talk…

    If a dog could talk, the most well-behaved dogs would complain the loudest about their “oppressive, patriach evil white masters!!111”.

    And the lousiest, desease-ridden street dog with a tyre around it’s neck in some underdevelped hellhole would loudly proclaim how great freedom is – while fucking other half-bred street dogs, producing even more useless hosts for parasites and deseases, roaming the streets, sniffing at trash, animal excrement and junk.

  70. “I like when men make analogies to training animals and Female Imperative. Because FI is so pervasively accepted that there is no consistent training to prevent females from “bad behavior”.

    There will always be men who excuse a woman’s open hypergamy and be a Beta Orbiter fluffing her ego while she preens for the attention of an Alpha. (perhaps it’s that way anyway)”

    Of course you can do only marginal things today – but you can.
    Just reverse anything feminists say (feminists = talking hypergamy) as much as possible without compromising your income or personal safety – basically treat non-fucked females as males you don’t like.

    Of course, by all means, do fuck them and develop yourself meanwhile, doing the right thing and profiting sexually at the same time. What could be better? 😀

    The rest is just theory for a future time we perhaps will never see personally.

  71. @Genius Lupus

    haha Wyle E. Coyote…that takes me back. And yea I did check out that Marquis de Sade page. Definitely sparked my interest to find out more about him.

    @Bromeo

    I had to look up what ‘tdot’ meant. Im from the UK.

  72. Women behaving badly in our society today is considered empowering, non-oppressive, etc..

    It’s accepted and it’s considered the norm by society.

    Men behaving badly in our society, today is considered oppressive, in bad taste, misogynist, etc…

    I’ll bring up the above example in conversation or a debate (usually with a feminist or white knight) to see what their reaction would be since “equality” is on the table. They’ll usually talk in circles (reminds me of any politician)…and it gets back to “well, they’re not as bad as men at least”.

    I’ll usually laugh at that point and I’ll ask them “Have you been out or have you watched TV lately?

    You can’t walk out the front door without seeing some form of bad behavior by any woman, today. Pissing in the street (by women) is now considered “normal” by these people.

    A man doing it would be on the 5 o’clock news and would be considered a rapist.

  73. @ Fred Flange, Blue-Pill Salesman and Purveyor of Red Herrings

    And let’s not derail by going down the dark tunnel of “science is not science” and not use the word “evolution” because Jesus rode dinosaurs and Mohammed said salt water and fresh water can’t mix.

    Umm, no, you didn’t get my point. The word “science” has no uncontroversial meaning. (I didn’t say that science isn’t science. That statement has no meaning.) This is standard, uncontroversial (certainly, a few are having a go at demarcation again) Philosophy of Science. And Richard Lewontin is an atheist. Your “religion” dodge won’t fly. There’s a whole lot less to “evolution” than meets the eye. But pound your pulpit one more time! [Cue Cosmos theme music.]

  74. Oho! I’m gettin shamed agin…
    Dude when you speak of game you have much to impart and I am all ears. Go creationist and I bark back after spitting out these turquoise caplets. Lysenko was atheist too. His Soviet version of creationism through the will of the people set back Russian biology fifty years.

  75. @asdgamer

    Lewontin was a Leftist who is a hero to them because of his arguments that attempt to minimize the hereditary differences between population groups, specifically regards to race. I’d be wary of relying on him.

    You’re going down the path of epistemology which is really where the game is won or lost, and you seem to coming out on the side of post modern skepticism, which I personally don’t agree with (its part of the problem we face – it powers the Left). However, no one in the Manosphere or the TRP community or the Reactionary Right is epistemologically precise. There is sloppiness everywhere on the pro-patriarchy Right, which is why no one should go around preaching this stuff as gospel. Just use game to the best of your ability to have success with women. (And stop giving women RP lectures. They don’t want to hear it.)

    Whether neurologically wired hypergamy is legitimate, ie is it legitimate science or not, is an open question. What is real is that women want the most value they can get in the sexual markets. And in today’s world given the economic intervention and cultural Marxist zeitgeist, women are incentivized to behave immorally; ie act on their short term impulses and ignore long term time horizons.

    I wouldn’t take strong positions and assert that hypergamy is hard science. We don’t know that yet.

  76. @10×10

    (its part of the problem we face – it powers the Left)

    Pfffft, if you allow the fact that you believe in any particular philosophy to place you on the Left or Right in our current political system, you lose. I hold philosophies that would be pejoratively referred to as “Leftist” by this crowd, yet here I am taking up TRP. It’s a philosophy considered “Hard Right” by the “Leftist” crowd. Now how can I do that?

