You need to understand WOMEN HATE BETAS in fact they hate them so much that they would prefer to work soul destroying jobs to support themselves than attach themselves to a Beta provider that wants to fuck them and impregnate them with his shitty beta genetics.Incubus Rising
This was a comment that I meant to include in last week’s essay, but I’m glad I saved it for today’s article. It serves as a good starting point for men’s Existential Fear. If there’s one buzz-term that’s been bandied around by women since the rise of feminism it is “fear“. Men fear this. Men fear that. Men feel “threatened” by a strong woman. More recently it’s, “Men fear working with women today over concerns of workplace sexual misconduct.” So, I want to state here from the outset that I’m using the term fear in both these essays for lack of a better one. But what really gets the point across?
“Rollo, why does it destroy my soul to imagine my ex-wife / ex-girlfriend banging another man? I can’t sleep because I’m imagining her giving up herself sexually to a new guy.”
Some variation of this question is something I get a lot from guys I counsel who are going through a breakup or divorce. Sometimes it’s from men who’ve been separated from the woman for a long time. This is to be expected from Blue Pill conditioned men, but even guys who are Red Pill Aware will still feel the rage of infidelity even after the breakup has been official for years. Guys will tell me they wont even go out socially or associate with friends so as not to be in the same space as their ex for fear that they would do something rash if they saw her with another guy. There’s just something in their DNA that’s unsettling about imagining their ex giving herself willingly to another man – and they’re conflicted because the fem-centric world tells him he’s “insecure in his masculinity” for his possessiveness.
I can remember the same anxiety after I’d mercifully split from my BPD girlfriend. Even years after it was all over I’d still have nightmarish dreams about her. What the hell was that all about? What is our subconscious trying to get across to us with this?…
“Why am I so jealous and suspicious of my wife / girlfriend cheating on me? Should I feel bad that I root through her texts and IMs? Am I just ‘insecure in my masculinity’ if I feel like that? Why am I so possessive?”
This is another common one I get from men I counsel. I detailed a bit of this in Gut Check. Our subconscious mind has a way of warning us when our ‘aware’ mind is unaware of, or ignoring, the inconsistencies in our peripheral awareness. We’re actually much more aware of our environment than we appreciate, we simply refuse to acknowledge these inconsistencies. More often than not that denial is conditioned into us for purposes that aren’t always in our best interests. And sometimes it’s outright manipulative of male nature.
In Gut Check I related a time in my life where I had instinctively been suspicious of my wife because my instinctual awareness turned on the warning lights in my head. I had no rational reason to believe my wife was cheating on me, but I had a very real, evolutionary, reason that my instinctive mind would be suspicious of infidelity. Millennia of evolution has written anti-cheating failsafes into our mental firmware.
“Why are DNA tests illegal in some countries? Why is it illegal for a doctor or their staff to tell a “father” that the child he thinks is his own really isn’t biologically his? Why do we legally protect women’s cuckoldry?”
More and more we are seeing feminine-primary social conventions and legislation crop up that can only have one purpose – the systemic disempowerment and disenfranchisement of men’s interests in the reproductive process. The cover story for this Removing of the Man from any semblance of reproductive authority is what I call the Cult of the Child. I’ll be publishing a full essay on this soon, but the short version is that anything that serves women’s sexual strategy is always deemed to be “in the best interests of the child.” The interests of children has become the shield of what is really the interests of women’s sexual strategy.
For decades now, feminist ideology has successfully convinced most western societies that what serves the female reproductive interests is always what serves the a child’s interests. Men are superfluous at best, and pose a danger to the child at worst. This presumption is rooted in the Duluth Model of feminism, but women’s sexual strategy always comes at the cost of the reproductive interests of the man/father. I wrote about this in Children of Men. There is an open war on paternity today, but as with all intersexual conflict we need to look deeper to determine what the latent purpose of that conflict is all about. What interests are served in unilaterally disenfranchising men from the reproductive process?
The answer to all of these questions finds their root in men’s Existential Fear – All men have an evolved need to determine and ensure his paternity.
Ascertaining paternity, and ensuring his parental investment is vested in perpetuating his genetic legacy, is the prime directive of men’s existence. This is a male imperative that virtually all higher order animals share.
Despite what many blank-slate academics still promote, men and women are different. Contemporary thinkers would have us believe the sexes are more alike than not, but the truth of it is we are different in fundamental ways that most equalists are uncomfortable admitting. Yes, we are the same species, but the fact remains that our differences, and in particular our sexual strategies, conflict in profound ways.
The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other
gender must compromise or abandon its own.
In last week’s essay I outlined the the Existential Fear women hold in their evolved unconscious – that of the Hypergamous doubt. “Is this guy the best I can do?” is the question that their hindbrains ask. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution, and the systemic Fempowerment that followed, women have collectively used this authority to ensure the preeminence of their sexual strategy (Hypergamy) in our social order. I outlined many of the resulting social changes we see were the result of this in last week’s post, but this preeminence came at the cost of men’s interests and influence in the larger, meta-conflict of the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies.
