Alpha

House of Cards

house-of-cards

Rational Reader Martel (who’s blog I’ve only recently become aware of) trapes into the shark infested waters of the manosphere with another attempt at defining the elusively subjective definition of Alpha. It’s almost a red pill right of passage now; become Game-aware – offer self affirming definition of what makes himself a Man an Alpha.

Before I begin here, let me state emphatically that this is not a take-down piece. Martel’s observations here made me consider a few things I’me not sure I developed adequately when I wrote the Desire Dynamic.

Martel does make a good stab at the beast. Most anyone familiar with my reductionist approach to Alpha mojo knows I don’t mince semantics into the debate. Alpha is as Alpha does – as popular as Vox Day’s delineations of degrees of Alpha, beta, sigma, delta, omega, etc. are I’ve always held that Alpha is a mindset and not a demographic.

I do agree with Martel’s observations, I’m not sure he’s considered a few things in forming his Alpha perspective. I think one of the primary stumbling blocks Game-aware men have with regard to Alpha-ness is the disparity of defining it in male terms. When Martel uses Michael Jordan’s example as a male definition of Alpha, he’s disappointed that women don’t share that estimation. Rationally, logically, and certainly perceptively, men see and appreciate the accomplishment, status, talent and stature of Jordan. Why wouldn’t women see and appreciate the same?

Martel figures that it’s women’s innate solipsism and irrationality that makes them count Alberto Tomba as an athlete to be reckoned with (actually I was surprised it wasn’t David Beckham, but that Spice Girl in the picture ruins the fantasy I guess). However, it’s not solipsism or illogic that brings women to this, it’s that men have a different criteria amongst themselves for what makes a man an Alpha. It seems illogical, and yes I’m sure Tomba inspired tingles of imagined self-role fantasies, but the fundamental disconnect is the disparity in men’s ideal of Alpha and women’s perception of Alpha.

Relational Equity

One of the more rage inspiring posts I’ve ever published here was Hypergamy Doesn’t Care. It’s become a manosphere meme now. It was simplistic in its measure, and it struck a nerve. I got so much enthusiastic follow up on that post (thanks red pill reddit) I had to elaborate and explain the dynamic in greater detail with Relational Equity.

It is from the male concept of relational equity that much of what men determine as Alpha characteristics for men comes into conflict with what women perceive as Alpha. Martel’s male expectation was that Michael Jordan, or even one of his peers, would be the obvious athlete that either sex would agree upon as being an elite example. As men, we understand the dedication, determination and personal investment necessary to achieve this level of accomplishment.

Jordan’s is one extreme example, but in other arenas, and by order of degrees, men have an appreciation of  the achievements of other men – even if only because they have a common frame of reference. Those positive character attributes – determination, confidence, fidelity, humility, sacrifice, dedication, commitment, etc. – even in marginal degree, men believe should have Relational Equity. These virtues should be factors in attraction for a woman.

It seems logical and entirely rational that women would have the same appreciation for this equity, but time and again men’s expectations are trumped by women’s hypergamous response. From Relational Equity:

As if all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. would be rationally appreciated as a buffer against hypergamy. The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male. There is a prevailing belief that all of their merits, if sufficient, should be proof against her hypergamous considerations.

For men, this is a logically sound idea. All of that investment adds up to their concept of relationship equity. So it’s particularly jarring for men to consider that all of that equity becomes effectively worthless to a woman presented with a sufficiently better prospect as per the dictates of her hypergamy.

That isn’t to say that women don’t take that equity into account when determining whether to trade up or in their choice of men if they’re single, but their operative point of origin is ALWAYS hypergamy. Women obviously can control their hypergamic impulses in favor of fidelity, just as men can and do keep their sexual appetites in check, but always know that it isn’t relationship equity she’s rationally considering in that moment of decision.

Women love opportunistically, men love idealistically. Much of men’s idealism is rooted in the mistaken notion that women have the capacity to appreciate their sacrifices and they’ll be loved for who they are rather than what they represent to women. As I’ve argued in the past, attraction and arousal are two separate elements for women. As Martel elucidates, a couch surfing Alpha will be arousing enough to pull tail despite his impoverished condition. He has no relational equity, and so frustrates the efforts of men who believe that the definition of Alpha ought to be based on the equity they hope women will appreciate.

