The War on Paternity

One of the most pressing imperatives human males (really most primates) have evolved is a need for certainty in their own paternity. Up until the last century with the advent of DNA testing it has been an imperative that has really been at the control of any female with whom a man copulates with. Indeed, even today a ‘father’ is really whomever’s name a woman puts on a birth certificate, generally no questions asked (and no information relayed) of that mother by the OBGYN doctors. Prior to the Sexual Revolution and the millennia leading up to it social and religious controls were instituted to keep rampant Hypergamy in check. An argument could be made that, even in a post-agrarian social order, ubiquitous monogamy and marriage were socially mandated as a way to not only control for women’s Hypergamous impulses, but were also the only practical means of control over certifying that a man’s child was of his own genetic line. And even this had its flaws.

Up until the advent of genetic testing the only practical, somewhat assured failsafe for knowing paternity was long term, pair-bonded monogamy and the social conventions that were instituted around it. Men’s sexual strategy (our masculine imperative) is scattershot. Our biology functions such that we can father countless children with each ejaculation and continue to do so well into our later years of life. This strategy is a counterbalance to women’s quality-over-quantity approach to their own sexual strategy. For each environmental obstacle one sex’s reproductive imperatives poses, the other will evolve contingent strategies to compensate for it.

To understand this conflict all we need to consider is the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies – For one sex’s strategy to be fulfilled the other’s must be compromised or abandoned. 

For men, in a social order founded on monogamous pair-bonding, this means abandoning his scattershot sexual strategy and adopting the strategic goals of women’s strategy. What were looking at here for men is exactly the type of evolved contingent strategy I mention above – abandoning his sexual imperative to essentially bet his genetic legacy on one horse, rather than diversifying his odds with, potentially, many sexual opportunities. This is a very important distinction for Red Pill aware men to make with regards to their own sex; opting in for long-term monogamy over a man’s evolved sexual strategy (scattershot) represents adopting a woman’s (ultimate) sexual strategy as his own. This dynamic is defined by what’s called strategic pluralism theory:

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.

If we consider that men are overwhelmingly (80%+) rated as unattractive by women today we begin to see the adaptive logic of strategic pluralism for men. Less opportunity equals less potential to follow a man’s sexual imperative. Solution: invest all your sperm and all your efforts into one long-term bet; reproduction with one or relatively few sexual partners – and if you can build social and moral conventions around this adaptive strategy to reinforce it, so much the better.

If men can compel intrasexually competing men, and women (whose strategy might be compromised by adopting it), to believe that monogamy is a social and moral imperative, then they increase the odds that they’ll successfully circumvent what would otherwise be the natural limitations of their own reproduction.

As you can probably guess, this adaptation for singular parental investment imposed a much higher premium on men’s need for certainty of their own paternity. To be sure, the Alpha Males of most primates have a habit of killing the offspring of any prior Alpha that had access to fertile females in a group prior to his own breeding with them. This infanticide is yet another adaptive insurance that a male primate can be certain that any resources, protection and parental investment he put into any progeny would be of his own paternal line. If it can be assumed that the importance of paternity is a primary, evolved drive in primates, how much more imperative must it be for human males adopting a sexual strategy of singular investment? How much more imperative must it be for women to collectively confuse paternity within a social collective (tribe) and protect against a perceived threat of infanticide or loss of resource provisioning if left on their own?

Even in our march towards ‘civilization’ we find this anti-paternity bias in the killing of male members of a social collective while preserving fertile females for potential breeding purposes. Today we may not be killing the sons of rival clansmen, but we can certainly see the paternity bias in how we regard kin affiliation above out-group affiliation in our personal dealings. Concerns of paternity, for men, evolved to be part of our mental firmware – and certainty of it became of paramount importance.

Strategic pluralism, however, is not without its own counter contingencies. Even within a social and moral environment that restricts Hypergamy, women are still psychologically compelled to optimize their own sexual strategy to its fullest. 8,000 years ago 17 women reproduced for every 1 man – and this was after the advent of agriculture. There’ve been other studies that reduce this number to a 5 to 1 ratio, but still the fact remains that even in a social order that (ostensibly) prioritizes pair-bonded monogamy, women have provably found ways to optimize Hypergamy and confuse paternity to a socially stable degree. Thus, we see counter-adaptations in behavior on the part of men to mate guard, to once again, insure certainty of paternity. Even in the relative stability of monogamy, men’s psychological imperative for paternity supersedes the social environment.

Cuckoldry by Any Other Name

As I’ve mentioned in prior essays, cuckoldry deserves a much broader definition today; one that goes beyond the obvious duplicity of birth fraud. Women have found that by tweaking the social conventions that would limit their own sexual strategy they can circumvent the monogamous side of sexual pluralism socially enforced by men. Thus, we get new feminine-primary social conventions that celebrate, socially reward and positively reinforce men’s acceptance of the parental investment responsibilities of other men who fathered children with a woman they’ve pair-bonded with. Step-dads get the big thumbs up and we rejigger the positive reinforcement to downplay father’s day and replace it with special person’s day.

Now, consider this with respect to the potential for infanticide that a woman’s hindbrain believes men are capable of. That fear of infanticide represents a root-level limbic part of women’s evolved need to optimize Hypergamy and the great potential for loss of having optimized it in her offspring. So imperative is this to the female psyche that it became necessary to socially condition men’s evolved paternity need out of them once women and the Feminine Imperative became the dominant social driver.

On a larger social scale, one that is defined by a post-Sexual Revolution, feminine-primary social order, the answer is simple and total; men must be convinced to completely abandon their biological imperative of parental certainty before they commit to a monogamous relationship with a woman. Socially, we make paper heroes of men who will accept the parental investment responsibilities of a child he didn’t sire. That ‘heroism’ of the guy who accepts his assigned role as a retroactive cuckold is short-lived, but the archetype of that guy who ‘man’s up’ and adopts the children of a single mother is now embedded into our modern folklore.

I would also argue that a large part of the Blue Pill conditioning of men for the past 5 generations can find its roots in women’s need to optimize Hypergamy while ensuring the security that once she does a provider-male will step in to fulfill his role as a dutiful cuckold. In order to achieve this, free from the fear of infanticide, boys and men must be conditioned to unequivocally revoke any need for certainty of their own paternity.

A few years ago I outlined the next step in Open Hypergamy would be transitioning to a state of normalized and accepted Open Cuckoldry. Wrapped into this transition is also the social efforts to normalize a feminine-controlled form of polyamory – one in which primarily a woman is presented with the options and control of exercising both the short-term sexual, and long-term provisional, sides of Hypergamy. Today this is what’s termed a polyamorous relationship with male partners representing Alpha seed and Beta need. In moving from a normalized state of Open Hypergamy to Open Cuckoldry there are a series of social changes that need to occur and find acceptance in the general population of men. One of these changes is a large scale, socialized effort to get men to accept that their biological imperative to ascertain paternity – even the questioning of paternity – be equated with “toxic” masculinity.

The War on Paternity

Increasingly we are seeing a push on the part of the Feminine Imperative to delegitimize the innate need of men to ensure their paternity. It’s actually an aspect of a war that’s been going on since the Sexual Revolution to redefine masculinity and fatherhood. As I mentioned in Positive Masculinity the definition of what makes a father is becoming more and more ambiguous, while fathers become increasingly more superfluous. In order to complete this delegitimization of masculinity men must be convinced that their innate need to know paternity, and the importance they inherently place on it, is something to be ashamed of.

Every social mandate we see today puts the interests of the mother and child well above that of any father. This is why paternity is rarely ever a factor in issues of child support; even for children that a man didn’t father but is held legally liable for. Socially, even religiously, any importance of paternity for men is being systematically erased. From doctors being gagged from informing cuckolded fathers of genetic tests, to limiting their access to DNA tests themselves, to encouraging men to ‘man up’ and marry single mothers as a moral imperative, paternity for men is now some sort of shameful insecurity.

Why would the Feminine Imperative seek to root out what has been a fundamental, evolved, part of men’s mental firmware since the time of our hunter/gatherer beginnings? Because Hypergamy needs security. Hypergamy needs assurances to quell the doubt that a woman has optimized both the Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks aspects of her sexual strategy. I would argue that men’s psychological need for certainties in his paternity is on par with the need women have of certainties in their need for optimizing Hypergamy.

All this war on paternity amounts to is an ensuring that women’s unquestioned, unilateral control over Hypergamy is baked into men on a societal level. Convincing men to abandon any claims on certainty of paternity, and at the same time shaming men who put any importance on it, is an effort on the part of the Feminine Imperative to get men to surrender their sexual strategy by abandoning it wholesale, while praising them for playing a willing role in fulfilling women’s sexual (and life) strategy. Even when that sexual strategy is one where a man acknowledges his lesser sexual market value and seeks to put all his investment into one woman, the push to delegitimize men’s need for paternity circumvents this strategy.

Delegitimizing men’s need for paternity cancels any and every upside that long-term monogamy had for Beta men using this sexual strategy. Thus, a return to a scattershot, some would say ‘less civilized’ sexual strategy becomes the only obvious alternative for men who want parental certainty.