    Because I don’t let political parties and ideologies decide my personal philosophy for me. That and if TRP is about seeing reality for what it actually is, then you know what it’s called? Science.

    I wouldn’t take strong positions and assert that hypergamy is hard science. We don’t know that yet.

    It may not be rigorously tested and verified yet, but it’s at the phase where there’s been enough initial observation and anecdotal testing by enough people to form very reasonable hypotheses and models. All the biological pieces of hypergamy are already verifiable through hard science, and the psychological pieces are as verified as they can be for the moment. Just ask any shrink that’s not female or feminist. All that’s left is to start testing formally. There’s no religion needs invoking, no political affiliation that needs affirmation. Just testing.

    Ethics, controlling for sociological effects, and time to run the experiments are all that remains. It’s a helluva lot closer to science than, say, string theory. And yet look how many people subscribe to string theory already.

    You want it to become science? Stop letting political pejoratives run out of your mouth like Right Wing Mouthpiece Bingo for a bit and start finding ways to fund experiments to prove it. Stop letting your religion get in the way of your intellect. Stop letting your team loyalty dictate your explanations for you. Start running formal experiments. Start contributing useful applications of the scientific method.

  77. “I wouldn’t take strong positions and assert that hypergamy is hard science. We don’t know that yet.”

    Keep in mind:

    “The map is not the terrain.”

    “The ideas (maps or models) in our heads are not reality. It’s the reason I do not care about evolutionary theory – it means nothing to me until science can turn one species into another. “The proof is in the eating of the pudding.””

    See here:

    http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-map-is-not-terrain.html

  78. @Tony232

    Dumb quote.

    From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation

    “New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.”

    Science has proven speciation both natural and artificial repeatedly. Religious refusal to believe the results doesn’t make them any less true. It is true that the map is not the terrain (having read Simulacra & Simulation I’m intimately familiar with the concept), but that’s got absolutely nothing to do with evolution denialism.

  79. @Sun- As usual I find myself nodding my head in agreement reading your responses. The political animals trying to co-op red pill truths come across as pawns to me. Sometimes
    I don’t know about you, but I find it hard to get all worked over hypergamy anymore. Its like seasonal storms, or aging- just a reality of life, you do what you can and get on with your life.
    Not sure if thats a good sign or not

  80. @SunWuKong:
    Co-sign. (mistyped that as c-sign. ho! ha! he!)
    As if I’d written it myself.
    “How dare you talk to me like that?”
    “I can talk to me anyway I like!” (Firesign Theater, “Nick Danger”)

  81. @Titticome. “I’m a dick…”

    Agreed

    Someone earlier asked what to do about hypergamy. A la Roosh reducing rape by legalizing it in private rooms, I propose legalizing murder if you catch your spill use cheating. Of course there would be safeguards. You’d take your evidence to the judge and when approved you pick which partic

  82. @Titticome. “I’m a dick…”

    Agreed

    An earlier commenter asked what to do about hypergamy. Al la Roosh solving rape by legalizing it on private property, I propose we solve the “problem” of hypergamy by legalizing murder. Of course there would be safeguards. Take your evidence to a judge, get it approved and then pick which participant in the affair you get to kill. Simple. Once you have the Kill Warrant you get to pick the time, method and place of your choosing. Neither the “Alpha cad” or the cheating whore would know if it was them or the other.

    What a great fucking movie that would make.

  83. @ 10

    You’re going down the path of epistemology which is really where the game is won or lost, and you seem to coming out on the side of post modern skepticism,

    The postmodernists destroyed modernist arguments. Fact. In philosophy, the analytic argument-destroyers always have an easier time than the synthetic argument constructors and the analytics typically win philosophical debates. I don’t like Derrida much as regards his new synthesis, but I like Feyerabend’s analytic stuff very much. F. did excellent work.

    I agree that epistemology is key. I think that the epistemology of testimony is the most important field in epistemology. It impacts law, physics, chemistry, biology, archaeology, paleontology, geology, engineering, and history. It provides major support for empirical methods. Very important.