Women will return (even if just mentally) to the callous or cavalier Alpha because he arouses her, but she will stay faithful to her husband because what he offers is attractive to her. This is why I say, by and large, women love most men for what they represent – once they cease to represent that, once they stumble in maintaining that, hypergamy is free to run. On a personal level this may be you losing a job or how you failed a shit test, on a meta scale it may be women’s social capacity to provide for themselves.

House of Cards

From Martie Hasslton on Sexual Pluralism and Mating Strategies:

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.

The vast majority of men (i.e. betas) fall into this latter category. One of the reasons the scattershot sexual strategy of more Alpha men is considered a social deviance (Playa’s) is because it’s in direct conflict with the socially normalized, investive mating efforts of beta men – as well as the maternalistic, security side of women’s sexual pluralism. Betas are invested in relational equity as a sexual strategy.

The problem inherent in this mental model is that it is entirely dependent upon maintaining that singular, personalized investment in their mate. The root of male providership, the personal sacrifices men endlessly expect themselves to make, are all contingencies against feminine hypergamy. Once those provisions and sacrifices falter, the house of cards risks collapse.

In the words of Chris Rock, “Men, if you lose your job, your woman will leave you. It might not be right then, she might tell you, ‘It’s OK baby we’re gonna get through this’, but just know, the clock is ticking.” This is the time you will hear “I love you, but I’m not in love with you” or “You’ve changed, you’re not the man I fell in love with.”

Men’s idealistic love expectations being to conflict with women’s opportunistic love expectations. His idealism predisposes him to believe the strength of his relationship is dependent upon his intrinsic qualities – fidelity, compassion, empathy, sacrifice, humor, determination, etc. – qualities he’s convinced make him Alpha and up to this point his wife or girlfriend claimed were appreciated. It’s only under conditions where he’s unable or less able to provide extrinsic resources, or conditions in which she (or women in general) can provide for themselves that feminine hypergamy takes mental precedence.

It’s at this point of disillusionment that these men realize that his self-perceived Alpha status, based on what he believed women, his woman, would appreciate, has no equity for her.

Genuine Desire

Martel continues:

Even if reliable beta-boy wasn’t as exciting as the greaser, there was a chance the reliable guy could get the girl. The tingle had to compete with her reputation, the chance of unwanted pregnancy, advice from her elders, her own moral code, and curfews.

She might want to bang the butler, but there was a chance she’d be faithful to her husband instead. There’s more at stake than women deciding who they want to boink, there’s also who they actually boink.

Genuine desire is a very difficult trail for most guys to follow. I emphasize the want part of Martel’s quote here because while hypergamy is often mitigated by personal and social elements, the underlying, ambient desire for a hypergamously optimal mate (or mating) is always the operative for women.

The problem with Martel’s assessment here is that it’s founded on a definition of Alpha rooted in an expectation of Relational Equity on a woman’s part. Intrinsic attributes, invested effort and extrinsic rewards will never be enough to make a woman desire to bang you. In various combinations they may be a sufficient buffer against her hypergamy, they may be endearing qualities she loves about you, but they aren’t sexy in and of themselves. She may not fuck the pool boy due to moral convictions, fear of loss, or simply because she lacks the capacity to attract him, but it wont stop her from wanting to.

There will come a point when a woman’s conditions will make her more dependent on a man’s intrinsic qualities. His empathy, love, loyalty and compassion makes a world of difference once she’s past the Wall.  As her ability to remain a sexual competitor diminishes, her dependency on her husband’s emotional and security provisioning takes precedence. This may even be a genuine appreciation for a woman, but it’s important to understand that this new appreciation is the result of her opportunistic understanding of love. At some point she will need to love these intrinsic qualities.

All In

I can remember reading with great interest the particulars of Tiger Woods’ affairs when they went public. Considering his talent and drive I had always thought he’d cashed in far too early by marrying his Swedish model, but this woman represented the feminine archetype most men idealize for most of their lives. When the unattainable becomes attainable for a man so deprived, he tends to look past anything but his most immediate gratification.