Men’s evolved reproductive interest is very simple; ensure that the child a woman bears to him is his actually his own. Up until the last 60 or so years patriarchy, true, legitimate patriarchy has always been the order of society. Despite the ignorance of feminists protesting it, patriarchy has been a beneficial aspect of our advancement as a species since we formed tribal hunter-gatherer bands millennia ago. But that patriarchy depended on a simple doubt that formed men’s base sexual strategy – ensure his genes were passed into the next generation.
There are two ways a man can achieve this outcome. In The New Polyandry I explained men’s 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.
Essentially, men follow an ‘r’ or ‘K’ reproductive strategy according to their (perceived) sexual market value (SMV). Since a majority of men fall on the low SMV side of the reproductive equation social conventions that served those men’s reproductive interests had to be developed and standardized. The resolution of men’s Existential Fear needed to be instituted and standardized to ensure the largest number of men could be relatively certain that the children they sired were indeed their own.
A lot is made of women’s reproductive costs in academia. In a fem-centric social order it pays to focus on women’s suffrage/victimhood narrative. But, men bear reproductive costs in this equation as well. Men’s biological imperative is unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Our best shot at sending our genes into the next generation is ‘spreading the seed’. Our biological hardware is made to do just this, but there are costs and obstacles to solving the reproductive problem. And the easiest solution for men has always been exercise their direct control over women’s sexual strategy. Imposing our natural strength (in many forms) on women has historically ensured that it’s women who were the ones to compromise their sexual strategy in favor of men.
Patriarchy & Monogamy
Socially enforced monogamy was the least barbaric of those compromises, but in this century destroying that monogamy has been a priority for the Feminine Imperative. In theory, socially enforced monogamy was the most beneficial mating strategy for largest number of (low SMV) men to solve their reproductive problem. But the fact remained that it was still an exercise of control over women’s Hypergamous natures. In essence, monogamy worked for men, and it was beneficial as a compromise in parental investment for women, but it also assumed direct a control over women’s sexual selection process.
Patriarchy and monogamy answered a woman’s Hypergamous doubt for her, and that is the crux of women’s Existential Fear – to have the control of her Hypergamy, her selection process, and ultimately the cost associated with that choice determined for her. This fear is exactly why the primary goal of feminism has always been the maximal unlimiting of women’s sexuality and the maximal restricting of men’s sexuality. It seeks to replace the social-scale compromise of the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies with the total capitulation of the male strategy. Today, the Gynocracy has achieved this almost entirely.
But for one sex’s strategy to succeed, the other’s must be compromised or abandoned. For a gynocentric social order, only men’s abandonment of their own strategy is acceptable – and this abandonment insists men deny the evolved imperative of their own Existential Fear – insisting on paternity.
In the evolved scheme of things men’s reproductive best interest involves sacrifices. When a man commits to parental investment with a woman he takes on sunk cost risks. The time he spends investing himself committed to one woman and the children they produce comes at the cost of reproductive opportunities with other women. Women’s sexual strategy necessitates he compromise or abandon his biological imperative. Naturally, both men and women have adapted ways to circumvent monogamy to optimize their sexual strategies (infidelity, short-term breeding schema), but the basic equation is the same; if a man is invested in one woman it limits him from seeking other (potentially better) reproductive opportunities. If you want to know why Plate Theory irks women so much look no further.
The only way this compromise of sexual strategy can be advantageous to men is if he can be relatively assured that the child he’s raising is his own. This is where men’s Existential Fear of paternity fraud begins. He cedes his own strategy and the sunk opportunity cost for reproduction in exchange for the certainty that he’s invested in a child that bears his name and his blood.
I call this men’s Existential Fear because denying men the certainty of paternity presents the same existential anxieties as a woman’s control of Hypergamous doubt taken from her. Women fear the idea of being forced to birth and raise the child of a suboptimal man not of her choosing, while men fear the idea of being deceived into raising a child not of their own genetic lineage. And until the advent of DNA testing only a woman could be certain that the child was her own.
This is root level stuff here. So important was the determination of paternity for men that an obsessive concern for it was written into our mental firmware. The risks of falling for paternity deception was that important, and the men who evolved this compulsion were selected-for. The reason we Mate Guard, the reason our hindbrains default to jealous suspicions, the reason we cannot bear the thought of another man mating with our woman is rooted in the fear of investing ourselves in a child not our own.
In the previous essay I mentioned the natural revulsion response humans have towards things that are inherently harmful to us. A reservation or revulsion of snakes, spiders, feces, rot and necrosis are part of the evolved firmware we’re born with. I would also argue that the revulsion women feel towards “creepy” (low SMV, Beta) men and the revulsion men feel towards “slutty” women is part of this. Both these revulsions are adaptational protections against our respective Existential Fears. Each represents our Instinctual Interpretive Process letting us know what our ancestors had to avoid.
“But Rollo, isn’t it a noble thing to adopt or mentor a child that is not your own?”
