Biomechanics

Transitioning

As most of my readers know I’m presently editing the final draft of my third book. A very large part, almost a third, of this new book will be dedicated to Red Pill Parenting. I’ve written several series-posts about parenting from a Red Pill perspective and I felt it was an important enough topic to deserve a category itself in my sidebar links. I’ve expanded significantly upon these essays in the book as well as adding more material and some general advice for Red Pill aware men in their parenting efforts.

One thing I’m asked of from men who are Red Pill aware fathers is what to look out for and what to apply themselves to in raising a son or daughter using a Red Pill Lens. While prospectively it will give women some parenting insights, I’ve written this section with the intent of informing men about what they can expect from a feminine-primary social bent on conditioning a man’s children to assimilate to a Blue Pill mindset.

Without giving too much away, I’ve tried to express the dangers of a system of feminine-primary acculturation that contributes to what we term ‘Blue Pill Conditioning’ in the manosphere. What defines a ‘Blue Pill‘ mindset means different things to different men, but what conditions him to literally think, and invest his ego into that feminine-primary identification is initiated at a very early age. One thing I think gets lost on guys becoming Red Pill aware is just how much of his very natural-feeling sense of self is the result of a conditioning that’s taken the better part of his lifetime to develop in him.

The main reason I began developing a Red Pill parenting dialog is because it’s vitally necessary for Red Pill fathers – really any father with a sense of conventional masculinity – to come to terms with how his sons’ and daughters’ upbringing will be defined by what I call ‘The Village’ in the book. I coined this from the popular meme that “it takes a village to raise a child”, and the Village we have today is one that is dead set on instilling and normalizing a state of deliberate gender confusion – and hopefully perpetuate that state into a person’s adulthood.

The Village

This Village is a catch-all term and I mean to have it represent all of the influences a child receives in its upbringing that contributes to its Blue Pill sense of self. This includes the influences of media, popular entertainment, academia, their pre and grammar school education, popular culture that actively seeks to instill its own ideological base, etc. These are fairly recognizable sources of the Village’s systemic influence, but it’s also important to understand that this influence will be reinforced by your child’s peers, their Village family and relatives.

‘The Village’ will raise your kids if you don’t. You will be resisted, you will be ridiculed, you will be accused of every thought-crime to the point of being dragged away to jail for imparting Red Pill awareness to them (in the future I expect it to be equated with child abuse). The Village will teach your boys from the most impressionable ages (5 years old) to loath their maleness, to feel shame for being less perfect than girls and to want to remake their gender-identity more like girls – to the point that transitioning their gender to girls’ will be the norm.

The Village will raise your daughters to perpetuate the same cycle that devalues conventional masculinity, the same cycle that considers a father’s presence as superfluous and their sacrifices as granted expectations. It will raise your daughters to over-inflate their sense of worth with unmerited confidence at the expense of boys as their foils. It will teach them to openly embrace Hypergamy as their highest personal authority (publicly and privately) and to disrespect anything resembling masculinity to be less than some silly anachronism or reverse it into being all about men’s insecurities.

The good news is that for all of these efforts in social engineering, the Feminine Imperative is still confounded by basic biology and the psychological firmware evolved into us over millennia. That basic root reality is your greatest advantage as a father. If there’s one underlying truth upon which to base your parenting it’s this; children are still motivated by evolved influences that are relatively predictable. Begin from the root truth that we evolved our psychology and our behaviors from intergender complementarity that made us the preeminent species on this planet. It takes a global Village to distort this by teaching failed notions of egalitarian equalism.

Useful Tools – Blue Pill Fathers

Although the Village would assert its influence to be the primary one in your child’s life, and although it would have women believe that father’s are both necessary when convenient and superfluous, father’s are not without their uses. The Feminine Imperative (by way of the social system of the Village) needs fathers to help reinforce its feminine-primary influence in their children’s lives. Thus, Blue Pill fathers must also carry the feminine-primary water in their parenting. They must be taught to believe that parenting a daughter is preferable to parenting a son:

I realize that everything I could do with a boy I can do with my daughters (i.e. play basketball, teach them how to throw a punch, and play in the dirt). Yes, I know that’s a big fat “duh” for many of you, but I’m a recovering knucklehead with minimal relapses, so please humor me. And yes, I’m going to teach them much more than those three things – but I promise you that I will teach them those three things.

The Feminine Imperative needs men to constantly reaffirm the fallacies of egalitarian equalism, but it is The Village that needs a father to instill them into the minds of their own flesh and blood as well as those of other fathers. The meme is always a pretense of gender-neutral equity, but the latent purpose is one of devaluing the very existence of boys, and, by extension, conventional masculinity.

And this is the crux of the effort to enlist fathers in the system of the Village; masculinity and maleness are always portrayed as problems to be solved – the solution always being more feminine identification. The main goal of the Village is to destroy and redefine conventional masculinity in a way that only benefits the feminine.

I realize that being “girly” is just a myth. What does that mean, anyway? Would my kid be less girly if she dressed up as Spider-Man for Halloween instead of a princess? (and that’s exactly what she did, by the way). Would she be less girly if she wanted to tackle little boys on the football field instead of taking ballet classes? Not to me.

This is precisely the degree of gender obfuscation the Village requires fathers to endorse. The squid ink here is the idea that masculine and feminine, boys & girls, male and female are all one, undifferentiated whole; in fact the old ideas of gender differences that brought the human race to where it is today, we are taught, were nothing more than “myths”. The underlying note is that girls are the functional equals of boys, but girls have the social and sexual advantage of being female.

The social narrative of the Village, the one it needs fathers to internalize and parrot back, is one of Fempowerment, but simultaneously one of male disempowerment. The idea then evolves into a sense of conventional masculinity being a defect of men; men are just unperfected women who are in need of women (or their daughters’) innate correction.

The idea here is that men with daughters make for better men” as defined by the Feminine Imperative and approved by The Village. What Red Pill fathers need to acknowledge in this that their sons will be taught that their maleness is inherently flawed. All of the attributes and evolved instincts that make him a boy will be connected with his masculinity being “toxic”.

“Toxic Masculinity” or “Hyper-masculinity” are common tropes in the Village. We’ve gotten to a point that any form of traditional, conventionally masculine behaviors are now equated with a character flaw in men. So thoroughly has the Village distorted the old books definition of manhood that anything resembling a characteristically masculine behavior is, by default, an act of ‘hyper’ or “over-the-top” masculinity. This, of course, makes characterizing those acts as toxic, or ridiculous.

The Preferred Gender

In my essay, Environmental Stresses I added this quote from the book The Red Queen:

Contrary to popular belief a preference for boys over girls is not universal. Indeed, there is a close relationship between social status and the degree to which sons are preferred. Laura Betzig of the University of Michigan noticed that, in feudal times, lords favored their sons, but peasants were more likely to leave possessions to daughters. While their feudal superiors killed or neglected daughters or banished them to convents, peasants left them more possessions: Sexism was more a feature of elites than of the unchronicled masses.

[…]Lower down the social scale, daughters are preferred even today: A poor son is often forced to remain single, but a poor daughter can marry a rich man. In modern Kenya, Mukogodo people are more likely to take daughters than sons to clinics for treatment when they are sick, and therefore more daughters than sons survive to the age of four. This is rational of the Mukogodo parents because their daughters can marry into the harems of rich Samburu and Maasai men and thrive, whereas their sons inherit Mukogodo poverty. In the calculus of Trivers-Willard, daughters are better grandchildren-production devices than sons.

These quotes are a part of a much more in depth look at how both environmental and social stresses contribute to a ‘preferred gender’ dynamic in both animal populations and human social structure. As I was reviewing this book recently it hit me how western cultures have blatantly been endorsing ‘female’ as the preferred gender for the past 60-70 years now.

I realize this assertion grates on popular culture’s sensibilities when it comes to gender, but as I stated in that essay, at no other time in human history has it been more advantageous to be female than today. Whether you want to argue that assertion from socioeconomic, education, gender identity, social ‘progress’ or any other metric, women in this era enjoy a condition that places their sex as the primary one in terms of social advantage. Women today live in a social condition that advantages, ensures their relative successes and directly or indirectly provisions for their personal security while simultaneously seeking to handicap being male and ridiculing the conventionally masculine.

In many a prior essay I’ve made the assertion that this effort in feminizing boys – in “perfecting” them with feminization – has been a long effort in social engineering. And while I still believe this is true, I think that in recent years the adaptive response to this preferred gender dynamic for Blue Pill fathers, men and boys is now an effort in socially engineering boys to imagine their gender identity as being transitionable to that of girls. Needles to say this push for gender self-reassignment has been embraced by the Village.

Olivia loves Disney’s Frozen princesses, all things sparkly, bright tights and ballet. During her family’s Cuban vacation last summer, she danced in the children’s “mini-disco” before the evening shows, twirling and leaping across the stage. One night another guest turned to her parents, exclaiming, “Your daughter is the girliest girl I’ve ever seen!”

Olivia was born a boy.

She “socially transitioned” from male to female, in nursery school last year. She was four years old.

Today, she attends kindergarten at a Montreal primary school. Only her teachers and the school board know she is transgender, for now.

Olivia (not her real name to protect her identity) is part of a growing phenomenon that is being celebrated but which is also raising strong emotions: an increasing number of children as young as preschoolers appearing at gender identity-clinics across the country, convinced they are of the opposite sex.

The new push to normalize transgender acceptance relies solely on the presumption that gender identity is a social construct rather than influenced by biological, and evolved psychological dynamics inherent in both sexes. The idea again comes back to the egalitarian presumption of a blank-slate equalism and a rejection of gender as a binary determination. Yet in over 90% of transgender identity shifts we see it is boys who opt to “become” female in their self-reassignment. Left to their own non-abstract decision making – and reinforced by Blue Pill parents and the Village – boys will, in the binary, shift to a female / feminine gender identity in overwhelmingly greater numbers than girls shifting to a male / masculine identity.

I would argue that this greater transgender preference for boys is a direct result of the Preferred Gender dynamic and reinforced by the Village conditioning boys for it while normalizing the idea of it in a larger cultural respect. This is the next step in cultural feminization of boys and men that began in the touchy-feely days of men needing to “get in touch with their feminine sides.”

It is no longer enough for boys just to be educated in a feminine-correct manner. It is no longer enough to teach them to despise the gender they were born into, “hoping their penises will fall off”, and it’s no longer enough to condition them to defer to girl’s perfectness. Boys must literally be transitioned to be girls from as young an age as 4 years old.

This is the degree to which the Village and the Feminine Imperative will go to condition future men into a Blue Pill mindset. I outline this in the upcoming book, but this is vitally important for Red Pill fathers to understand because these will be the ‘boys’ they may eventually need to mentor and unplug from their very early psychological damage. Many voices in the manosphere call this damage child abuse and it’s easy to understand why; this damage works on a boy’s most intimate part of his sense of self.

Red Pill fathers need to recognize this perversion of conventional masculinity for what it is and protect their sons (as well as daughters) from it while still anticipating the fall that will result from the “men” this re-engineering of gender will create.

 

Environmental Stresses

unravel

If there’s one Google search term that’s become synonymous with The Rational Male it’s the word ‘Hypergamy’. Seriously, Google it.

If you listen to my seminar lecture from the Man in Demand conference from last year (sidebar), you’ll get why I believe that Hypergamy is one of the most important factors driving our feminine-primary social order. I didn’t mention it in the lecture, but when I was writing the outline for that talk I titled my notes ‘Hypergamy; From the Micro to the Macro’. If you consider how women have evolved to be sexual selector or filters for what, on a subconscious level, is really directing the breeding course of the human race it behoves a man to understand the biochemical influences that predispose women to Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks.

One thing I get asked a lot about with respect to the hormonal nature of Hypergamy (ovulatory shift) is that most hormonal forms of birth control predispose women to the Beta Bucks side of Hypergamy because essentially their biochemistry is tricked into thinking it’s already pregnant.