However, Tiger was following a common script for beta men, and just this weekend a new example of this script has been illustrated for us in the resignation of General David Petraeus. Petraeus’ story is a classic tale of when youthful beta idealism, an almost self-affirming obliviousness of the SMP, and a Contextual Alpha status run headlong into the realities of our contemporary sexual marketplace and the brave new world of a fem-centric society.

Understandably most of the media concern about Petraeus revolves around the political implications of his resignation as CIA director, but there’s much more ‘under the hood’ here with respect to how he came to resign. For the breakdown have a read here for the timeline of events.

First and foremost, Petraeus is a beta. I realize that’s going to come off as presumptuous on my part, and possibly offensive, but I’m making this assessment based on history and behaviors here.

Disgraced former CIA Director David Petraeus exchanged a sexually explicit email about having sex under a desk with his mistress and continued to pursue her by bombarding her with thousands of messages even after she had broken off the affair it has been revealed.

I have no doubt that manosphere readers subscribing to the “Leaders of Men” definition of Alpha will have their rationales about how Petraeus was never really Alpha, or his actions prove his betaness, but his story follows a common pattern for betas in a feminized social structure. He married his idyllic ‘high school sweetheart’ and launched his military career. Only later in life does he become aware of his true SMV as his wife’s nose-dives after hitting the wall. After his contextual Alpha status has been established he begins to come to awareness of his now matured SMV, and a flirty, subjectively attractive, late 30s PhD looks a whole lot better than clinging to the idealism that’s kept him unaware of how the SMP really works.

For young idealistic betas, the fairytale scenario of marrying the ‘girl of your dreams’ out of high school (college?) seems perfect. If you need a musical example of this, listen to any Taylor Swift song or ‘Hey there Delilah’ by the Plain White T’s. The idea of only ever having sex with that one special girl, that “genetic celebrity”, only reinforces the fantasy for a young beta who’s never gotten laid before. At 17-19 this seems like conviction, but 37 years later, and after realizing his true SMV it’s a liability; it’s a sacrifice that cannot be appreciated.

The cruel hoax is then revealed once a man becomes established in his personality, his career, his maturation and mastery of his particular elements. His achievements are commonplace to the wife he’s been with for decades, but they’re a wellspring of attraction and arousal for women unfamiliar with how he achieved them. As I outlined in Navigating the SMP, there comes a point (usually by his early 30s) that a man, at least should, become aware of his higher sexual market value while realizing the SMV declination of the woman he’s committed himself to. He starts to see the code in the Matrix, and the long term wisdom, or lack of wisdom, his youthful idealism led him to.

The Status-to-Marriage Failsafe

As I stated though, a man should become more aware of his higher SMV as he matures. For some, this is an internalized, subconscious acknowledgement –it’s something a man knows, but either hasn’t the reason or the opportunity to act upon it. For other men it may be a more overt acknowledgement, one useful in prompting dread or reigniting competition anxiety in women. Still for others, such as Petraeus, the acknowledgement doesn’t really come until the right opportunity to address it comes along. In this case in the form of Paula Broadwell.

One societal fail-safe against this inevitable male SMV awareness the feminine imperative has established for women comes in tying a man’s status to his degree of commitment to his wife. For as accomplished and determined a man is, for as lofty as his achievements may be, in girl-world none of that matters unless it directly benefits a woman he’s committed to in an enduring security. Beyond the obvious financial imbalances written into our contemporary divorce laws, there is the societal aspect that accompanies a man’s ‘downfall’ when he cheats on his wife. Tiger Woods could weather the cash & prizes settlement of his divorce, but what he couldn’t weather was the hit to his reputation. His status, his personal perception, was damaged as a result of his breach of contract. Similarly Petraeus, a General with the distinction of a storied military career and directorship of the CIA had his status diminished as a result of this status-to-marriage association.

To further complicate matters Petraeus himself ‘believes’ in this status association so strongly that he was willing to resign his position – relinquishing the source of status that made him attractive to the likes of Broadwell – in order to comply with it.

