Alpha

The Nature of the Game

I had a reader ask me some questions recently and in answering it gave me some food for thought.

Are we stuck in our Alpha fucks/Beta cucks categories? Should we attempt to blend the two categories into the ultimate hybrid?

Or is there nothing we can do, but attempt to use the information that you have (brilliantly) given us as a navigational tool to find our way through this world and godspeed to every fellow?

Before this I came across these Tweets from Rian Stone:

I think a lot of guys new to Red Pill awareness tend to apply qualifiers to the ideas of what is Alpha and what is Beta. In a similar respect a lot of plugged-in Blue Pill conditioned ‘Beta’ men like to make similar qualifications, but their understanding is rooted in what their conditioning has convinced them of. For the newly unplugged guy, Alpha is whatever he hadn’t been doing before with women that is now working for him once he flipped his own script. For the plugged in guy, whatever he’s been convinced of that women say they want is ‘Alpha’ to him – and usually that means whatever benefits a woman’s sexual strategy in terms of long term provisioning, parental investment and security. They just don’t realize their own utility to women in that game.

That said, I don’t disagree with Rian here. Over the course of fifteen years and three books I have made every effort to correct critics who insist that “all those Red Pill guys think Alpha men are Silverback Gorillas or Wolves.” Roissy once called this Etymology Hate:

5. Etymology Hate

Hater: Your definition of an alpha male is false. In the animal kingdom, the alpha male is leader of the pack, not a cad/badboy/jerk who pumps and dumps women.

Isn’t it just like a nerd to get hysterical over the appropriation of a narrow-sense scientific term to conveniently illustrate broader truths about men and women.

These “broader truths” are why I still use Alpha and Beta as descriptions for men and their mindsets. Critics and disingenuous haters like to think that even considering men or behavior sets as being Alpha or Beta is cause for dismissing whatever is being said. There’s a reason for this blanket disqualification which I’ll cover in a moment, but what they (willfully) misunderstand is that these classification are abstractions for bigger ideas. Alpha and Beta are placeholder terms necessary to consider more complex ideas in intersexual dynamics. For the most part, when I hear or read Blue Pill conditioned men mock the idea of Alpha men and insist that it’s a direct derivative of believing those ‘idiot Red Pill guys thinking they’re Alpha wolves or Silverback gorillas’ I know that I’m not dealing with a serious debate. More on this later.

Rian is also correct in his observation that both Red Pill aware men and critics alike tend to think of Alpha and Beta as specific archetypes of men. I’ve written almost a dozen essays about the nature of Alpha, but in each one I make an attempt to dispel the archetype of what an Alpha or a Beta man is. The Beta archetype is easy to agree on because almost no guy wants to be a “beta male”. As would be expected we tend to think of betas as the stereotypical ‘cuck’ or ‘soy boy’, or the Nümale with his fear grimace agape.

I should point out that even the guys who we would categorize as Betas don’t think they are. Very few Beta men look in the mirror and go “damn, I gotta Alpha up”. They believe that they are the vanguard of the new definition of Alpha; that they and women have evolved beyond the visceral realities of Hypergamy and Beta is the new Alpha. Recently there’s been a concerted social effort to redefine what is acceptable masculinity in the wake of the narrative shift that would have us accept that all masculinity is toxic.

For men there will always be a want to believe that whatever qualities make up their own personality and their own lifestyle is what should define what is “alpha”. From Alpha:

Guy’s like Corey [Worthington] infuriate men who have invested their self-worth in the accomplishments of what they think ought to be universally appreciated and rewarded. So when they’re confronted with a natural Alpha being undeservedly rewarded for brazenly acting out of accord with what they think the rules ought to be, they seethe with resentment. The natural response in the face of such an inconsistency is to redefine the term ‘Alpha’ to cater to themselves and their accomplishments as “real men” and exclude the perpetrator. The conflict then comes from seeing his new definition of Alpha not being rewarded or even appreciated as well as a natural Alpha attitude and the cycle continues. Your respect (or anyone else’s) for an Alpha has nothing to do with whether or not he possess an Alpha mindset. 3 failed marriages and 100+ lays has nothing to do with his having or not having an Alpha mindset.

In the same way that a Blue Pill conditioned “beta male” believes he best represents the new “alpha” definition, so to do a lot of Red Pill aware men who play the same game of applying their own traits to what should be considered or appreciated as “alpha”. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Trad-Con circles – an Alpha is a guy who takes care of his family and is respected as the head of the home. He takes care of his duties to family, God and country, etc., etc. Really all this is is another grab at affirmation of personal worth. Blue Pill “betas” believe exactly the same self-fulfilling thing from a different set of ideological beliefs.

In the process both the plugged-in and the unplugged create convenient archetypes for the opposite of the apex they want to believe they are and what they hope will be confirmed and rewarded. Usually these are binary caricatures: the Alpha ‘Chad’ is usually whatever image of the popular high school jock that used to be their nemesis fits, while the Beta ‘doormat’ is the George McFly character whose introversion and lack of social intelligence places him at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy. Either one of these guys can be seen in a positive or negative light depending on the perspective of who’s doing the viewing. To the Nümale, whatever that classic Beta does should be what’s appreciated as ‘alpha’ and to the Trad-Con an Alpha is the guy who dominates, but only insofar as he sticks to what they think is his ‘duty’.

Funny how both tend think the Alpha Playah, the self-important ‘Cad’ who women tingle for, who follows his own sexual strategy shouldn’t be considered ‘Alpha’ in spite of women consistently, predictably rewarding him with sex and genuine desire.  Rian nailed this part; Alpha makes her wet, Beta makes her secure. Our Instinctual interpretive process understands the visceral reasons why women get worked up for that physically ideal guy who also completes the fantasy of the Alpha Fucks side of Hypergamy. But our Emotional and Rational processes want to recreate a reality in which what we have is what women really want. So we try to persuade and convince women to act against their own Instinctual interpretive process with respect to what they should find sexy and genuinely desirable – us, just as we are. We want to change the Game to fit our capacity, our skill, our genetics, to excel in it.

Beta men don’t just hope that women will perceive their own redefinitions of ‘alpha’ as the accepted ideal, they build lives and systems of belief around convincing others and themselves that we’ve evolved past the visceral realities of what arouses women. Trad-Con men, even Red Pill aware men, do something similar – they hope that their own definition of what should constitute Alpha, and best describes themselves, will likewise supersede the natural evolved impulse of what a woman’s hindbrain perceives as an ideal Hypergamous opportunity.

Alpha Seed, Beta Need

T-rex doesn’t want to be fed; he wants to hunt. You can’t just suppress sixty-five million years of gut instinct. – Dr. Grant, Jurassic Park

Hypergamy wants what Hypergamy wants, but it’s also important to remember that Hypergamy has two sides; Alpha Seed and Beta Need. When we look at the dynamic of Ovulatory Shift we see this play out. In a woman’s proliferative phase of her menstrual cycle she is predisposed to seek out sexual opportunities with high SMV, masculinized, dominant (to the point of arrogance) men. In her luteal phase she seeks comfort, rapport, security and protection qualities in men. Alpha Seed, Beta Need. As Rian pointed out, we’ve made archetypes (and caricatures) of the type of guy who embodies these needs, but we do so to persuade a woman’s evolved Instinctive understanding of what they are. Women’s hindbrains want to hunt for Hypergamous opportunity, men’s rational (and emotional) process wants to ‘feed’ Hypergamy by redefining what that Instinct should want.

Where both Nümales, Trad-Cons and more than a few Red Pill aware men get it wrong is believing that the security Beta represents should also be what gets her wet. We live in a day and age where men are so feminized that 80%+ default to ‘beta’ behaviors and mindsets because they believe it’s what arouses women. I’ve also written many essays about how anxiety, urgency and (sexual) tension are necessary factors in the ‘enthusiastic’ sex women have with men they genuinely desire. When it comes to comforting a woman, rapport, honesty, emotional investment and security the Beta men of today have been acculturated to have it all in spades. Where they fall short is the Alpha capacity to generate tingles based on making women uncomfortable. One reason men have a tough time with Red Pill awareness is because it all seems so counterintuitive to everything they’ve ever been conditioned to believe about women and sex and how to initiate it.

If you read Roissy’s old categories of Beta to Alpha it follows a predictable pattern. The same applies to Vox Day’s socio-sexual hierarchies (Omega, Gamma, Sigma, Delta, Beta, Alpha, etc), but what we’re really defining in these ranking is a male dominance hierarchy as it applies to women’s sexual selection process – Alpha seed, Beta need – and according to any individual woman’s capacity to demand any particular rank of man.

To answer the first question I began with here, I don’t think the “categories” ever really end because dominance hierarchies are something innate to our world. So, rather than think we can change this, change the nature of reality as equalism attempts to, I think men ought to learn to play it better. The nature of the game doesn’t change. In fact, the equalist mindset that wants to change it ends up making those who accept it and play it well appear that much more exceptional. 

Why? Because the game doesn’t change and our hindbrains know this. So when we see a man who is a “good player” of the game we evolved to play, who became so in spite of all the foolish efforts to change the game to better fit those who don’t play it well, our instincts are attracted to that person that much more. In other words the guy who Just Gets It is even more attractive in a world that women’s hindbrains know is trying to convince her that he shouldn’t just get it. This is why even the most staunch, egalitarian equalist feminist of women still adore a conventionally masculine man who looks and plays the natural role of Alpha man well. They still want to bang him, they still want to submit to him in spite of their ego investments. And they’ll coyly, shamefully, but without any self-consciousness admit they love being loved, fucked, protected, secured, etc. by that guy.

As an adaptation to increase the likelihood of reproduction men and women seek to change the Game that we’ve been playing for 100,000 years now. Only in our age of “gender enlightenment” are we so deluded as to think that prioritizing our emotion or reason above the realities our evolved instinct is spelling out for us might be a way to get intimate and reproduce. Women want to change men’s evolved sexual natures – via social constructionism, feminism, feminine-primacy – in order to reproduce with men they would naturally never have a chance breeding or pairing with, and without any burden of their own performance or merit. They want to change the Game to suit their deficits in playing it the way it is.

Similarly, men seek to improve their own reproductive success by also redefining the terms of the Game to also breed and pair (mostly breed) with women that their own Burden of Performance would merit them. This is why transvaluation (vulnerability is strength, etc.) features so prominently in this mindset. It is an effort in achieving reproductive success and intimacy without excelling in a man’s performance burden. This is precisely why Blue Pill men insist on defining Alpha and Beta in as literal a sense as possible. By rejecting and mocking these terms it self-reinforces the misbelief that they, and ‘quality’ women, have evolved beyond the visceral aspects of Hypergamy. By denying the realities of Alpha and Beta aspects in men the belief is it sets them apart from any natural dominance hierarchy. They’re “above all that”, “women (at least the ‘quality’ ones) are rational agents too and above their own Hypergamous impulses” and “people are all unique individuals set apart from all that human nature stuff.” Each of these rationales is linked to a core misbelief in blank-slate equalism (I’ll address in another essay), but they are also representative of an effort to remove these men from a natural dominance hierarchy and place them into a new Game they believe women are also playing and in which they, by default, are at the highest degree by virtue of having progressed beyond the old Game.

 

Transactional vs. Validational Sex

You cannot negotiate genuine desire.

This is one of my best known quotes because it resonates with so many men. There was a time in the early 2000s when I was doing peer counseling for men – most of whom were at least a decade my senior – as part of my undergraduate study and one consistent theme I got from almost all of them was how their marriages (or LTRs) had been so much more sexually satisfying when they were dating their wives or before they’d committed to some kind of exclusivity. That’s always the crux of it for guys. They mistakenly believed that the hot monkey sex they were having with their women prior to “doing the right thing” and getting married or committed was something that would be characteristic of their quality woman into a long term relationship with them.