Erasing the importance of paternity for men is literally the last nail in the coffin that is now contemporary marriage. It reduces men to little more than draft animals and livestock for women’s breeding purposes by erasing any claim a man may have to know his children are his own.  Most well-conditioned Blue Pill men adopt this archetype unquestioningly. There are no ‘Fathers’ anymore; all men are interchangeably either breeding stock or simply childcare workers in this new social framework. And boys and young men’s pre-acceptance of this state of men is part of their Blue Pill conditioning.

To fully effect Open Cuckoldry the goal of the Feminine Imperative is to have men define masculinity as accepting parental investment as separate and apart from evolved concerns of paternity.

298 comments

  1. @Rollo: I know about the cardinal rule but there is something that I think Sentient points out, that hypergamy is a win-win strategy. Even without the (alpha) male abandoning his sexual strategy, the woman who gets the Alpha Fucks is winning the seed, and if a man (alpha chooses or a beta is kind of forced to by lack of choice) abandons the scattershort and provides, the women who gets the (presumably Beta) Bucks is winning.

    What do you think of that interpretation?

  2. @Snobby Tabitha

    Yea til you need something. Then you have to ask, or whine it out of someone dumber than you. Worthless Bitch.

  3. Now we can close the negative feedback loop: sprogdaddy men who accept their societal programming to not ask questions about said sprogs’ provenance, and abjure their toxicity of being masculine, will get no reward for their obedience. There will be just their wives’ or POSSLQ’s disgust and boredom at their abject Beta-ness which will ripen and mature like fine wine. And the Kids Aren’t Alright. As REM sings, “Everybody Hurts.” If Beta Dad is sufficiently abject he will be thrown over. His sprogs will be told father doesn’t matter, in keeping with what appears to be an ascendant theme again as it was in the 90s.

    Plus this goes hand in hand with the other themes we’ve flogged before: evangelists who preach dads should act like moms, or be their kids’ Bestie, but certainly not be a parent-guide. Discipline is toxic masculinity in service of child abuse, bruising the feelz of delicate blossoms.

    And yet, and yet: despite all the doubleplusgoodthink, all the Strong Single Moms who don’t want to have some man having a say in their childrens’ lives, all the Churchian beatdowns on Fathers Day, all the sperm banks purveying Aryan Pure Supermen seed to merge with deep dish careerist frozen eggs, despite all this, there is and will always be the child’s unanswerable and insistent question:

    Where’s Daddy? Why no daddy?

  4. What do you think of that interpretation?

    They win in a world where the entire male sex supports their imperatives. In a sane world, women are not permitted this choice (nor are alpha males), and things are locked down for everyone’s benefit on a social level. We don’t live there, though, we live here, and therefore we adapt to these circumstances and thrive in them, at women’s expense at times if need be (although it needn’t be if we bring to the table what we ought to). And the rest of the guys? Yeah, they’re basically slaves, that’s about correct.

  5. Hypergamy is only a win-win for a man who is fully aware of the dynamics going on around him and who can respond accordingly. Even when women aren’t knowingly being manipulative or opportunistic they are. It’s the nature of the game itself.

    For the countless Beta men who would grind their teeth at me for suggesting they’re de facto cuckolds for adopting and loving children they didn’t sire it’s not a win win from an evolutionary perspective – though they would fight me to prove otherwise and insulate their egos.

  6. It is why it is MEN who fear foreign men coming into their countries and cities, whereas women are standing there with “refugees welcome” signs for some fresh alpha DNA.

    It is why beta men are often in conservative religions that try to impose “one woman for one man” regulation of the sexual market place. Muslims have more in common with the alt-right in that they seek to impose this regulation. “No players allowed” is what they’re both saying as they want to be sure of paternity.

    I can’t understand therefore why any player can be religious!

  7. Think about how controlling of women most islamic ideology is. Wear a Burka. Can’t leave the house without a male escort. Can’t drive a car, up until recently. What’s the latent purpose of that control?

    Control of Hypergamy and ultimately certainty of paternity – granted it’s to the obsessive compulsive degree, but the purpose remains the same.

  8. Think about how controlling of women most islamic ideology is. Wear a Burka. Can’t leave the house without a male escort. Can’t drive a car, up until recently. What’s the latent purpose of that control?

    Control of Hypergamy and ultimately certainty of paternity – granted it’s to the obsessive compulsive degree, but the purpose remains the same.

    Yes.

    Christianity was once so as well. What happened, though, was that Christianity became conflated with “being a mainstream American”, culturally, and when that culture changed, Christians in America changed right along with it, because their allegiance was primarily (and remains primarily) cultural and not religious. For most of them, religion is a tribal marker, and their allegiance is cultural.

    There are small blocs of Christians who are not like this, but their numbers are small and their reach and influence is small, so if we are talking about impact, it’s negligible (but still there for the dedicated).

  9. Even in my wildest Beta/Blue Pill days I knew it was a terrible idea to date/marry a single moms. However, what surprised me was that almost all my closest friends and classmates are widely open to the idea of marrying and raising another man´s children. Indeed, some of them are now in LTR with single moms 😦

  10. However, what surprised me was that almost all my closest friends and classmates are widely open to the idea of marrying and raising another man´s children. Indeed, some of them are now in LTR with single moms

    Easy to understand: attractive(and let’s be honest, plenty of babymamas are)+available = attraction for most guys. Simple, really. Thirst.

  11. @Rollo

    A new evo-sycho study explains the origin of sexual fluidity in women:

    “I propose an evolutionary theory of human female sexual fluidity and argue that women may have been evolutionarily designed to be sexually fluid in order to allow them to have sex with their cowives in polygynous marriage and thus reduce conflict and tension inherent in such marriage. In addition to providing an extensive definition and operationalization of the concept of sexual fluidity and specifying its ultimate function for women, the proposed theory can potentially solve several theoretical and empirical puzzles in evolutionary psychology and sex research. Analyses of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) confirm the theory’s predictions that: (i) women (but not men) who experience increased levels of sexual fluidity have a larger number of children (suggesting that female sexual fluidity, if heritable, may be evolutionarily selected); (ii) women (but not men) who experience marriage or parenthood early in adult life subsequently experience increased levels of sexual fluidity; and (iii) sexual fluidity is significantly positively correlated with known markers of unrestricted sexual orientation among women whereas it is significantly negatively correlated with such markers among men.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.12278/full

  12. That’s my point Rollo – it is 100% clear that Islam is a SMV regulator to control access to women (and have paternal certainty) as I said.

    But the bigger point which not many on here seem to get is that that’s what most of the manosphere want to do too. The alt-right love the idea of patriarchal control, restrictions on the SMP, strict monogamy (i.e “the good old days”). It’s their attempt to get access to pussy. I just find it odd that intelligent commentators don’t see this double standard: “We hate Islam but we propose the same ideas.”

    It’s the beta strategy you have to regulate the SMP. Alphas just enjoy the fruits of hypergamy.

    Perhaps we can rename it the IMANosphere lol

  13. A new evo-sycho study explains the origin of sexual fluidity in women

    Well, finally someone wrote it. I mean it’s quite obvious that it stems from the prevalence of polygyny historically. No such prevalence of polyandry, although some women are trying it out today … it has no evolutionary precedent, unlike polygyny.

  14. @Rollo:

    I’ve read you time and again basically explain that:
    1. Men’s ONLY sexual strategy is “unlimited access to unlimited sexuality”.
    2. Men buying into monogamy is therefore “abandoning their sexual strategy to adopt women’s, in accordance with your “Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies”.

    This is not entirely right.

    Here you add an interesting part being that men abandon their sexual strategy when they are too low-value to effect it.

    This is better.

    The fact is a woman’s sexual strategy IS NOT “sexual exclusivity with a low-value man”. So when a low-value man abandon his optimal “unlimited access to unlimited sexuality” strategy to adopt the sub-optimal “sexual exclusivity with a woman”, the woman also abandons her optimal “genuine desire sex with highest-value and committed man” for the sub-optimal “negotiated sex with low-value man in exchange for his providing”.

    As with all strategies, human sexual strategies consist in a SET of options, including an optimal one and alternatives/contingencies.

    A man who abandons the optimal “scattershot” strategy because he’s too low-value to effect it, DOES NOT adopt women’s strategy. He implements a contingent strategy that is effectively a compromise, with a woman WHO ALSO COMPROMISES her optimal strategy.

    The quote you make for “strategic pluralism theory” states it well. It explains how low-value men adopt a different strategy, and add that this alternative strategy (sexual exclusivity) is not women’s optimal strategy either. Yet you introduce that quote saying “opting in for long-term monogamy over a man’s evolved sexual strategy (scattershot) represents adopting a woman’s (ultimate) sexual strategy as his own.”

    Don’t you see it?

    Your “cardinal rule of sexual strategies” needs revising. It’s not “Men’s and women’s strategies are incompatible, so only one can prevail”, it should rather be “Men’s and women’s strategies are incompatible, so they tend to settle on a compromise that leave both party so mad that the contract is highly unstable”.