Back to Beta

Petraeus’ story of beta doesn’t end here. As his relationship with Broadwell decayed we can see further evidence of reverting to beta in his ‘thousands of emails’ to her. As with most people reinserted into the SMP after having married in their youth, Petraeus reverts back to the only social skill set he knew when he was dating his wife – an adolescent social skill set. So the beta desperation comes back strong. For all of his post-revelation posturing about how “We all will make mistakes. The key is to recognize them and admit them, to learn from them, and to take off the rear view mirrors – drive on and avoid making them again.” Petraeus literally made thousands of them. Like any desperate beta I’ve consulted with, he ‘wants his girlfriend baaaaack’ and so, like a teenage boy, inundates her with a barrage of emails over the course of months – not unlike the battery of texts Tiger Woods sent to his mistresses.

I often get criticism for suggesting men ‘explore their options’ in their 20’s. Spin Plates, learn Game, understand the intricacies of how a feminized acculturation has crafted men to be what the imperative would have them be. The idealistic zeal of young men is admirable, (it’s what makes us men) but it’s important to take a long-view of how that idealism is useful to a feminized society. Have a look at the context and reporters uncovering this story. There is no male perspective, there is no male insight, only the reactions of a female perspective in accordance with the feminine specific understanding of the SMV and the social failsafes instituted by fem-centrism.

The set of convictions idealistic young men cling to today aren’t what they believe they are. Your ideal of a “quality woman”, you’re grandfather’s high school sweetheart who was your grandmother are useful archetypes that the imperative is more than happy to have you delude yourself with. There may have been a time when that idealism meant something, but it’s important to understand that it is now a tool of a feminine-primary acculturation.

Mate Guarding

Ah, another week, another fantastic article from the Chateau. I found this particular post interesting because the study (once again by our friend Dr. Martie Haselton) he breaks down here confirms virtually everything I was developing in Your Friend Menstruation. It pretty much sums up in no uncertain terms what I was detailing about how women in their folicular (proliferative) phase of menstruation become more sexually aroused by men exhibiting Alpha physical traits and behavioral cues.

However, Heartiste and this study go one step deeper than just the observable arousal from Alpha cues. It also demonstrates women’s observable aversion (disgust) to beta cues in men during the same menstrual fertility phase.

At their most fertile period, these women are less likely to feel close to their mates and more likely to find fault with them than women mated to more sexually desirable men, the research shows.

“A woman evaluates her relationship differently at different times in her cycle, and her evaluation seems to be colored by how sexually attractive she perceives her partner to be,” said Martie Haselton, a professor of psychology and communication studies at UCLA and senior author of the study.

Through a series of high-profile studies, Haselton’s lab has revealed telling changes that take place in women’s behavior during ovulation. Possibly to increase the odds of attracting suitable mating partners, these behaviors include a tendency to dress up and to speak in a higher-pitched, more feminine voice and — in a potential inbreeding-avoidance mechanism — to refrain from contact with male kin. In addition, the lab has found that women whose mates are less sexy and masculine tend to be more attracted to other men during the few fertile days leading up to ovulation.

The researchers found that women mated to the less sexually attractive men were significantly more likely to find fault with their partners and, again, feel less close to their partners during the high-fertility period than the low-fertility period. Women who rated their mates as more sexually attractive, meanwhile, did not exhibit these changes and instead reported being more satisfied with their relationship at high fertility than at low fertility. [emphasis mine]

Most of this I elaborated on in Your Friend Menstruation, however Heartiste then gave me some food for thought here right after this research finding:

When a man’s woman is being bitchy, the problem is him, but not in the way most men would think. Most men will promptly resort to DEFCUNT Level 1 Beta Supplication Mode to appease their harridans, thinking, wrongly, that their women are bitchy because they haven’t gotten enough signs of commitment and support from their partners. And who could blame these men for thinking this? When nagging, inconsolable women lob heat-of-the-moment accusations at their men, the accusations usually take the form of scattershot wails about one-size-fits-all conventional relationship issues that come straight from therapists’ hackneyed textbooks.

“You don’t care about me.” “You never listen.” “You don’t support this marriage like I do.” “You forgot to go food shopping AGAIN. How many times do I have to remind you?!”