Why was this the case for guys? I can remember coming up with this quote as part of the advice I was giving while working for one of these men. He, like many of the other guys, had gotten to the point that he would do almost anything to get back to that real desire that convinced him to commit to his wife in the first place. And, like many of these guys, he’d convinced his wife to go to marriage counseling in order to find out what exactly it was that he needed to do to “get her to come around” to wanting to bang him. Nothing was working for him. Even after his sessions he was still either sexless or his wife only begrudgingly would have lackluster ‘starfish’ sex with him. We called that a ‘grudge fuck’ back then.

As a student of behavioral psychology my interest was (still is) in what motivates or incentivizes behavior in people (sometimes animals). What was it that inspires genuine desire as opposed to behavior that still has a purpose, but was more motivated by future outcome. You can make a case that genuine desire is also motivated by a perceived outcome, but in this instance I’m making a distinction between a natural, unsolicited desire as opposed to an incentive based on a preconceived outcome – if all goes according to plan.

This guy broke down in tears with me on at least two occasions. He just couldn’t understand why what was supposed to work (open communication, rational discourse and honest negotiation) wasn’t getting her to “come around” to having sex with him. It was then I thought, you cannot negotiate genuine desire. Either a woman wants  to fuck you or she doesn’t. There are definitely ways to prompt that genuine desire – most of which are behavioral and conditional – but as has been stated many times in the ‘sphere, attraction is not a choice. The key word there is choice. Few men would ‘choose’ to be attracted by an obese woman and in many ways this choice dynamic is why women promoting the ‘body acceptance’ narrative have a tough time of it. For all the nonsense about beauty being a social construct, arousal for men is very much rooted in evolved biology. Men can’t choose to get an erection for a woman they’re simply not aroused by.

The same holds true for women, but the conditions are different. Women can and do have sex for reasons other than genuine desire. Negotiated desire really isn’t desire at all, but women have readily used sexual access to achieve those perceived outcomes I mentioned above here. Negotiated desire only ever leads to obligated compliance. A talented hooker or stripper may be very convincing in her act that she’s really into having sex with a man, but the negotiation that takes place before the act can never make a woman want to have sex with her client. Attraction is not a choice, but really, arousal is not a choice either.

Hormonal

I am presently about half way through my read of Dr. Martie Haselton’s new book Hormonal. I was really anticipating this book’s release, and I had intended to do my first-ever book review of it here, but as I read through I’ve decided not to. I still highly recommend reading it. As you might guess it’s chock full of stats and research confirmation of so much of what I write here that I want to put it at the top of the required Rational Male reading list. I’ve been referencing Dr. Haselton’s (and her colleagues) work since I began this blog, but the delivery of the information was disappointing, and in a lot of instances, very immature and sophomoric. It’s written almost as an apologetic to feminists for having to kill a lot of sacred feminist social convention cows. I feel as if she’s writing ‘down’ to the women who she’ll inevitably market this book to, but, if you can get past her constant attempts to legitimize her feminist credentials, the information is absolute gold.

One aspect of female sexual dynamics that Haselton and her team detail quite a bit is the idea of an Estrus state in human females. I’m not sure how well appreciated this research is in the manosphere, which is one reason I included it in Positive Masculinity, but this concept is really integral to how we define Hypergamy. As most of my readers know, Hypergamy – women’s dualistic sexual strategy (and really life strategy) – is much more than a tendency of a woman to ‘marry up’. In Hormonal the ideas of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks really solidify with the research.

However, as useful as it is as a catchy euphemism Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks could better be described as Alpha Seed and Beta Need. In a woman’s peak ovulatory phase of her menstrual cycle she enters an estrus state and becomes subject to behaviors that can only be defined as a pretext of seeking Alpha seed. In other words, nature and Hypergamy are very practical in maximizing the chances that a woman may get pregnant with the best available genetic specimen. Granted, the true outcome of all of that is subject to environment and a woman’s personal conditions, but the practicality of it remains the same as it has for 100,000 years. It’s also important to keep in mind that a woman’s behaviors, strategies, rationales and her own interpretation of all of them in those various times and conditions are also a part of the overall latent purpose of a woman consolidating on the best Alpha Seed and Beta to supply her needs.

While women are subject to an estrus state they still require the second half of Hypergamy – the Beta need for security, provisioning, protection, comfort and at least the sharing of parental investment responsibilities for any offspring. Estrus in women is concealed, meaning it is (or used to be) nearly, but not totally undetectable in women. There are in fact various ways men evolved to intuitively determine whether a woman is in an estrus state of fertility; most of these today are socially shamed in men so as to further confuse them and advantage women, but that’s a topic for another essay. A concealed estrus aids women in optimizing both Alpha Seed and Beta Need and it’s likely that much of what accounts for women’s sexual strategy is the result of this concealment.

Now, a lot has been written by myself and others about the impact of meeting a woman’s Beta Need aspect of Hypergamy being served by the state and/or direct or indirect transfers of resources from men to women. Most of my readers are well aware of how this side of Hypergamy has been progressively accommodated for over the past fifty years. In spite of this it’s important to remember that this accommodation of provisioning needs doesn’t eliminate the deeper needs that this side of Hypergamy engenders in women. It may be true that women have never been better provided for in history as far as money and opportunities go, but women still look for emotional security, protection, dominance and comfort in men as part of their innate mental firmware.

As a result of Hypergamy and this concealed estrus state women have been put into a condition of evaluating sex in different aspects today.

Validational Sex

When women look for that Alpha Seed in their peak ovulatory (proliferative) phase, the sex they seek is a desired sex with a man who meets evolutionary criteria. He’s the ‘hawt’ guy, or the man who leaves a woman with an perception of danger or excitement. A lot of men who don’t meet this criteria have a tendency to over-exaggerate this type of man as the ‘Alpha Chad’ and make a ridiculous parody of him as an ego protection mechanism for themselves. Let me state for the record here that every aspect and adjective that this type of guy embodies is mitigated by conditions and contexts. It is just as likely that this conventionally masculine dominant guy is only so according to his most immediate social situation. So spare me the “Chad Thundercock” anxieties.

The sex that women give “enthusiastic consent” for is validational for them. The easy assessment here is that women have a genuine desire to mate with conventionally masculine men who look and act the part – yes, behavioral congruency is vital. If you follow the research women consciously and unconsciously will actively put themselves into environments where the likelihood of their meeting a dominant masculine man who most closely matched that masculine ideal when they are in estrus. They openly and discreetly look of arousal cue from men who best embody what can only be described as Alpha Seed.

I should also add that women in “satisfying relationships” (meaning LTRs where a woman is still very hot for her husband/boyfriend) report an increase in sexual desire (proceptivity) for that guy during this phase. A lot of guys mistakenly think ANY woman will want to seek out extra-pair mating (cheating) opportunities when they’re in estrus. This is only true if a woman isn’t into her current man.

I don’t want to get too lost in the descriptions here. Rather, I want to focus on the associative feelings women get in and after having sex with that Alpha man during estrus. I would argue that Alpha Widows are made in the estrus phase. This is the sex women want to have and are enthusiastic in both the hunt and the act itself. This is largely (presumedly) the sex that men have with their wives-to-be before they marry. It’s this validational sex, the sex that women fantasize about, that men and women want to get back to once they are committed to each other monogamously but now have a dead bedroom. This sex validates a woman’s ego in that it proves to herself that a man of this SMV caliber would want to pin her to the bed and have marathon sex with her. Remember, the latent purpose of this sex, on this side of Hypergamy, is to access the sperm from men with high reproductive value as defined by what our evolved nature predisposes women to be aroused by. Validational sex is sex by choice and genuine desire, and is satisfying on both a psychological level and an evolutionary level.

Transactional Sex

One of the benefits of a concealed estrus is that it allows women a few luxuries. One of these was the ability to confuse men of their paternity. Today this confusion is little more difficult because we’ve got DNA figured out well enough to make accurate assessments, but in our evolutionary past it was important to trick cuckolded fathers into second guessing whether a child was his or not before he killed it and impregnated a woman on his own (this is also why men evolved mate guarding behaviors).

The other advantage of concealed estrus was essentially prostitution. Now, to pretty this up a bit, lets say that women who were sexual with men outside of their fertility window found that sex could be leveraged with non-Alpha men (men they didn’t want to have children with) to encourage them to help with a lot of the chores more Alpha men were less willing (but not entirely unwilling) to do. Enter transactional sex.

As mentioned, the most overt form of transactional sex is prostitution, but it’s impolite to call every woman a whore. In fact it’s impolite to even imply a woman may be having sex for other reasons than validational sex. Today women are contemplating whether or not transactional sex is itself rape since it technically meets the definition of rape (sex women don’t want to have). I discussed this “grey area sex” recently in another essay, but it’s interesting to see women wrestle with transactional sex in an era where the Future is Female and women ought to only have the (validational) sex they want to enthusiastically have.

For most men (i.e the 80% Beta men) transactional sex is where the rubber meets the road. In fact, I’d argue that for most Beta men transactional sex is the only definition of sex they ever really know. That’s kind of sad to think about, but most men never really experience the unfettered feral lust of a woman they’ve chosen to spend the rest of their lives with. I got into this in Saving the Best and Hats Off to the Bull, but I think it’s important for the average man today to acknowledge that it’s highly likely that their wives have shared parts of themselves with, and have lost all inhibitions with, men in their sexual pasts they may never know anything about. That’s a cold bucket of reality a lot of men who unplug from all this have to confront.

Marriage today is almost entirely predicated on on the transactional sex side of Hypergamy. I’m not saying it has to be, nor am I saying it always is, but I’m fairly comfortable in speculating that for most married women sex is reward she uses in the operant conditioning of her husband. And the very fact that this is effective with most husbands throws the power dynamic and Frame of the relationship firmly over to the wife. This has the effect of disqualifying that man from ever (or very rarely) being a candidate for validational sex within that marriage. And this too is another aspect of the transactional sex dynamic that modern feminists are contemplating today – if a woman doesn’t want to have sex with her husband, but does anyway, is it rape? But again, NAMALT, not all marriages are like this or have to be like this. I would also argue that a confident man whom a woman admires, who she recognizes as being above her SMV even if slightly and who has internalized Red Pill awareness within that marriage needn’t be doomed to transactional “duty” sex in his marriage.

Unnegotiated Desire

And so now we come full circle to the men I was counseling back in the day. Because all they’d ever known was transactional sex their deductive male brains attempted to solve their “sex problem” in the most logistical and pragmatic way – negotiate with her. If all sex ever is for a guy is a transaction – a quid pro quo – then it follows he’ll try to find the best way to ‘pay’ for his wife’s sexual access. Hunter Drew and I were recently discussing a man who Dean Abbot has been counseling and one thing we’ve all seen a lot of from young and old Blue Pill Beta men is this logical tendency for them to want to ‘sacrifice their way to happiness with their wives’. It’s as if the more they sacrifice the more they pay for that intimacy they seek, but what they never get is that this only buries their sex lives that much more.

One amazing turn around a lot of married and single Red Pill guys experience when they unplug is the attention they receive from women when they switch from a transactional disposition to a validational disposition with regard to sex. When a man unplugs and cuts himself away from his Blue Pill conditioning one change he makes is a shift from viewing sex as transactional to validational. In the beginning, when men are first learning Game and becoming more Red Pill aware about the nature of women they really don’t recognize this shift in attitude towards sex. When I say men need to make themselves the “prize” with regards to sex and their attention what happens is they go from the “how can I pay for sex to qualify for it with a woman” to “women will recognize that I represent and opportunity for validational sex”.