    I surmise the following:

    1. Men’s optimal strategy: unlimited sex with unlimited number of partners, no commitment.
    2. Women’s optimal strategy: sex and commitment from highest-value male available.
    3. Those two strategies are by definition incompatible, which leaves both men and women to adopt a compromise: “limited sex with only one partner, with commitment (unfortunately for men) from a not-so-high-value male (unfortunately for women”).
    4. Because the compromise is less than optimal for both, both men and women stray from it:
    4a: Men will cheat when possible (get more sex from more partners for little commitment) and try to extract more sex for less commitment from their partner, while
    4b: Women will upgrade to highest-value men when possible and try to extract more commitment for less sex from their partner.

  15. Re-reading the post and considering the actual definition of your Cardinal Rule:

    Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies – For one sex’s strategy to be fulfilled the other’s must be compromised or abandoned.

    Actually still fits my thinking (that optimal strategies of M and F are incompatible, aka cannot be effected at the same time). It’s just that I’d add that in practice, BOTH sexes have to compromise on their optimal strategy.

  16. The more I read this quote, the more I appreciate the clarity of its wisdom..

    > “According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.”

    > “From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). […]”

    AKA:

    Men have two sexual strategies contingent on their value: High-value men > “alpha fucks / scattershot” strategy (optimal). Low-value men > “beta bucks / sex-for-parental-investment” strategy (sub-optimal).

    Women have ONE sexual strategy but dual in its reach: Get alpha fucks + get parental investment (optimal). But since men adopt one or the other and not both, women cannot get them in one male, hence the various adaptations: (1) betaizing an alpha, (2) building a better beta, (3) getting the government to step in as beta, (4) open AF;BB either concurrently, or sequentially (alpha party years > beta epiphany > alpha rediscovery…), etc. etc.

  17. > “Delegitimizing men’s need for paternity cancels any and every upside that long-term monogamy had for Beta men using this sexual strategy. Thus, a return to a scattershot, some would say ‘less civilized’ sexual strategy becomes the only obvious alternative for men who want parental certainty.”

    Amen. Except that this strategy is only possible if you’re high value. Aka the rational behind the red pill’s advice (lift, learn game, make money, get status) is not only more sex (move from a sub-optimal beat strategy to an optimal alpha strategy), but simply that the beta strategy has been voided.

  18. Interesting ever since I found Sharks “Solve my girl problems” in high school he recommended the three R’s( Rollo, Roosh and Roisey(Heariste)). Forget which one of you said it first but not dating single moms has been a default because of YOU. It’s a shame shark took his blog down it had the perfect click-bait title to wake up high school afc who wanted to know why girls acted the way they did. I suffered a devastating breakup and I thought I did everything right through a blue pill lens.
    I was like “Wtf am I doing wrong?!” Sure enough you have to be a dick. LOL I wonder if Shark still reads this blog…. He has to.
    So my personal opinion(Everyone has their own way) is pretty much have a PUA/RSD verbal game with a Rollo sexual strategy and use hypergamy to my advantage?! LETS GO BOYS
    Time to cuck some betas in this bitch 😁FeelsGoodMan

  19. “Men’s optimal strategy: unlimited sex with unlimited number of partners, no commitment.”

    That depends on the climate. In some places, long winters and bad soil ensured that fatherless children, and semi-fathered children of polygynous marriages, died in infancy. These places are still renowned for the loyalty of their men and the beauty of their women. (When women have to compete for mates, the ugly ones die childless.)

  20. Technology to determine paternity is out there and relatively easy to perform and cheap enough to utilize. This will help the hapless beta feel more secure, if they aren’t adequately conditioned to not to even want to know, that a baby is their genetic legacy. It can also be used to hamper the scattershot approach as the State can come after a fruitful father for support payments or jail-time.

    With crisper technology DNA sequences can be changed very easily, so we may be on the verge of a “Gattaca” or “Brave New World” type of genetically engineered baby. Would a genetically engineered kid alleviate a females need for Alpha seed (most likely not stem her desire for such sex…)? With genetic engineering they can have a perfect baby and have a long-term effeminate beta for a partner.

  21. Very, VERY good and concise arguments from both Rollo and Auvergnat, imo. Also, what a contrast to come here from your #metoo social media feeds and read this:

    “Erasing the importance of paternity for men is literally the last nail in the coffin that is now contemporary marriage. It reduces men to little more than draft animals and livestock for women’s breeding purposes by erasing any claim a man may have to know his children are his own.”

    Talk about an evolved mind should be able to entertain opposing thoughts at the same time, or however this quote goes, lol. What a clash of realities.

    Gotta appreciate how biology makes no prisoners, on both sides, male and female, and simply zero fucks given about individuals. It may be tough to observe and realize but everything is better then the sweet sickening fairytales all around you to cope with reality.

    Actually agree with @Auvergnat that in monogamous pair bonding and/or raising a child, “BOTH sexes have to compromise on their optimal strategy.”

    Disagree tho that the male imperative is “unlimited access to unlimited sexuality” and this only.

    I propose the following theory: The male imperative is “unlimited access to unlimited sexuality” AND one (or maybe more) women with whom you emotionally bond at the same time, share intimacy and quality life time and raise children together.

    I’d actually be interested to read your guys take on this: Do you think the desire in men for emotional pair bonding, for intimacy and shared life time and raising children together is social conditioning (aka “men are the true romantics”/”myth of the lonely old man” kind of thing) or hardwired biology? Or both?

    If you could wake up tomorrow in an utopian world and live your sexuality however you wanted, unlimited abundance of every kind and no restrictions whatsoever, would you choose

    a. “unlimited access to unlimited sexuality” and no monagamous/long term pair bonding ever

    b. a phase of “unlimited access to unlimited sexuality” and then monagamous/long term pair bonding, maybe to raise kids

    c. “unlimited access to unlimited sexuality” and non-monogamous pair bonding at the same time

    d. something else?

  22. ould a genetically engineered kid alleviate a females need for Alpha seed (most likely not stem her desire for such sex…)? With genetic engineering they can have a perfect baby and have a long-term effeminate beta for a partner.

    I think more likely is that child rearing gets largely outsourced, and the beta partner becomes completely obsolete. Alpha/desire sex will never become obsolete.

    Go the anti-fragile route, guys.

  23. “Time to cuck some betas in this bitch FeelsGoodMan” LOL! your Alpha scattershot strategy will be to get single moms knocked up… until they use DNA testing to tag you for child support. Married ones would be the best bet, as the husband is the default father legally and the mom probably won’t want to tell otherwise.

    This is my dilemma now, knowing about hypergamy do I advise my girls to benefit them or to benefit myself via optimized grandchildren?

  24. @pinelero

    “With genetic engineering they can have a perfect baby and have a long-term effeminate beta for a partner.”

    All that perfect baby has to do is lose a fastball to another perfect baby and the nightmare begins again.

  25. Biology and Evolutionary Psychology explain everything…guys don’t want to know and women don’t want you to know.

  26. I’m still wrapping my head around this op. I don’t really get it.

    That women find 80% of men unattractive is complete FI driven bullshit. Men seeking answers should by all means stay away from OK Cupid and tinder. That shit is fake, false and phony all the way around….. But I’m old and don’t use that shit. I’ve always counseled males to stay away from getting strung up in web driven social media type garbage, but I can see now that it’s much too late for any of that. Men line up and volunteer for their emasculation.

    The whole ‘ father ‘ thing, Meh. I’ve always said that most guys shouldn’t ever become dads. Fuck genetic legacy, lol.

    The problem I’m having mostly is with the whole paternity thing. I get AF/bb , but when I watch men interact with wives or girlfriends, it’s like you can see where the potential problems may he like a giant flashing neon light.

    I’ve never had one concern over the paternity of my kids. But I have watched a few guys I know being tricked into raising kids that they were told were theirs, yet obviously they were not. Hell, I finally was able to convince a young man I know to get a DNA test on his ‘ son ‘. I called bullshit on his fatherhood the day that boy was born.

    As far as the stepdad thing goes, I’ve disagreed with Rollo on this in the past, but I get his cautioning based on what ‘ society ‘ is forcing on men. I’ve never been real big on society, and vice versa, lol, so fuck it. But I do love my stepdaughter like a..stepdaughter. Yet men should indeed stay away from single moms. Do as I say, not as I do. I’m a licensed professional and none of y’all should try this at home.

    Bang em, but that’s it. And while I’m at it, don’t create any single moms either. Wanna see single moms decline greatly in number? A) put on condoms B ) put on condoms. I have 2 biological children, and I have had sex with way, way, way, way more than 2 women.

    My motto is that any woman I raw dog could wind up being the mother of my child for real, or by bullshit accusation. Lots of the women I had sex with were beautiful and sexy and built and smart…. Lot’s of attributes I liked, but I didn’t want the majority of them to be the mother of my child(ren).

    Some recap: if you can’t shake the Borg of society and all of it’s anti male dictates, there is a baseball bat wrapped in barbedwire to be inserted into your rectum at a later date.