I get this response a lot when I discuss this, and yes, it absolutely can be when the choice to do so is of your own making. In fact, the reason adoption/mentoring seems such a noble undertaking is exactly because it requires a man to repress his natural concern for his ow paternity. Kinship affinity will always play a role in men and women’s relationships with the next generation. Human beings are innately tribal and familial because tribalism promotes the advancement of selected genes. So repressing this innate predisposition is exceptional, maybe even noble depending on the social context, but it is so because it requires a man to ignore his natural wiring. For what it’s worth, I think multi-generational mentorship in Red Pill awareness is going to be a new imperative in the coming decades.
It’s just this pushing past our natural, evolved, concerns about paternity that’s been the operative dynamic of the Feminine Imperative in consolidating power. The human revulsion response can be molded. Usually this is through some form of operant conditioning. Revulsion can even be conditioned to be associated with pleasure. The Feminine Imperative has been remolding men’s evolved need for paternity to its own ends for some time now.
The popularization of ‘Poly Relationships‘ is one of the more recent redirects of men’s paternity need. As I mentioned above, the goal state of the Feminine Imperative is ensuring that women’s sexual strategy – and anything that foments it – is the socially ‘correct‘ imperative. Men must become more like women if they want to be accepted by a social order defined by women’s experiences. Men’s sexual strategy is only acceptable when it serves a woman’s purpose, so men’s existential imperative of ensuring paternity is always going to be in conflict with women’s strategy. A man insisting on his own paternity and the perpetuation of his name is in direct conflict with women ensuring she chooses to breed with the best specimen and be provided for by the best male she can lock down.
This being the mechanics of it, it comes as no surprise that the social conventions of this era encourage men to abandon that evolved need. We make “heroes” of men who marry the single mother and assume the parental investment costs of the man she chose to breed with. A fem-centric society makes this a noble responsibility – “He Manned Up for the loser who wouldn’t take that responsibility” – all while ignoring the simple fact that this ‘hero’ is only completing women’s Hypergamous imperative. And it’s come to the point that a man abandoning his sexual strategy is part of women’s expectations and entitlements of Beta men.
For the men who insist on their own strategy, the message is one of shame. Only a man who’s “insecure in his masculinity” would think that a child would need to be his own. In fact, the very title of “father” is offensive to a social order based fulfilling women’s imperatives. Father’s Day must become, ‘special persons’ day‘. Men should never insist that a wife assume his last name. And of course, DNA testing to determine paternity (even in light of life threatening illness) is to be discouraged if not outlawed.
Now You Know
In The War on Paternity I explored a lot of the ways our feminine-primary social order ensures women’s sexual strategy stays the operative one. Our divorce laws, our child support and custody laws all center on one thing – making sure women’s imperatives supersede men’s need for paternity certainty. Even when a child is not biologically a man’s, he has no right to know the truth, but he has every expectation to be financially and emotionally responsible for the “best interests of the child.”
Going forward I think the Red Pill aware man must embrace his existential need for paternity – and do so fearlessly. If a new beneficent patriarchy is to take root then men will need to reject the social conventions that insist a woman’s sexual strategy be the preeminent one. I think mentorship of the next generations of young men should also be emphasized, but I think this needs to be a conscious decision of the men doing so. Today we have the decision to be a ‘cuckold’ made for us proactively and retroactively by women and a feminine-primary social narrative. If you’re an adoptive father then I salute you, but understand, at least you had the decision to make yourself. Most men’s decisions to be the step-dad only amounts to him acquiescing to supporting the decisions of women. 43% of births today are out of wedlock, either electively or based on a bad decision by that mother. We also call single mothers ‘heroes’.
My advice to men today is to be aware of the game you’re involved in with respect to how your need to know paternity is being used against you. That need is well known to the Feminine Imperative and has always been a threat to its interests. Make your own decisions to mentor based on that knowledge and never marry a single mother. If you do so understand that your sacrifices of this paternity need will never be appreciated by women. You may believe it’s the “right thing to do”, the moral choice, but in doing so you absolve both the woman who made her decision for you and the biological father of their total responsibility (and the underlying evolutionary reasons) to consequences of that decision.
WOMEN HATE BETAS in fact they hate them so much that they would prefer to work soul destroying jobs to support themselves than attach themselves to a Beta provider that wants to fuck them and impregnate them with his shitty beta genetics.
Are you really willing to accept that your paternity need counts for so little? Are you willing to accept this truth and fulfill a woman’s life strategy in spite of it because you believe it’s your moral imperative to do so?
Cartoonist I totally see myself in Donovan’s description of a good man being ‘productive within a given civilizational structure’. That’s me, all right. I can also see myself being relatively useless in a survival scenario, which is where the man good at being a man thrives. And if women’s hindbrains sense this too, it’s no wonder they prefer ‘men good at being men’ over ‘good men’. It makes total sense. Hmmm. The question that now occurs to me is: Can I turn myself into a ‘Man Good at Being a Man’? It is possible? And, even if it is, is… Read more »
Lifting, and how you lift, can make all the difference in masculinity. Enjoy the power over mass that muscles give you when you lift. I just moved up five pounds per arm in dumbell press today and it was a gas!