The Blue Pill conditions men to base their understanding of sex on a transactional paradigm. It’s all scarcity, and luck or providence that a woman might want to fuck them. This is why women get aggravated by the presumption that men might feel they are ‘owed sex‘ in exchange for what they do for them. And why wouldn’t men feel that way? They’ve been conditioned for half a life to believe that they should follow the old social contract and become a man with a lot to offer a woman, a wife. This is the transactional paradigm; I build my life to better accommodate a woman and she reciprocates with sex. Women know this too, so all pretenses of indignation about are complete bullshit. What upsets women is that a Beta man would feel entitled to her sexuality for having accommodated her. Alpha men are entitled to it, accommodations be damned, because he’s the man they want to have sex with.

Dangerous Times – Part 3

In writing and editing this series for the last few weeks a lot has happened in the Future is Female movement. I’m not a big fan of awards shows for obvious reasons; they have all gone from being a celebration and acknowledgement of creativity and performance in entertainment to being little more than a stage upon which political and social protests are aired by pampered celebrities. However, the recent Golden Globes anti-male / anti-masculinity screed by Oprah Winfrey initiated the next step in what can only be described as socially accepted misandry. I have no doubt that the (now annual) Women’s March planned for January 20th will see this anti-male, female supremacism go far beyond what it did in 2017 and echo Oprah’s open hatred for men and an unapologetic call for the removal of men and the criminalization of any semblance of conventional masculinity.

The original intent of this series was to raise awareness of the dangerous inherent in our coming intersexual social relations. And in the time I’ve been considering this I had to finally take a birds eye view of where we’ve come from and where we’re likely to end up with regard to the social direction I see the sexes headed today. For the final installment of this series there are a couple of articles I’m going to reference that got me thinking recently. The first was an article on Quillette by William Buckner titled Romanticizing the Hunter Gatherer. I’m using this as a starting point today because I think this piece speaks to some common misperceptions of our evolutionary past as hunter gatherer, tribalist beings.

When it comes to evolutionary psychology (evo psych) and biology (evo bio) there is always a tendency to want to focus certain speculations on particular ideological bents. In fact, there is a current push to typify all science as being inspired by male-primary sexism and a motion to reform the sciences by requiring them to basically concur with what ever serves the Feminine Imperative’s most flattering interests. Another popular idea amongst egalitarian equalists is the speculation (really romanticization) of our hunter gatherer ancestors being natural egalitarian equalists themselves. Equalists love to presume that human beings’ natural state is one of collective cooperation and gender equality, but according to new studies there’s no evidence to support these ideas (emphasis mine):

But what about egalitarianism? In a 2004 study, Michael Gurven marshals an impressive amount of cross-cultural data and notes that hunters tend to keep more of their kill for themselves and their families than they share with others.12 While there is undeniably a great deal of sharing across hunter-gatherer societies, common notions of generalized equality are greatly overstated. Even in circumstances where hunters give away more of their meat than they end up receiving from others in return, good hunters tend to be accorded high status, and rewarded with more opportunities to reproduce everywhere the relationship has been studied.

[…] In the realm of reproductive success, hunter-gatherers are even more unequal than modern industrialized populations, exhibiting what is called “greater reproductive skew,” with males having significantly larger variance in reproductive success than females.15 Among the Ache of Paraguay, males have over 4 times the variance in reproductive success that females do, which is one of the highest ratios recorded. This means some males end up having lots of children with different women, while a significant number of males end up having none at all. This is reflected in the fact that polygynous marriage is practiced in the majority of hunter-gatherer societies for which there are data. Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8, while the average age at marriage for males is 20.7.16 Rather than defending what would be considered child marriage in contemporary Western societies, anthropologists often omit mentioning this information entirely.

Much of this article confirms a majority of what the Red Pill has been observing and considering for a long time now. The Pareto Principle being the highlight in this last part here; 20% of men reproducing with 80% of women. I’ll also draw your attention to the studies that suggest that only one man for every 17 women reproduced as little as 8,000 years ago (after the advent of agriculture). The Quillette article is a fascinating read, particularly from a Red Pill perspective, and I’d encourage you to read it. The operative point in this is that this research confirms that, despite the feel-good belief that human beings are naturally monogamous and naturally egalitarian, our hunter gatherer ancestors were largely polygamous.

The second article I’m going to reference is The Link Between Polygamy and War from the Economist last month. This is a very in-depth research that breaks down the connection between modern polygamous social orders and their tendency for political unrest and unstable societies. The Economist is a paywalled site, but again it’s well worth the read. This is a very thorough detailing of how men in these countries are systematically disqualified from reproduction in polygynous social and religious societies due to their lack of resources. Only wealthy men are permitted a wife (the only sanctioned way a man can have sex) and if a man can afford more it is a sign of his prestige that he can take as many as he has the resources for.

Men in South Sudan typically marry as often as their wealth — often measured in cattle — will allow. Perhaps 40 percent of marriages are polygamous. “In [our] culture, the more family you have, the more people respect you,” says William, a young IT specialist in search of his second wife. Few South Sudanese see the connection between these matrimonial customs and the country’s horrific civil war. If you ask them the reason for the violence, locals will blame tribalism, greedy politicians, weak institutions and perhaps the oil wealth which gives warlords something to fight over. All true, but not the whole story. Wherever it is widely practiced, polygamy (specifically polygyny, the taking of multiple wives) destabilizes society, largely because it is a form of inequality which creates an urgent distress in the hearts, and loins, of young men. If a rich man has a Lamborghini, that does not mean that a poor man has to walk, for the supply of cars is not fixed. By contrast, every time a rich man takes an extra wife, another poor man must remain single. If the richest and most powerful 10 percent of men have, say, four wives each, the bottom 30 percent of men cannot marry. Young men will take desperate measures to avoid this state.

The article goes on to link the unemployment of young men to their resorting to criminal (and often open war) means to take the wealth necessary for them to procure a wife. This then leads to violent and social unrest. When we look at militant Islamic organizations one of the first, and probably most convincing, rewards young fighters are offered is the guarantee of a wife – even if she is the spoils of war. Much of what prompted the Arab Spring uprisings has been attributed to the unemployment rates in these countries and the consequent result that those young men cannot ‘legitimately’ afford to marry or have a family. They literally have nothing to lose and a wife (sexual release) and a family to gain.

When one man can monopolize 20 wives and thereby force his rivals from the gene pool we have a similar condition to that of our hunter gatherer ancestors. Only in this instance polygamy (really polygyny) is a socially mandated, socially approved convention.

One persistent debate I read in the manosphere is the contention that human society, achievement, stability, etc. is the result of post-agrarian monogamy. Usually this debate crops up between the more traditionalist faction of the sphere and the more brutally pragmatic of Red Pill aware men. I understand the premise from the traditional perspective; there is every evidence that the conventional family structure has been the lynchpin of social progress. I agree with this assessment, but from an evolutionary perspective human beings are not innately monogamous. Our conventional monogamy and family structure, and the resulting progress is really in spite of ourselves. The evidence is there in our genomic records. Our success as a culture was due to controlling the feral aspects of both men and women’s natural sexual strategies via social conventions, religion and personal conviction. And the result of this control is a social contract that is based on monogamy.

That said, there is no denying that monogamous societies make for the most stable societies – or at least they have up to this point in history. Even the Economist article highlights this fact. Monogamy reduces reproductive stress on Beta men – or at least until recently. One reason we have Disney myths of soul mates so prevalent in the past generations is as social a social reinforcement for monogamy. The social convention of idealistic love being a mutually accepted concept between the sexes is also a social reinforcement for monogamy. These were conventions that held men in an idealized state of monogamy. Even the worst Beta still had a hope to reproduce if the mythology was such that “there’s someone for everyone.”

But again, all of this idealization of monogamy is really in spite of ourselves. Left to our own means and our unfettered sexual strategies men will be ruthlessly polygynous and women will resort to ruthless Hypergamy.

The New Polygamy Polyandry

You can probably see where I’m going with this now. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution (and unilaterally female-controlled hormonal birth control) we have seen a systematic degradation of this monogamous social order in favor of a female-primary social order. This social order is predicated on women’s complete control over the reproductive fate of society. Whereas before there were social checks and balances in conventional monogamy, these have been replaced with the unrestrained, unquestioned imperatives of women’s sexual strategy – Hypergamy. In just 5 short decades men have ceded any claim to not only our own sexual strategy and interests, but to any right to paternity.

When we look at how social trends have shifted with regard to women’s sexual selection process we can see the end game more clearly. We’ve gone from ’No Means No’ to ‘Yes Means Yes’ , to itemized permission documentation of every sex act, and now to “enthusiastic consent”. Women’s end game is not unlike our original state of polygamy in that only the most desirable Alpha men will be allowed breeding rights to women – with the social contract being all women are entitled to Alpha Fucks. Enthusiastic consent is a ‘thing’ because on some level of consciousness women loathe the idea of transactional sex with Beta men. And as women’s provisioning and security needs are already met by the state and men’s own direct or indirect resource transfer, there is no longer any desire for “sex they’re really not that into.”

If not for ubiquitous, free online porn and soft prostitution (Sugaring, Tinder, Seeking Arrangements) western culture might find itself in a similar situation to the polygamous countries described by the Economist.

I think it’s important for Red Pill aware men to consider that as women consolidate more and more power via social conventions that only apply to men (MeToo, Times Up, etc.) the end game is one of polyandry for women. This cartoon was a funny one because it accurately describes women’s sexual selection process, but it’s unfunny because it also belies women’s idealized state – one in which men are either draft animals or breeding stock. 

I had quite a few men ask me where I think we’re headed with regards to intersexual social dynamics and I would say that what I’m ultimately seeing is an erasure of conventional monogamy replaced with a Hypergamous polygamy in which women will have uncontested control over reproduction. I see a lot of similarities occurring with men who drop out of life, and either neglect or refuse to build their lives around supporting a family or entertaining a wife. The guys I talk to very much want to get married and have kids, but the downsides are so unimaginably dangerous for men it seems hopeless to them. The old monogamous social contracts no longer exist, but men are still being held responsible for not putting themselves on the line to take risks that only apply to them.

So, not unlike the young unemployed men in the Arab Spring, today’s drop out guy has very little hope for a monogamous future with a woman. But this hopeless circumstance is being instituted by western women, not a religious dogma. Un restrained Hypergamy leads us back to our feral, tribalist polygamy, simply because women have no use for Beta men. Sex with Betas is (or soon will be) considered rape and without porn or some other sexual sedation Betas would likely resort to violence to solve that problem.

What to Do

Anonymous Reader hit me with this comment:

Distilled to it’s essence this is how women in uncontested control of men and masculinity will view men: according to their basest Hypergamous needs and in the context of complete solipsistic self-interests.

Something more like an ant colony or beehive than a civilization of humans. A society of women owners, a handful of males allowed to breed and a whole lot of neutered workers.

I’ve used the Sadie Hawkins’ World analogy for some time now, but this is what the new order of Fempowerment has created for men and women going forward. As much as it goes against every evolved instinct for women, it will be women who must pursue and make the effort to initiate sex and intimacy with men. There will likely be some pushback from more traditional/conventional women who truly desire men to pursue them – nothing is more flattering for a woman’s ego – but the social environment will be such that the risk of personal destruction will become so high, and the juice not being worth the risk of the squeeze will be so low, that even the top tier men in the SMP will be incentivized to allow women to make the first move.