I’ve covered this in the past, but I usually answer this by pointing out that the biological hardware and firmware of a woman still means her sexuality is cyclic while men’s is always-on. It may be that Hypergamy and ovulatory shift are less pronounced in a woman that’s on the pill, and even then women technically go off the pill on their placebo weeks, but the evolved mechanics don’t change. However, it’s no great secret that these mechanics become suppressed in women. This is just the cost of a women’s monopoly on a concealed form of birth control.

Milo Yianopolous generated a predictable outrage with his post Birth Control Makes Women Crazy, but it’s only pushing women’s indignation buttons because all his observations are true.

  • Birth control makes women fat
  • The hormones in birth control alters women’s voices to a sexually disadvantageous tone, evolutionarily speaking
  • Birth control distorts female subcoms that men consider sexy
  • It predisposes women to disregard their evolved sexual filtering mechanisms

There are other bullet points Milo covered in this article, however, the most important one I think ought to be considered here is:

Birth Control Makes Women Choose the Wrong Mates

It’s already established that going on the Pill makes you less attractive to men. But it also affects who you’re attracted to as well. Healthy, fertile women seek out men who are genetically different to them. Women on the Pill do the opposite, seeking out men who are closer to their own tribe.

Now, all that considered, when we introduce a variable like Vasalgel to the social mix it is possible that women’s sexual attitudes will progressively shift to a more natural state when and if the presumption of birth control falls mostly on men. Granted, most women who’re aware of Vasalgel at this point are enthusiastic about it. The common refrain is always the default of shaming men and how it’s about time men shoulder the “burden” of birth control , or how relieved they’d be for not having to remember to take a pill once a day and how they hate how it makes them feel.

This response from women is usually followed by, “But you could never trust irresponsible men to be honest about it, so women will still have to take the pill as a fail-safe for stupid and untrusted men.” So, at least initially, I’d have to be a bit skeptical that women’s birth control-influenced sexual habits and the social mandates that follow from them would be significantly impacted.

However, this also brings us to a point where we should consider how men and women in a monogamous or semi-monogamous state will have those relationships altered by a woman trusting a man enough, or confirming he’s on, with Vasalgel to the point that she abandons her own hormonal birth control. Hypothetically, consider this; a woman who was attracted to that man while under the influence of hormonal birth control now has her biochemistry revert back to a natural state.

There are quite a few studies that posit women’s hormonal birth control may be altering the course of human evolution. I’ve always argued that the root of women’s Hypergamous natures, their manifested behaviors, their sexual selection processes and even the rise of a feminine-primary social order can all be traced to women’s menstrual cycle and the extending behaviors inspired by it.

hormones_menstruation

For a more detailed analysis of how women’s menstruation and ovulatory shift influences women’s sexual natures and, more largely, how it influences Hypergamy, have a look at my essays You Friend Menstruation and Estrus respectively. From these posts, you’ll see that the latter half of women’s 28-day cycle is what I call the “Beta Phase” of women’s breeding preference, while the first 12 to 14 days of her ‘up cycle’ (proliferative phase) while she’s on build up to ovulation is the “Alpha Phase”.

Now imagine here that our hypothetical couple met while the woman had been on birth control for the better part of her adolescent and adult life. Her hormonal profile and subsequently her sexual selection predilections would follow along the line for progesterone in this graph. Thus, it would follow that her selecting this man was influenced by the behavioral set that progesterone predisposes her to – more Beta, more comforting, more rapport, more feminized physical features and more feminine (or feminine-identifying) sensibilities.

Once that guy goes on Vasalgel and affords her with the luxury of not needing hormonal birth control her hormonal profile and subsequent behaviors shift back to what evolution had found successful for women’s breeding for millennia. To put this into perspective, imagine the larger social implications of women shifting back to a natural hormone state. To be sure, this shift would be a gradual process, but as it stands now we have to account for the overwhelming degree of social control women are afforded in western(izing) societies today.

I don’t think it is too far a stretch to presume that the social engineering that’s led to the feminization of men today began around the time unilaterally female-controlled birth control became ubiquitous. I covered this in the Adaptation series of posts, but I think it needs to be added that the social power women wield today came as a result of this first shift towards hormonal birth control and the behavioral and psychological changes it’s wrought in women. Furthermore, men have consequently adapted to accommodate for this power shift as a result women’s shift in breeding strategies.

We now live in an age when women are expected to be Strong Independent® providers for themselves (however that’s achieved) and self-sufficient enough to make men’s provisioning relatively unnecessary, yet the characteristics of a hormonal profile of women on HBC (hormonal birth control) theoretically predispose them towards attraction to men who fit the, as Milo puts it, baby-faced ‘provider’ type.

Now consider that women who have been afforded this social power – power ceded to them from generations of feminized men who adapted to women’s hormonally influenced sexual strategies – shift back to the hormonal profile nature intended for them as a result of widespread unilaterally male-controlled BC. You get, at least initially, new generations of women who have the Beta Bucks side of the Hypergamy equation tied up nicely, but now, likely proudly, women shift back towards the extremes that Hypergamy and ovulatory shift predispose them to.

In the long term this might be good news for conventional masculinity on whole. Less Beta pandering, less ‘get in touch with your feminine side’ bullshit, more much needed male assertiveness, more conventionally male sensibilities and dominance.

Harold posted this in last week’s comment thread:

Women expect men to be dominant, problem is, society gives men no room to express it. You can’t be economically dominant because women can make their own money. Me, for example, I only know of one way to be dominant over a woman and that’s to use my god given physical strength. And I don’t say that as a good or bad thing, just pointing out something that is.

You know, I was on YouTube and I came across a Domestic violence video. And in the comments section, many young women left many of the same comments of “I wanted to leave, but it’s hard to do when you are in love”. And it made me think back over the last 20 something odd years of my life

I used to be the nice, beta provider type. And in every case, the same thing happened. Essentially I was used for what I could provide. Money, favors, a car to give rides. But not once did a girl ever fall in love with me because of the nice things I did for her. Yet at the same time, I see women professing their love for men who beat them.

These experiences have killed the nice guy inside of me and made me view women as objects to be used, especially the more I learn about hypergamy. The only exception, as far as I am concerned is a traditional woman who actively suppresses her hypergamous instincts in favor of the good guy. And shows it by her actions.

The sad truth is that the unleashing of female hypergamy is going to produce more ex nice guys who imitate the users and abusers women show that they want by her actions.

Harold’s experience and later disillusionment is a common one for men in the manosphere. However, what needs to be factored into his awakening is that his experience follows the exact scheme we can expect from women’s HBC influenced Hypergamy. For five generations now, feminized men progressively ‘get woke’ to the fact that what they’ve been taught is expected of them in order to be attractive to women are the Beta Phase attributes inspired largely by women’s hormonal imbalances. It’s when they come to realize, hopefully sooner than later, that those feminized characteristic are a detriment to their own sexual imperatives that this condition is exposed.

It’s important to consider the societal ramification that something like Open Hypergamy (even Open Cuckoldry) will mean in an era when women must look to the most Hypergamously desirable men and seek their approval if they are to breed with them after something like Vasagel becomes commonplace. Presuming Red Pill awareness, combined with women’s hubristic attitudes about Open Hypergamy spread as I believe they will, you will eventually come to a generation of highly desirable men with the awareness, power and the choice to deny undesirable women the satisfaction of their long term sexual strategy.

Whether or not the majority of Beta men will exercise this power is speculative, but the the fact remains that women’s Open Hypergamy will become more and more unignoarable to them and they will have a new determinative power women will have to adapt to and compensate for in their relating with men whom they hope to have children with.

In Milo’s article there’s a very damning comparative study that suggests the rise in U.S. divorce rates coincides directly with the advent of HBC for women.

divorce-pill

Exactly why there is such a close correlation between the rise of the Pill and the rise of divorce rates we can’t say with total certainty, but the relationship is stark. Possible explanations include: a lack of children leading to fewer reasons for couples to stay together, and… all of the items mentioned on the list above.

Though Milo is reluctant to speculate, I would suggest that this stark parallel isn’t the result of less child births (abortion rates are also commensurate with the invention of HBC), but rather it’s a result of the behavioral shifts HBC has worked in women’s breeding strategies paired with men adapting to them (i.e. mass normalization of men’s feminization). I think Milo is too kind in his suggesting a lack of children would lead to divorce, when the uglier truth is that women’s initiating 70%+ of all divorces today is the result of the Hypergamous control HBC empowers women with.

Environmental Impact

In chapter four of the book The Red Queen, Matt Ridley details how environmental factors, particularly social and population environments, have an influence on gender determination for humans and other higher order animals. A lots been written about R and K mating selection strategies in the manosphere so I’ll save that discussion for another post, but what was relevant to me (while I was listening to this chapter recently) was how socially created environmental stresses had an effect on what gender a society preferred a child be born to parents.

Contrary to popular belief a preference for boys over girls is not universal. Indeed, there is a close relationship between social status and the degree to which sons are preferred. Laura Betzig of the University of Michigan noticed that, in feudal times, lords favored their sons, but peasants were more likely to leave possessions to daughters. While their feudal superiors killed or neglected daughters or banished them to convents, peasants left them more possessions: Sexism was more a feature of elites than of the unchronicled masses.

[…]Lower down the social scale, daughters are preferred even today: A poor son is often forced to remain single, but a poor daughter can marry a rich man. In modern Kenya, Mukogodo people are more likely to take daughters than sons to clinics for treatment when they are sick, and therefore more daughters than sons survive to the age of four. This is rational of the Mukogodo parents because their daughters can marry into the harems of rich Samburu and Maasai men and thrive, whereas their sons inherit Mukogodo poverty. In the calculus of Trivers-Willard, daughters are better grandchildren-production devices than sons.

Needless to say, this chapter also covered the ‘one child’ policy enforced by China to address overpopulation and how for every 100 girls there are now 122 boys available. Beyond this, however, was the interesting hypothesis that depending on social and cultural stress present, preference for siring boys or girls has historically come in relation to which gender was more likely to make both the child and its parents’ lives easier as well as pass on its genetic legacy. There is even speculation that evolution has accounted for this in how our biochemistry changes to select for a boy or a girl in a given environment.

It’s an interesting aside to consider that until George Bush senior was in office, all prior Presidents had sons. Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama all have daughters. Granted, this is speculative, but also consider how HBC and the resulting feminine-primary social order since it was invented, has directed our culture to normalize empowering women while handicapping men – all in the name of egalitarian equalism of course.

At no time in history has it been more advantageous to be a woman in western(izing) cultures. Hannah Rosin acknowledged the advancement of women at the expense of men in The End of Men as far back as 2010. I add this here because it outlines the degree to which society has opted for the betterment of women, while simultaneously affirming the idea that men become more feminine since the time of the sexual revolution.

Is it mere coincidence that men have been encouraged to “get in touch with their feminine side”, to identify more like women, to alter their ways of communication to be more female-accommodating, and to redefine conventional masculinity as “toxic” while reinforcing a new feminine-correct definition of masculinity for men? Is it coincidence that 95% of all transgender children are boys being encouraged and affirmed by their parents and teachers to switch to being girls?

And is all of this coincidence in an era when the social condition is one that provides benefits and entitlements to girls; one in which teachers presume a feminine-correct bias in their teaching methods?

This of course is all speculative, but these are unignorable observations about our feminine-primary social order. I’m in no way implying that Vasalgel or its like will alter what already is in our social structure, but I will speculate that women’s physical and paradigm shift back from an HBC influenced mating methodology to a naturalistic one will eventually have larger societal implications.

I believe that the Red Pill men of today will be in the perfect position to exploit this, or to inform the next generations of men how to exploit this shift for themselves.

A Woman’s Prerogative

prerogative

“A woman talks to one man, looks at a second, and thinks of a third.” – Niti Sataka

Reader/Blogger Ian Ironwood had a really on-point comment about last week’s piece that I’d already considered for the next essay to continue this series:

Excellent post, Rollo. It goes without saying that the Pill and liberalized divorce law was the first step on this path, but few appreciate its logical conclusion. Especially feminism, in the face of evolving technology. Pendulums swing both ways, and the reverse can be devastating.