    Stay single. Don’t impregnate anyone. If you use dating apps, don’t complain about anything. You’re part of the problem. Next you’ll be out looking for an easy bake oven and some plush throw pillows.

    It was nice having your genetic participation while it lasted.

  27. Oh, one last thing from my perspective, men aren’t animals. Similarities are only similarities. I know, I know… Lots of euro scientists have pushed this over a few centuries. And it’s been taught in all major Eurocentric education facilities forever, but men aren’t apes or any other kind of animal.

    Similarities. I swim. Doesn’t make me a fish.

    In many ways animals are much wiser that humans, because they are experiencing all of this trumped up shit that we humans are.

    On the flip side, animals don’t have fighter jets or espresso machines either, so there’s that. Lol.

  28. “Go the anti-fragile route, guys.”
    Spot on worked out today and found myself in tune with the brutality of the human condition.

  29. Blax said it – we are men, not animals

    never get married (money bet obviously)

    OR

    you desire children – hold frame and roll those loaded dice – just make sure the chips are in front of your bet

    only bang chicks who could theoretically be a proper mother to your children then make the nubile woman your wife

    hard work, thankless, neverending potential for heartbreak, boredom and joy

    God didn’t put men here just to fuck around

    sublime post Rollo – look forward to reading the next 1k+ comments

  30. @Rollo: the statement was hypergamy being win-win for the woman, or more accurately no-lose for the woman (I think Sentient frames it more as a no-lose). Because it is a dual strategy. But as Auvergnat points out, they still lose a bit if they can’t get both aspects of the dual strategy maximized.

    So it is kind of like the distributions of traits for men and female. Men can win big and lose big more frequently, women strategy is designed to avoid loss but it is harder for them to really win big (getting the top male giving them Alpha Fucks and Bucks).

  31. The way I see it, the real problem is not when you raise somebody’s else baby, but when you do so UNKNOWINGLY. It is the idea of being duped that really makes my blood boil.

    Thank God I have never wanted to have children. Even less now. Frankly, I can’t understand how men who are acquainted with the RP can maintain such a desire after unplug. Borrowing @rugby’s words, I don’t want a son of mine to experience the brutality of the human condition.

    Otherwise great OP, Rollo. Well-written and flawless reasoning. This stuff is not so prevalent in Spain yet but I will recommend it to some friends as “English practice”.

    @Novaseeker

    Excellent point. I simply refuse to be a slave. At 15 I already knew in my gut something was wrong with marriage. I have seen it confirmed ever since.

  32. @Auvergnat – great post and analysis.

    @Blax – that 80% thing is quite misleading in the headline. The data comes from the book written by the guy who founded OKCupid and has been cited before and if you look carefully, what it says is that women (in online dating scenarios) rate 80% of men as being *below average*, not “unattractive”.

    Online dating is notoriously prone to problems for reasons that have been beat to death in the Field Reports topic, and elsewhere when YaReally was still around, so I won’t repeat it. It’s obvious [to us on TRM] that whatever preferences women say they want, in real life you have to look at their actions and they do of course, bang a lot of the men they mark as “below average” on OKCupid.

    The takeaway here is not so much the exact statistic, but more that it is confirmation that “hypergamy optimizes up” and “women will aim as high as they feel they can reach – which in online dating is a great deal more than in real life when they live in Podunk, WI but a cute Instagram picture can get the attention of an NBA star or Hollywood producer (lol)”.

    As for the stepdad thing, I think the point is that you weren’t pressured by the FI into making your choices. You chose it for your own reasons (similar to choosing to adopt a child – as in, an adopted child who is not biologically yours or your wife’s) and that’s fine. It’s not inherently a wrong choice or a bad choice (which is why all this “never get involved with a single mom” stuff grates on me sometimes) – there are risks sure, and you shouldn’t fall prey to the general man-up narrative, but if that’s what YOU want to do for YOUR reasons, it’s a perfectly valid choice (like choosing to enter into a monogamous marriage vs playing the field – of course marriage has risks, but it’s not automatically a bad choice).

  33. @Blaximus
    “Men seeking answers should by all means stay away from OK Cupid and tinder. That shit is fake, false and phony all the way around…..”

    “If you use dating apps, don’t complain about anything. You’re part of the problem.”

    I agree I actually stayed away from then for the longest but recently had a change of heart.
    Just like how we use hypergamy to our advantage shouldn’t us young’uns use them to our advantage. Just like how hypergamy isn’t going anywhere tinder isn’t either. Might as well take advantage of it right? Or am I missing something.
    Just a thought.
    BTW what’s your reason for them being emasculating?
    If I had a badass pic of me fishing wearing shades and showing off my body builder body wouldn’t that be pretty badass.
    Would love to hear your opinion good sir.

  34. There’s something missing in all of this…the thing that poured the gas on the hypergamy fire…the reason why women find a lot of men unattractive…the thing where women can attempt to block the less desirable man’s seed and ‘forget to take’ for the more desirable man’s seed.

    It’s not so much about the blue/red pill, I speak of course about ‘THE pill’…contraceptives. The thing that changes so much in a woman’s mating stategy, her hormones, and her body it’s no wonder they are confused. If you are dating/married/ or are with a woman who is on the pill…know that she is in a very real sense, living a lie.

  35. @Auvergnat…copied your post for future reference. You defined perfectly what is actually taking place. I think we all know this instinctively though, lol. Thanks for the articulation.

  36. @ Culum

    Always good to see you here.

    I understand Rollo’s points about single moms because the FI is actively waging a campaign that’s designed to foist a kind of single mom worship on society at large, and the narrative they put forth obliterates responsibility for women while attempting to force men to accept and cooperate with hypergamy rather that control it in any way. That’s some sick shit.

    For men, the devil resides in the details. The current general prescription from society is completely insane, so individual men have to decide what is within their ability and understanding to achieve what THEY want out of life. But men do need a counter to the FI generally. Absolutely.

  37. @levijynx

    You are aware that Shark also had a book called The Black Flag on Game?

    He wrote well:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49L8UpafiuLYncyNGhpTW0yU1JJRFoxbGlwdFh5ZWRxckdV/view

    @IAS

    Men can win big and lose big more frequently, women strategy is designed to avoid loss but it is harder for them to really win big (getting the top male giving them Alpha Fucks and Bucks).

    Interesting, yesterday I was out at my farm doing some project work with my son and another of my tribal buddies. We were working side by side and he asked me what I thought about gambling at casinos. I told him I never was much interested in it because I never got to a mastery level that I could tip to my advantage. I sense his personality is the type that would be drawn to it. (Live in the moment, take chances and enjoy the dopamine. Also a few good wins and he’d probably be hooked.) I didn’t have a lecture for him. I didn’t encourage or discourage him on the subject.

    But I did come across this essay by Shark on Solve my Girl Problems yesterday (I was aware of the Wayback Machine internet archive for the deposed blog):

    SOLVE MY GIRL PROBLEMS

    RISK

    On February 11, 2012 by Shark
    The crack heads made me a bit uncomfortable, but my experience at the Trump Taj Mahal these last two days was both enlightening and slightly awkward. If you walk around the casino at 4 am, expect to see a legion of gambling junkies at every other slot machine, tickets and 5 dollar bills in hand, mesmerized by the sea of vibrating lights. “The system is built to take your money,” I want to tell them, but I don’t have the heart.

    I DID lose an obscene amount of money, but it wasn’t at slots. Which got me to think, why do I hate slot machines and roulette tables so much? They say the biggest risks in life you can take revolve around money and women, but I HATE gambling in the conventional sense of the term. The reasons eventually became articulate, and so I decided to organize them into a post. Take them as commandments to evaluate risks as they come and go in your own life.

    (1) Bet on yourself, not on the House. There’s a difference between taking a $10,000 dollar loan out and using it to start the company you’ve always dreamed of creating versus putting $10,000 on 7 red. It’s not just the speed at which you could earn/lose your money, it’s that in the former, you are betting on a DEPENDENT variable (yourself), while on the latter you are betting on an INDEPENDENT VARIABLE. If you ever DO end up a gambling addict, let it be in poker (something you can study), rather than slots. Businessmen and investors do not take risks, they manage them.

    (2) Only count REAL losses. You can either be over confident and approach a girl, or under confident and avoid her. If you lose in the former, the loss is ABSTRACT. She rejects you, your ego takes a toll, but there is no real loss. In the latter, you lose the opportunity to meet her by default; a REAL loss. Never count Humility, grief, or a damaged ego as a REAL loss.

    (3) Desensitize your ego. A bit similar to the above rule, but different in application. When you win, take comfort in your WIN, not in your boosted ego. It’s not just the chance of winning that keeps a person addicted to gambling, it’s that ONE EXPERIENCE they had in the beginning where they tasted success that makes them fiend for another sample in the future. Your girlfriend dumps you? Don’t chase that feeling of security you had before. You bagged a 10? Don’t drop into a slough and avoid approaching anyone else.