I have pics on my website of a bar I built in my basement. Pride in craftsmanship is a good thing and it’s good to keep expanding your knowledge of crafts.
ExCartoonist, My two cents here: Masculinizing yourself is a reduction process. You’re stripping away layers of inauthenticity, returning to your original self, a self you might have never realized existed. Your life should be much less complicated as you walk through this. You should feel it. If you’re substituting layers of alpha process while stripping away layers a beta process your life will not become easier, and probably will be more difficult. It’s not about process. It’s about passively accepting there’s your best self inside of you, and you need to stop resisting him for fear of change. By definition… Read more »
“you can be Alpha and present no or minimal masculine traits”
This is the point @mersonia made a while back.
But I think @blax would disagree (but because ((I)) pointed this out (a young guy) he’s gonna disagree with me and agree with @Sentient that you can be Alpha with feminine traits (feminine is the opposite of masculine)
The Lazy-Assed Caveman Approach to Living Your Life®. Nice.
Mersonia just had no answer for what “alpha” is… I think he said he was going to write up his view.
Talking ain’t doing…
But I think @blax would disagree … he’s gonna disagree with me and agree with @Sentient …
You may want to understand why this is… It’s quite useful to have people agree with you.
“However the obverse is not true, you can be Alpha and present no or minimal masculine traits…”
Means: Only masculine can be Alpha.
Not sure wtf j is getting at.
@ SJF The first step is in admitting you have a problem. And you want to get better. Yes, I agree. If I were totally happy with myself, I don’t think I would be reading Rollo’s blog so obsessively and posting comments. It’s strange, because in many ways I’ve never been happier with myself. My freelance business is doing well, my son has grown up into a wonderful young man, I live in a great city, and I have a creative mission which genuinely excites me. But something is troubling me and it has to do with my identity as… Read more »
Novaseeker said that accepting the Red Pill meant accepting and liking the differences women have to men, but I struggle to like those differences. I really do.
Because you hold a grudge against women for lying to you…for not being men with tits…except it isn’t women who have lied to you–it’s society. “Why does it hurt so much to swallow the Red Pill?” Because you have to admit your complicity in being fooled. It’s much less painful to blame someone else for everything.
Sentient: Being good at being a man = Masculinity. Masculinity =/ Alpha (to @blax, the terms are synonymous). Masculinity is often (not always) attractive to women. Alpha is universally attractive (always) to women. Many “masculine” traits are also “Alpha”. The reverse of ^ this statement is NOT true: Many “Alpha” traits are NOT also masculine traits. Because you can be Alpha (DPA) and have no or minimal masculine traits… example, this guy: Therefore, you can be masculine (good at being a man), but not be Alpha. “You may want to understand why this is… It’s quite useful to have people… Read more »
I think I’m at the anger stage of the unplugging process. I’m not in denial about women’s natures, but neither do I accept it. Novaseeker said that accepting the Red Pill meant accepting and liking the differences women have to men, but I struggle to like those differences. I really do. It’s a phase that almost everyone goes through in the process of the red pill. Women seem to behave in ways that, from a male perspective, are dishonorable, dishonest, unfair, two-faced, self-centered, and so on. That would all be true … if they were men, and therefore best judged… Read more »
“Because you can be Alpha (DPA) and have no or minimal masculine traits…” Said only by one who envies Alpha and refuses understanding the grammar of dynamism, passion and authenticity. To do so is too damn hard, too shameful, so he rah-rahs Team PUA Flameout. Hell, it’s not even the words that matter. It’s the subtext. j’s avoids subtext and embraces rhetoric reinventing human nature fitting his ends. That’s what makes him literally worse than a ferret. He is either knowingly masochistic in his self-limitations, getting off on his ignorance or flatly refusing the evo-bio to sentience evolutionary realities for… Read more »
Ex Cartoonist “The anger phase is real, but the most dangerous thing to do in the anger phase is to be complacent about it. It’s good that you recognize that you are there, but you should also recognize that it isn’t where you want to be. You can’t rush your way out of it, but you should also be careful not to let yourself become complacent in your anger and disappointment … accept it as a phase, work on moving forward and accept also when it begins to slip away, and you begin to move to the phase where you… Read more »
Some of you guys don’t realize that J was only quoting Sentient when he said that “masculinity /= alpha”.
“Some of you guys don’t realize that J was only quoting Sentient when he said that “masculinity /= alpha”.”
The defining characteristic of high functioning autists is that they pay too much attention to detail. And I’m not saying that in a derogatory way. It’s just a fact.
The bigger picture is: “It’s quite useful to have people agree with you.” Not by default, but by merit.