In particular, your discussion of evolutionary biology/psychology and evolving technologies is spot-on. One element many men (and almost all women) do not appreciate is the social change that will erupt when Vasalgel or one of the similar products/procedures is finally authorized by the FDA. For the uninformed, Vasalgel promises ten baby-free years for a man before it breaks down, and can be removed at any point to get a woman pregnant. It works without messing with your hormones by simply shredding the sperm in the vas deferens. It costs about $1000. One time.

The social implications of this are clear: suddenly for the first time in history, a woman would have to seek a man’s permission to have a child with him. This small, subtle shift will have dramatic consequences, especially as we head into the Age of the Herbivore. When all of those egg-freezing women and their younger, more opportunistic sisters can no longer practice rampant reproductive coercion, then the social balance will shift again, and hard. Men who screw without the shredder are not to be trusted and are demonstrably irresponsible…but men with it are impervious to the traditional biological means of ensuring a commitment. Suddenly we are very much on an even playing field, and everything is back on the table. It will take the conscious will and permission of both parties to have a child, and men in that position will find themselves in a far more powerful spot than they have ever been in.

Finding a suitable father for your kid is hard enough, from a female perspective. Finding one who also sees you as a worthy enough mother for his children to make the conscious decision to remove his birth control is going to be much, much harder. And the prospect of starting all over with a new man as her biological viability evaporates is going to be . . . problematic. We’ll see a much more intense emphasis on the Epiphany phase, and a multi-layered cultural panic as competition increases among women across the board.

The cultural freakout will include more-of-the-same “where did all the good men go?” “manbaby” “dropout loser mother’s basement” frustrated criticism of men; which is why it’s important, from a cultural perspective, that there are men articulating our essential cultural position: marriage, as it stands, no longer serves our interests, and we will select only women of the highest quality to raise our children with – mindfully.

It will be interesting to see how it evolves, but I predict this one little fact alone – independent of the other sexual distractions available to modern man, from internet porn to Tindr to prostitution to robotic sex dolls – will put modern feminism and womanhood in general into a crisis. I look forward to your next few parts.

Despite what a handful of new commenters believe, I have written in the past about the dramatic cultural shift that unilaterally feminine-controlled hormonal birth control has meant to Western culture. I started this by addressing the feminine side of the birth control situation in posts like Fem-Centrism (also an important chapter in The Rational Male) because it offers and confirms for Red Pill men so many examples of how the psychological nature of women interacts with their biological natures:

Sexual Revolution

I got into a hypothetical debate with an online friend as to what it would mean to humanity (and masculinity in particular) if a new method of birth control was developed with the specific and unique ability to allow men to control conception to the same degree women were given with hormonal contraception in the mid-sixties. I thought it interesting that human effort could create reliable contraception for women in the 60’s, yet in 2011 we can map the human genome and yet not figure out how to afford men the same degree of birth control?

Put simply, the feminine imperative will not allow this.

Imagine the social and economic damage to the feminine infrastructure if Prometheus gave such fire to Men? Imagine that balance of control veering back into the masculine; for men to literally have the exclusive choice to fulfill a woman’s sexual strategy or not.

The conversation got heated. Men could never be trusted with such a power! Surely humanity would come to a grinding, apocalyptic end if the feminine sexual strategy was thwarted by reliable male contraception. Societies would be sundered, populations would nosedive, and the nuclear family would be replaced with a neo-tribalism dictated by men’s sexual strategies. Honestly, you’d think the discovery of atomic weapons was on par with such an invention.

The ridiculous, pathetic endemically juvenile and perverse masculinity that 50 years of feminization created could never be trusted to further humanity in pursuing their sex’s inborn imperatives.

Yet, this is precisely the power that was put into the hands of women in the 1960’s and remains today. The threat that male contraception represents to the feminine imperative is one of controlling the framework of which gender’s sexual strategy will be the normative. Prior to the advent of female-exclusive hormonal birth control and the sexual revolution that resulted from it, the gender playing field was level, if not tipped in favor of masculinity due to men’s provisioning being a motivating factor in women achieving their own gender imperative. Latex prophylactics were available in the 40’s, and this may have afforded men a slight advantage, but both parties knew and agreed to the terms of their sexual activity at the time of copulation.

Once feminine-exclusive birth control was convenient and available the locus of control switched to feminine primacy. Her imperative became the normalized imperative. His sexual imperative was only a means to achieving her own, and now the control was firmly placed in favor of feminine hypergamy. Whether in the developing world or in first world nations, the onus of directing the course of humanity fell upon women, and thus the feminine reality evolved into what it is today.

Freelove 2.0

It would appear that if all clinical testing goes according to hopes, Vasalgel will be this new form of unilaterally male-controlled birth control. I am, however, cautiously apprehensive about how accessible this breakthrough in male birth control will actually be. From the research I did for this piece, and coming from the usual feminist suspects, you’d think that Vasalgel would be a Godsend for sex-positive feminism. If I’m a bit skeptical it’s because the usual feminist sources are following the same shortsighted emotionalism that put them into virtually total control of the course of the human species.

Naturally, feminism would like to paint Vasalgel as some equalist responsibility for men. Almost every feminist article I read aboutVasalgel had some exasperated variation of “well, it’s about time men were given some responsibility for birth control” and then citing how difficult it was to remember to take a pill regularly. The other refrain was about how women couldn’t wait to get off the birth control hormones that made them fat, moody or just ornery, and how great it would be to have men be responsible for the convenience of their sex lives – more on that later.

But this is more than a bit facetious for women, because it only illustrates women’s (or feminist writer’s) obliviousness as to how male birth control will affect a base of power the Feminine Imperative has enjoyed for over five generations now. The fact that we’ve had female-controlled hormonal birth control, as well as legal, medically safe, abortion since the mid 60s and we’re only now developing/testing a male-controlled alternative in 2016 should speak volumes about our culture’s feminine-primary priorities.

This idea never occurs to women apparently; at least not publicly. Bear in mind all the development for Vasalgel has taken place almost entirely outside of western cultures (India being the test-bed). It could be that Vasalgel is still in its infancy with regard to a feminine-primary public awareness and women are still caught up in the hedonistically entitled mindset that only speaks to convenience in their sex lives. My guess is that not a lot of critical insight has been given as to how, as Ian and myself have explained, a feminine-primary social order would be affected by men’s far greater control of women’s Hypergamous strategies.

The ‘greater good’ of Vasalgel at this stage is all couched in the hope that it will help end unwanted pregnancies. That sounds like a progressive’s idea of a benefit to society, but at this stage what’s being overlooked is how a new technological advancement will immediately and irrevocably alter the direction of our larger culture.

I spoke to this in last week’s article. The rapid advancement of Vasalgel represents the potential of altering the direction of a social order that’s depended on the presumption of a unilateral control of Hypergamy for almost sixty years now. My guess is that once we get closer to realizing the use of Vasalgel as practical birth control for men the more resistance and legislation will be lobbied against it as the idea of what it could mean to the Feminine Imperative starts to sink in.

Her Prerogative

Now, we have to bring the implications of male-controlled birth control full circle here. There’s been a common idiom about women’s ‘right’ to choice for centuries now – a woman’s prerogative; a woman always has the right to change her mind. I actually looked up where this notion first started and it went as far back as (you guessed it) courtly love of medieval times:

Breach of promise is a common lawtort, abolished in many jurisdictions. It was also called breach of contract to marry,[1] and the remedy awarded was known as heart balm.

From at least medieval times until the early 20th century, a man’s promise of engagement to marry a woman was considered, in many jurisdictions, a legally binding contract. If the man were to subsequently change his mind, he would be said to be in “breach” of this promise and subject to litigation for damages.

The converse of this was seldom true; the concept that “it’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind” had at least some basis in law (though a woman might pay a high social price for exercising this privilege, as explained below)—and unless an actual dowry of money or property had changed hands, a man was only rarely able to recover in a “breach of promise” suit against a woman, were he even allowed to file one.

This is another one of those old books ideas that women playing by the new books of modern times still clung to even after the Sexual Revolution. An important part of men’s Blue Pill Beta conditioning is to always defer to a woman’s judgement and choices no matter how duplicitous they may initially appear. Part of the old books social contract was based on a pre-understanding about what was at stake were a man and woman to come together, have sex and potentially bring a child into the world. Prior to the advent of birth control both sexes were on relatively equal presumptions of risk. A woman’s fickleness, duplicity or even prudence made a woman’s prerogative something pragmatic.

Now we move into an era where women have almost unchallenged, unilateral control of the birthing of the next generations of the human race. As I’ve mentioned before, with safe and legal abortion, feminine-controlled birth control, feminine-primary societal norms, feminine-controlled definitions of rape or harassment, and feminine-controlled legislation of men’s responsibility to fatherhood (irrespective of genetic origin) women’s consolidation on power is nearly complete.

All of these bases of social control revolve around a woman’s control of Hypergamy and the complete exclusion of men’s influence on it, beyond his genetic and provisional qualifications to satisfy it. When we combine the old books idiom of a woman’s right to change her mind with the nearly total control of Hypergamy, we see that the more we progress socially the more evident this feminine base of control is.

All social mandates revolve around satisfying women’s Hypergamous doubts, or allaying or justifying the fear of living with the consequences of them. Even in the current Presidential election we see this dynamic in action with the potential for the first female President.

Changes

In the next post in this series I’ll get into how women’s hindbrains struggle to keep up with the immediate rewards of social media and that the advancement of technology that gratifies their evolved psychological natures. However, for this discussion it’s important to understand that the advancements that have led to women’s social primacy of today are still tenuous. Vasagel could be one catalyst that is a game changer; a challenger not just to our intersexual dynamic, but the power hold women retain in directing Hypergamy and putting the direction of human breeding (in a much larger part) in the control of men.

I find it ironic and fitting that the promise of unrestricted sex which men believed they would enjoy with the advent of women’s hormonal birth control is the same rationale I’m reading from women about Vasagel. What they don’t consider is that this new invention will give men a new male prerogative with regard to who they will or will not start a family with.

I understand that in some ‘sphere communities Vasagel is the ‘big fuck you’ to women for have had such uncontested social control for so long, but to them I would advise not to get too elated too quickly. For the most part the socio-psychological infrastructure that conditions men for the Blue Pill will still exist, and there will always be Betas, even ones with the male prerogative that Vasagel implies, who will still defer to the feminine as their only means to sex and intimacy. The Feminine Imperative is nothing if not fluidly redefining itself to work around challenges to it s power. Vasagel may represent a change (assuming men are allowed to have it or can afford it) in our intersexual dynamics, but it will take some time before there is real change in our social dynamics as a result of it.

Stalling for Time

stalled

I was made aware of a trio of rather noteworthy stories last week all of which I found dovetail nicely on topic together. The first was Tweeted to me about the new advent of artificial ovaries and how overjoyed our feminine-concerned social order was that ‘infertile‘ women might have a better chance of conception. The report’s subtitled perspective was, ostensibly, about how making a synthetic home for a woman’s egg-producing follicles could improve fertility after chemotherapy and help women with endometriosis conceive:

Women can become infertile after cancer treatment as the ovaries and the egg-making follicles they contain are vulnerable to chemotherapy, especially for leukaemias, brain cancers and lymphomas. Removing and freezing ovarian tissue beforehand to reimplant after treatment can help women conceive, but there is a risk that this tissue will reintroduce hidden cancer cells.

Call me a cynic, but I think if a woman’s had a cancer serious enough to warrant chemotherapy I’m not sure her capacity to conceive a child is really her most important concern. A noble reasoning to be sure, but another paragraph down and we get to the real reason for the excitement:

“It may be used by women who want to delay having babies or postpone the menopause“

The method could benefit other women, too. “When fully developed, this technology may be used in women who want to delay having babies for social reasons, or who want to postpone the menopause,” says Claus Andersen at the University Hospital of Copenhagen, Denmark.

Ah yes, the Holy Grail of bioengineered gender equalism – a safe and effective means of perpetuating a woman’s fertility well beyond all reason and concern for healthy parenting would otherwise mandate. Nowhere is it mentioned, or are we to politely consider, that women’s real reasons for wanting a safe way to extend their fertility has less to do with ‘infertility’ concerns and a lot more to do with their difficulties in optimizing Hypergamy.