    (4) Foresight teaches gently, hindsight teaches brutally. You don’t need to risk 1,000 rejections to understand the concept of body language. You can learn from it ahead of time, and then apply your knowledge proactively to learn OTHER things, things you could ONLY learn in field. This COMBINATION of study and practice is the key factor in determining success. People who emphasize action too much prematurely make decisions and people who emphasize studying too much are unable to make decisions.

    (5) It’s more important to let go of your losses than it is to hold onto your wins. Any time you take a loss, anywhere in life, learn from it, then cut it loose. Your emotional attachment to a loss will fuck you up. It doesn’t matter if it’s a a bad break up, a bad investment, or a bad idea. Understand your mistake and move on. Be efficient, never commit to the same mistake twice.

    I didn’t put a link to that essay because I still think the limit here is two links (or is it three?) and here was a neat other game essay on Motivation in Game (A larger Game that just PUA, A Promise):

    https://web.archive.org/web/20130402235533/http://www.solvemygirlproblems.com/2012/06/a-promise/

  38. Someone named “Alex Press” who claims to be 25 years old and female calls on women to use their ingrouping against the likes of Weinstein. “Weaponizing the whisper network” looks to be just an amped up version of what exists now.

    A Patreon rant copied to an online branch of the Female Imperative.

    https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/10/16/16482800/harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment-workplace

    Except that men targeted by the “whisper network” can wind up in jail, while women who gossip won’t, of course. That little detail gets left out for some reason. Wonder why?

    Alex Press is an assistant editor at Jacobin and a PhD student in sociology at Northeastern University.

    Oh. 25 year old grad student in sociology, that might explain the blind spot. Who would expect her to know anything about law or reality.

    Any bets on how she feelz about paternity testing, child support laws, stuff like that?

  39. not a FR, but kinda related to the topic…. last night I went out with my new cologne (thx guys) with the intent of going to a new place for food and practice

    there’s a little historic district of a small town nearby and I parked there and let fate guide me; one place had live music so I went in after also getting the food endorsement from a patron outside having a smoke; had some folk duo that covered a decent variety of tunes; this is not a club but a restaurant and bar and it’s not late, about 7:30

    the place wasn’t packed but about 75% full… lotsa small sets of near/post wall women, about 25% men; the way the place is set up, it’s just a big room full of big picnic style tables and I had one of these to myself at the back; ordered a beer and burger and while that was happening, a young family comes in, 3 kids from about 10, 6 and baby, the parents are late 20s/early 30s, and sit at the same table as me, politely asking first; nice looking couple, nice looking kids

    let me mention that one of my ‘big sacrifices’ for my ex was the acceptance of just having one child, despite my desire for a larger family, since it proved more difficult than expected to even get my son; I never made a big deal of it, because a solid family is gold these days no matter how many kids and that was most important to me

    after she bailed, one of the most difficult things for me to get over is that in addition to losing my ‘solid family’ I’ve likely also forever lost the chance for a family with many children (mine of course); I’ve asked here before about kids with an older father so hope isn’t extinguished but there’s no clear path to that right now… too much must come before any of that crazy shit

    let me also mention that my son’s time with my ex started yesterday and I won’t see him for a while… the first day is always the toughest… it’s just so fucking quiet at the house without him

    the duo start playing some real fun tunes that everybody knows the words to and the father and 6yo daughter go up to the little dance area by the band and of course are cute as shit as she is having a blast with daddy and that spurs many others up to dancing… great vibe but I can start to feel the choking up as the tendrils creep around my neck at witnessing this scene; I know the downward spiral is starting and so look away trying to think of something else

    let me also also mention that earlier that day Rollo’s ‘War on Paternity’ posted and it hit me like a gut punch; nothing to do but take it on the chin, which is difficult with a gut punch

    out of the corner of my eye I see the mother holding the baby, dancing in place and when I look over to her I see she is staring at me, I don’t look away, neither does she; it hangs there for a long beat then I casually grin and look away; now I don’t think she’s giving me some ioi to come over and fuck her or anything, but I do think that at that very moment when I envied her/them she was looking at me wondering if she’s still ‘got it’ just in case some Plan B needed to be always at the ready for her

    worst case of BP whiplash yet for me

    didn’t do shit after I paid up and left; suddenly everyone there including me stunk of failure and desperation

    yeah, I still got a ways to go before some of this shit really takes hold

  40. In France, it is already illegal to procure paternity tests. Paternity, some French say, is merely a social construct.

  41. @ levijynx

    I think that for a large number of men, the participation in online dating is driven to a great measure by thirst, and a mistaken assumption that they can exercise a degree of control in the Interaction. OK cupid, tinder, plenty of fucks, it’s all very femcentric.

    For chicks it’s like the Amazon for ordering up dicks, or at the very least a mental masturbation over being able to reject high numbers of men.

    Short of trying to locate some broad looking to just bang, men need to opt out of this mess en mass.

    In my mind it is emasculating because a man with some measure of game gets zeroed out of the equation because the online interaction negates his ability to overcome any perceived ” short comings “. Badass pictures not withstanding.

    In short, women rule that shit.

    Let them keep it.

  42. There is value in the OKCupid data believe it or not. That value is largely the confirmation of the Pareto Principle in relation to the SMP. You need experiments to confirm even “common sense” in order to have a valid view of reality. For those saying it isn’t valuable from the perspective of “watch what they do, not what they say” I beg to differ.

    In a direct survey where someone is clearly looking at their answers yes women would lie about those ratings. The reason though is to create a better image of themselves in the eyes of the surveyor and their own self-image by extension. However, those OKC statistics are taken from a system where the woman is marking her opinion of the men for the pragmatic, self-beneficial process of sorting the wheat from the chaff. Put simply: if she lies in the known, direct survey only the surveyor is hurt (receives inaccurate data) and she perceives a benefit. If she lies about her preferences on OKC she gets hurt as well. She has every incentive to be honest as it is 100% in her best interests. This fact along with the size of the dataset makes it one of the most brutally honest and valid studies of female selectivity ever conducted.

    It may not have all the hallmarks of full scientific rigor, but it’s probably the most convincing hard data I’ve ever seen due to the incentives aligning with full honesty on the part of the participants.

  43. @ Dr Z

    I’ve asked here before about kids with an older father so hope isn’t extinguished but there’s no clear path to that right now…

    Broadly speaking I know little about it, but one of my best friends in life got married (for the first time) at 50 to a woman almost 20 years his junior (also her first marriage). He has three young sons now and is loving the whole thing as they also appear to. He is not Red Pill aware as far as I know and I have not seen him since learning these things myself as he now lives several states over. So the potential for trouble downstream is there in accordance with all we’ve learned at TRM, but right now he’s got what he wanted. They are both regular church going Catholics since before they met. That was a big factor for him but I don’t know about her.

    20 years ago he knew he wanted progeny, but he got the blue pill Oneitis for some woman that went the distance as an LTR, then dropped him for all the usual reasons. He was set on establishing a family legacy and eventually lit upon a career girl who had passed 29.99 years old and I suppose was ready for a family herself. I don’t know her well other than that she is a life long teetotaler and stuck around her small town because that is where her family lives.

    Not that the story is of much use to you, but to say that it still happens.

  44. Programmed into each male psyche is the urge to mutilate and kill the offspring of other males, most especially those sired with a woman whom a male believes he has claim to.

    Many of you are sissys (even though you are waking up and making questionably commendable efforts not to be). Therefore, you may find yourself hoping, verbalizing, (in denial due to fear) that what I write is too extreme, harsh, or sick.

    It is not.

    It is the truth.

    What other creature exists that so intentionally, willingly, continuously, creatively, through shear force and cunning prolifically “commits” homicide?

    Although the majority of males being too weak or constrained by “the state” and the “culture”; too psychologically castrated to act upon their natural instincts, the instincts, urges, thoughts still dwell within the minds of all men.

    Honestly, how many times would you have actually enjoyed bashing the brains out of someone else’s little spoiled rotten bastard or bitch loud mouth self centered brat? While at the same time you would likely fight to the death to protect your own. You probably should lie publicly about this to protect yourself. But, honestly, why should you fool yourself? Why not be completely honest with yourself privately?

    At what point do these perfectly natural urges, after being constrained, bottled up, suppressed, repressed, erupt into full scale rage?

    Perhaps male rage is the ultimate effective reconciliation for hypergamy.

  45. Hmmmm…

    Thinking some more on this.

    Laws are written to “protect people”, to “provide order”, ensure “fairness”.

    But for who? Who needs their protection? Who needs “order”? Who needs “fairness”?

    Alpha males?

    Do laws exist to protect women, children and beta males?

    Protect from who?

  46. Recently I was at a Latin dance party. One of the girls I dance with: tall, young, hot and married came over to me.

    I know her husband but I still game her just for practice.

    She comes over to me to tell me she saw Wind River—which I have not yet seen.

    She says: “you would love it…it’s very…Masculine.”

    I smile: So you thought of me?

    Her: Yes, it has shooting and crime and… she blabs on.

    I just smiled. After 7 years I think I’m finally where I want to be and giving off the vibe I always wanted to.