So these beta men, quite reasonably, care harder, listen longer, support stronger, and buy enough groceries to fill a fat housewife’s appetizer plate. He reasons, “This is what she claims she wants, so this is what I’ll give her. And that should make her be nice to me like she was last week.”

In the meantime, the alpha male is now on his fifth year of forgetting to go food shopping, and his lover hasn’t bitched once about it

The subconscious default Beta behaviors Heartiste is alluding to here are exactly what I’d classify as Mate Guarding behavior. Appeasement, supplication, sensitivity, etc. are all the classic default behaviors Beta men will resort to in order to solve the “problem” of their mate’s apparent dissatisfaction with him. You see, the man with a Beta mindset earnestly believes that Beta Game is his best strength in attraction with women. So when something is wrong with his precious little snowflake he automatically defaults to upping the Beta.

The more Beta the man the more his proclivity to Mate Guard will be.

I realize this is a very bold statement, but judging from the principles of sexual selection and how women’s biology has evolved to better effect her innate, sexually pluralistic hypergamy, only less sexually arousing Beta men would have needed to psychologically evolve mate guarding mental schemas to protect their parental investments with biologically hypergamous women.

Furthermore, the more organically Alpha men would be rewarded not only with relational fidelity (for fear of losing the hypergamic optimization he represents to a woman), but also sexually due to women’s natural arousal by them during her fertility phase. You could also make the case that predominantly Alpha men would be less prone to mate guarding since their sexual selection and mating frequency would be greater than predominantly Beta men, but this is also further compounded by women’s biological arousal and sexual rewarding of Alphas as dictated by her menstrual cycle.

End result? Alpha men would have been less environmentally motivated to evolve mate guarding strategies that Beta men evolved as a contingency to women’s sexual pluralism (i.e. cuckoldry)

Beta Contingencies

In Mrs. Hyde I quoted yet another study by Dr. Martie Haselton from Why is muscularity sexy? (Aunt Giggles wept):

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.

Using strategic pluralism theory as a guide, we can see how mate guarding behavior in predominantly Beta men would have evolved out of necessity. While women (in the past) may have to face trade-offs in weighing genetics versus provisioning, vows of fidelity do little to quell her arousal for Alpha seed when she’s in the proliferate phase of her cycle. In fact I’d argue that the advent of monogamy and monogamous marriage itself is a mate guarding strategy evolved by the meta-interests of Beta men (the most numerous men).

Just to end this on a positive note, I think it’s important to remember that through Game, self-betterment physically & educationally and red pill awareness men aren’t doomed to the absolutes strategic pluralism outlines. In fact this theory, I think accurately, only defines the contingencies and logical outcomes of the SMP – it’s not outlining determinism, it’s illustrating probablism . It doesn’t mean a man can’t transform himself into a contextual Alpha.

The Soul Mate Myth

With apologies to Dalrock for thread-jacking his “The one” vs “my one and only” post. After reading Dal’s take on the fallacy of the ONE and picking back through the comments on Casualties I thought I might clarify a few things about the concept of the ONE.

There is no ONE.

There is no ONE. This is the soulmate myth. There are some good Ones and some bad Ones, but there is no ONE. Anyone telling you anything else is selling you something. There are LOTS of ‘special someones’ out there for you, just ask the divorced/widowed person who’s remarried after their “soulmate” has died or moved on.

This was one of my earliest posts back on the SoSuave forums from around 2003-04. I was finishing my degree then and had the Fallacy of the ONE graphically illustrated for me in a psych class one day. I was in class, surrounded by (mostly) much younger students than myself, all very astute and as intellectual as they come for mid twenty-somethings. At one point the discussion had come around to religion and much of the class expressed being agnostic or atheist, or “spiritual, but not religious”. The rationale was of course that religion and belief could be explained as psychological (fear of mortality) constructs that were expanded to sociological dynamics.

Later in that discussion the idea of a ‘soul mate’ came up. The professor didn’t actually use the word ‘soul’, but rather couched the idea by asking for a show of hands as to how many of the class believed “there was a special someone out there for them?” or if they feared “the ONE that got away.” Damn near the entire class raised their hands. For all of their rational empiricism and claims to realism in regards to spirituality, they (almost) unanimously expressed a quasi-Karmic belief in connecting with another idealized person on an intimate level for a lifetime.