Essentially what MeToo, Enthusiastic Consent and Fempowerment is establishing is an even higher standard of what constitutes an ideal Alpha. It is a tightening of the market of sorts. Women are reluctant (and then resentful) to settle for a less-than the best Hypergamy with a suboptimal male as it is now, but add to this the condition that only the most ideal of Alphas represents the only legitimate sexual experience

Some Solutions:

  1. Play the Game better: Learn Game so thoroughly that you can use the corrupted system to your best advantage. The bar is set so low for men today that even marginal self-improvement, Red Pill awareness and Game savvy can set a man apart from the overwhelming majority of Beta, feminized symps. In essence men can make themselves into commodities women will compete for. There is a danger in this though; women who want to consolidate on the Alpha who wont commit open themselves up to false accusations in reprisal.
  2. MGTOW: As there are varying degrees of MGTOW I can’t say that the most isolationist of MGTOWs response is really a solution. Distilled down, MGTOW is an abdication of meta-Frame to women. However, not all MGTOWs are cut from the same cloth. Many will explain that MGTOW is just men not using women as a benchmark for their ego validation, and my response is, great, I think any Red Pill aware man ought to do the same. Taking womankind off the pedestal and replacing them with your own Mental Point of Origin is key in any man’s unplugging. That said, isolation may not be the best approach to dealing with the Future is Female crowd.
  3. Transactional sex: Reducing intersexual relations to Tinder hook ups, Sugar Baby/Daddy contractual agreements, or ‘Seeking Arrangements’ will preclude a transactional understanding and imply specific positive consent. This still has its dangerous though. Even a Tinder hook up can go bad for a guy if a woman still has regrets at a later date. However, at least from a social standpoint a woman seeking a sexual encounter can be thought of as being proceptive about the experience and not a victim of coercion.

I’d encourage more solutions in the comments. I’m sure a lot of this series seems overly reactionary or disheartening for men who are looking for a return to that stabilizing monogamy. There is an element in the manosphere today who are looking for their Red Pill Trad-Con woman who will police the worst of herself in order to return to the golden era of monogamy. I have my reservations about the real motives of the few women who subscribe to this story, but the issues isn’t about what they will do, but rather what they can do in a feminine-primary social order that allows them to renege on their convictions without consequence.

Dangerous Times – Part 2

The fulfillment of your own sexuality is nothing less than your battle for existence. – Pook

If you’ve been wondering what I’ve been doing lately over the past week I took it upon myself to read through the 7,000 word short story “Cat Person” that’s recently gone viral. The author, 36 year old Kristen Roupenian, was also offered a one million dollar book deal to expand the story even further. You too can read the whole thing if you have the stomach, but it reads every bit like the passive-aggressive indirection I’d expected it would coming from a less-than Hypergamously satisfied woman who’s well past the Wall. Rather than craft a concrete article about her own inner conflict (and by association all women’s conflict) of having ‘inconvenient’ casual sex, she thought she wanted, we get an overwritten fiction that sock-puppets herself as the main character.

If this book does publish, trust me, it wont be a new 50 Shades of Grey. Cat Person  resonates with women today because we now live in the #MeToo era of moral panic inspired by the same Future is Female outrage brokers who brought us pink pussy knitted caps and the women’s march in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat. I decided to split this series of essays into two parts because at this moment in history we are beginning to see the culmination of the predictions I alluded to in my essay, The Political is Personal. We are seeing, in real time, just how a feminine-primary social order and a growing female supremacism consolidates its power. But as I outlined in that essay, this power is always predicated on the hope of ensuring the largest pool of women are legally and socially entitled to the unquestioned, and unmerited, optimization of Hypergamy.

Any man with a Red Pill Lens reading through Cat Person will easily pick out the social conventions and rationalizations unique to women’s ‘hamstering’ (“Flirting with her customers was a habit she’d picked up back when she worked as a barista, and it helped with tips.”) that the manosphere has been picking apart for almost two decades now. And, like most women, the female readership find nothing inconsistent or conflicting about any of it. Roupenian breezes through the ins and outs of women’s sexual pluralism and the differences between transactional (Beta) and validational (Alpha) sex without so much as an afterthought – and her readers eat it up with the same solipsism.

However, the overarching concern for women about this story is the issue of the newly coined term “enthusiastic consent”. Our poor Margot (the main character and proxy for the author, and ultimately all women) is torn up by a casual sexual encounter that at first she thought she wanted, but later, even after giving the guy the green light to have sex with her, she loses enthusiasm to bang him. Yet, not to be rude or to create an uncomfortable scene, she goes through with the inconvenient, lack luster, sex because it was easier to say yes than to say no.

There are other names for this kind of sex: gray zone sex, in reference to that murky gray area of consent; begrudgingly consensual sex, because, you know, you don’t really want to do it but it’s probably easier to just get it over with; lukewarm sex, because you’re kind of “meh” about it; and, of course, bad sex, where the “bad” refers not to the perceived pleasure of it, but to the way you feel in the aftermath.

Essentially, this shift from Yes Means Yes consent to Enthusiastic Consent ask the last questions in women’s social consolidation of Hypergamy:

“Must I still have to have transactional sex with Betas if all my provisional needs are more or less met?”

“If I’m an ’empowered’ woman, am I not entitled to the sex I want to have with Alpha men that validate both my hindbrain and my ego?”

“Can transactional sex with Betas be used as leverage to extort resources from them at any future date by redefining that undesired sex as ‘rape’?”

Curb Your “Enthusiasm”

The reason I believe that Roupenian’s future book will fall flat is because the viral conversation her short story elicits is about a new terminology that the Feminine Imperative hopes to insert into the public sphere – that of ‘enthusiastic consent‘ being the only legitimate form of consent a woman can give a man. Anything less than genuine enthusiasm (however this is arbitrarily defined by women) is at best illegitimate consent and at worst rape – even if every indicator a woman gives a man prior to, during and after sex says ‘yes’ she still means ‘no’ and, as we’ll see here, it will be incumbent on that man to be an adequate mindreader and sexual evaluator to determine her real degree of ‘enthusiasm’ both in the moment and into the future.

There’s a lot to unpack here, but I wanted to begin with a comment I received last week:

If you read feminist literature, the intent behind “enthusiastic consent” seems to have good intentions. Its based on the following purported beliefs:

  • That there is a huge incidence of coerced sex and sexual contact, which is mostly inadvertent rather than malicious. The best way to correct this is to teach men the principles of EC. 
  • That the idea of a sharp Alpha/Beta divide in men’s sexual attractiveness is a myth propagated by the misogynistic Right. Furthermore, girls and women have a realistic idea of their own SMV and will be attracted to their male equivalent.

Thus, feminists believe a free sexual market will see assortive mating with both men and women being able to get a similar amount of sex. This is why when men complain of the difficulty of getting sex, many women will retort that it must be because they are only chasing “supermodels”.

Look at Charlie Rose, is this a man with any Red Pill at all? Giving shoulder rubs to office girls, showing porn to a couple, this is all high school Beta stuff. But he had a TV show that lots of famous people wanted to get on. Clearly Beta-ized, but a situational Alpha. In my not so humble opinion most of the #MeToo girls are going after former situational Alphas because they turned out to be Blue Pill Beta after all…they feel cheated, and are just so sure that all the other girls got to ride a real Alpha pony on the carousel, so the fury comes out.

The ‘enthusiastic’ consent social push we are just on the cusp of today is the next progression in the larger goal of feminism – removing all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality. ‘Enthusiastic consent’ will be the raison d’etat for the legislation leading to the outlawing of any form of male sexual expression.

From The Political is Personal:

The inherent insecurity that optimizing Hypergamy poses to women is so imperative, so all-consuming, to their psychological wellbeing that establishing complex social orders to facilitate that optimization were the first things women collectively constructed when they were (nominally) emancipated from men’s provisioning around the time of the sexual revolution.

Ensuring the optimization of women’s biologically prompted Hypergamy is literally the basis of our current social order. On a socio-political scale what we’re experiencing is legislation and cultural mandates that better facilitate Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks.

[…]As Open Hypergamy becomes more institutionalized and made a societal norm by the Feminine Imperative, and as more men become Red Pill aware (by effort or consequences) because of it, the more necessary it will become for a feminine-primary social order to legislate and mandate men comply with it.

As much as I’d like to believe that normalizing ‘enthusiastic consent’ may lead to women overplaying their hand, I have to consider how the specificity of defining consent will also redefine past sexual norms and intersexual dynamics; not just among single individuals having loosely defined “consensual” sex, but also married couples and how sex (or lack thereof) defines their relationships. As if the men of today needed one more reason to be wary of marriage and how it will eventually affect their sex lives, now we can add the potential for ‘marital rape’ accusations based on EC (enthusiastic consent) to that list; and all in light of women’s less than enthusiastic response to any of her husband’s advances. God forbid a mewling Beta pouts his way into this grey zone ‘duty sex’ with his unenthusiastic wife.

What were witnessing here is the insertion of college campus consent laws into Marriage 2.0, and as designed its intent is to further disrupt marriage and family. Even in the old books presumptions about marriage a man could expect his commitment to a wife and family meant a plenary exchange of sexual access. But when enthusiastic consent is a prerequisite for legitimizing sexual encounters, anything resembling a woman’s putting out duty sex for her husband, even starfish lack luster obligatory sex is defined as rape.

I got the following comment from last week’s Red Pill Reddit forum repost:

The fundamental driver is removal of female responsibility for her actions, pushing all responsibility onto men. Whatever happens between a man and a woman, women universally agree that the man is to blame for any and all results, including her subsequent regret.

Responsibility used to be on women to say “no” if she wanted to claim rape. This responsibility has been removed. No longer does she have to verbalise lack of consent. No longer does she even have to verbalise actual consent. She can decide after the fact…. years after the fact…. whether her consent was in fact enthusiastic enough, and she can base that on her future feelings. “But did you enthusiastically scream yes?” her friends will ask, which is more than the police or the public will subsequently ask of her.

Women side with women. Whiteknights, weak Betas and naive Blue Pill fools side with women. Everyone agrees women are right and men are wrong.

And this is the intended result: women are not to be held responsible for their actions. They are not to be held responsible at any cost – including the destruction of male lives.

I presented this point in Men and Suicide, but just to recap, on a subconscious level women will always seek to absolve themselves of complicity in men’s personal destruction. This extends from destroying mens lives due to regrets over not optimizing Hypergamy, to any concern over men committing suicide. At present, women are attempting to reconcile ‘bad sex’ with ‘inconvenient sex’ they have in spite of themselves. However, the same absolution of any inherent complicity in this ‘transactional’ sex ends with blaming men for women’s lack of agency or self-moderation:

Bad sex isn’t even necessarily coercive. I’m talking about having a sexual encounter you don’t want to have because in the moment it seems easier to get it over with than it would be to extricate yourself.

Young women say yes to sex they don’t actually want to have all of the time. Why? Because we condition young women to feel guilty if they change their mind. After all, you’ve already made it back to his place, or you’re already on the bed, or you’ve already taken off your clothes, or you’ve already said yes. Do you really want to have an awkward conversation about why you want to stop? What if it hurts his feelings? What if it ruins the relationship? What if you seem like a bitch?

The problem in this rationale isn’t about women changing their mind or feeling guilty – those are excuses for male-initiated victimhood for women and absolve women’s complicity – rather, the focus should be on the fact that women going through with this type of sex presently have the option to ruin a man’s life at any future date by defining it as ‘unwanted sex’. Ella Dawson may not want to conflate transactional, Beta sex as rape, but that’s where this conversation is leading us to.