  47. @Not Born This Morning

    “Do laws exist to protect women, children and beta males”

    Yeah from true alpha males via alpha proxies:

    “Myth of the middle class Alpha

    To make the idea of monogamy work, lower-status men had to make marriage to lower-status seem to be as good a deal as marriage to higher-status men. Not only were women back in the day physically weaker than men (same as today), but also, unlike today, they had little rights and protections and few independent means of income. Choosing a strong, powerful alpha male was especially important for women back then for mere survival, not just bragging rights. Lower-status men simply couldn’t cut it. Say a pack of men want to rape her. Is he high enough in status or badass enough in combat to protect her? Because there’s no reliable police force to do it for him. Or if some thugs do rape and violate her, is the lower-status man badass enough to storm up to the thugs stronghold, kick in the door and get revenge for her? Does he have strong alliances and coalitions that allow him to get things done? Even if he’s able to accumulate decent resources, if someone comes along and tries to take his resources, his worldly possessions, run him off his land, burn his house down, kill his children, and/or steal his wife, what is he prepared to do? Once again, no police force to call. And no reliable court of law and property rights in existence to intervene and set things right if you were violated in such a way. No institutions dedicated to righting your wrongs and enforcing you rights for you. In the olden days, you and you alone as a man were responsible for providing physical and financial security for all your resources and family yourself. There’s no one else for the average lower-status man to assign these tasks to. In such an environment, how can a lower-status male compete? A woman back then relied on her man for everything when it came to her physical and financial security. Think of the level of responsibility a woman, or even worse, a whole family was for a man back then. This is where a concept I call alpha proxying comes into play. This is where lower-status men, in a democracy where they have a vote and the ability to change public policy, collectively create alpha proxy institutions to relieve less powerful men of their alpha responsibilities. And a major tool these alpha proxies use is renegade alpha suppression. Some examples of alpha proxies and renegade alpha suppression:

    * Police. Protects and serves. Punishes those renegades who try to attain alphadom using routes not approved of by society. Gets retribution for victims against those who wronged them, saving them the burden of having to avenge themselves. Your wife gets raped, you get beat up or my kid gets robbed or killed? You can have the cops accomplish your alpha duty of retribution for you. Suppresses alphas of the violent and greedy variety.

    * Insurance companies. One advantage of marrying an uberalpha back in the day for a woman is that she and her kids could get his resources when he died. A lesser-status man didn’t have the same resources to leave, which was yet another way he couldn’t compete. A life insurance policy accomplishes that. The way insurance works, lower-status men collectively pool their resources to accomplish what only a super powerful resource-rich alpha could do back in the day: leave a lot of money to his family.

    * Civil and criminal courts and strong property, torts and criminal laws. It wasn’t enough for a woman to get a man with resources back in the day. She had to find a man who was bad enough to hold on to his resources. If he was too weak to stand up for himself and hold on to his shit, then they were in a precarious position. And if her man lost his resources, she and her children were screwed because she had no way of making money on her own. If someone was violent against their family and he couldn’t take care of business and offer retribution, they’d continue to get victimized. If someone stole from them, if he wasn’t man enough to take it back, same thing. Courts and strong laws and rights relieve lesser-status men of these burdens as well.

    * Justice Department and Antitrust laws. This alpha proxy works to keep rich uberalphas in check by punishing them if they are found guilty of running monopolies and crushing their competition. Forces them to spread the wealth and play fair.

    * The IRS. Takes money from those successful at acquiring resources, and the more powerful the person and successful at accumulating resources, then the more this alpha proxy tries to take from the uberalpha. Then it works to redistribute this wealth among lesser status men. A legally sanctioned extortion and protection racket designed to control and suppress excessive alpha ambitions. Relieves lesser-status men of the alpha duties of trying to take down the big man, trying to get a crack at his resources and stopping him from getting too powerful and rich.

    * Capitalism, Division of Labor, Technology and the Service Industry. Not handy around the house? Hire a contractor. Can’t hunt and gather or grow food and run a farm? Create a society of convenience where you can just buy things at supermarkets. Don’t have the skills to build a house for your family? You don’t need to have them. Can’t fight? Technology has created the gun and capitalism has created the means of getting it in your hands. In a capitalist society with division of labor, efficient allocation of resources and a thriving service industry, many of the traditional manly skills an alpha male was expected to have can be outsourced to others.

    * Media, Public Opinion and Social Norms. Hobbes envisioned the Leviathan as being composed primarily of a strong government. But the Leviathan we have is made up of more than just government, it also has a strong social component: collectively agreed on social norms and public opinions at play, and a pervasive media entity with which to disseminate these social norms and public opinions. You may wonder how this works for alpha suppression? Start examining the stories in the media and the recurring themes. If a billionaire alpha like Tiger Woods tries to build a harem, he’s shamed into apologizing for his natural male urges. Bill Gates is demonized as evil incarnate for attempting to build a monopoly and become even more powerful. The media becomes more liberal and less and less sympathetic to powerful men unless they’re willing to openly celebrate, praise and feed the Leviathan (which is why powerful liberal men like celebrities and Democrats fare better in the media than so-called “greedy” men like Wall Streeters and Republicans).

    * Military. Channels young male aggression that could potentially turn renegade alpha into being used for the Leviathan’s purposes as its enforcement arm. Teaches potential renegade alphas to play by the Leviathan’s rules and become part of its international renegade alpha suppression force.

    * Jails. If someone is stubborn about refusing to concede to the Leviathan’s ultimate alpha status and insists on not playing ball and reaching for ultimate alpha status for themselves without playing by the Leviathan’s rules? They end up fast-tracked to jail and set straight. Relieves lesser status men of having to find a way to punish ambitious renegade alphas in their midst themselves.

    * New Deal Entitlement Programs. The Great Depression and the fallout from it among lesser-status men was a great illustration of the dangers to a woman if she married a lesser-status man. If you ever read a book describing life for the average man in this era, it was horrible and emasculating. Now if a man runs out of ways to support a family, he can get unemployment benefits to help him get by between jobs. And Social Security and Disability Insurance relieve him of the burden of having to figure out how to support his family after he can’t work anymore.
    As I said earlier, this is far from an exhaustive list. If you think about it, you can come up with a ton of other alpha proxies and methods the use to suppress renegade alphas in our society. The more alpha proxies a society has, the more attractive lesser-status men become as marriage material as a result. If you’re a lesser-status man, you no longer have to be capable of singlehandedly doing all the traditional alpha duties in order to promise financial and physical security to a prospective mate. You have all of the Leviathan’s alpha proxies to do that for you and keep renegade alphas from getting too much status and making your life hell! And as a result lesser-status provider males become a competitive marriage option against uberalpha males.

    This also explains why many less developed countries can technically have democracies yet still have a dog-eat-dog environment with badass uberalphas like CR alpha from part 1 of this series ruling the roost: because despite the existence of democracy, these societies do not have good alpha proxies in place and therefore individual men are still ultimately responsible for their own alpha duties. For example our expat concierge in Costa Rica from part 2 in this series told us how pathetic and powerless the police were against truly dangerous criminals and how you had to “handle your own shit” there. But on the bright side, he proudly said, it was much more acceptable in Costa Rica to kill someone in self-defense without any bleeding hearts ganging up on you for it like in America.

    It’s not just democracy’s one-man, one-vote system that curbs abuses by uberalphas, it’s democracy combined with institutionalized, well-funded alpha proxies

    Now as you review the alpha proxy list I made above and come up with your own examples, notice something. Even though alpha proxies work to limit excessive alpha ambition across all socioeconomic levels, who do they disproportionately affect more? Middle class men! As I said in an earlier installment, upper-class men have the resources in the form of riches and connections and the best legal assistance to get away with going against the Leviathan more often, or to become an important part of the Leviathan and use it to their own adantage. Lower-class men have an advantage in that they have nothing to lose in terms of resources and reputation, aren’t afraid of punishment and are conditioned for hardship and free-for-all dog-eat-dog conflict.

    The middle-class man has the worst of both worlds: unlike the lower-class man he has just enough resources, respectable connections and reputation to be irreparably hurt if he loses any of them, plus he’s not cut out for environments like jail or the ghetto, but unlike the upper-class man he doesn’t have quite enough resources, respectable connections and reputation to buy off or successfully infiltrate the Leviathan either. Although the alpha proxies that make up the Leviathan use their power to punish renegade alpha’s across the board, it’s the middle class man who suffers the most from going renegade by trying to be too alpha”.

  48. None of the list above works the way it’s outlined any longer.

    Whew.

    Btw, police jobs is not to run around exacting revenge. That one jumped off the page at me. That’s why it’s funny to hear people complaining about their rights and shit, but being okay with militarized police forces that will be turned against you at the drop of a hat. Then it’s too late.

    Police are there to enforce the law as it appears on the books. None of the extra shit is required.

    Remember, they are part of the state apparatus.

  49. ‘Although the majority of males being too weak or constrained by “the state” and the “culture”; too psychologically castrated to act upon their natural instincts, the instincts, urges, thoughts still dwell within the minds of all men.’

    There is the ‘thou shall not kill’ commandment.