Copied over from Dalrock’s, here’s the fierce feminist take on the DC area “ratings” scandal: https://www.scarymommy.com/teen-boys-rated-girls/ tl;dr Foolish boys in school decided to rate girls on a 1 – 10 scale, and their list fell into the hands of some of the girls. For this crime some of them were given detention, but that was not enough. Girls demanded – and got – the right to what looks like a Maoist / Khmer Rouge style “struggle session” where in the boys had to admit to wrongthinking and “examine their privilege”. The boys didn’t harass, or touch, or even approach the… Read more »
The bigger picture is: “It’s quite useful to have people agree with you.” Not by default, but by merit.
Well, people were attacking J based on merit…I wonder if they would have attacked Sentient for saying the same thing.
People agree based on whether they like someone, not on the merit of their arguments. Here I mean “J as PUA” is not liked as much as Sentient.
If you’re well liked, it’s easy to run a line of bullshit past people. If you’re not well liked, it’s not easy to persuade people of the truth.
“Well, people were attacking J based on merit…” Q.E.D “I wonder if they would have attacked Sentient for saying the same thing.” That which has been determined. “People agree based on whether they like someone, not on the merit of their arguments.” You made that up. “Here I mean “J as PUA” is not liked as much as Sentient.” I don’t like J. as a man for his own sake. I think he’s one dimensional. And got forbid he get’s to be 50 years old and looks around for meaning. “If you’re well liked, it’s easy to run a line… Read more »
@SJF And some few of us actually examine the quality of a man’s argument independent of whether we like a man or not. Not virtue-signalling–just stating an autistic fact. There is more than one way to hide a forest. Not only autists miss forests for trees. And sometimes we are more likely to see the forest than neurotypicals are. It’s almost like we autists are a sub-species. As you suggested, it’s sometimes useful to be able to run a line of bullshit past people; it’s also useful to be bullshit-resistant and it’s useful to know who is bullshit-resistant as an… Read more »
“If you’re well liked, it’s easy to run a line of bullshit past people. If you’re not well liked, it’s not easy to persuade people of the truth.” It’s also easy to run bullshit on yourself. I you are not well liked, maybe you are doing something wrong. As in Law #38…people will think that you only want attention…. Well, you ignored the point of my argument…isn’t that a demonstration of what you said, “It’s also easy to run bullshit on yourself?” Me attention-seeking? That’s funny coming from you, who supposedly understands autists. It’s simply stimming. If I get bored… Read more »
“There is more than one way to hide a forest.” Yeah, by ignoring it. “Not only autists miss forests for trees.” You are picking at trees. Short term goals. Asperger’s are looking for details. INTJ’s are looking for the big picture. “And sometimes we are more likely to see the forest than neurotypicals are. It’s almost like we autists are a sub-species.” No on the former, you are trying to gloss yourself and it isn’t true. And yes on the latter. I don’t find it unbecoming, Because it’s easier to accomplish goals in the short run. It’s a strategy. But… Read more »
“…isn’t that a demonstration of what you said, “It’s also easy to run bullshit on yourself?””
People run bullshit/take advantage of others all the time. To run bullshit on yourself is a crime. Ego investment and cock-blocking the alignment of what you want (in your heart and soul) by your cognitive mind. Your cognitive mind is a devious mother fucker. Watch out for that scenario. And it happens all the time. It’s the genesis of all these debates.
“And sometimes we are more likely to see the forest than neurotypicals are. It’s almost like we autists are a sub-species.” No on the former, you are trying to gloss yourself and it isn’t true. Well, my argument has been demonstrated here for all to see. When Sentient said the argument “masculinity /= alpha”, there was no pushback. When J said the exact same argument, there was pushback from a couple of people. Sentient was able to hide the forest because he is respected. J was unable to hide it because he is not respected. I saw what was going… Read more »
@Palma: if we didn’t want to fuck them, we wouldn’t necessarily throw stones at them, but maybe we would post “no girls allowed” signs in our (tree) houses…
Cartoonist “Younger ones are more fun, even the 22 year old “lesbian” I’m hanging out with a bit at the moment has a thirst for life and just about everything else that the older jaded ones don’t have.” This. Get over your equaliser shit by being with girls who are in no waybyour equal… So much life in younger girls. And it’s totally natural, the dynamics. They slot more easily into place. Will really recharge you, that feminine energy. Yeah they are still girls and you need your frame and game. But it is much easier to view her a… Read more »
“Fyi, I’m not on here to win a popularity contest, but to try to understand some things and learn and improve my calibration skills. Sometimes that involves testing people. And maybe I can help some folks, too.” @ ASD If you recognize the limitations of ASD, then you can calibrate yourself better in moments where those limitations are prevalent. Rather than trot out the dx as a crutch, do as you stated above and learn and improve which requires you to do the work. You must question yourself rather than ask us. If there is any doubt about your perception… Read more »
@ J For clarification: it’s not true that I just agree with Sentient because you are young and I have you in some kind of auto-reject.😂 c’mon man. Sentient and I have points of disagreement. The difference is that we have more common experiences and observations. Agreement outweigh disagreement. I’ve explained to you in numerous occasions why/where I disagree with the premise of some of your comments/arguments. Some of it is due to your age probably, but the bulk of our disagreement stems from the content of what you say, and the underlying philosophy. That’s not always attributable to age.… Read more »
Not in a club. Lol @ Mr. Club Regular. Three things are key in a club: 1. Social proof. 2. Social proof. 3. Social proof. (Been there, done that, got the certificate to prove it.) Lots of social Proof leads to celebrity status which leads to preselection. Masculinity can help with social proof, but it isn’t necessary. That’s why shy poets and musicians get lots of feminine attention in a club. It’s about dominance. Social dominance outweighs personal dominance. (the ability to summon bouncers to help you if necessary; “Victory through overwhelming beta power.”) Yet personal dominance can also get… Read more »
Summon bouncers to help you??