Is it OK for Alpha Males?

I apologize for forgetting who it was that sent me this link, but the present day #MeToo moral panic combined with notions of “enthusiastic consent” and a resulting atmosphere of fear in intersexual dynamics was predicted as far back as 2004, and by a woman no less:

Sexual harassment is a crime committed by beta-males who think they can get away with alpha behavior. But that is a distinction too delicate for the blunt instrument of the law. How do you explain to a judge why one man’s comedy is another man’s bone-chilling lechery? And can we really expect the beta-males themselves to understand the difference?

I found this article very prescient about our present moral panic. In the last two posts I’ve made the case that what were finally seeing on a social scale is the consolidation of women’s entitlement to an almost socialistic guarantee of optimized Hypergamy. Through any number of direct and indirect institutions we’ve now virtually guaranteed women a right to Beta men’s resources, protection and provisioning as well as a dominant social status above them both at home and in the workplace. Whether overtly or covertly, women dominate Beta men; the last piece of consolidating Hypergamy is then the (at least partial) control of Alpha Fucks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/7kpmwa/dangerous_times_part_1/drhirym/

As we move into 2018 – an era to be defined even more thoroughly by the Future is Female, #MeToo and Enthusiastic Consent – I believe we’ll see a push for the following:

  • Sexual harassment will indeed be a crime committed by Beta males who fail at a convincing ‘Alpha’ behavior. As such the push will be to get Beta men to self-police their behavior via fear. There will be a doubling down on the part of Blue Pill White Knights and ‘Feminist Allies’ in the wake of the social and legal options women will have to be believed of men’s sexual misconduct allegations by default. Feminized men will “try harder” and rat out their rivals for any hint of misconduct in an Orwellian effort to be more appealing and identifying with women.
  • Only confident Alpha men, or men well versed in Game, will be allowed to approach women from a perspective of social acceptability. However, even then it will be a woman’s prerogative to later define that approach or subsequent interaction as harassment if that Alpha doesn’t comply with a woman’s long term security needs, provisioning and parental investment ‘entitlements’. The latent purpose of a suspension of the statutes of limitation for sexual harassment will center on locking down (perceptually) Alpha men in a long term relationship.
  • This new feminine-primary sexual paradigm will further limit Beta men’s sexual access and increase reproduction stress in the few Beta men who don’t pragmatically drop out of the sexual marketplace altogether. This will also reinforce boys/men’s conditioning of loathing their own gender. They will be taught to accept this feminine-primary sexual strategy, as well as the legal restrictions  on his power of choice and his life’s direction as the societal norm.
  • Legal mandates and societal mores will directly and indirectly ensure Beta men’s compliance in all aspects of parental investment in children he was not biologically responsible for, as well as women’s long term security.

Now, more than ever it is imperative that men become Red Pill awakened and see the writing on the wall with a Red Pill Lens. All of this may seem horribly unavoidable, but let me emphasize, it’s not for men who are aware of, and have internalized intersexual dynamics and can plan accordingly.

In the last installment of this series I’ll be delving into some of the larger socio-sexual implications of where we find ourselves today and where I see present day intersexual relations leading us in a larger scale as well as what Red Pill men can do to win at whats becoming a very dangerous game.

 

Band of Brothers

Peterson drops the ball in a couple of forgivable instances here. First, many contemporary studies show that women do in fact enter an estrus state. Secondly, while he is entirely correct about women’s Hypergamy never seeking its own level, he implies here that it is singularly a man’s capacity to produce and share resources that forms the basis for women’s attraction. This is an interesting overlook when you consider how often he’s made reference to how women primarily look for sexual dominance in men. From the Beta Bucks, provisioning, side of women’s sexual strategy, a man’s capacity for production and sharing resources is certainly an attraction cue, but it is only a cue insofar as it applies to women’s long term security needs. From the Alpha Fucks, short term mating perspective, it is a man’s capacity for sexual arousal and his sexual availability to her that is the basis for assessing a man’s SMV.

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Peterson. I count him amongst the greatest minds of Red Pill awareness, however, his analysis is often subject to a Blue Pill conditioning that predisposes him to a default belief in the inherent ‘goodness’ of the female psyche. That isn’t to say women are inherently ‘bad’, but it is to say his objectivity is colored by a want to see the feminine on a pedestal. Peterson tends to pepper in a Blue Pill conditioned masculine ridicule into his observations about men when he’s detailing gender differences and it’s his habit to presume the best from women. He accurately makes the case here for how men are continually driven by an existential crisis when it comes to being accepted by (‘perfectly well-intended’) women in passing on their genetic material, but falls into the trap of believing that women would only, logically, want to breed with men who have good long term prospects for providing and sharing resources. There’s a 30+ year body of evo-bio / evo-psych research that contradicts his presumption.

However, in this instance, Peterson hits upon the fundamental reasoning as to why men are by nature more competitive than women. Over the millennia of human evolution, the stresses of men’s breeding strategies and realities has become hardwired into the male mental firmware, and as such it has selected-for men having a more competitive nature than women. I would go so far as to suggest that competitiveness is a primary aspect of conventional masculinity – and one that requires a constant effort to socialize out of modern males today.

On the female side we have to consider how women evolved, socially and psychologically, in hunter-gatherer, foraging tribes, and how the environmental stress of maintaining a social collective shaped women’s mental firmware. It’s my belief that women’s intense need for long term security (as well as Hypergamous doubt) is directly descended from the need to hedge against the environmental uncertainties of our evolutionary past. The rigors of gestation, carrying a child to term, child birth and then rearing that child to puberty – all while gathering food and resources and defending that child and the collective against external (and sometime internal) threats selected-for women with a collectivist / cooperative mental firmware. While the men of the tribal society were off hunting game or defending the tribe, it would follow that women would develop a more unitary, collectivist social order of intrasexual cooperation in order to survive and, as Dr. Peterson points out, ensure that the genetic material of the men they selected (or were selected by) survived for posterity.

In several essays, and in my latest book, I describe women’s natural social order as the Sisterhood Über Alles. That is ‘women above all else’, and from an evolved psychological perspective this solidarity, collectivism and cooperative bent is the mental vestige of an evolution that demanded women to be so in order to survive. Evolution doesn’t care how women breed and survive, just that women breed and survive. Flash forward to modern times and we see women of every and any social, political, religious and racial stripe preempt any conviction inspired by them with the concerns of womankind.

There are several studies that indicate that collectivism is a characteristic of women’s mental firmware. When presented with the distribution of a common wealth (or resource) it’s women’s predisposition to mete those resources out to the familial, feminine-primary social group (tribe) in as even a distribution as possible, or by an individual’s most pressing needs. Again, this is convincing evidence of a mental framework that leans towards a collectivism that finds its roots in our evolutionary past.

This fundamental prioritizing of the survival, needs and best interests of women as a collective is what now forms the basis of, and drives, what I commonly refer to as the Feminine Imperative. And from the Feminine Imperative, combined with a male-permissive social structure that has allowed for women’s social primacy, we have largely developed into a feminine-primary social order that is founded on the evolved, collectivist social structure that women’s mental firmware naturally predisposes them to.

Collectivism, socialism, is a fundamental aspect of the female psyche. In a social order that prioritizes female interests above all else we see the rise and perpetuation of an egalitarian equalism that finds its roots in women’s natural predisposition for collectivism. I would argue here that the egalitarian equalism we contend with today is really a convenient cover-term for female social primacy, and one that is a result of women’s collectivist nature.

Male Dominance Hierarchies

As Dr. Peterson briefly details in this clip, it is primarily men’s performance burden (and a man’s capacity to share the fruits of it) that has historically been the basis of women’s selection criteria for the long term provisioning aspect of women’s Hypergamous natures. And as I mentioned, this only covers half of what makes for women’s true assessments of men’s sexual market value. DNA mapping of our foraging ancestors reveals the real story about the importance sexual arousal and strategic pluralism played in women’s sexual selection. Historically, only 20% of men bred with 80% of women. If we only look at this fact from Peterson’s perspective we’re left to conclude that this 20% looked like good long term prospects with resources to share, rather than consider the uglier side of Hypergamy and women opportunistically breeding with the best physical specimens they had access to and, proactively or retroactively, cuckolding the ‘good provider’. The mental schema of mate guarding didn’t develop in a vacuum – there are very good evolutionary reasons why men developed a subconscious, peripheral sensitivity to the behaviors that indicate women’s ovulatory phase.

Hypergamy doesn’t care, but it did indeed play a part in the evolution of men’s dominance hierarchies as Peterson suggests. Whether the criteria for selection was physical prowess or provisional prowess, the breeding pressures placed on men by women’s sexual strategy is responsible for a great deal of what we consider the male nature and conventional masculinity itself. While it may be a pleasant fiction for men to apply terms like strength and honor and fidelity to male-kind, those concepts exist outside the evolved male-competitive nature. Kings and emperors had breeding rights to harems while their subjects, by order of degree, had sexual access to progressively diminishing opportunities with women.

One aspect I think Peterson didn’t get around to explaining in this clip is that women have only had unilateral sexual selection opportunity in the past century due to the social and physical unfettering of Hypergamy. Being a king may’ve meant that man had more breeding opportunities than that of his lessers, but it in no way made him the best, or even the willing, choice for the women he bred with. Up until the rise of feminine social primacy, men have always had social, moral, ethical and yes, physical, means of exerting their own control over Hypergamy.

Competitiveness is what defines masculinity for every generation of men. While it may be part of women’s mental firmware to consider the collective first with regard to resource distribution, it is most definitely an evolved characteristic of men to accrue resources in order to be considered a good prospect for women’s long term security needs. When we consider the criteria women have in order for a man to represent an optimal Hypergamous prospect, it makes pragmatic sense that an innate competitiveness would be part of men’s psychological firmware. Nature would select-for a natural competitiveness in men. As such we observe that men consider merit and performance first in distributing resources (rewards) in order to recognize, in theory, an exceptionality in men. Even if it is within our selfish-gene nature to want to retain as much for ourselves (and thus make ourselves better prospects for Hypergamous optimization) we still recognize merit, or lack of it, in men’s burden of performance.

So, with regard to the bigger societal picture, what we’re seeing in our egalitarian equalist social experiment of today is not just a conflict in men and women’s social approaches, but also a fundamental conflict in which sex’s sexual strategy will be the socially predominant one. In a social sense it is a conflict in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution the answer has been clear; it is women’s sexual strategy that has been allowed to define our social order.

Brotherhood

Jack Donovan had a great post back in February titled We are not Brothers. I entirely cosign his sentiment in this essay – today men bandy around the term Brother without really considering the deeper implications that true, in-group, exclusively male, brotherhood entails. It’s a good essay, but I think one reason Jack is sensitive to the term losing its meaning is due to the efforts the Feminine Imperative has made in destroying men’s understanding of conventional masculinity. It’s deliberate, so Brotherhood means whatever the feminine feels comfortable in allowing it to mean, and it can effect control over its significance for as long as it can continue to confuse men about the sacrificial nature of conventional masculinity.

Men’s dominance hierarchies and breeding strategies predispose men to maverick independence (sigmas) or intrasexual rivalries within a fraternal group (tribes). Men’s collective, cooperative social structures – traditionally, exclusive male spaces – existed in spite of this intrasexually competitive nature. Even amongst the most steadfast, cooperative and loyal of brotherhoods there will always be intrasexual rivalries for breeding opportunities. And as Jordan B. Peterson notes, it is women’s Hypergamy that gives rise to male dominance hierarchies, but moreover it has led to the necessity for developing an evolved predisposition for men’s being competitive.