    If you want to bash in the brains of an innocent child just because another man produced the kid…that’s a sick thought process. The more effective advice is to not even bother with single mothers…let those mothers hound the man who produced the child for his responsibility…there is no real upside for another man to come in and do that.

  50. “Police are there to enforce the law as it appears on the books.”

    Police are there to compel people to appear in court. Court is there to enforce the law.

    That’s why the cop says, “Tell it to the judge.”

  51. but I do think that at that very moment when I envied her/them she was looking at me wondering if she’s still ‘got it’ just in case some Plan B needed to be always at the ready for her

    Yep you will find that happens a lot when you have your eyes open, if you’re older and attractive. It’s a combination of what you write (checking to see that she still has it) and also a longing for something other than being saddled with her H and kids, even if she doesn’t act on the longing, you can still sense it in the eyes.

  52. @Culum

    that 80% thing is quite misleading in the headline. The data comes from the book written by the guy who founded OKCupid and has been cited before and if you look carefully, what it says is that women (in online dating scenarios) rate 80% of men as being *below average*, not “unattractive”.

    Women don’t even see betas. Only alphas can be average men. Betas are “below average,” i.e., unattractive.

    @Blax

    Women will have sex with unattractive men, but alphas get 80% of sex and betas get 20%.

    @earl

    It’s not so much about the blue/red pill, I speak of course about ‘THE pill’…contraceptives. The thing that changes so much in a woman’s mating stategy, her hormones, and her body it’s no wonder they are confused. If you are dating/married/ or are with a woman who is on the pill…know that she is in a very real sense, living a lie.

    Women’s estrogen and T levels are irrelevant to their sexual desire for alphas…dopamine is the key neurotransmitter involved in women’s sexual desire. If women are “lit up”, then they have a cascade of dopamine. Dopamine is unaffected by The Pill.

  53. Someone said in an earlier post that the natural instinct of male lions, when they take over a pride, is to kill of all cubs that they did not sire. Not that human males should follow a simialr instinct, but making a point that these instincts nevertheless exist. That might be true, but then again, lions have no loyalty to other lions that do not share their bloodlines. The “stepcubs” are not going to come to the aid of their paternal figure/s when the latter come under attack or challenge from a rival group of male lions.

    Altruism in humans evolved for selfish reasons and men (unless brainwashed to the core), subconciously do not do anything for pure altruistic reasons. In their minds, they have worked out what the payback is for the price they have to pay, and they have made the decision based on some sort of cost-benefit analysis. Of course they could be basing their decisions on totally incorrect information and assumptions, which is where TRP and TRM come in.

    Making a reasoned decision to raise another man’s child/children is not cuckoldry, but being fooled or forced into doing so most definitely is. Societies would not have survived if men categorically refused to raise another man’s offspring, simply because the best and brightest of men would not have risked their lives for the betterment of their tribe, if the children they left behind were not going to be cared for and protected. No man capable of procuring resources and security for their tribe would do so if they lost their lives so other men and their children could benefit.

    The difference here is that these arrangements were based on agreement between men and men had to “pay a price” for the privilege of having others take care of his children, something which almost never happens today. Also there is always no reciprocal relationship between a man caring for another’s child and the biological father of the child.

  54. The thing I’m finding strange is this talk of instincts to kill shit. I call bullshit because most men aren’t killers, regardless of whatever thoughts they may harbor because of something theynread somewhere.

    But if you do have a strong urge to kill an child, any child, you are head fucked. It’s got fuck all to do with tribes or hunter gatherers or vikings or any of that shit at all. There is no justification. It’s 2017 so fuck your idea of instincts. Animals have instincts. Humans, being bored and silly like to think they operate on instinct. That’s how you can justify doing some really fucked up stuff.

    Your not an animal. You have no instincts. You have problems.

  55. Instincts are hard-wired behaviors. They aren’t something that is easily overridden. Things like a mother suckling her young or female mating behavior or the involuntary primate reaction to seeing a potential mate. Killing other people is something that can easily be overridden. I haven’t found any psychological basis for this supposed killer instinct.

    But why is believing that men have killer instincts so important to NBTM? Have people made this highly speculative evo-psych thesis into an ideal? Is it idealism rearing its ugly head?

  56. Saw a story where a guy bought his family one of those DNA tests for genealogy and gifted them at a family reunion, and found his children weren’t his, and were all “half” siblings… Nothing that I wouldn’t expect from the number of married women that get turned on taking it bareback.

    I whole heartedly recommend that all men find such an excuse to have “his” children tested, but be prepared to find that some of them, aren’t your children.

  57. Today i was learning about how i escape the pain… Buffer’s from dealing with what it takes to build an actual relationship with another human being. The work and the effort into building a real version of a respect and definition of the pain expressed into creation. A form of something massive and beautiful. A serene exploration of the outdoor’s and connecting with other men.

  58. @SFJ Interesting story on how I got Sharks book “The Black Flag”. I was in high school when it came out and I didn’t have access to a credit card so I left a comment on one of the”comments” articles(answers viewer questions) kind of wishing I could get the book. Sure enough he emailed me giving me a pdf copy of it. He knew I was really a high school student because I always left questions for his “Comments” articles and I was a regular commenter in general on his blog.

    @Blaximus The PUA in me wants to say if you are spinning multiple plates by MOSTLY going out and cold approaching then using those apps supplementary is like icing on the cake.

    “I think that for a large number of men, the participation in online dating is driven to a great measure by thirst, and a mistaken assumption that they can exercise a degree of control in the Interaction. OK cupid, tinder, plenty of fucks 😁, it’s all very femcentric.”

    “Short of trying to locate some broad looking to just bang, men need to opt out of this mess en mass.”

    Couldn’t have said it better, touche.

  59. @just saying: one very quick and easy test is comparing blood types. You have to know your blood type and the mom’s blood type and the kids also. The combination of male/female blood types through procreation can only yield certain combinations of blood types. If you have a kid that doesn’t have a blood type within the realm of possible blood types based upon the male/female blood types, then a DNA test is not necessary. If you do meet the blood type combinations that is not definitive proof of paternity and a DNA test will be conclusive.

    Everyone should know the blood types of family members for transfusion purposes. I know mine from the Army (its on the dog tags).

  60. Did not know that about the blood type patterns. Looked for a chart and found one immediately, which also contains this reference to the OP, and from 15 years ago…

    Mommy’s little secret – 1 out of 6 Canadians are Victims of Paternity Fraud

    Includes interview with employees of Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, Canada who admit they deny children’s identity information to husbands/male partners of mothers who want to hide the real identity of their child because they had an affair.

    https://canadiancrc.com/Paternity_determination_blood_type.aspx

  61. ‘If women are “lit up”, then they have a cascade of dopamine. Dopamine is unaffected by The Pill.’

    Estrogen and dopamine levels are connected in women.

  62. Mommy’s little secret – 1 out of 6 Canadians are Victims of Paternity Fraud

    Yep. Most sources in the US say it’s about 5% overall, but when you are in “riskier” populations (ie, histories of promiscuity and affairs) it rises to around 15-20%. I am betting that those numbers are low-balled because the medical community has collectively decided that it doesn’t really want men to know what the reality is, either overall or especially in a specific case, because it doesn’t want to be the party who precipitates a marital breakup (the philosophy is is that if she was clever enough to hoodwink the H and/or he was clueless enough to be hoodwinked, the docs aren’t going to be the ones to cause a marital breakup).

    It’s easy enough to get to know the blood type though — if it isn’t a possible one, then you have your answer. If it is a possible one, you’ll never know without a specific paternity test. I did one on my son after my divorce and it was ok, but you never really know without a test because women are very much evolutionarily hard wired to hide this from you — it is no doubt one of their core operating programs, it is very old and very well developed/evolved.

  63. I still think playing the game by women’s rules will benefit more men than we are willing to accept. Saudi women in are like, “no burqas, let us drive!” etc. Western women are like, “let us have some fresh refugee cock!” Everytime a man walks into a club and finds all that liberated gyrating pieces of sexy ass is what makes for man paradise. The quick retort against one saying that is usually, “they only choose alpha” No they don’t. Any man who has cared enough to bring himself to situational awareness and has worked at himself to achieve some level of sexual appeal, he will get laid. Each time. Women go to the club gunning for top 20%. By the end of the night they soon find that top 20 is already taken, and they soon start readjusting the scope. We do not have to marry the goddamn sluts. But we can fuck the hell outa dem. The danger therein is the risk of inadvertently knocking up a random slut.

  64. @j

    “Lower-status men simply couldn’t cut it. Say a pack of men want to rape her. Is he high enough in status or badass enough in combat to protect her?…. Even if he’s able to accumulate decent resources, if someone comes along and tries to take his resources, his worldly possessions, run him off his land, burn his house down, kill his children, and/or steal his wife, what is he prepared to do? Once again, no police force to call.”

    Even the most alpha alpha is likely to be overwhelmed if a group of men decide to take from him. That’s why if you go back to earlier times, loyalty to the tribe or similar small group was everything. If one man was attacked, he could rely on the other men in his group to stand up with him or take vengeance for him if necessary.