  84. @Atticus… “I propose legalizing murder if you catch your spill use cheating. Of course there would be safeguards. You’d take your evidence to the judge and when approved you pick which partic”

    Not to give you any ideas… but it actually can be legal depending where you are, if you were to walk in on your spouse and find them cheating – in the act, and you shot the partner (not your spouse- unless you shot the spouse by mistake also) and it resulted in their death. It is ruled as a form of “self-defense” and an “act of passion.” A man would be cleared as long as they could prove it wasn’t “premeditated.” So your scenario wouldn’t work because it’s obviously premeditated, but instances like this (act of passion crimes) have happened… and this particular one would fall under self defense.

    ….

  85. @Ang Aamer “I mean we don’t want our sisters and daughters to be Alpha seeking pump and dump victims but aren’t we just enabling this by staying silent to our female friends?
    For the longest time I have been an onlooker at the wasteland of the 30 something divorcee who wanted to “find herself” by dumping a faithful beta for another chance at alpha sex. Frankly in the early days I just played along for the free sex that no doubt would come my way if I was alpha and “non-judging”. But now I am not so sure… perhaps there is a duty of Alpha aware males to not enable or perpetuate this crap.”

    I totally agree… if single women knew what men really thought about them sleeping around, wasting away their 20’s, being an easy lay, throwing away their marriages, and generally being horrible bitches… I think they would re-think their strategy – but only if men shamed them for it.

  86. @Hobbes

    Sometimes I don’t know about you, but I find it hard to get all worked over hypergamy anymore.

    About a year before finding the Red Pill, I hopped on my motorcycle and traveled as I’ve mentioned on here previously. I went many places I’d never been, I camped for the first time in 20 years, I observed, I met people, I remembered how interesting I am from how they reacted, I cried a lot of tears sleeping alone in a tent in strange places with a lot of pain, and I watched as my entire worldview crumbled in front of me for the second time in my life.

    All because hypergamy did a number on me. A woman left me for another man and the CC. It seems a little silly now, seeing it all so clearly. My tears almost seem stupid for a moment. But for men still in marriages, men fresh out of marriages or relationships, basically anyone dealing with hypergamy’s destruction of their world, I can understand. They still think of hypergamy as the person (or people) that destroyed their world. They want revenge, closure, a guarantee it’ll never happen to them again, or at least an apology. Or maybe they’re even afraid it will tear apart the world they’re desperately clinging to.

    But a tornado doesn’t apologize. A volcano doesn’t offer you compensation for your loss. A flood doesn’t sit in the electric chair for mass murder. Hypergamy doesn’t give a fuck how much it hurts you, angers you, or saddens you. Your sorrow, pain, and anger just hurt you, and you lash out in your suffering at any target that presents itself.

    Hypergamy isn’t worth getting upset over, you’re right. But people hurt by it are still people with real pain. Many of the men that come here are genuinely suffering. They have a lot of anger to get through, and then on top of that we strip away any hope they had for the future: we explain hypergamy, then in the process make it quite clear that it’s being distorted by modern society, and then we make it clear they won’t see the end of open hypergamy in their lifetimes.

    “Here, take your grief and have a side of hopelessness to go with it.”

    In the end, hypergamy is just a force of nature and I think your view of it is the only reasonable end game in understanding it. The only way to handle the knowledge of it is the same way you handle any other force of nature: plan, mitigate, and improvise to the best of your ability. But that doesn’t change the pain it inflicts on a guy before arriving here, and it doesn’t give him the hope he needs to overcome it. That part is up to the Man himself, in the end.

    I hope that each of us can find that for himself, in the end.

  87. @Sun- Just crawled home.. a bit buzzed. Your post should be immortalized.
    Yes, I forget… when it’s working on you, in you, hypergamy is brutal- worse than a flood, or an act of nature, because it’s coming from the person you pinned so many hopes and dreams and love on.
    I remember what pain brought me here as well. And I remember my mind and heart fighting the RP like it was the devil himself coming to kill Santa.

    But there is hope, it’s just in yourself and not in another person in the form of some magical unicorn that will love you. The hope is an end to the cycle of pain and internalized confusion the BP leaves you with once hypergamy rears its head.

    We live in crazy times brothers!

  88. Until I discovered game i never believed “hypergamy” could exist…now hypergamy is my friend. If you understand the “bf destroyer” techniques…”He’s such a nice guy, he puts you on a pedestal…I wouldn’t do that..” and suddenly you’re in a position to benefit not become a casualty of hypergamy.

    I’m also looking at how I game girls….I get the “I have guys chasing me….” routine from girls all the time…

    I shrug…that also often gets her hamster spinning—why doesn’t he care?

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