Religion of the Soul-Mate

Even the Frat guys and hook-up girls who I knew weren’t expressly looking for anything long term in their dating habits still raised their hands in assent to a belief in a ONE. Some later explained what that ONE meant to them, and most had differing definitions of that idealization – some even admitted to it being an idealization as the discussion progressed – yet almost all of them still had what would otherwise be termed an irrational belief in ‘destiny’ or, even amongst the least spiritual, that it’s just part of life to pair off with someone significant and there was “someone for everyone”.

This discussion was the catalyst for one of my red pill realizations – despite all odds, people largely feel entitled to, or deserving of, an important love of their life. Statistically and pragmatically this is ridiculous, but there it is. The feminized Disney-fication of this core concept has been romanticized and commercialized to the point of it becoming a religion, even for the expressly non-religious. The shakespearean longing for the ONE, the search for another soul (mate) who was destined to be our match has been systematically distorted beyond all reason. And as I elaborated in Casualties men will take their own lives in the delusion of having lost their soul-mate.

Soul-Mate Men

This perversion of the soul-mate myth is attributable to a large part of the feminized social conventions we deal with today. The fear of isolation from our imagined soul-mate, or the fear of having irrecoverably lost that ‘perfect ONE’ for us fuels so much of the personal and social neuroses we find in the Matrix. For example, much of the fear inherent in the Myth of the Lonely Old Man loses its teeth without a core belief in the Soul-Mate Myth. The fear of loss and the delusions of Relational Equity only really matter when the person men believe that equity should influence is their predestined ONE.

The feminine imperative recognized the overwhelming power the Soul-Mate Myth had over men (and women) from the beginnings of its rise to ascendency as the primary gender social imperative. Virtually all of the distortions of the core soul-mate dynamic evolved as a controlling schema for men. When it is soul-mate women who are the primary reward for a soul-mate necessitous man, there are a lot of opportunities to consolidate that power upon. To be clear, don’t think this is some fiendish plot of a fem-centric cabal socially engineering that soul-mate fear into men. Generations of men, raised to be oblivious to it, willingly and actively help perpetuate the Soul-Mate Myth.

Soul-Mate Women

Although Hypergamy plays a large role in determining what makes for an idealized soul-mate for women, they aren’t immune to the exploitations of that core fear. Though it’s more an unfortunate byproduct than an outright manipulation, I’d argue that in some ways hypergamy intensifies that neurosis. Alpha Widows know all too well the languishing associated with pining for the Alpha that got away – particularly when she’s paired off long-term with the dutiful, Beta provider after her SMV decline.

For women, the soul-mate represents that nigh unattainable combination of arousing Alpha dominance matched with a loyal providership for her long term security that only she can tame out of him.

Hypergamy hates the soul-mate principle, because the soul-mate is an absolute definition, whereas hypergamy must alway test for perfection. Hypergamy asks, “Is he the ONE? Is he the ONE?” and the Soul-Mate Myth replies, “He HAS to be the the ONE, he’s your soul-mate, and there’s ONLY one of those.”

Building the Mystery

Due to this core concept and soul-mate mythology, both sexes will seek to perfect that idealization for themselves – even under the least ideal of conditions and expressions. We want to build our intimate relations into that soul-mate idealism in order to relieve the fear and solve the problem, and most times so badly that we’ll deftly ignore the warnings, abuses and consequences of having done so. For women the impact of the most significant Alpha is what initially defines that soul-mate idealization. For men it may be the first woman to become sexual with him or the one who best exemplifies a woman he (mistakenly) believes can love him in a male-defined orientation of love.

However, these are the points of origin for building that soul-mate ideal upon. This ideal is then compounded upon with layers of investments in the hopes that this person “might actually be the one fate has prescribed for them.” Emotional investment, personal, financial, even life-potential investments and sacrifices then follow in an effort to create a soul-mate.

This process is why I say the Soul-Mate Myth is ridiculous – it’s psychologically much more pragmatic to construct another person to fit that ideal than it ever will be to “wait for fate to take its course.” People subscribing to the myth would rather build a soul-mate, consequences be damned. So women will attempt to Build a better Beta, or tame down an Alpha, while men will attempt to turn a whore into a housewife, or vice versa.