Earlier this year I wrote an essay entitled Assurances in which I argue that women will demand that society and science accommodate and insure their indefinite fertility while they sort out why it is they can’t seem to find the right (and Hypergamously cooperative) guy with which to start a family. I began that article by outlining the recent worker’s benefit of ‘egg freezing’ some larger companies were offering in order to entice (executive level) women to work for them – women, we are meant to presume, are so absorbed by their careers that they need to dedicate their most fertile years to their professional aspirations. All in order to stay on an equal footing with hyper-competitive men of course:

The latent purpose of developing technology to freeze a woman’s eggs, for instance, is to cheat (or give the impression of being able to cheat) the otherwise natural process of fertility that women are beholden to.

The latent purpose of every pop-cultural trend that contributes to the perception that women can realistically exceed the window of their fertility is offered as an assurance that women have more time than would be naturalistically expected to optimize Hypergamy.

Ostensibly, the message for women is the cliché of ‘having it all’ – reassuring women that they can have a rewarding career and make a significant difference in their lives and the lives of others as well as realistically having a meaningful family experience later in life. The unspoken hindbrain message is that a woman has more time to optimize Hypergamy.

I took a lot of criticism for being so presumptuous in that assertion. How dare I suggest that professional women didn’t deserve to be afforded the same opportunities men, who peak in their own SMV well after women’s prime fertility years have passed, had in life, career, and family. The thoroughly modern women of today weren’t forestalling pregnancy because of any personal misgivings or difficulties in attracting Mr. Right, these women needed to freeze their eggs to have more time to develop their careers, don’t you know.

The Real Reason Women are Freezing their Eggs

Turns out, not so much. Actually not at all,…

They are often portrayed as hard-hearted individuals who are putting motherhood on hold in order to climb the career ladder.

But women who freeze their eggs are actually waiting for a man who is perfect father material to come along.

Researcher Kylie Baldwin, who asked a group of women why they froze their eggs, said: ‘I think they were looking for a hands-on father.

‘And it was the absence of this particular type of potential father, not just the absence of any partner, that led them to freeze the eggs.

‘It’s not just about not having the right partner, it’s about having the right dad for their child.’

Interestingly, some of the women were in a relationships – but froze their eggs because they didn’t believe their partner was father material and were hoping someone better would come along.

I should add a side note here and point out the importance these women place having “the right dad for their child.” It’s so important that they’d expect a scientific miracle to give them enough time to find this very important father. However, I’d encourage my readers to compare and contrast this to the complete lack of importance men are expected to place on their own roles as the biological father of a child with regard to raising a child that is not his own. You see, while a woman will freeze her eggs in order to find the perfect hands-on Dad to breed with, men are told that even when a child is not his own he shouldn’t concern himself with his own self-importance in breeding or raising that kid.

This study was an interesting confirmation of the assertions I’d made in Assurances – Women want an assurance of Hypergamous optimization. Egg freezing isn’t about medical concerns or even professional sacrifices; egg freezing is about Hypergamy and women’s increasingly diminished ability to satisfy it later and later in life. In the manosphere and in my book Preventive Medicine there’s an understanding that women’s Party Years, the years she rides the “cock carousel”, are dedicated to the pursuit of Alpha Fucks – her prime directive is generally focused on a short term breeding strategy. Women’s entitlement extends to the point now that they demand science extend this period and assure them they will have ample time to complete their quest for Beta Bucks, motherhood, provisioning and parental investments indefinitely, or at least as long as men might be able to live up to their peak SMV qualifications.

The women were predominately middle-class and highly educated and were aged 38, on average, when they had their eggs frozen.

Mrs Baldwin, a sociologist, said: ‘I asked them about what their motivations were and I would say none of the women underwent the procedure for career reasons.

‘Instead, it was very often down to their perception that it was not yet the right time for them to be pursuing motherhood for one reason or another.’

And, as you might expect, what article about women’s struggle in finding the right guy would be complete without shaming men for their reluctance to participate in playing the roles the Feminine Imperative demands they play in order to fulfill women’s sexual strategies?

The comments about men’s reluctance to commit echo some made by one of Britain’s leading fertility doctors earlier this year.

Professor Adam Balen, chairman of the British Fertility Society, said: ‘There is a notion that young men are not committed to relationships in the way they have been in the past.

‘Childhood for some men is being extended into 20s and 30s when they’re not committing to a relationship.’

Again, it’s childish men’s fault that women have been brought to egg freezing science. This then brings us full circle to NPR’s recent story about economists “puzzlement” over why men are leaving the workforce in droves.

“I wasn’t going to go back to work. It was almost going to just be a nice transition into retirement for me — a very early retirement. I mean, I’m only 36 years old,” he says.

And if he does go back to work, he worries about the prospects.

“Things move really, really, really quick [in IT], and I’m worried that if we can’t make it work, that I’m going to go looking for a job and they’re going to say two years out of it, ‘Sorry, brother, you don’t have what it takes to work here anymore,’ ” Rekkedal says.

Tara Sinclair, chief economist for job-search site Indeed.com, says brawny jobs are being replaced by brainy ones, and that trend doesn’t favor men.

How’s that for an interesting social cycle?

There’s a common refrain you read in both the femosphere as well as religious bloggers about the state of extended adolescence they believe men are extending today. I even wrote about this ridiculous impression of men’s clinging to juvenility in Are You Experienced.

Men forestalling their “adulthood” – a characterization that is entirely dependent on how well a man aligns with women’s imperatives – by dropping out, or otherwise not preparing to be a potential provider for a family a woman deems is at last necessary to her, are considered ‘kidults’ or extending their adolescent years. Professor Adam Balen in the egg freezing article says men are extending “childhood” into their 20s and 30s.

Ironically, you’ll find the most ardent critics of extended adolescence in the writings of Man-up-and-marry-those-sluts religious male bloggers intent on virtue signaling their acceptability to women who will benefit most from their ‘manning up’ and overlooking their Party Years indiscretions.

On the other hand, women wishing to forestall motherhood – a characterization which used to imply a woman’s entrance into adulthood – are never characterized as “extending their childhood.” Women who opt to delay marriage can always fall back on the unacceptability of ‘most men these days’ to excuse their own extension, or they are “focusing on their career.” Women can never be cast in any way other than Strong and Independent®. In fact, this is the first, default presumption we make about a never-married or never-mothered woman.

The Daily Mail article about the truths of women’s reasoning for freezing their eggs puts the lie to this presumption. Women’s latent purpose in egg freezing is to extend fertility until their ideal Alpha man arrives in their lives.

Then, of course the blame become circular on men – men not accepting the role that open Hypergamy expects them to already be aware of and accept wholesale makes him guilty of extending his childhood. Women then blame their spinsterhood on a lack of acceptable ‘adult’ men.

There is never any incentive for personal insight on the part of women, not even when she’s far past her reasonably fertile years, to say nothing of her capacity to intersexually compete with her sisters for those acceptable men. Nowhere is there an afterthought that acceptable men would actively avoid her or find her unacceptable for his own long term investment.

Advancing Gender Dynamics

Finally, we need to add to this the obscene amounts of on-tap social validation women enjoy today. I’m not the first author to recognize or write about this, but there is a very real psychological dynamic that humans in this era have had to deal with which no other previous generations had to consider. Our capacity for technological advancement has progressed so quickly over the past century (and 16 years) that human beings are scarcely capable of understanding what these advancements imply to us as a society and largely as a species.

One reason I believe evolutionary psychology will always have a place in the manosphere and Red Pill discussion is because it aids us in understanding how our minds have evolved and what we can expect from ourselves, or cultures our intersexual dynamics in the context of how we’re experiencing these technological advancements. I had a reader tell me once about how appalled his grandmother was at the idea of a sperm bank when they first appeared. Today it’s part of the scenery, but when they appeared it was scandalous to the mindset of that era’s acculturation. Fast forward from the 1960s to now; in just over half a century think of the tech advancements we have with us today that we take for granted, but our grandparents would marvel over. Now think about how those advancements are interpreted by our hindbrains in so short a time.

Communications technologies, and now a social media explosion, affect our very plastic, yet feral hindbrains in ways that our new globalizing culture can’t keep pace with. I bring this up, because it’s important to consider how women’s feral selves are affected by an instantaneous attention and affirmation that previous generations of women craved, but never dreamed of having this kind of facility with.

As the conversation is won’t to do on this blog’s comment threads, the topic du jour picked up on the merits, or lack thereof, of monogamy vs. legal marriage vs. pLTRs (primary long term relationships or ‘plural’ long term relationships as the term fits). I’ll be addressing this in the next post, but I’ll foreshadow a bit with this; sifting through one of his usually long comments, this bit from YaReally stuck with me (emphasis mine):

“But even if your Game is as tight as YaReally’s, try interesting a modern young chick in commitment. Go ahead. You’ll be in for a shock. A woman in her prime years is so high on a never ending validation train that she’s sure it will never end. Why should she commit? There’s no incentive to do so. She always branch swings to better, and better is always available before she’s even tired of what she’s got.”

You hear them say “I wouldn’t give up my social media for that dream guy”, but you don’t hear why they won’t. The “why” is what we’re up against. They are conditioned to think they will never hit the wall, Amy Schumer at 45 gets the rich doctor in the end, they have endless offers of commitment and monkey branch higher and higher up the tree in their prime.

I have fuckbuddies who’ve disqualified high status guys. and rich jacked 6-pack dudes for like one or two errors. My favorite was one who disqualified a guy because the area of medicine he picked to specialize in wasn’t EXCITING ENOUGH. So she interpreted that as him not having enough ambition. She turned him down for such a silly reason. But why wouldn’t she? She has dates lined up anytime she wants with guys as high value or higher than him around the block whenever she wants. If she takes care of herself the attention train won’t stop till 35+. Why would she want to limit her Hypergamous options by settling in her early 20s?

That’s why those girls look at you funny when you suggest giving up social media. They can’t comprehend any reason TO. It doesn’t compute.

In a globalizing culture where both science and social order is predicated on the satisfaction of women’s imperatives, why indeed would any woman believe she isn’t entitled to it all? Both technology and social reengineering have placed women into a position where their hindbrains cannot hope to interpret the experiences they afford, much less have the attention span necessary for the insight to process how they should best cope with changes they’re scarcely aware of or take for granted.

This post is the first in a series detailing the contrast between how our evolved biological natures conflict and cope with the changes our rapid advancement demands of us, and how our intersexual and social relations are changing as a result of it.

Late Life Hypergamy

Commenter YaReally dropped an interesting set of videos in last week’s comment thread and I thought I’d riff on them for a bit today. I’m not familiar with Loose Women (the TV show anyway), but from what I gather, it’s on par with The View or any similar mid-day women’s talk show. I don’t make a habit of watching shows dedicated to entertaining women’s need for indignation, but I regularly have readers email or tweet me segments asking for my take on certain aspects of them or how they relate to Red Pill awareness.

It should come as no shock to my readers that shows of this formula are a social manifestation of women’s base natures. Every conversation takes on a sense of seriousness and gravity, but the tone and the presumptuousness that drives these conversations are rooted in women’s solipsism. All iterations of this show are presented from a perspective that assumes a pre-understood feminine primacy. It’s also no coincidence that the rise in popularity of women’s talk shows has paralleled the comfort women have in embracing Hypergamy openly.

Whenever I get a link to something the women on The View discuss it’s almost always a confirmation of some Red Pill principle I’ve covered previously, and in this instance Loose Women doesn’t disappoint. Saira Khan (I apologize for my lack of knowing who she is or why I should care to) related to the panel of women – and the expectedly disproportionate female audience – that at 46 years of age and two children (only one by her husband) she has entered some commonly acknowledged phase where she finds herself lacking all libido for her husband.

I decided to write a full post on these clips because Saira amply demonstrates every facet of the latter phases of maturity I outlined in Preventive Medicine. She begins her self-serving apologetics by prequalifying her previously “fantastic sex life in her younger years” and moves on to her bewilderment over her lack of arousal for her glaringly Beta husband. We’ll get to him later, but she’s a textbook example of a woman in what I termed the Alpha Reinterest phase from Preventive Medicine. Granted, at 46 Saira is experiencing this “stage” a bit later than most women, but we have to consider the difficulty she had in having and adjusting to children later in life – all undoubtedly postponed by her obvious fempowerment mentality and careerism.