It is precisely this competitive mental firmware in men which makes it next to impossible for their to ever be a Brotherhood Über Alles – and in an age where men are shamed for masculinity, an age in which women will force themselves into male space as overseers, an age where men will adaptively define masculinity to mean whatever suits their weakest proficiencies, it’s easy to understand the difficulties in men cooperatively coming together to enforce their own collective best interests as men. In ages past, when masculine cooperation determined the fate of a tribe, a people, a nation, etc. this fraternity was a much more imperative concept for men.

It’s been noted before that in earlier eras formalized monogamy was a social adaptation with the latent purpose of solving men’s evolved imperative to ensure his own paternity. Whether this adaptation was (is) a successful hedge against women’s Hypergamy is debatable, but the relative insurance a man was afforded by formal monogamy was that he could send his genetic material on to successive generations. From an evolutionary perspective, men’s primary existential crisis is reproduction, and in order to successfully solve this problem women’s Hypergamy must be controlled for. As this push for male control superseded women’s imperatives it’s made for a social guarantee that a man would reproduce with a lessened need for competition and a lessened burden of performance for men. While high SMV men were guaranteed reproduction, the monogamy adaptation meant that, theoretically, only the lowliest of men wouldn’t find a mate.

That was the latent socio-sexual contract prior to the Sexual Revolution. Today, we see parallels for this struggle between men and women’s sexual strategies and women’s own social push to unilaterally control and institutionalize Hypergamy. Now the script has been flipped to socially create and enforce a new feminine-primary structure that has the latent purpose of ensuring even the lowest SMV woman can fulfill Hypergamy to a greater degree. Just as formal monogamy sought to ensure men could solve their reproductive purpose in spite of his performance burden, now we have women as the primary beneficiaries of a society structured to, theoretically, ensure they have access to both the best genes (Alpha Fucks) and the best provisioning (Beta Bucks) – all to the point that men are conscripted into doing so.

As women have less and less need of men who can (directly) produce and share resources the concept of masculine cooperation in enforcing their best interests becomes a farce at best, a ‘hate crime’ at worst. The more women can produce and/or consume resources, or conscript men to involuntarily produce and share, the more women lean towards the Alpha Fucks aspect of Hypergamy in prioritizing their sexual selection. As a result, male dominance hierarchies will continue to develop around the short term sexual breeding criteria of women. In the past, as per Dr. Peterson, that hierarchy may have been centered on long term provisioning; today it is all about women’s pleasure in accessing the best genetic material her evolved hindbrain determines is in her best interests.

Yet still we hear women bemoan a lack of marriageable, long term producer/sharers who are their (perceived) status equals or better (always better). The evolved need for that security providing, competent male is still part of her mental firmware, no matter what the social conventions of the Feminine Imperative are telling her conscious self. And in a pragmatic, adaptive response, men will continue to define masculinity for themselves, continue to prioritize short term sexual arousal above long term attraction, and continue to be befuddled or embarrassed by the ideas of forming Brotherhoods with any deeper meaning than what pop culture will define them for men as.

Late edit: Reader Novaseeker had a brilliant observation about the reasons women’s collectivism evolved.

The innate sisterhood, or herd, also arises from the reality that most human tribes were patrilocal and not matrilocal. That is, the core of the tribe was a group of males bonded by kin, and they brought in females from other tribes (trade/conquest) routinely for mating. Thus, the males had relatively high levels of cooperation due to being kin-bonded (not perfect levels of cooperation — rivalries always exist, violence happens in kin bonds as well — but much higher than among non-kin-bonded males), whereas the females had to adapt to cooperate with the other females despite the lack of kin bonds between them as a kind of counterweight to the innate solidarity that the kin-bonded males had vis-a-vis the females. The kind of female sisterhood/collectivism that we see in women evolved, in addition to what you write about, as well from the need to counteract the male solidarity in patrilocal tribes — women evolved to cooperate with other “strange” women in the face of this male solidarity which was based on kin bonds.

A key point of this — and something which explains much of the behavior of women *politically* in the last 200 years or so — is that the context in which this evolved was specifically to counterweigh male power. That is, because females would otherwise have remained weak and isolated in the face of a tribe of kin-bonded males, they evolved this sisterhood/collective mentality specifically to provide a counterweight to male power. This is important, because it’s this specific context in which this mentality comes to the fore most prominently in women, even today. Women can fight and scratch and claw with each other and be bitches with each other incessantly, but when one of them comes into conflict with a man or “with men”, the sisterhood/collective mindset kicks in in high gear, precisely because this is the specific context it emerged to counter. In other words, it’s specifically evolved to offset male power, to counterbalance male power, by forging solidarity between females who otherwise would not have any reason to act like a sisterhood (and who may even dislike each other).

Contemporary feminism is perhaps the most obvious form of this, but it isn’t the only one. The pronounced female in-group preference is another easy to spot one as well. But in any case, a key point to understand is that the sisterhood isn’t neutral — it’s evolved to counterbalance any kind of male power that threatens women’s interests as a group. This is the case even though women haven’t lived in patrilocal conditions for a long, long, long time, and even though contemporary men have no solidarity to speak of at all which could possibly threaten women’s interest as a group. That evolutionary history casts long shadows, and the tendency for women to see men as a cabal acting to control women — when in fact, as we all know, we’re kind of the exact opposite of that — arises from the collective evolutionary memory of adaptations to deal with the very real male solidarity females faced when they were imported into patrilocal male tribes of kin-bonded males.

Competency

A while back reader Looking for Zion had a great comment wondering why it is women seem to have such a preoccupation with complaining to men so much:

Yesterday I was listening to a blogger talking about that Antifa Girl, then I saw a video by Camille Paglia on how women need to stop blaming men. By the time I read this essay I was already wondering, Why do women blame men (for everything)?

I mean, for example, no matter how good women have it here in the US, it’s never enough. They say, “We still have far to go.” What the fuck does that mean? They’ve achieved everything except becoming President and Vice-President – and only failed at that cause the worst possible candidate was put up. They’re astronauts, brain surgeons, CEOs, soldiers, pilots, MMA fighters…. I mean, short of a penis, what are they really missing?

Then I read this essay and it dawned on me: Women are biologically programmed to blame men for any and all perceived failures or shortfalls, because for millennia they have depended solely upon men (at the societal, tribal, and family level) for everything, particularly their very survival.

Whether it’s the nagging wife blaming her husband for her unhappiness, or the feminist harpy blaming men for WHATEVER, it is in female DNA and thus beyond their control to stop blaming “men” for anything they perceive to be wrong (in the absence of men standing firm and telling them to STFU). Males are always the scapegoat because men, until recently, were always the protectors and leaders of the female species.

When I woke up this morning, that realization led me to connect another dot: The patriarchy is not some ephemeral construct, or a male conspiracy. The patriarchy is IN WOMEN’S DNA.

From the time that the first single-celled creatures sprang forth from the waters of the Earth, life evolved toward the creation of homo-sapiens. Billions of years of genetic code formed a male dominant human dynamic that feminists and cultural Marxists have tried to re-engineer for a comparatively measly 50-60 years. But social engineering can NOT overwrite biology.

So good luck trying to “smash the Patriarchy” ladies, because the patriarchy is inside you. It was a survival mechanism selected for over eons. The patriarchy will always be there, like a splinter in your mind – unless and until enough time and genetic mutations have passed after men as a whole have given up and let you completely rule the world however you see fit.

With this, Zion is coming into an understanding of the evolved psychological underpinnings of intersexual relations. Women’s innate predilection to complain is just one aspect of women’s evolved nature that socialization or, if you like, “higher order thinking” finds ways to cover up, but never really change. Whether it’s women’s capacity to move on from a former lover (War Brides), women’s subconscious shit testing for men’s fitness, or the uglier aspects of Hypergamy, the underlying motivators for much of what we dismiss as ‘women just being women’ is rooted in how they evolved to interact with men.

Recently I cam across a video of Jordan B. Peterson explaining the evolutionary logistics involved in women’s sexual selection process. You can watch the video here, but the short version confirms exactly what Zion is coming to realize; the seeds of Patriarchy is literally written into women’s DNA, and by extension into larger human society’s social and intersexual make up.

Women’s sexual selection, women’s Hypergamous sexual strategy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks), is what creates the condition of the male dominance hierarchy. By the social extension of this hierarchy, based on women’s evolved conditions for male Hypergamous acceptability, we see what perceptually looks like Patriarchy. Indeed, this has been the dominant social order – with women creating covert personal and social contingencies to exploit it – up until the time of unilaterally female-controlled hormonal birth control and the subsequent sexual revolution.

As Zion noted, billions of years of genetic code formed a male dominant human dynamic that feminists and cultural Marxists have tried to re-engineer for a comparatively measly 50-60 years. And it’s correct that social engineering cannot overwrite biology. However, that isn’t to say that social and scientific engineering can’t give women more control over their sexual selection process as well as making every effort to absolve them of the responsibilities associated with this new control. If I disagree with anything Peterson asserts in this video it’s that our social order for the last 60-70 years has been one founded on unfettering and insuring women’s sexual strategy and applying the consequences and costs of women’s control over it directly to men. Presently, we live in a feminine-primary social order, but it’s founded on the default presumption of an oppressive, inherently sexist, misogynistic Patriarchy that still clings to a social contract that hasn’t existed since the time of the Sexual Revolution.

Our feminine-primary social order is a reflection of how intersexual dynamics have shifted to favor the female and the female sexual strategy. The male dominance hierarchy and the qualifications of it are still dependent upon women’s evolved Hypergamy, only now, in light of how women have been insured against any real liability for their sexual selection choices, the prioritization of those hierarchal qualifications have shifted. There is still a “patriarchy” created by women’s sexual strategy, but now this male dominance hierarchy is primarily founded on the Alpha Fucks side of the Hypergamous equation.

Evolution of Complaining

The fact that complaining seems to come so natural to women is something we kind of take for granted, in fact so much so that we will make jokes about it and think nothing of it. We can interpret this also from the ‘men display, women choose’ principle. There is an expectation that men will qualify themselves for a woman’s intimate approval – whether or not they do so is irrelevant, it is women’s expectation of performance from men. Men being innate idealists, as well as deductive problem solvers, it only follows that men (majority being Beta) would make their best efforts to solve women’s problems as a primary element of their sexual strategy. The deductive logic is: Solve a woman’s problems and in exchange she will reciprocate with her intimacy.

This, in a nutshell, is what constitutes most men’s Game in their earliest attempts to get with a woman, and really why wouldn’t it? Boys are taught a default deference to “respect” the female sex from an early age. This deference is where the expectation of performance begins, and taken to the extreme it can end up as the Savior Schema and expectations of women reciprocating in Relational Equity. This is where many Betas have their ‘game’ disillusioned for them. They see the guys who do not perform for women in a direct manner being rewarded with intimacy while they are shamed for their ‘Niceties’ – the behaviors they’ve always been taught will endear women to them – and shamed for expecting intimacy in exchange for solving women’s problems.

But really, what is women’s complaining about? The facility with which women will complain to men makes evident their need for security and this security need flows from the provisioning side of Hypergamy. As I’ve said many times before, Hypergamy is rooted in an existential doubt – is this guy the best she can do? It’s important to put this doubt into context though; bear in mind that there are two sides to Hypergamy – short term sexual, genetic optimization (Alpha Fucks) and long term security, safety and parental investment optimization (Beta Bucks). Both sides of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy always have doubt attached to them. And as Zion implied, even when women are assured of security that doubt still persists.