Wow, the same goddamned mythology and confusion about “Alpha” still pervades here. It’s fucking up an otherwise very productive conversation about being masculine – which is being good at being a man. Hell, I think it goes deeper than that, as I notice that in male social groupings, I offer support to guys who try to be good at being a man just as much as I do the man who is already competent. Like it’s the commitment, not the exact outcome, that will get you status and acceptance in a masculine grouping. Take note of how an arrogant showoff… Read more »
I like to view it on a coordinate plane. Where on the Y-axis, you’ll have Masculine at the top, and Feminine at the bottom. And on the X-axis, you’ll have Alpha at the right, and Beta on the left.
So an example for each would be:
Typical soyboy (feminine, beta)
Mick Jagger (feminine, Alpha)
Luke Kuechly (masculine, beta)
Mike Tyson (masculine, Alpha)
@ Scribbler G I really don’t know what to do with you. On the one hand, you make strong points and you have a Don’t-Give-A-Fuckness that I kind of admire. But, on the other hand, you play dirty. You twist my words into things I didn’t mean in a million years. I mean, how the fuck is my striving to be a good man “biting at the ankles of high value men”? Okay, if I keep my word and a “high value man” doesn’t keep his, sure … he looks bad compared to me. So fucking what? How is that… Read more »
Cartoonist The bottom line is this: You either give a shit about people you offer advice to … or you don’t. It you actually do give a shit about me—if under all the swear words and bravado you have a genuine desire to help fellow-men unplug from the Matrix—then I’m telling you: this is not the way to do it. Hypergamy does not care how you like to be spoon fed. Toughen up buttercup… And if you don’t give a shit about me—if you’re just using things I said as a springboard to show off your Red Pill knowledge to… Read more »
“Toughen up Buttercup…”
Really? Shaming tactics? Implying that I’m not a “real man”?
Now, where have I seen that before…?
I really don’t know what to do with you.
Attention whores get dopamine hits from…what?
Suggestion: cut your losses.
@ J *** Old man reminiscent thoughts ahead, be forewarned *** I had the opportunity to spend a few hours in a hotel room, then recording studio where Jagger was. He didn’t strike me as feminine at all, but he also didn’t strike me as Alpha. Guys in his life situation are more ” situational alpha “, but it’s not inside of them. He’s a very slight built guy, but I wouldn’t say feminine. I’ve also been around Tyson. Tyson is all Alpha, but not in a good way outside of a boxing ring. He’s smarter than you might think,… Read more »
@ J Forgot to add the ” pussy ” angle, lol. I had a pic of Jagger and I sitting on a couch talking ( taken by Vernon Reid who played on Mick’s Primitive Cool album, Jagger got Living Colour a record contract and MTV airplay. That’s another story though )and I had it blown up and framed and hung it inside the entrance to my house. After divorce, some chicks would ask who the white dude was, but most would yell ” Mick Jagger??”, followed by ” … who are you??“. I never told one of them the story… Read more »
obligatory video –
J. is just mixing metaphors. Stabbing at Strawmen. It makes him feel better. Because he jumbles his purpose and mission. Not something Jagger or Tyson ever did. They were straight on, straight on. Short term goals are fine. Give you a pass. And then what? After your deluge? It’s not appropriate for the masculine to twist in the wind. If I were J.’s uncle, I would have reservations on the goal he has in life. I don’t like his early career Mike Tyson caveman style, because we all know how that turned out for Mike. At times I remember him… Read more »
OMG Blax That obligatory video was quite sad looking. Brain damaged Mike Tyson. Just the visual. I’m sure he’s a cool nice person. Holy shit 10 years married to a pretty chick and good looking children. I’m not a stranger to to growing weed, weed, turnip, brassica, tree, clover radish, bean, corn farmer and all, but I definitely can’t get up the motivation to use it. But then again, truth be told, I’ve never had an ache or pain in my day. I’ve never had acute pain, physical or psychological, for more than a brief period in all my days.… Read more »
Lol. Tyson isn’t brain damaged. He’s older, and in a different headspace.
He’s always had trouble communicating his thoughts unless he was enraged. He pretty much had to learn to ” just talk “.