I love you, but I’m not in love with you

It’s likely most men in the Red Pill sphere have experienced and discussed this very common trope. Saira is quick to apply a version of this standard self-excusing social convention. She “loves her husband” and “he’s a great man”, but lately(?) she simply has no desire to fuck him. I’m highlighting this because it’s an important part of the psychology and the self-excusing rationales that revolve around the less-than-optimal outcome of women’s dualistic (AF/BB) sexual strategy.

It may serve readers better to review the Preventive Medicine series of posts, but the short version is this: Once a woman has settled on a man for her post-SMV peak life plans, and the routine and regimen of a life less exciting than her Party Years begins to reveal the nature of a (usually Beta) man she settled on, that’s when the subconscious sexual revulsion of him begins. The feral nature of

Hypergamy begins to inform her subconscious understanding of her situation – the man she settled for will never compare to the idealized sexuality of the men she’s been with prior to him. Alpha-qualifying shit tests (fitness tests) naturally follow, but Saira herself describes her sexual revulsion for Steve as a sense of “panic” at the thought of him expecting her to be genuinely sexual with him.

As such, there becomes a psycho-social imperative need to blunt and/or forgive these feelings for the “lack of libido” women experience for their Beta husbands. Thus, we get the now clichéd tropes about how “it’s not you, it’s me” or “I love you, but I’m not in love with you.” Both of which amount to the same message – I love you, but I have no desire to fuck you. You’re a great guy and a swell husband, but my pussy only gets wet for Alpha.

Saira exemplifies this in her assessment of her husband (Steve), but more so, she illustrates the disconnection she knows is necessary to insulate her ego from knowing exactly what’s “wrong” with her. The problem with her lack of libido becomes separated from the source, Steve. So she says it’s not him, she just doesn’t want to do it.

She qualifies herself as someone loveable (she still cuddles and gets comfort from Steve), but this lovable ‘good person’ doesn’t want her lack of arousal to be something to disqualify her from feeling good about herself.

Solution: make sex separate and ancillary to her relationship with her husband.

For women in this phase, sex is equated with a chore. It’s a chore because it’s not something she has a desire to do, but still feels obligated to do. Steve walks through the door at 6 and her subconscious understands that the expectation of her is that she should be aroused by this Beta man she’s trapped into living with for the rest of her life. Hypergamy informs her subconscious and the manifestation is to find ways to avoid sex with a man her Hypergamous sense acknowledges is a suboptimal sexual pairing. Her conscious, emotive, female mind understands that she should want to fuck him, but it wars with her hindbrain that is repulsed by just the imagining of it.

In order to contend with the internal conflict created by Hypergamy, and a woman’s settling on a poor consolidation of it, social conventions had to be created to make separating sexual arousal (Alpha Fucks) from women’s personal worth (Beta Bucks investment) and the attending bad feelings it causes for them.

Ironically, this show’s original premise was based on the question of whether sex was even a “must” on a couple’s wedding night. This is a prime example of separating desireless sex from women’s sense of personal worth. I wrote about this in Separating Values. If sex is ancillary or only an occasional bonus, it ceases to be a deal-breaking factor in marriage for women when they don’t have a desire to fuck their Beta husbands.

Conflating Values

One of the major problems women have, and more than even some red pill men have, is the conflation of sexual market value with their intrinsic personal value as a human being.

It needs to be emphasized that while personal value is influential in sexual market value, SMV is distinct from your value as a human being. I’m stressing this because, in the age Disney Princess empowerment, this conflation of the two has become a go-to social convention; and not just for women.

What Korth suffers from is presuming her personal value is her sexual market value.

It’s disruptive to her self-perceptions and ego-investments when that presumption is challenged by a man who doesn’t want to fuck her for reasons based on the intrinsic value she believes she’s entitled to by virtue of maturity and imaginings of self-sufficiency. Just as women aren’t aroused by men’s own self-concepts of virtuousness and aspirations of higher purpose, men aren’t aroused by whatever ephemeral self-perceptions a woman may have.

In Khan’s case, she (and the many women in the audience who nod in agreement with her) must devalue sex as an article or an object rather than accept that it’s something she wants to engage in, just not with Steve.

There are many other social conventions that aid women in avoiding sex with Beta husbands. An even more common convention is the popularly accepted idioms that “sex just naturally declines after marriage” or “men and women often have mismatched libidos.” Both of these have filtered into our popular consciousness, but they serve the same latent purpose – excusing a lack of desire caused by women interpreting their husband’s lack of Alpha sub-communications. Wives don’t get tingles from Beta husbands, thus, they need to find ways to offset the bad feelings for themselves first, and their husbands secondarily.

The trick in this is women not personalizing their lack of arousal with a husband’s self-worth – “it’s not you, it’s me” – and deferring to some naturally occurring biological or psychological event that can be conveniently attached to the mystique of women.

It’s not you, but it is you

Thus, the rationale morphs from “it’s not you, it’s me” into “it’s not you, it’s the time/circumstance/effort/need for help with the chores/phase of my mysterious woman-ness” that’s causing her lack of sexual desire.” She’s got a busy life, she’s got kids, and in her pursuit of perfection in these arenas, sex somehow falls by the wayside – or at least the kind of non-obligatory, hot, urgent sex she used to enjoy in her fantastic youth. It’s not you, it’s just life.

It’s not you, it’s wives ‘naturally’ lose interest in sex. It’s not you, it’s that she panics at the thought of you expecting her to be aroused by you.

If sex can be delimited to being all about the person then a lack of women’s arousal can’t be blamed on the mechanics of sex. So when men complain about a lack of sex from their wives or a lack of enthusiastic genuine desire, we get the response we hear from the panel of women on the show; a sarcastic shaming of men who raise the issue that their wives are frigid with them.

“Oh, how can men survive without sex?” or a sarcastic “No bloke can be in a relationship without sex” is a deemphasizing of the importance that the role of sex plays in a marriage and any intersexual relationship. Once again this is due to the separating of personal worth of a woman from the sexual mechanics of Hypergamy that prompt her to genuine arousal. The easiest solution is to cast men into the same sexual expectations as women; if women can forego sex then men ought to be able to “survive” without it too.

This normalized idea stems from the equalist perspective that men and women being equal should also share equal attitudes, prompts, and appetites for sex. This is a biological impossibility of course, but the conversation serves as a stark illustration of women expecting feminized men to identify with the feminine and prioritize that identification above any and all considerations about their experiences of being male.

Ultimately this is self-defeating for women because the nature of the Alpha guy that women crave pushes him to have sex, not to deny himself of it.

In fact, that sexual insistence is a prime indicator that a woman is dealing with an Alpha. The man agreeing to the patience and effort needed to “wait out” his wife’s frigidity is indicating that he’s not accustomed to insisting on, and getting what he wants. If he can sublimate his most powerful biological imperative – to get sex – what else is he willing to sublimate?

Sex is the glue that holds relationships together.

The ladies on the panel mock this idea for exactly the same reason Saira is tying herself in knots about not being hot for Steve. He needs sex, but he shouldn’t really need sex because it’s all about the person and not the mechanics. But it is exactly the mechanics of Hypergamy that are at the root of Saira’s need to solipsistically feel better about herself to the extent that she’ll publicly emasculate her husband on national TV.

As the show grinds on, all of the predictable rationales for wive’s self-consolations for a lack of sex get run down like a check list. Kids? Check. Career? Check. Never do they address that she’s a

Kids? Check. Career? Check. Never do they address that she’s a

Never do they address that she’s a 46-year-old woman raising small children or that her so overstressed condition is only one consequence of delaying what passes for motherhood to her for so long. I understand Saira and Steve struggled with infertility, but my guess is that this too was a physical result of the life choices she made and the difficulty of conceiving and carrying a child to term well after her fantastic sexual prime. I’m 48 and my daughter graduated high school this year so I can’t imagine facing parenthood in my mid/late 40s. This isn’t even an afterthought for the panel because it exposes the costs of the feminist-inspired careerism the show is triumphantly based upon.

Shit Tests and Marriage

As I mentioned earlier in this post, wives in this state will still shit test their husbands just as readily as any single woman. We are meant to believe, no we are expressly told, that Saira’s sexual revulsion is “normal” and it’s not Steve or his dedication that’s at issue. Yet during all of Saira’s journey of self-discovery about her lack of libido, she suggests that Steve go out and find a woman who will fuck him. At some stage in their great open communication, Saira gives Steve express permission to go out and bang another woman because she just can’t.

Naturally she couches this in the idea that she’s so devoted to him “as a person” that she just wants him to be happy, however, she is so repulsed by him, sex is a happiness she can’t find within herself to even feign for him. For all the shocked gasps from the women in the audience, what this amounts to is a very visceral shit test for Steve.

The purpose of the ‘dare’ for Saira is meant to determine whether Steve can still (if he ever) generate genuine sexual desire in other women. I’ve covered this dynamic in at least a dozen different posts – women want a man who other men want to be, and other women want to fuck. Steve’s steadfast devotion to his wife is anti-seductive and Saira, on some level of consciousness, knows this. If another woman found Steve attractive enough to bang it would generate Dread, social proof and confirm his preselection among other women. And as I’ve mentioned countless times, breakup sex (or near breakup sex) always trumps contrived, preplanned special occasion “date night” sex, which predictably is the suggestion that ends the second video.

And as I’ve mentioned countless times, breakup sex (or near breakup sex) always trumps contrived, preplanned special occasion “date night” sex, which predictably is the suggestion that ends the second video.

Steve, the dutiful Beta, is also predictably dumbfounded by her “suggestion”. He’s heartbroken from a feminized emotional perspective, but also because, like most Beta men, he’s heavily invested in the fallacy of Relational Equity. He’s observably sexually optionless so it’s a moot point, but if he were to muster up the balls and the Game to take her up on her oh so caring suggestion to fuck another woman, he risks losing the relationship equity he believes his rational, empowered wife should appreciate and factor into her attraction for him.

Thus, Steve comes up with rationalizations for why he didn’t take her up on her offer of permissive infidelity. He makes his necessity (really his optionlessness) a virtue and sticks to the standard Beta wait-it-out supportiveness he’s been conditioned for but is actually the source of his sexless marriage. He defaults to the “open communication” solves everything meme while ignoring the message that the medium of his wife’s sub-communication is telling him. Steve attributes everything (accurately) to his conditioning that most men, “typical blokes”, are Betas whose responsibility ought to be unconditional supportiveness when in fact they really have no other choice but to be so.

She doesn’t want to be ‘fixed’

One last thing occurred to me while I picked these clips apart. At the end, the panel of women defaults to the “it’s not you Steve, you’re a great guy, Saira’s just experiencing a normal frigidity that comes along for women in marriage.” I thought this was interesting because there’s a push to accept this frigidity as a normal phase women experience, but it still relies on the idea that sex and personal worth are two separate aspects of this problem.

If the root of this ‘normal’ problem is one about mechanics (it’s not Steve, it’s Saira’s physical/psychological malfunction) then I would expect there could be a mechanical solution to the problem. Even the fat brunette panelist suggest that all it takes is a better ‘effort’ on Saira’s part to get herself into the mood, but she even rejects this. Her problem isn’t a pharmaceutical one or a behavioral one, it’s a holistic one rooted in hardwired Hypergamy. So repulsive is the thought of fucking a Beta that Saira cannot psych herself up to do so.

I wondered if she would even consider taking the new “pink pill”, the female form of viagra, but I’ve read enough counter argument articles from women about it to know that women’s hardwired psychology prevents them from even chemically altering themselves to want to have sex with a man her Hypergamy cannot  accept. My guess is that even a cheeky holiday in the Maldives won’t be enough to convince Saira to want to fuck Steve.

However, this simple fact, that women will refuse to take the Spanish Fly to work themselves up and bypass their Hypergamy for their Beta husband’s happiness, destroys the convention that her frigidity is the result of her biomechanics. She doesn’t want a pill to fix her because she knows it’s a holistic problem.

Saira knows how to please Steve sexually, she simply doesn’t want to, and it’s because Steve is Steve.