When we consider women’s subconscious need to shit test men we also need to see that women’s complaining is part of her subconscious attempting to reconcile this doubt with a man she’s invested herself in. It is indeed written into women’s mental firmware that men are to be looked to as the problem solvers.

A while ago Deti had a great comment on one of Dalrock’s posts:

Some of the best depictions of shit testing and comfort testing in media are in Mad Men, where Betty brings some concern to Don. Some concerns are serious; some are frivolous and trivial. Almost all the time, Don faces her and says something like “Bets, you’re tired. You’re upset. And it’s all understandable. It’ll be OK. Just go get some sleep, and we’ll figure it out in the morning.” And that’s all Betty needed to hear. Don has it under control. He explains to her what’s going on, and says he (or they) will get it taken care of.

That’s passing comfort tests with flying colors.

A shit test is depicted where Megan (his second wife) is cleaning their apartment in her bra and panties. She taunts him, saying “you can’t have any of this”, while on hands and knees in a clearly sexually provocative position, all the while looking back at him to gauge his response. He then proceeds to pull her to her feet, kisses her, and has sex with her on the living room floor. She willingly submits to him.

That’s passing a shit test with flying colors. And that really is a shit test – she’s being a total bitch to Don and stating a literal challenge to his masculinity. It’s “I’m here, calling you less than a man and depriving you of something we both know you want. You don’t have what it takes to stand up to me. What are you gonna do about it?”

You cannot make a woman “Happy”, however, this does not preclude a woman’s innate need to see you as either a confident problem solver (as in Draper’s exchange with Betty) or a guy who “Just Gets It” (as in the shit test example with Megan). I believe Deti is correct here, but I think we can make a distinction between a woman’s need to test for a comfort versus a shit test of sexual selection.

I would argue that a comfort test comes from women’s deep need for security in a chaotic world. A comfort test, and I would include complaining and nagging in this, is rooted in a woman’s Hypergamous need of certainty and consistency in provisioning. A persistent complaint is really a cry for security and confirmation of a man’s competency. Male dominance will always require a superior competency in virtually all matters. That may not be realistic or pragmatic, but it is the expectation, and this need for competency finds its roots in men understanding and accepting their Burden of Performance.

A shit test, on the other hand, is a challenge of a man’s savvy with regard to reading, interpreting and acting upon a woman’s covert communications of sexual competency. Shit tests, even subconscious or unintentional ones, are initiated to gauge whether a man Just Gets It with regard to a woman’s sexual subcommunications. It is a test designed to determine a man’s Alpha potential and his capacity to push past his social programming and go after (even physically) what he wants sexually – hopefully that’s the woman giving him the indicators. It is a test of a man’s capacity to understand that the Medium is the Message.

One reason that Amused Mastery is such an effective PUA technique is because – when understood and applied well – it serves to satisfy both sides of these tests. It implies competency in both problem solving and sexual viability.

Lastly, I should also point out that both of these tests of competency are part of women’s evolved, psychological firmware. Women can certainly deliver these tests with malice, intent and forethought, but as to why these tests would be significant from an evolutionary perspective, only her subconscious is aware of it. Both tests have the latent purpose to establish a man’s competency in either the Alpha Fucks or Beta Bucks aspect of a woman’s Hypergamy.

Surrender

Most of my readers are aware of my stand on the myth of male vulnerability. Weakness is not strength, but the Village of the Feminine Imperative, would have us believe that the more a man displays honest signs of vulnerability the more endearing he’ll be to women. The Blue Pill conditions men to believe that crying, or being more emotionally sensitive, or really anything that makes him identify with the feminine in his personal character is a form of this endearing vulnerability that women can (by appealing to equalist reason) be expected to respect in a man. While adopting this mindset may open a man up to ridicule (and unspoken disgust on the part of women), this is not true vulnerability. The Village might try to convince a man he’s being brave by avoiding conventional masculinity, but this emasculating vulnerability is nothing compared to what a man has to lose from real vulnerability.

What I think most men, certainly all Blue Pill men, miss is that the ultimate form of vulnerability a man can engage in is ‘catching feelings’ for, or emotionally investing himself in, any particular woman. And this is especially so if that man’s Blue Pill conditioning makes him oblivious to the risks of that vulnerability.

Nothing leaves a man more vulnerable in life, love, family, career, finances and really power over the direction of his life than to invest himself in a woman. The very act, the very thought, of surrendering his life’s imperative to the trust that a woman wont exercise the unimaginable control and potential for damage she has in his life is a vulnerability no woman will ever recognize or acknowledge; nor will the sacrifices that come from this vulnerability ever be something she has a capacity to appreciate.

Even in the best case scenarios, where a man’s investment is reciprocated, or a somewhat idyllic relationship grows between a man and a woman, such is the state of our modern sexual marketplace that a potential for a man’s ruin still colors that relationship. Our feminine-primary social order has, through legislation and social pretense, made the proposition of any man navigating the sexual marketplace one of inherent vulnerability. Women rarely understand the vulnerability a man is opening himself up to because our social order makes that potential for his harm invisible to her. In fact, if he resists opening himself up to potential ruin he’s considered to be insecure, and this in turn is attributed to his maleness.

I have no doubt there will be women reading this last paragraph and think, “Well, women are putting themselves at risk too, we have to be vulnerable too.” No, you really don’t. Since the beginning of the Sexual Revolution every potential aspect of vulnerability for women in the SMP has been meticulously compensated for, or insured against the worst. Whether that’s the grossly female-weighted divorce and custody laws, or legal abortion, or arbitrary consent laws that only serve women, or the special dispensation for women academically or vocationally, any and all vulnerability risk is mitigated for you. The emotional vulnerability you believe is so costly pales in comparison to the risk and consequences that vulnerability represents to men. Men commonly have more to risk, more to lose and invest more of themselves into that risk proposition.

True vulnerability, the kind that opens you up to life-destroying consequences, is when a man’s idealism for women, despite knowing all the very likely, very destructive, consequences is something he willfully ignores. For a Blue Pill man, his vulnerability is rarely ever recognized. Thanks to his life-long preconditioning he believes in a romanticism that insulates him from ever acknowledging the risks and the all-downside potential of that vulnerability. This obliviousness – keeping a Beta-in Waiting blind – is a primary goal of Blue Pill conditioning.

Idealizing Surrender

Women would rather be objectified than idealized. The reason for this really gets back to evolved gender differences; women want a man who other men want to be and other women want to fuck. In other words, women want to be the object of desire of a worthy man. When a man surrenders himself to the primacy of the feminine, when he makes a woman his mental point of origin, when he alters the course of his life to accommodate her, that’s when he ceases to be someone for whom she’ll willingly submit to. When she becomes his center he knowingly surrenders Frame.

It is, however, the innate idealism that predisposes men to outward thinking, to the belief in what could be realized, that also predisposes them to idolizing women on whole and idolizing a woman at once. A man’s idealism makes a lot of things possible for him, but it also puts him at terrible risk with regard to being truly vulnerable. Furthermore, men’s fundamental romantic nature is also attributed to our innate what-is-possible idealism. The Feminine Imperative has used this idealism to its benefit for millennia, but the most common (seemingly sensible) utility of it results in men’s surrender of self to the feminine.

When we read through the romantic poetry of the ages – almost all of it written by men – the most common reoccurring theme is that of a helpless ‘surrender’ to the love a man bears for a woman. From Ovid to Shakespeare to Byron the dialog and sentiment is the same; that of the inherent ‘correctness’ of a man surrendering his soul to the love – requited or not – of a woman. If there is a psychological root to the disorder of ONEitis it can be found in this poetic idealism.

However, there is nothing that makes a man more vulnerable to a woman, to the feminine, than his idealist’s nature. The Feminine Imperative knows this thumbscrew of men. One hallmark of the conditioned Beta mind is an eagerness to put themselves into a state of surrender to the feminine. I go into this a bit in Pre-Whipped:

These are the men I call pre-whipped; men so thoroughly conditioned, men who’ve so internalized that conditioning, that they mentally prepare themselves for total surrender to the Feminine Imperative, that they already make the perfect Beta provider before they even meet the woman to whom they’ll make their sacrifice.

But what should predispose men to so eagerly want this surrender? Certainly there’s an element of a (false) belief in the possibility of a mutual concept of love between that man and a (potential) woman. It’s what he believes should be possible.

What else? There’s the pre-conditioned belief that this surrender is his masculine duty. Countless Blue Pill pastors make a living belaboring the narrative that men can’t be Men until they mold themselves over the course of a lifetime to be a (once convenient) a woman’s ideal. Literally, manhood is denied to him until he surrenders to the feminine.

The Family Alpha made this observation last week:

Many men have given the power over their inner self entirely to the women of their lives.

While I completely agree, what I’m wondering is why this need to surrender self is an intrinsic aspect in men? The majority of men (80% Betas) are pre-whipped to expect a need to surrender to the women in their lives. Their abdication is so matter of fact that it becomes something subconscious for them.

Is this a characteristic that separates Betas from Alphas? I’d like to think so, but then a distinction needs to be made between being a Strong Independent Alpha who lives up to a positive, pro-social, conventionally masculine role (despite a world arrayed against it) and the same who, though still respectively Alpha, surrenders his sense of self to the woman he idolizes.

SFC Ton had a great comment about this surrender:

“Women do not really have more power……The first step is to realize that this is indeed the case. Men cede power. Men are taught to cede power. Men look for opportunities to cede power. Women just take advantage of men’s largess. A man does not have to be full on Alpha to get this, or to use it to his best advantage in life.”

One thing to consider is how much power have men ceded and to what effect. The surrender is real, both individually and socially. Reclaiming the power ceded in that surrender will be fought in many different scopes. In The Family Alpha’s article, the concern is two fold: the ceding of a man’s inner self, the surrender of identity to the approval of the feminine, and what the consequences are for men once they reclaim or recreate an identity apart from what he allowed the feminine to create for him.

This a significant thing to ponder for men. One reason I believe men become so despondent, so nihilistic, after some trauma that shook them into Red Pill awareness is that their identity, their sense of self, was a result of this ceding of power to women. They literally do not know what to make of themselves once they are cut free from that paradigm, but moreover they must confront the fact that who they are now (at the time of their unplugging) is, in large part, due to that self-surrender. Prior to their unplugging this surrender may have been involuntary for them, but still perhaps not. Their vulnerability and the true potential of permanent damage from it is put out in the open for them and others to realize.

It’s easy to think of men having difficulty getting over their Exes as in some way damaged. Family Alpha’s point was to encourage men to get back on the horse and back in the game and be competitive again, and that’s what I believe is most beneficial for these men. I also believe that it does men no service to prolong feeling sorry for themselves, but again, that’s part of the process of recreating a man. The risk then becomes a sort of new surrender wherein men drop out and isolate themselves aways from the system that held them and caused them to believe in, and then confront the consequences of their first vulnerability and surrender to the feminine. Isolation becomes their new form of surrender.

However, it’s also important that they recognize the potential for damage that surrendering, that ceding power, to the feminine represents to them. Red Pill aware men should acknowledge that their real vulnerability will be implied in any relationship they enter into beyond a perfunctory pump & dump. That knowledge should be a source of power that prevents them from overextending themselves once again into surrender to the feminine. They are aware now and that awareness now implies a responsibility to it. It demands that they keep their heads out of the sand and make calculated risks according to that awareness.