Now you can’t shut him up.
happy birthday RT
Summon bouncers to help you?? help you???? Wtf? I suspect that was poorly worded…as someone who used to bounce many years ago, I can say no guest or patron was going to “summon” me, but there were certain customers of the bar that in any conflict always got the “benefit of the doubt” or where I was automatically on “their side” irrespective of the exact details of the conflict. Once I was bouncing at bar B, and in came a guy who I had bounced WITH at bar A…”Boxer” was a straight up badass who had a hot temper and… Read more »
The apps have changed things, yes, but I am not sure that they have made things unequivocally harder. In the pre-internet era, you basically had to either cold approach people you come across IRL, or meet people in some context (friend groups, friends-of-friends-of friends, parties thrown by friends, etc.). There were also “personals” ads in hard copy newspapers, and some people used those but most didn’t. More people then than now met at work, because, again, the number of ways to meet someone wasn’t very high, especially for people who are not that competitive in a competitive environment like a… Read more »
“I think I am going to revisit my previous strategy of looking to meet women in real life and see if it is different from the online app experience.”
Do it. Field is king. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
From the sound of things, a guy like you could blow minds. Women aren’t used to gerting picked up.
But definitely push for the SNL… Don’t go for numbers unless they push it on you. This will hone your skills.
Back in my 20s and 30s before smart phones and dating apps, I met lots of women in “sexual zones” like bars or “pseudo sexual zones” like gyms. I can say I didn’t have major issues simply (cold) approaching women who I felt were SIMILAR SMV levels based primarily on looks (because that is all you can go on prior to interacting) and getting a phone number that led to a date, etc. Of course, I’m not saying I was batting 1000 by any means, but I had a decent percentage of women who were receptive to talking and a… Read more »
Yes, yes, yes. I’ve never used an app. The closest I’ve come to it was using a website for no strings once, just to see if it was real or bullshit. If real life is any indication, I’d surmise that an overall majority of girls 20-25 would swipe me into oblivion because of my age/white beard. If I were to ever become dependent on electronics, probably would be relegated to 35+ hb5-6 category. 35 is still 22 years younger than me, but it would suck ass to have that as the only viable option. Cold approach for me has never… Read more »
The “Ur App” pre interwebz was the modeling agency portfolio. Apex males would get copies from all the agencies and have their folks dial them up.
All in service in the end to the FI as the sharp eyed will note…
So what’s 60 smell like?
“there’s gotta be a tipping point where certain age groups try to boot me from any sexual consideration. ”
Whoa Hoss… the fuck is this?!
Lol, in my case 60 smells like bengay and Tom Ford.
I’m just trying to be objectively realistic about age. Maybe there’s some point where you can’t relate enough? Being constantly surrounded by 16-25 year old girls helps me in relating to the ones in the wild, but that’s gotta have an end point sometime, yes? Particularly with the 19-20 year old set.
Lol, I’m not certain but it’s a thing to consider. Right now it’s like all women are friendly and accommodating, but I don’t want to delude myself.
Blax Well I’m not sure I’d like to know what Tom Ford smells like, so we can close this thread… “helps me in relating to the ones in the wild, but that’s gotta have an end point sometime, yes? ” I don’t think so. Two reasons. First you are still a man amd she is still a woman. Young yes but woman all the same. Second – you’ve had kids grow up. You know their stages etc. You can still relate to 5 year olds, 10 year olds right? That isn’t changing with age. Sure you won’t know necessarily the… Read more »
@ Scribbler, Sentient “so we can close this thread…” File this under What is Alpha?: https://blacklabellogic.com/2019/04/03/alpha-and-the-1 Alpha and the 1% April 3, 2019 by Black Label Logic The longer I write and participate in this space, the more I’ve come to appreciate the definition that Roissy came up with for Alpha years ago, a simple, quantitative, outcome oriented definition . The reason why I’ve come to appreciate this more and more is that it strips away all the unnecessary veneers that men like to add and leaves us with a single question “How attractive is he to women?” because, quite… Read more »
Yes of course alpha is attractive to women. The question is why is this and what makes up “Alpha”? What accounts for the success despite the differences?
@Sentient “Yes of course alpha is attractive to women. The question is why is this and what makes up “Alpha”? What accounts for the success despite the differences?” You ask that in a Socratic Method. My main reason for posting that was to give Scribbler (Mr. Social Dominance Alpha Theory Man) some feedback on why his social dominance is Alpha is his contrivance for his own solipsistic game. We can be be reductive to the commonly stated adage of MRP: Be Attractive, Don’t be Unattractive. Which is recursive to why Scribbler got gains this past year. That is what he… Read more »
I understand the ” social circle dominance ” thing, but how does that make a man ” Alpha “? What’s gonna happen when he’s not in his social circle?
“At this point in life ( turning 58 this year, I can smell 60 from here ) there’s gotta be a tipping point where certain age groups try to boot me from any sexual consideration. Again, unless they have a lower SMV.”