 

Good Girls, Bad Girls

goodbad

Culum Struan requoted a really great thought from an old commenter, AnonymousBosch, on Heartiste’s blog from about a year ago and I thought it might make for some good weekend discussions:


All I’m getting at is that every woman has an almost psychopathic longing to destroy any perception of being ‘the good girl’. It’s the most common complaint you’ll hear from women:

“It’s so hard being good.”

Women long to indulge their emotions enough to risk being swept away by them, and it’s this self-indulgence that makes them at risk of being self-destructive: they reach a point where they just want to tear everything down, including the Good Girl, and, most commonly, their beauty. An example is hacking off their hair when they have a breakup.

It’s in their songs, it’s in their literature, it’s in their movies. The social pressure to ‘behave’ drives them to distraction, even as they conform to it, meaning they’re internalizing this constant battle to be both good and bad: wanting the social approval, rewards and status for being good but desperately-craving social stigmatization to the degree of martyrdom for being bad.

Feminism, at it’s core, is basically: “Fuck you society, I won’t be the good girl you want me to be!”

This is why it’s beloved of ugly chicks who can’t sexually compete, and those with obvious Daddy Issues.

I see my role, as a man, is to recognize their capacity for depravity, both sexual and emotional, and to offer the dominance and guidance to reign them in. Women, even as they get outraged at the very notion, simply want a man they respect to tell them ‘No’, and offer them structure and guidance. One good way I’ve heard this described on here was “She is the ocean, and you are the rock, and the furies of her storms have no impact on you. You are unyielding.”

If you’re stoic, she gets to indulge her emotions with a safety net that stops her from self-destructing, and she will adore you for it. This is the masculine – feminine relationship. She gets to be weak, knowing you’re her rock. She doesn’t want to lash out at stone that crumbles, whilst simultaneously wanting strong shelter to hide against.

Sexual degradation is part of the risk, and you temper this by always being in control of the situation. Never let her think she’s leading: or her desperation to prove her devotion to you will take her into weird, disgusting places that destroy her.

If you’ve got your player on, I guarantee you will hear some variation of this: “I’d never do this with any other guy, but you make me want to do this and I’m not sure why.”

This is their sexuality out of control by their furious emotional desire to be owned by you – they are swept away – and this is where you need to reign them in with a strong hand and be ‘Daddy’. Otherwise she’ll get stupid notions in her head that by being sexually-outlandish, she’ll be the whore women believe all guys want their wives to be, not realizing that we don’t want to think of the mother of our children blowing dogs and wearing our shit, (unless that’s really your thing).

This is what destroys women and makes the light go out in their eyes: when they degrade themselves for a man they value highly-enough in the hopes of locking him down enough only to eventually disgust him.

Sometimes, the degradation is a sex thing, where she blurts out that she’d blow a horse for you.

Sometimes, it’s physical: she wants you to see her with running mascara and her hair hacked off so you can see how ‘wounded’ and ‘vulnerable’ you’ve made her.

Sometimes it’s emotional: stories of ‘being raped’ or being abused by Exes, designed to fire you up with masculine protective instinct, but instead make you see her as damaged goods. She thinks she is showing you how much she longs for you with these socially-transgressive displays – because Social Status is female currency and power – so deliberately lowering herself in a man’s eyes is the ultimate submission for her – but all she is doing is pushing you away.

During sex: always lead, always control, always structure what is happening. She wants to serve a strong man: show her how to so she doesn’t go off on self-destructive tangents. As McQueen used to say, don’t call her ‘a’ whore, call her ‘your’ whore. Your eyes are your strength here: if she’s sucking your dick, tell her to look at you, so she has nowhere to hide. Call her your ‘good girl’ as she does it.

Basically, structure a performance of faux-degradation and sexual submissiveness she can enact it that makes her feel she’s served a strong man, that stops her crossing into actual degradation, where it starts emotionally-messing her up and leaving scars.

That being said, Millennial Girls seem to possess a capacity for self-loathing and self-destruction I’ve never seen in previous generations.

So, take what is happening in this thread: the transfer of money for sexual degradation. It’s the same core process: she’s telling herself it’s about the money, but it’s about submission before the masculine: the trappings of supreme social and financial power. It’s about thinking she’s high value enough to be submitting to Princes and Kings, so the leap to being crapped on or blowing a dog to prove she is ‘a worthy consort’ is a small one for them.

Obviously, it makes no sense to us, but women seem to be clueless as to what behaviour actually makes them attractive, and not repulsive, to men.”


I think one of the reasons AnonymousBosch finds Millennial girls to be more debased is that these girls are the first generation to be counted among the sum result of a preceding 4 generations of feminist ideologies. Likewise, Millennial men are the products of that same 4-5 generations of emasculation, feminization and the deliberate obfuscation of what masculinity “really is” for them. This deserves some explanation.

I’ve gone into the timelines and the evolution of how Hypergamy has been released from social restraints, wholesale, on western society in my Adaptations series of posts, but it’s a good review to understand what AnonymousBosch is relating here; We keep returning to Hypergamy and its regulation as a basis for an expanded vision of social structure, but it’s important to remember the behavioral prompts that women’s biology predisposes them to in that respect. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution we’ve had a systematic conditioning for, and institutionalization of, a social order that prioritizes women’s Hypergamy as the predominant one.

Unilaterally female-controlled hormonal birth control was certainly a catalyst for this social shift, but it’s important to remember that for the past 4 generations women have been raised and acculturated in a social environment not only rooted in the fempowerment narrative, but also one that encourages the excesses of the ‘bad girl’ side of Hypergamy that AnonymousBosch describes here. And as I mention in that post, the social engineering that’s led to feminine-primacy (as well as erasing the inconvenient aspects of conventional masculinity) all centers on optimizing women’s Hypergamy.

So we experience 2-3 generations of women who are conflicted between what that Fempowerment narrative has taught them they should value and the conventional, evolved biological impulses that predispose them to appreciating, enjoying and submitting to sexy male dominance. Instead of being confused and agonizing over the traditional (old order) ‘Good Girl’ social restrictions that buffered the more damaging consequences of Hypergamy, now women agonize over the conflict between what Fempowerment has conditioned them to believe they should be attracted to in an “equal partner” (Beta Bucks) and their visceral sexual drive for ‘bad’ Alpha dominance in a man they want to lose themselves with.

They’ll still lay claim to the ‘Good Girl’ social convention when it suits their purpose (i.e. during the Epiphany Phase) to affirm their decisions to prioritize a need for long term security – or to excuse past Alpha Fucks sexual needs – but the primary conflict is still the same, an internal war between the contradicting aspects of her sexual strategies and how they influence her life’s decisions and different phases of her maturity.

In her SMV Peak years, “Fuck you society, I won’t be the good girl you want me to be!” is the message she adopts insofar as it serves her sexual strategy’s immediate interests. The conflict comes when she needs to temper this sentiment with a need to settle into a motherhood role and compromise it just enough to present the appearance of being a prudent choice for long term commitment.

I see my role, as a man, is to recognize their capacity for depravity, both sexual and emotional, and to offer the dominance and guidance to reign them in. Women, even as they get outraged at the very notion, simply want a man they respect to tell them ‘No’, and offer them structure and guidance. One good way I’ve heard this described on here was “She is the ocean, and you are the rock, and the furies of her storms have no impact on you. You are unyielding.”

When men first come to Red Pill awareness about the motivations of women’s sexual strategy it’s very easy to see their behaviors as being intentional or their after-the-fact rationalizations for them as being convenient and expedient in excusing them. There is a definite design to the psychological and social schema women will use to explain their actions, particularly when they’re anti-social, sexist and/or damaging to the men who bear the worst of them.

Not to say men should tolerate this, but it’s important for men to understand the underlying psychology and motivators for women’s behaviors. It would seem AnonymousBosch has embraced this understanding. Again, it’s easy to think you’ll just put your foot down and not tolerate women’s bad behaviors, but this ignores those same female-motivators, sacrifices a real understanding of them and attempts to replace learning to maneuver them with the misguided hope that women will be rational agents and change their behaviors because we say so.

Men of this mindset believe the same ‘equalist’ hope that women will cease to be the “most mature teenager in the house” because they rationally explained to them that they should ignore their base motivators (Hypergamy) and act reasonably. This doesn’t work for women, nor does it work for men when women attempt to convince men to adopt a feminist mindset based on exactly the same appeal to reason. The boner doesn’t lie, and neither does women’s sexually strategic behavior.

In an age of unfettered, socially and legally affirmed Hypergamy it’s counterproductive to expect any woman to self-police her own sexual strategies by appealing to her reason.

The good news, as outlined by AnonymousBosch, is that Red Pill awareness and internalized Game are the same buffering contingencies for Hypergamy as they’ve always been. The trick for men now is to reestablish and embrace a connection to the conventional masculinity that’s been systematically conditioned out of men for 2-3 generations. In fact, there’s no better evidence of this Blue Pill conditioning than the common sense of counterintuitive-ness of embracing a masculinity that puts a man into a position of exercising the dominance women need.

Fempowerment

fempowerment

I’m often asked by ‘fempowered’ women critics whether I ‘believe‘ in some of the more socially acceptable tenets of feminism in some sort defense to the affront of my Red Pill lens being cast their way. It’s usually something to do with, “Do you or do you not think women ought to have the right to vote?” or the ever-reliable “Shouldn’t women have the right to do with their bodies what they choose?” These questions are always binary (“yes or no will do”) and usually couched in a context that implies that if you even slightly disagree or have a marginal caveat to answering ‘appropriately’ you’ll be dismissed with a name tag that has “misogynist” printed on it. Say no and you’re a despicable misogynist. Say yes and you’re tar-pitted in “yes, but” caveats – mansplaining – that are disqualified because you’re a man.

Say no and you’re a despicable misogynist. Say yes and you’re tar-pitted in “yes, but” caveats – mansplaining – that are disqualified because you’re a man. Up until recently, it’s been a very effective means of silencing uncomfortable truths about the Feminine Imperative.

I’ve always found it ironic that a movement (feminism) that predicates itself on the ostensibly egalitarian notion that rational, reasonable considerations of issues should lead us to ideals of equality is the first to reduce itself to unquestioned, blind faith binaries at the first sign of rational reasonable truth being unflattering to women. If you want to know who holds power over you, look at whom you aren’t allowed to criticise – or even hint at criticism.

My position on these and many other questions of the sort is usually met with simple observational analysis (as you’d probably expect). I don’t necessarily have a problem with women voting or even having access to legal (relatively safe) abortions. What I have a problem with is the latent purpose behind the reasons that led to women’s decisions to vote a particular way or the latent purposes that brought them to having that abortion. For the greater part, any dubious ‘right’ women feel they were somehow denied in the past usually comes at the expense of men being liable for decisions they had nothing to do with.

What I have a problem with is an expectation of lowering the standards of the game, thus fundamentally altering the game, to better accommodate the variable strengths and weaknesses of women – up to, and including, changing the very nature of women’s environmental realities that would endanger the wellbeing of both sexes. What I take issue with is the expectation of making men liable for the decisions and consequences of the rights and freedom of choices we’ve reserved for only women to make (almost unilaterally Hypergamic choices) that are not in men’s best interests.

I mentioned in Our Sister’s Keeper that men today find themselves in a very precarious position with regard to entertaining women’s perceived wrongs of the past. Men are expected,by default, to be held accountable, for no other reason than they were born men, for past injuries to the ever-changing Feminine Imperative. Your existence as a man today, your failed understanding to accommodate women’s social primacy, your lack of catering to the ambiguous nature of what conveniently passes for masculinity, is a constant stinking affront and obstacle to the “advancement” of women. The Feminine Imperative has known how to manipulate men’s Burden of Performance for millennia, and at not other time in history has it had the unfettered leisure to do so than now.

So, we get socially acceptable default presumptions of ‘male privilege’ without qualifying what it even means, or we get catchy jingoisms like ‘mansplaining’ to give a name to women’s need for silencing men’s inconvenient observations of women’s ‘correct’ perceptions, decisions and the reasons they came to them. We get default presumptions of male guilt for sexual assault and sexual consent as fluidly defined in as convenient a way that serves women’s imperatives. As I’ve mentioned before, the true intent of feminism has never been about establishing a mutually agreed ‘equality’, rather it’s always been about retribution and restitution for perceived past wrongs to the sisterhood.