    “In the olden days, you and you alone as a man were responsible for providing physical and financial security for all your resources and family yourself.”

    In the olden days you had the support of your tribe or similar group, going back to hunter gatherer. Although being a man who could take care of himself meant you were likely to have a larger share of whatever was available, including a better looking, younger wife (or wives even).

    You see this whenever the rule of law grows weak, with criminal gangs or prison gangs for instance.

  65. @blax
    Armed conflict deaths disggregated by gender in Africa: Angola, Ethiopia, Nigeria (biafra rebellion), Mali (berbers), the Sudan during armed conflict children directly suffered infanticide during war (I am talking direct battle deaths). The women were raped. Lions much? I believe that these guys too are homosapiens. Of course boy child suffer more infanticide during battles so… I am sorry for touching on this sensitive example while the wounds are still fresh but: Did you think they did not kill infants when they were raping the Rohingyas?

  66. @Cheupez: I think you are mostly incorrect in thinking there is some sort of “trickle down effect”. In your example of night clubs, you are implying that after the top 20% of guys in the setting are taken and get out of the club, the remaining girls will readjust their standards and start picking out of the new “top 20%” left in the club. I’d say this is incorrect because they have a “floor” / lower bound. They need to think the guy is higher value than she thinks she herself is.

    They will lower their standards a little bit by the end of the night, possibly also because they are typically very drunk, a guy without game is still going home dry.

  67. Those wars in the Third World have often a background of ethnic hatred more than anything else. Britain and France arbitrarily drawing borders in Africa and Asia made them more probable.

    Lately I find myself agreeing with @Blax often, and this is no exception. Most things are learned. From very early on, but learned. BP being the quintessential example.

    Also, enter “envy”. This is a feeling I am very interested about right now, because it is sadly a powerful force for me, and I suspect for a lot of manosphere types as well. The most extreme case being Elliot Rodger, of course. If he still did not get any sex, but knew for a fact that nobody else did either, would he had gone postal? I don’t think so.

  68. Infanticide is not new to humanfolkn it may have something to do with what the Brits or French did all over the third world, but not everything. Infanticide existed long before that, it is even there in the bible (old testament, I think).

  69. @IAS
    I am just trying to give a perspective from my experience. I do not think I am top 20% in height, brawn, swag etc. May be just bucks. Well may be I don’t have a pot belly and I still have my hair and I lift so, I am not a pushover either. Just not top 20%. But I get laid. A lot. A lot. So much so that at some point I even had a blog just to brag about my experiences. That was before I even found the manosphere. Reading Rollo completely changed everything because then after that, I just watch the theatrics and just find myself smiling knowingly. Not to say I have not wined a girl who put two and two together and decided she preferred the bucks to the fucks and tried to hold out. One would even say it was negotiated sex with some of the girls. But with a majority it is wanna-suck-your-cock-wet-to-the-butt-enthusiastic-bang.

  70. “the medical community has collectively decided that it doesn’t really want men to know what the reality is, either overall or especially in a specific case, because it doesn’t want to be the party who precipitates a marital breakup “

  71. “Britain and France arbitrarily drawing borders in Africa and Asia made them more probable.”

    All you have to do to know that Iraq would at some point try to annex Kuwait is look at a map.

    Kuwait exists because the British needed a harbour in WWI, so they gave a kingdom to a nomadic chief who happened to be in the area, so the “king” could give them the harbour. Thing is, it’s Iraq’s harbour.

    “Just not top 20%. But I get laid. A lot. A lot.”

    This is an oxymoron, not a paradox. It appears as a paradox to you because you are inverting the proxy/primary relationship. How much you get laid is the metric for how much you get laid.

  72. This relates more to the Control post than this one, but since this is the active thread I will post it here — I also posted in at Donald’s place in response to his most recent post there:

    Another thought struck me while perusing this recent “gem” of an article at CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/21/opinions/what-men-can-do-me-too-stamp-opinion/index.html

    Lots of nonsense in there, really, basically requiring men to be radical feminists in order to be considered “decent” (nothing new there from the revolutionary crowd, but the Weinstein thing is being used as a stalking horse in a rather loud way, it seems to me), but what struck me was the inclusion of enthusiastic consent in the list.

    The enthusiastic consent standard is another way that women’s sexual power is augmented at the expense of most men. We can be ensured that if a man is actual in a sexual encounter he is typically quite enthusiastic about it (leaving aside marital sex — there are probably quite a few cases there where the H is less than enthusiastic about sex with his wife for a variety of reasons, if she tries to initiate), so basically this is a one-way test of the women’s enthusiasm, whereby if she isn’t obviously enthusiastic about the sex, it’s rape, even if she consents to the sex. The one-sidedness isn’t terribly troubling, I think (the current consent standard is also more or less one sided in examining the women’s consent while male consent is taken as a given whenever there is an erection), but what is troubling is that this new standard which is being pushed basically has the effect of rendering virtually all sex that women have other than passionate sex with apex men as rape. That is, because a woman may consent to have sex with Billy Beta doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped by Billy if her consent wasn’t enthusiastic, like it is/was with “Chad”. In effect, this new standard criminalizes most heterosexual intercourse between women and non-apex men, because such men are not capable of generating *enthusiastic* consent — at least not regularly or on an ongoing basis.

    This has the effect of significantly increasing women’s sexual power (which is the power to attract and to sift/sort/reject due to imbalances in demand between the sexes) by essentially empowering women to criminalize situations where she consents to sex but her partner isn’t able to generate sufficient enthusiasm on her part, which permits her to later charge him with rape. I fully expect this standard to spread from colleges (where it is having the desired impact already more or less, in terms of confining sex to apex males) to the broader society, and that it will be used, as it is being used in college, to empower women to even further control and restrict the expression of heterosexual male sexuality while augmenting further their power to sort/sift/reject by making it a crime for her lovers to be unable to generate her enthusiasm to the same degree.

    ===

    Somewhere we seem to have drifted from “affirmative consent” to “enthusiastic consent”. The difference may seem subtle, but it isn’t. While affirmative consent was troubling enough (it isn’t what most women want in a sexual encounter, that’s obvious), enthusiastic consent seems guaranteed to turn most betas into rapists it seems to me.

  73. This song fits the OP.

    There is nothing new about cuckoldry, what is new is asking a man to pay for the show and scede his power or control in the way the child is raised. Raising another mans child requires more investment than raising your own, the rewards are dubious, especialy when the baby dady is still in the picture or in the case of hidden paternity, after ten years of investment it becomes obvious the flatfooted klingon foreheaded kid isn’t yours. It becomes nescessary to distance oneself from ego investment to make it workable vs totaly dysfunctional.

    As for instincts, it is hard to treat blood and adopted children the same ,as well it it is hard to treat the adopting father the same as blood. There is a a way out in these situations, and when things get rough both parties are apt to consider the alternatives, the manipulate the situ for change , not always better.

    The best option is for women to be raised to be responsible (good luck with that) making good choices from the start. My advice is don’t take on another mans responsibilities.

  74. @kfg
    We are saying only 1/5 of the men in the club will get laid? I doubt it, from what I see. We are NOT saying that you get desire sex because you are 20%, we are saying you can get desire sex even if you are not top 20%.

  75. “We are saying only 1/5 of the men in the club will get laid?”

    No.

    What I am saying is that if you are in the top 20% of men getting laid, you are in the top 20%.

    What you were saying is that you are not in the top 20%, because you have a priori assumptions about what the top 20% is that you do not match.

    But you getting laid like tile does not prove that you can get laid like tile if you aren’t in the top 20%. What it does is disprove your preconceptions of what constitutes the top 20%.

    Saying that the top 20% of men get 80% of the sex is also saying that the bottom 80% of men – get sex.

  76. @Cheupez: in other words, if you are indeed getting laid very frequently in a night club setting, you are indeed top 20% in that setting. I don’t think you realize just how little game most men have, even the good looking ones.

  77. “in other words, if you are indeed getting laid very frequently in a night club setting, you are indeed top 20% in that setting. I don’t think you realize just how little game most men have, even the good looking ones.”

    And out of that 20%, only the top 1% of guys are getting the best looking girls. The other 19% “aimless alphas” get laid very frequently with the average girls in the club:

    http://yareallyarchive.com/2013/6/#comment-heartiste-449411

  78. @Mr.Roboto @stuffinbox

    ” “My advice is don’t take on another mans responsibilities.”

    I agree, but sadly most men (at least men I know) refuse to understand that.”

    To add on to this the single mothers will reward you with pussy and some men think it’s not so bad but really should still not settle for it.

  79. @levijynx

    I know they are rewarded with pussy, but to get some used pussy doesn´t worth all the sacrifices that imply to raise a child that is not yours. I have a friend that was going to marry a single mom with 3 children just because of the pussy (and because she cooked good meals lol), it took me a very long talk to convince that fucking idiot of not doing so. However, I had a former classmate that left his PhD studies to marry a used slut with 3 children again just for the pussy. I think I posted the story in the Dream Killers post.

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