One of the most bitter aftertastes of having taken the red pill is abandoning old paradigms for new. I’ve described this before as akin to killing an old friend, and one friend that needs killing is exactly this mythology. Disabusing yourself of this core fear is vital to fully unplugging, because so much of fem-centric social conditioning is dependent upon it.

Dropping the Soul-Mate Myth isn’t the nihilism a lot of people might have you believe it is. If anything it will free you to have a better, healthier future relationship with someone who is genuinely important to you – a relationship based on genuine desire, mutual respect, complementary understanding of each other and love, rather than on a fear of losing your one and only representation of contentment in this life.

Balancing Sexual Pluralism

Homecoming

I had an interesting occasion to do a bit of social observation this weekend. I drove Bebé Tomassi to her first high school Homecoming dance and got a glimpse of the Ghost of Hypergamy Future. As you might guess from growing up in the Tomassi household, Bebé is an exceptionally attractive girl, and this is coming from a red pill advocate, as well as a proud father. However, for all her innocent charm and Disney Channel inspired understandings of high school social dynamics, she was more than a bit shocked by the dress and behavior of the girls at her first ‘real dance’.

As I waited in the pick up line of cars at the end of the night I saw more short club skirts on teenage girls than I see on most liquor promo events I attend. I wouldn’t go so far as to say they looked like whores (my daughter’s analysis), but I will admit to being somewhat taken aback by how closely these 15-16-17 year old girls resembled the early to mid 20’s women I see in my line of work. At a club, at a tasting, or a promotional event, I will admit I enjoy the eye candy, I love a hot outfit like any other guy, but something just didn’t sit right with me seeing these girls dressed for a high school dance. Maybe I’m showing my age, but it did give me some food for thought.

Later Bebé told me she didn’t dance all that much, because she was surprised by how the gym looked more like a rave dance floor than a homecoming dance. She’d gone with 4 of her girlfriends, but none felt comfortable grinding their asses on some guy’s crotch whom they’d have to see at school the following Monday. Bebé has been a practiced dancer since she was 7. “They weren’t even dancing” she explained on the way home, “it was more like dry humping to music I didn’t even know.”

Varsity Blues

I kind of had time to take mental notes of all this when I was waiting in the car line. On SoSuave we have a high school forum (which I regrettably haven’t had much time to participate in lately), and when I do take the time to give advice there, the dynamic is drastically different for the young men there than the mid 20’s, 30’s and mature men I generally counsel. The reason for this dynamic shift is due to the fact that in women’s pluralistic sexual strategies, the long term side of that pluralism is practically nonexistent.

It’s very difficult for a teenage boy to display higher value beyond physical prowess and conveying a confident Alpha dominant attitude. Beyond maybe owning a car or truck, a teenage guy’s SMV is based almost entirely upon his physical presence and/or performance. Teenage girls only really care about how cute/hawt! a teenage guy is. It’s a Game of raw, Darwinistic tingles for adolescent girls, because even if they had some rudimentary appreciation for a guy’s intrinsic value, all of their security needs are more or less provided for by there parent(s).

From the sexual pluralism side, girls don’t develop an appreciation (or attraction) of men fulfilling that long-term security imperative until well into their mid to late 20’s. Throughout high school and through college, via their Fathers or the state’s provisioning, the security side of this sexual pluralism (the Good Dad attraction) is satisfied to varying degrees.

Short Terms

As I outlined in Schedules of Mating, hypergamy dictates women secure (commitment from) the best male exhibiting the traits of both genetics (short term breeding) and parental investment (long term provisioning), but rarely do the best of these traits exist in the same man. Then it hit me as I waited in that car line; these westernized teenage girls and their college age sisters, to a greater degree, have this long term part of their sexual plurality accounted for – or at least accounted for well enough that their primary sexual strategy focus is mostly fixated the short term breeding model.