There has always been a subtext, a cover story, of equality mentioned in the same breath as feminism. Only the most antagonistic asshole, only the most anti-social prick, would be against “equality between the sexes”. Thus, to be against feminism is to be against a simplistic concept of baseline equality. However, taken out of the propagandizing efforts to shame and ‘correct’ men’s imperatives, it’s easy to demonstrate that the true intent of feminism is female ‘fempowerment’ in the dressing of an equality that no man (or woman) wants to appear to be against.

Yellowed Pearls

I found an interesting example of this  Catch 22 in the Economist recently. Pick and choose: Why women’s rights in China are regressing.

In 2007 China’s official Xinhua news agency published a commentary about women who were still unmarried at the age of 27 under the title, “Eight Simple Moves to Escape the Leftover Woman Trap”. The Communist Party had concluded that young Chinese women were becoming too picky and were over-focused on attaining the “three highs”: high education, professional status and income. Newspapers have since reprinted similar editorials. In 2011 one said: “The tragedy is they don’t realise that as women age they are worth less and less, so by the time they get their MA or PhD, they are already old, like yellowed pearls.”

In the last Red Pill Monthly discussion, I mentioned the expansion that the Feminine Imperative has taken on a global scale. One of the old missives of the manosphere has always been about how American women are too far gone to be worth ever entertaining beyond a pump-and-dump consideration. They are too damaged and self-absorbed beyond all redemption, and men ought to expatriate to another country where women are more feminine or at least necessitous enough to appreciate a conventionally masculine man.

I get that. I understand the want for a Poosy Paradise or some promised land where women are still raised to respect and love men by being conventionally feminine. I also get that there exist certain cultures where this is still true, but for all of that, I think it’s important to recognize the social undercurrent that the Feminine Imperative exercises in these cultures. A popular meme on Twitter is ‘Feminism is Cancer’, but there’s a kernel of truth to the humor of this. The spread of the westernizing social primacy of the Feminine Imperative is spreading, not unlike cancer, into what we would otherwise believe were societies and cultures still oppressed by the mythical Patriarchy – a belief necessary to perpetuate the narrative of default female victimhood.

It may not be now, but at some stage, the Feminine Imperative will exercise its presumptive control over even the societies we think ought to be immune from that cancer. As I mention on The Red Pill Monthly, even in underdeveloped countries where we would expect to find the horrible oppression of girls and women, we make a triumphant example of the incidents of where girls (not boys) are taught to read and “think for themselves”. Westernized culture, founded on the Feminine Imperative, celebrates every time a woman in Saudi Arabia is allowed to drive a car, much less run a business on her own as if it were some blow against the tyranny of men.

Little by little, or in leaps and bounds, your second or third world Poosy Paradise will eventually be assimilated by the Feminine Imperative.

I bring this up because, as you’ll read in the linked article, China is also experiencing the long-term results of having adopted feminine social primacy in its own culture. From women’s popular consciousness, we’re still, to this day, told of how horrible “communist” China has been in mandating its one-child policy and how its draconian ‘sons live, daughters die’ social structure has been the result. However, once we reasonably investigate it, we find that China now has a problem with “Yellowed Pearls” as a result of a cultural shift that placed women’s interests as preeminent in that culture. And it should be noted that this shift came about as the direct result of the men who adopted and accommodated the Feminine Imperative as their own.

Now the problem for women in China is not unlike the plight of American women bemoaning the lack of men with “equal” marriageability as themselves. And likewise, the self-same social authorities responsible for institutionalizing the fempowerment of women are now the horrible misogynist villains for suggesting that women ought to lower their unrealistic standards.

The tone of these articles is surprising, given the Communist Party’s past support for women’s advancement. Mao Zedong destroyed China, but he succeeded in raising the status of women. Almost the first legislation enacted by the Communist Party in 1950 was the Marriage Law under which women were given many new rights, including the right to divorce and the right to own property.

Sounds a far cry different from the pictures women, even women in this century, have painted of China’s institutionalized, one-child sexism doesn’t it? Remember, this advancement in women’s rights took place before the Cultural Revolution in China.

Though collectivisation made the latter largely irrelevant, women played an active role in Mao’s China, and still do today. By 2010 26% of urban women had university degrees, double the proportion ten years earlier. Women now regularly outperform men at Chinese universities, which has led to gender-based quotas favouring men in some entrance exams. However, many of the earlier advances have been eroded in recent years by the gradual re-emergence of traditional patriarchal attitudes.

Consider this part in contrast to other industrialized nations and how women have increased their socio-political standing as the result of having the Feminine Imperative adopted as the primary social order of those cultures. Even in cultures that are still popularly deemed “repressive” to women we see educational and socioeconomic parallels to western(ized) cultures. We also see the same resulting consequences and the shifting of blame for them to men. The downside of Yellowed Pearls is placed at the feet of men for not living up to the convenient, feminine-primary definition of what their Burden of Performance ought to mean in promoting and forgiving women’s decisions.

The party has joined an alliance of property companies and dating websites to confront the issue. Government surveys on marriage and property are often sponsored by matchmaking agencies, and perpetuate the perception that being “leftover” is the worst thing that can happen to a woman. They also promote other myths, such as the idea that a man must have a house before he can marry.

As you may expect, the tone of the article is written to emphasize an egalitarian perspective that conflicts with a reality that the Feminine Imperative would have men change or be responsible for not having changed. It’s men’s fault that women might feel bad for not having married by a post-wall age. It’s men’s fault for promoting myths that women would expect that a man must be successfully established in his life and career before any considerations of marriage occur to him. It’s also a man’s fault for clinging to the “myth” that women don’t want him to be established.

The law is reflecting the shift away from women’s empowerment too. An interpretation by the Supreme Court in 2011 of the 1950 Marriage Law stated that, when a couple divorces, property should not be shared equally, but each side should keep what is in his or her own name. This ruling, says Ms Fincher, has serious implications. In the big cities a third of marriages now end in divorce but, based on hundreds of interviews, she finds that only about 30% of married women have their name on the deeds of the marital flat. Women believe the party hype about becoming a “leftover” woman so strongly, she says, that many rush into unhappy marriages with unsuitable men, made on condition that the brides agree not to put their name on the property deeds.

Feminism Would be a Success if Men Would Only Cooperate More

Several years ago Dalrock had a post detailing the sentiment of feminists that feminism would be a success if only men would cooperate with the ideology by abandoning their own interests and sublimating their own biological impulses. The fact remains that feminism and egalitarianism are failed ideologies because at the root level those ideologies ask men to participate in their own extinction. Not only this, but they ask men to raise successive generations to accommodate and participate in their own degradation.

The narrative expects Yellowed Pearls to be prized by men, or respected as Spinsters, or pandered to as ‘Cougars’ while still maintaining men sublimate their own imperatives by willfully ignoring the fact that their own sexual strategy is what is being asked of them to abandon. As I stated in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies, for one sex’s strategy to succeed the other must either be compromised or abandoned – what better way is there to assure this for women than to socially mandate through shame, persecution or financial liabilities that men abandon their own strategy in favor of women?

For some time now, I’ve detailed how for the past 4 or 5 generations, there has been a popular social re-engineering effort to raise and condition boys to become the ‘better betas‘ – boys designed to become the supportive male-reinforcers of empowering women’s interests and imperatives.

For a greater part this effort has been primarily focused on boys and men in western society, and while it’s still open for debate, I’d say that westernizing cultures are really the only cultural environments that can afford to entertain this ‘fempowerment’. This is changing radically now if it was ever really the case to begin with.

In the manosphere we like to highlight the ‘pussification’ of modern men through various efforts on the part of a nebulous ‘socitey’ aligned against masculinity. However, the flip side to this is the fempowerment agenda; an feminine-primary social structure that disallows any criticism of inherently female nature while promoting the empowerment of women on every level of social strata.

We coddle and cater to the feminine in every aspect of social interaction, every aspect of academic achievement, every socioeconomic advantage inventable, every story we tell in every form of media and we do so under the threat of not being supportive or misogynistic for suggesting anything marginally pro-masculine. This is the other side of the demasculinization imperative of boys & men – the total consolidation of handicaping men and empowering women into unrealistic effigies of feminine triumphalism.

How do you counter this?

I’m always lauded for describing these social dynamics, but I’m run up the flagpole for not offering concrete ways of dealing with and pushing back on these imperatives. Many a MGTOW will simply suggest men no longer play the Game, that isolationism is the way to go, but this only serves to eventually concede power to the Feminine Imperative. You don’t get to check out of the Game even if you refuse to play it. For all the guys who left for parts unknown to find their demi-utopia of feminine women in a foreign country, even they will explain that the tide of feminism is changing those seemingly idlyic places. And for every guy to voluntarilly go celebate and “refuse to deal with women” I’ll show you a man whose tax dollars go to fund the consequences of women’s legislated rights to Hypergamous choice.

Sooner or later Men will have to confront and push back against both men and women who are convinced of their purpose in idealizing the dictates of the Feminine Imperative. A lot of men in the ‘sphere believe their being clever when they refer to people with this worldview as ‘SJWs’, but for every hair dyed, gender-confused man-woman you see on Twitter there are hundreds of ‘normal’ people who all share similar perspectives – some simply subconscious generalization they’re oblivious to – sitting next to you at church, or working in the cubicle next to you.

As I’ve mentioned countless times, the change needs to take place by appealing to the hearts and minds of Men by making them Red Pill aware from the bottom up, but moreover, we need to live out that awareness in our own lives and lead by Red Pill example. Our decisions in life, our aspiration in parenting, family and career, in our business dealings, in the women we Game and the people we hire, all of these aspects need to take on the perspective of how they fit into pushing back against a feminine-primary world that demands we surrender any thought of individuated male power.

As Men, we need to unapologetically exercise what little power we’re left with to inform this and successive generation of Red Pill truths tactfully, but with strength of conviction in the face of a feminine-primary society bent on our surrender. Life finds a way. Feminism and the consolidation of the Feminine Imperative have failed because Men were not evolved to acquiesce their dominant spirit. On the same evolutionary level women also evolved into requiring that convnetionally masculine dominance. This is why feminism and egalitarianism will ultimately fail – nature simply will not cooperate with it’s own stagnation. As men, we can use this truth to our Red Pill aware advantage.

The Pareto Principle

Pareto

An interesting side discussion was started in what proved to be a very popular post thread for The War Brides of Europe, and rather than let it disappear beneath a thousand-plus comments I thought I’d pick up on an old post I’ve had in my drafts for a while now.

One of the foundational ideas of Red Pill awareness from the earliest PUA years has been the 80/20 concept – 80% of women want to have sex and / or pair off with the top 20% of men. This has been a fast and loosely defined in terms of subjective sexual market value (SMV) between men and women and the ratio of disparity between those valuations.

In intersexual terms, this 80/20 rule finds its roots in the economic theory known as the Pareto Principle: “80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients.” While I’m not sure the principle is directly translatable, it mirror the general rule of Hypergamy and women’s innate drive to optimize their sexual strategy with who they perceive as the top tier 20% (Alphas) men are fucking the 80% lion’s share of women. Many a despondent Beta picks up on the principle and uses this to justify his failures to connect with women.

I’m of the opinion that the 80/20 rule is often abused to justify men’s failures or successes with women (more often failure), however the fundamental notion is both observable and easily verifiable in-field as well as statistically. It is however important to keep in mind that the 80/20 rule as it applies to Hypergamy is often bastardized in its inverse. The presumption goes that if 80% of women want to have sex with the top 20% of men it should necessarily mean that the top 20% of men are fucking 80% of women. Many a despondent Beta picking up on this dynamic will use this assumption to disqualify himself from Game or give up in futility. More on this later.

As a point of reference, it’s important to remember that Hypergamy doesn’t seek its own level with regard to SMV comparisons. Rather, Hypergamy is always seeking a socio-sexual pairing that is a ‘better than’ exchange for a woman’s own, realistically comparative, SMV. And as I’ve mentioned previously, Hypergamy is always pragmatic about establishing that ‘better than’ SMV exchange with men’s.