Your new Red Pill self has no more excuses of ignorance – your life’s been handed back to you with the full knowledge of the system you’re a part of.

No surrender.

The Utility of Beta Men – Part II

Before I get started today I thought I’d relate a few things to think about from the first installment of this series.

No Neutral Balance

Reader Boxcar had a pertinent comment on last week’s thread:

Frankly, losing the “beta” qualities would make it difficult to live a happy, successful and fulfilling life. But they have become stigmatized because they are associated with men being used by women.

I used to lock horns about the necessity of Beta traits with Athol Kay on Married Man Sex Life back before women took over his messaging. The problem with this idea is that 80%+ of men in a feminine-primary social order, that has systematically engineered a majority of men to be predominantly Betas, possess all these Beta behavioral and psychological attributes in spades.

As such, there will always be a gross overemphasis on the value of those aspects. I don’t believe in a balance of Alpha to Beta traits. It’s my opinion that men should make Alpha traits their predominant, default set, only expressing Beta traits as necessary to maintain a minimum comfort level – and even then, this comfort level should only be apparent to reinforce a necessary anxiety level for a woman’s continued interest in a man.

Also, I believe there needs to be a distinction between Alpha and Beta behavioral sets and Alpha and Beta mindsets. Most men today are raised into a Beta mindset and this manifests in their behaviors. Vice versa for Alpha mindsets. However, that isn’t to say that a man of a predominantly Alpha mindset can’t deliberately display a Beta attribute in order to serve his own ends. Same with Beta men displaying a Alpha attributes. The problem with this lies in what is congruent with the overall perception of that man’s status to a woman.

In the case of the Australian guy whom Goldmund schooled in last week’s post, the woman already had a preconceived understanding that his mindset was that of a Beta. Had he displayed some brief “flash of Alpha” it would’ve seemed inauthentic and incongruous with her preconception. However, going from an Alpha preconception to a brief “flash of Beta” can be endearing and affirming for a woman.

Ergo, there is no neutral balance of Alpha and Beta that a woman will ever find attractive in a man. His mindset and behaviors must be predominantly and consistently Alpha to hold her Hypergamous sexual and relational interests. While occasional, strategic and brief expressions of a Beta-like trait are necessary for comfort, there is no advantage in a man trying to maintain some equilateral balance of Alpha to Beta, and if anything it only serves to confuse a woman about her estimate of your status. Moments of Vulnerability can be reassuring for women, but only when that vulnerability is uncharacteristic for a predominantly Alpha man.

Relational Equity

One very common hindbrain presumption most well-trained Betas have is a that their emotional, financial and loyalty investments in a woman will be appreciated and reciprocated by the women they invest in. This ‘pre’-sumption is integral to a mindset founded on the old books social contract. Beta men’s approach to intimacy going in already expects a woman to appreciate his investing in her as some quality that sets him apart from “typical guys who just want to bang her”.

So, when when a guy like Goldmund effortlessly seduces the woman that Aussie Guy has been investing so much into (like all-expense paid trips) it represent two very frustrating realities for him. The first, as I mentioned, is the destruction of his ego-investment in his old books mindset. The second is the sense of loss of so much relational investment he was trying to figure out how to get a return on. All of the preconditions he believed were necessary to get this woman’s intimacy are tossed out of the window when Goldmund arrives and she willingly and (to him) unconditionally becomes sexual with him.

He believed he had to earn her sex, but in no uncertain terms, along comes a guy who did almost nothing to earn it and she reflexively responds to him with sex. In prior posts I’ve proposed that women will break rules for Alpha men while creating and imposing new/more rules for Beta men to access her sexuality. I would expand this to say that Beta men will, via their preconditioning, impose those rules upon themselves before they even meet a woman with whom to invest themselves in.

The presumption of relational equity comes before a Beta even has a woman to invest in. This is the source of Aussie guy’s frustration. I covered this dynamic in Prewhipped and Betas in Waiting.

Giving Value

Commenter Trent Lane had an excellent insight about what ought or ought not to be a Red Pill aware man’s duty to his fellow, unenlightened Blue Pill man.

Ethic responsibilities in a red pill paradigm for those who are not in it is an interesting concept. If we all accept Red Pill principles like Hypergamy, AF/BB and so on as truth (which most of us do, since we‘re here) and as you advance in Game you see, know and can do more with social and intergender dynamics than 99% of the men around you.

You can use this for destruction and mayhem. You can use this to selfishly get your needs met with zero fucks given about anyone. Or you can use it to get your needs met AND give value to the people you interact with.

The question is, why should you?
The answer is, aside from metaphysical reasons like religion, Karma and so forth, in which you can chose to believe or not: you mainly do it for yourself.

By fucking others up this way you fuck yourself up. Is it possible to go down the route of destruction this way with zero fucks given about anyone and lead a happy, fulfilled life long term? Probably for some. More likely you‘ll end up fucked yourself, without purpose, unable to ever satisfy your raging narcissistic urges, burning out and getting more and more shallow as you chase the next kick.

Giving value makes you happier than taking value. It sounds corny like a cliche, but if long term happiness in life is your concern, it‘s true.

I’m going to jump off here because this comment speaks to what I want to cover next in this series – dealing with Blue Pill men in a Red Pill aware man’s life. Just as I’m inclined to tell guys of the MGTOW persuasion that there really is no exiting the game, so too is it next to impossible for the Red Pill aware man to insulate himself from having to deal with, work with, relate to, men who are thoroughly invested in a Blue Pill defined existence.

In the first part of this series I mentioned how Blue Pill orbiters are often an untapped resource of social proof for a Red Pill aware man. Sometimes all it takes to stand out in the crowd is to simply allow the mediocre to display their status and be ready to capitalize on it. It’s like the part of Game where once you get to attraction all you have to do is not fuck things up. That’s not to say Game doesn’t take effort, it does, but when you have a connection with a woman who herself has orbiters’ attention in spades it easy to see that her attraction cues and ego are built around quality not quantity.

I also mentioned in last week’s essay that actively AMOGing these guys can actually be counterproductive to Game. Women may not ever want to bang their orbiters or really have them mean anything more that easy attention, but on the same note they likely don’t want to have anything too cruel happen to them. Fortunately there are ‘lightest touch’ ways to use these guys’ inability (or willful rejection) to really embrace Red Pill awareness to your advantage if you have the art. There’s a tendency to want to help these orbiters, but I would say the real test is having the confidence to use them as SMV comparisons. Adopting an Amused Mastery with an orbiter is one such method – building social proof by artfully pointing out their Beta Game strategies. The risk you run is women taking this as arrogance on your part, at first, until that Beta confirms your measured analysis of him.

Betas at Work

One of the most arduous aspects of modern work life is having to cooperate with well-conditioned Blue Pill men. God forbid you have a business partner or a boss with whom your financial wellbeing depends. I would argue that the single most dangerous environment in which to attempt to ‘help’ a Blue Pill man with Red Pill awareness is in the workplace. For all the talk of mythical “glass ceilings” and back room boys clubs, modern corporate culture has been at the mercy of the Feminine Imperative’s influence for several decades now. This social environment was a Male Space that was invaded long ago by feminine-primary interests, but for the sake of this discussion I’d have readers consider the following: imagine a Blue Pill conditioned Beta who’s been educated and acculturated in feminine primacy (as equality) for the better part of his lifetime. Now, take that guy and put him into a workplace social structure, steeped in feminine-primary work laws, HR departments and corporate bylaws (all designed to avoid charges of endemic workplace sexism). Finally, base that man’s livelihood, the health of his marriage and the future wellbeing of his children on how well he adheres to that feminine-primary office culture and you get a guy who’s a veritable time bomb for any Red Pill aware coworker.

This reminds me of a great article in the Telegraph about how men are so afraid of sexual harassment accusations they resist the urge to extend the most basic courtesies to women in the workplace.

Elsesser cites examples of men who have been dragged in by their HR departments for simply opening a door for a female colleague or complimenting her on a new suit. “Stories like these spread around workplaces, instilling a fear that innocent remarks will be misinterpreted,” she says.

The upside to this situation is that a Red Pill savvy man can use the predictable foreknowledge of how a Blue Pill colleague will respond to various workplace circumstances to his advantage. While it may be prudent to accommodate that guy’s Blue Pill mindset at work, it also presents some opportunities to use Red Pill awareness and Game in a context that can advance your career. Female bosses are still female, and as noted earlier, the same dynamics you can use to ping social proof from a Blue Pill orbiter can similarly be used with a Blue Pill coworker and a female supervisor.

If you know a guy is trapped in a Blue Pill marriage, odds are he’s in a dead bedroom situation. If he’s got kids, especially a newborn, it’s fairly easy to predict his life priorities based on what we know of his Blue Pill mindset. Happy wife, happy life is probably his ego-investment. There’s quite a lot you can read from a Blue Pill coworker or supervisor, and as a Red Pill aware man, this puts you at a strategic advantage in the workplace. As such you are not at the disadvantage he is and can opt in on work opportunities his mindset and his life’s resultant conditions wont permit him to.

As a side note here, I should also mention that being Red Pill aware has various advantages in dealing with women in the workplace too. In the same vein as the Blue Pill supervisor, it’s important to get a ‘read’ on a female boss and how she interacts with male and female subordinates. Corporate culture is often the most visceral teacher when it comes to understanding intrasexual competition amongst women. However, as a Red Pill aware man we can also apply our predictive Red Pill Lens towards what most women in the workplace are experiencing in their lives. We know the common dissatisfaction professional women experience when it comes to their personal lives. We also know that even the married ones are likely to be discontent with husbands whom they can never feel comfortable in submitting themselves to – especially after 8-10 hours at an office where lesser men must submit to her and the greater men she is beholden to don’t see her as anything but an instrument for their own success. The trick is using this tactical understanding to your own benefit by getting inside their heads and making female nature work for you.

So, after all this we’re left with a few of considerations. The first is the degree of calculated risk a Red Pill man is comfortable in taking with a Blue Pill colleague. Even if the guy is a personal friend, there is always a risk that using your Red Pill Lens with him can backfire on you. There’s only one thing worse than a woman scorned and that’s a deeply committed Blue Pill guy who’s just had his mindset used against him by a superior player. Most will pass it off as the result of an unfair life, but others, the less stable Blue Pill guys, they can have an explosive potential.

Then there is the ever present ethical considerations that will always dog this question – should you do it? If Goldmund’s story from last week’s essay was an object lesson in mate poaching it was also a subjective lesson in the ethical consideration of it too. Much of what constitutes attractiveness in men to women is found on the Dark Triad personality traits. Sometimes Red Pill awareness and Game application gets called an education in psychopathy. Having written about Red Pill awareness for as long as I have, I know there’s far more to this, but to an initiated reader, one steeped in Blue Pill conditioning, I fully understand why it would look like psychopathy.

Now the question is, does a Red Pill man use his awareness to his advantage outside of the intersexual realm? In the case of using it with a female supervisor that might be an easy, yes, but in the case of using a Blue Pill man’s handicap of his mindset that answer may be subjective by order of degree. Even if there is no malice involved, and even if just by fact of having that awareness, a Red Pill man has a distinct advantage over men given to a Blue Pill belief set and their resultant life conditions.

So the question might be, are we our Beta brother’s keepers? Do we have an obligation to give Blue Pill men value or does that idea end where that man’s capacity to accept what Red Pill awareness offers him end? Obviously I have two books and five and a half years of blog posts all written with the intent of ultimately unplugging Blue Pill men and making them aware of the true nature of intersexual dynamism. My purpose has always been to give men the tools they need to do that, but is it my obligation to do so?