Under such conditions ‘gina tingles preempt long term security concerns. So the logical next step is for girls to develop a sexually competitive strategy with other girls around hooking up with the highest value Alpha their looks can arouse. That isn’t to disqualify the attractiveness of intrinsic qualities (especially as a woman approaches the Wall), only that extrinsic qualities hold a higher prioritization. Thus, with the long term side of sexual plurality almost a non-issue, we see girls at earlier and earlier ages, learn to eroticize (not sexualize) themselves to be better prepared for that competition.

Long Terms

Rational reader, Wesley Dabney had some interesting input on Up the Alpha that dovetails nicely into this dynamic:

we can disagree all you want but that won’t make it any less true. a healthy woman’s central emotion is love. if you return that love to her, she will love you back and be faithful. no alpha can crack that connection. however, most men today have been so damaged by the sexual market place they are incapable of showing a woman the love they need to commit resulting in what you see today.

I’d advise anyone of this interpretation of women’s nature to read these posts first to get a better understanding of how women love (in this order):

Women in Love

Men in Love

Of Love and War

Wes, I have no doubt that your personal experience with your girlfriend’s love might lead you to think it contradicts what I’ve detailed in these posts, but she, like all women (including Mrs. Tomassi), loves opportunistically. I’ll explain, but don’t take this as an insult about you or your girlfriend:

I had a hard childhood. i have ptsd and anger management issues. my g/f makes more money than me.. etc etc.. according to many here.. she’s prime bait to be taken away from me by someone with higher status. however, she has proven to me that won’t happen. i put her through hell and she stayed by my side. i got lucky though and i know that.

The fact that you did put her ‘through’ hell’ is exactly why she’ll stay with you. After looking at your profile pic and FaceBook, from a physical standpoint, I’d estimate your SMV at least 2 points higher than her. Again, just being purely analytical, I’d put you at about an 8 and her about a 6 and this imbalance is exactly where Roissy has posited that ‘ real love’ exists between men and women. Your higher SMV provides you with default dominance.

Just from perusing your profile I get the impression that you enforce (maybe subconsciously) an Alpha dominance (anger issues), but this only contributes to her secure attachement to you. Your deficit in that she makes more money than you is sublimated by your own SMV. When women on some peripheral level of consciousness, doubt they can do better than the guy they’re with, hypergamy is satisfied. This is precisely why divorce rates level off progressively with age – post-Wall women can’t afford to reinsert themselves back into single life without a lot of motivation. A restart after the Wall is impractical, thus the rationalization hamster self-convinces women that her attraction cues are really her arousal cues.

All of this however simply proves that women love opportunistically. If Wes didn’t have the counterbalancing qualities to make him 2 points higher in SMV I doubt we’d be having this conversation. Women’s emotional center (if there is such a thing) isn’t love, but security. At its core, Hypergamy is an issue of optimized security.

Balancing Hypergamy

Security comes in a lot of different forms; financial, emotional, familial, etc. When a woman has established a base line of security for herself in one of these forms, other forms take precedent. So for a woman to make herself (or be by default) more or less financially independent, her impetus will be to find a guy who satisfies that hypergamic need of Alpha dominance and sexual prowess. Thus the hawt guy, with Alpha swagger outclasses the boring beta with equitable wealth to her own. Even a beta of higher socioeconomic status wont stimulate a woman who can comparatively and contextually assess that the Alpha she’s committed to, though lower on a socio-econ level, is still a better hypergamic match because his Alpha impact has left a long term impression on her (i.e a potential Alpha Widow).

You can also find parallels to this in the Cougar Effect. Past-prime women with their financial needs met by divorce settlements, child support and alimony will tend to look for the hot young(er) guy with whom she can satisfy the sexual short term strategy that a long term prospect can’t offset for her because she’s already provided for.

One important fact about Feminine Hypergamy is that it applies to both sides of a woman’s sexual pluralism. “Alpha fucks and Beta bucks” is a useful euphemism, but hypergamy applies to both of these instances and seeks a balance. It’s also important to understand that, while hypergamy may not care about much of anything, it does seek its own level. Despite social media and the feminine imperative’s attempts to convince a woman otherwise, to some limbic degree, women are aware of their own SMV. Hypergamy wants an optimized state, but that impulse is mitigated by the realities of her capacity to attain it.