I’ve noticed that women in the Entitled Princess ™ category try to disqualify me as a sexual person–even those with lower SMV. I think that it has to do with mindset and the counter to this mindset is the neg. You have to instill an iota of doubt that these women deserve to be treated like royalty.
“What’s gonna happen when he’s not in his social circle?”
An alpha can create a social circle on the fly, wherever he goes. I’m not the best at doing that. Bill Murray is the man to imitate. Check out a documentary about Bill Murray sightings.
“I understand the ” social circle dominance ” thing, but how does that make a man ” Alpha “? What’s gonna happen when he’s not in his social circle?” That’s the point. It doesn’t. It can get you a girl. It can’t get you to keep the girl. Keeping is a girl is about her wanting to fuck you. And it is retarded to think it is about dominating other males in a social situation to get a girl.It is fine, but not sufficient to do that. Hence, my tale in D.C. in early March. I’d rather chill with my… Read more »
“An alpha can create a social circle on the fly, wherever he goes.”
While this may be a trait many alphas have it is not universal.
Many guys you would consider alpha are moody, indifferent, keep to themselves or are indomitable while not dominating.
Heartiste’s definition of “alpha” is inadequate if alphas don’t get pumped and dumped. I see lots of PUAs getting pumped and dumped. Girls want to lock alphas down, not dump them. Notch count isn’t enough of a definition.
At least it’s worth a try, so I think your idea about trying it again is a good one. Open to suggestions/thoughts here as to what might be some of the best “sexual zone” type places. I’m thinking bars/lounges especially those with a somewhat older crowd are one. I don’t recall who or where suggested it, but also hotel bars/lounges where you might catch older traveling on business women. The last time I was single before my second wife was when I was 32, and I look young for my age anyways, so at that point “dance clubs” were still… Read more »
Alphas in nature have the most sexual options. They must be Alpha as their genotype demands it.
Human Alphas by nature have the most sexual options as they actively choose to. Some NFL quality men will never play NFL as they choose not to do what it takes to get there.
Conflating pure nature and man takes this debate off the tracks.
Hence the limitations of evo-bio in therapy. In only helps insofar as it corrects some errors in natural order that we choose to engage in. But man must learn to choose, and choose correctly to succeed in the varied human SMP where others are not choosing well but yet have the freedom to.
Makes for a shit ton of countervailing interests. We don’t see this in raw nature.
Ich moechte etwas hier zu sagen. Also, hoer zu. Versteht Euch? Some understand completely. Some understand incompletely. Some don’t understand it all. Who’s fault is that, yours? No it’s my fault you don’t understand. If I want to be understood I have to choose to be understood in a way that is translatable to the most people in my environment. Take ScribblerG as an example: He had an admittedly great marriage to a hot wife and sex and income and life was good. His center of gravity was not in his head or elsewhere. He was Alpha as his decisions… Read more »
One last thing about alphas, they know what the world is for and they use it within that context.
Example: you turn on a light switch to see a room not the lightbulb. You add salt to food to enhance the food, not to eat the salt.
If you stare at the sun or eat straight salt you will hurt yourself.
If you don’t know what the world is for and that includes yourself, ask an old guy who seems to know what the f*** he’s doing.
“Open to suggestions/thoughts here as to what might be some of the best “sexual zone” type places.”
Any place you are. Full Stop.
Morpheus I don’t think this is the case with the apps…I’m just speculating but I really think on the dating apps, it is facial features that is 80-90% of that initial attractiveness filter that is swipe left/swipe right with the other stuff maybe having some marginal impact. Well of course, they have nothing else to go on at that point. It’s forcing selection on a variable based on the technological limitations. It does not mean that that is the correct or only variable to select on. Apps are the same realm as “direct game” – where you are forcing her… Read more »
“Open to suggestions/thoughts here as to what might be some of the best “sexual zone” type places.”
Any place you are. Full Stop.
girls are where you find them…
and it works even better if you go to where the type of girl you want is probably hanging out… like that local coffee shop next to the yoga class near that community college in town…lol
I don’t think this is the case with the apps…I’m just speculating but I really think on the dating apps, it is facial features that is 80-90% of that initial attractiveness filter that is swipe left/swipe right with the other stuff maybe having some marginal impact. I think this is true, because that’s the nature of the screen in the app. Also, as you have seen, age is a hard screen on an app in a way that it definitely is not IRL because people don’t walk around with age signs over their heads. Apps are also adding other filters,… Read more »
6 minute overview to help get you back to cold approach. Good reminders covers a lot…
And “direct or indirect” and believing what women say they want…
[…] Source link […]
[…] in doing so, just my voicing the mechanics of how promiscuity is intertwined with men’s existential fear of paternity is enough to get me into trouble with people who’d rather not think about such things. Both […]
[…] off as the Beta Husband’s. There’s no way to know how often that happened, but it wasn’t really rare – Maybe anywhere from 5 to 20% of children then weren’t fathered by their […]
[…] term mating strategy. I’ve written extensively on men’s innate mating strategy and the existential importance of men ensuring their own paternity. But just as women’s Hypergamy is a manifestation of […]