While the Red Pill’s expanded definition of Hypergamy encompasses far more than just ‘marrying up‘, the 80/20 sexual selection process is simple enough that even Aunt Giggles in her heyday could illustrate it:

hypergamy-in-a-pic

As you might guess the fundaments of basic Hypergamy are easy to understand, so the tendency is to oversimplify the complexities that really define Hypergamy and how the 80/20 basics play out. And lastly, it’s important to bear in mind the dual nature of women’s Hypergamous filtering, impulses and attendant emotional investments – the 80/20 dynamic applies to both the Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks aspects of Hypergamy, however the characteristics that would optimize the former tend to come at the expense of the latter (and vice versa).

All that said, the 80/20 principle is fairly simple; a majority of women across the broadest SMV spectrum (80%) will always want for a ‘better than’ pairing (both sexual and provisional) than their own comparative SMV.

If the underlying mechanics of Hypergamy-inspired desire were only about a 1 or 2 step difference in SMV the distribution ratio wouldn’t be 80/20. As sophomoric as it is the above graph is relatively accurate: an SMV 3 woman is desirous of an SMV 8 or above man as representative of a Hypergamously optimal pairing (sex and/or provisioning).

For the 80/20 rule to hold true we’re looking at a comparative difference of 5 steps in SMV. Now, granted, this is on the extreme end of the spectrum, and it should also be noted that SMV is also a question of context and based on a woman’s ‘filtering’ perception of a man’s SMV being legitimate. However, this doesn’t alter the ‘better than’ merited pragmatism of Hypergamy.

Whether or not a woman is actually capable of this optimization isn’t relative to understanding the principle. Indeed, with the expansion of instant communication, social emphasis of women’s empowerment and esteem, and the influence social media exercises over the female ego, an SMV 3 woman of today might likely believe she is in fact deserving of a man 5 steps above her own (a good example). But for purposes of understanding how the Pareto principle applies to intersexual dynamics we must focus on the latent purposes for it to exist.

Common Errors

The easiest (or most convenient) mistake to make about this dynamic is to presume that the consolidation of Hypergamy (locking down a man 5 to 1 steps higher in SMV in monogamy) defines the 80/20 rule. Remember, this principle is about desire and women’s expected (entitled?) satisfaction of it, not the actual consolidation (LTR) of that Hypergamous ideal.

In the prior thread the conversation centered on the mistaken idea that the Pareto Principle is not universal or is only observed in some systems, but not in human sexuality. To which I’d argue that in no other system is this principle more evident than intersexual dynamics – and not just among humans but countless other species. It’s unflattering to the disguise in which the Feminine Imperative would put it in, but, whether realizable or not, the 80/20 rule practically defines female desire.

The second mistake it to presume the inverse: that 20% of men actually get 80% of women. Usually this gets trotted out as an equal-for-equal argument that presumes, again, that desire should necessarily translate into consolidation. Betas and lower SMV men do get laid and pair off with women for any number of reasons, but the principle isn’t about who’s actually fucking who. Rather, it’s about who has more access to sexually available women based on their SMV valuation. Nice Guys may finish last, but they do finish eventually – whether they finish ‘well’ is a thought for another post.

A third common mistake, made mostly by women, presumes the goal-state outcome of intersexual dynamics should be to arrive at a monogamous state. This is the consolidation of a female sexual strategy, and because we live in a feminine-primary social order, that committed, monogamous end to women’s sexual strategy is perceived as the socially “correct” goal. At no point is men’s imperative interests (sexual or life-rewarding) a priority, if it’s considered at all, in the Hypergamous equation. In the absence (or disregard) of men’s conflicting interests the Feminine Imperative substitutes what best fits its own interests as the socially ‘appropriate’ goals for men. Then it qualifies ‘manhood’ according to its proxy interests for men, so that any man not measuring up to them are not considered truly ‘men’ by its definition.

Women’s innate Hypergamous nature ensures a distributive model for desire that aligns with the Pareto Principle – even if the overall result of women settling for less than optimal Hypergamy appears to contradict it. Again, it’s important to remember that women’s Hypergamous desires are often not reflected by the outcome of those desires.

Want is not have

The concept that a woman’s Hypergamous imperative wouldn’t be a mutual goal between the sexes is an alien thought to most women.  Much in the same way that men idealistically want to believe women mutually share their concept of love for love’s sake (and free from the conditions of their Burden of Performance), women are mistaken in believing men’s sexual strategy is synonymous with the female strategy and shares a mutual end. By way of feminine solipsism and a social order that only considers women’s imperatives as legitimate, collective feminine social consciousness rarely gives men’s imperatives an afterthought – and then only when they become problematic to the Feminine Imperative.

Women subconsciously reinforce the feminine-correct goal state of LTR monogamy by a continuous, autonomous, expectation of its fulfillment – even when that fulfillment creates cognitive dissonance with their short term vs. long term sexual strategy. It’s part of women’s Hypergamous firmware to do so because it ensures (or tries to) their subconscious need for parental investment and long term security / provisioning.

What women necessarily must disregard is that their own sexual strategy choices are determined by the want to pair with a mate who exceeds her own SMV. Thus, the Pareto principle applies.

In Open Hypergamy I made mention that there is a social transitioning taking place among women where revealing the uglier side of Hypergamy is becoming more acceptable. The degree of comfort with which women have in revealing the machinations of Hypergamy is proportional to their capacity to play the 80/20 game well enough to consolidate on a 20th percentile man (or his closest approximation). For women still uncomfortable with openly embracing the uglier side of Hypergamy concealing the truth about the 80/20 becomes a practical priority. You will find in the future that many of the conflicts you read between Strong Independent Women® of differing social or moral perspectives will be based in their degree of comfort in openly relating the machinations of Hypergamy.

Women for whom keeping the 80/20 rule concealed from men’s popular consciousness (women with less capacity to compete intrasexually) can ill afford to have men aware of their own SMV and how it affects their long term sexual strategy. High value Red Pill aware men have the leisure to exploit Hypergamy and low value Red Pill men aware of their Hypergamous role risk denying women of the resources to provision them in the long term.

The Male Side of the Principle

Way back in the Peak Hypergamy post Hollenhund got me thinking about how the Hypergamous  aspect of the Pareto Principle can become men’s primary source of frustration and apathy:

I have to COMPLETELY OVERCOME all my handicaps to the point where I am BETTER than 80% of men at least.

I have to have my shit together better than the vast majority of men. I’m having a hard enough time just getting to be AVERAGE, but what I need to do in order to have any kind of sex life and get ANY of my sexual needs met AT ALL is be better than the vast majority of guys out there.

So, in other words, you’ll end up killing yourself anyway, but you’ll do it the slow way, by making sure you’ll end up an exhausted wretch with an ulcer, high blood pressure and similar health problems? Because that’s what you’re basically saying there.

I tend to think of how men confront the challenge of their performance burden is a parallel to their understanding of the 80/20 rule. On some level of consciousness men either possess some evolved instinct for it, or they develop some learned understanding of their own role in relation to how the 80/20 dynamic applies to them.

I think much of what frustrates men about assessing their own SMV in a Blue Pill mindset comes from an instinctual understanding of the 80/20 rule and reconciling it with what they’re being socialized to believe women ought to evaluate them for. Before any Game, before any Red Pill awareness, men’s first deductive impression is to classify themselves into SMV respective “leagues“, and women who would or wouldn’t be sexually accessible according to those leagues.

Ironically, even men’s Blue Pill league evaluations fail to account for women’s 1-5 SMV step over evaluation of their own SMV. The equalist agenda teaches men that their leagues should be based on a like-for-like parallel, when Hypergamy really demands men’s SMV be well above that of women.

This of course gets distorted once men begin to become Red Pill aware and over-exaggerate the abstract concept of Alpha and how it applies to themselves. In a way they fall victim to believing they must become an Alpha parody in order to measure up to women’s apex fallacy impression of a top 20% man.

Needless to say Red Pill awareness and applied Game will reveal the truth about the 80/20 rule. Initially it seems like a horribly unjust set of conditions for an ‘average’ man, but the rule is still based on the fundamental biological and psychological underpinnings of Hypergamy, and therefore open to exploits for a Red Pill aware man.

Quality Assurances

Web

In the above example (h/t Young Patriarch) we can see the comparison between a naturalistic, Hypergamous socio-sexual order contrasted with an idealized socio-sexual structure. The Sexual Freedom model mirrors the 80/20 rule, while the Regulated model is representative of an idealized structure designed with the intent to evenly justify pairings according to a distributive monogamy.

As I mentioned earlier, men have an instinctual understanding about how the 80/20 Pareto Principle applies to women’s Hypergamy. And while Game is a modern contingency for it I would argue that the cross-culture concept of a monogamous marriage between men and women was a broader contingency designed not just to counter women’s Pareto-centered sexual strategy, but to ensure a greater majority of (lesser SMV) men had the opportunity to pass on their genetic heritage.

I could point out that the Regulated model above is very representative of an egalitarian model for monogamy based again on the like-for-like presumption, but Hypergamy being what it naturally is will always confound that ideal. However, I have to also point out that the Regulated ideal has always been a convenient selling tool to keep both men and women ignorant of the uglier, visceral nature of the Hypergamous sexual marketplace.

Marriage as a social adaptation serves (or served) as a negotiated buffer against Hypergamy, but it also serves as a perceived buffer against men’s Burden of Performance that would otherwise necessitate the constant super-achievement that Hollenhund describes above. As a social dynamic marriage was a Beta breeding insurance policy that conveniently enough took root about the time human beings began to adopt a largely agrarian lifestyle.

Today equalism and the fantasy of an idealized, mutually beneficial monogamy based on the Old Set of Books is little more than a contingent workaround for the 80/20 rule reality. As this idealism decays and is replaced by either Red Pill awareness or men learning the harsh realities of modern marriage liability the more we will see a shift away from the Regulated model in favor of a now openly Hypergamous model.

Recently NY Mag had yet another feminist triumphalism article in the same vein as the Atlantic’s End of Men article (apparently 6 years is the period in which the femosphere believes popular awareness of its bullshit memes end). However there was this one salient point that illustrates this shift in monogamy:

In 2009, the proportion of American women who were married dropped below 50 percent. In other words, for the first time in American history, single women (including those who were never married, widowed, divorced, or separated) outnumbered married women. Perhaps even more strikingly, the number of adults younger than 34 who had never married was up to 46 percent, rising 12 percentage points in less than a decade. For women under 30, the likelihood of being married has become astonishingly small: Today, only around 20 percent of Americans are wed by age 29, compared to the nearly 60 percent in 1960.

In the old order of monogamy the mutually beneficial exchange centered on quality assurances, either via polygamy (sexual assurances) or monogamy (provisonal assurances) in a Beta context. These assurances, having been more or less compensated for by men’s willing or unwilling assistance via social and legislative means, are no longer an incentive for women to marry or commit to a long term monogamy, and this is evidenced in almost a decade of statistics that show this decline.

A Wife for Every Beta

In Christian Dread I made mention of Nick Krausers’ appearance on London Real. For a bit more elaboration on this principle cue the video to 5:00 and watch until about 8:33.

A wife for every Beta is the old order negotiated social contract function of committed monogamy. In a state of nature where 80% of men can never be assured of a genetic legacy, most men have no incentive to participate in an organized society. What the Regulated model of sexuality does (albeit inefficiently) is gives Beta males the incentive to cooperate in larger society by establishing monogamy as the predominant social order. And then, as Krauser mentions these societies tend to outperform those based on a Hypergamous, naturalistic socio-sexual structure.

As mentioned this arrangement was based on an exchange of long term security for women for assurances of sexual access and ultimately a genetic legacy. Essentially it was a negotiated compromise of the desire for the Alpha Fucks aspect of Hypergamy for the assurances of a long term Beta Bucks aspect of Hypergamy. By today’s socio-sexual standard this old order arrangement is supplanted with the relatively assured guarantee of satisfying both aspects of Hypergamy at different phases of a woman’s maturity in life. Thus we see the Epiphany Phase, Alpha Widowhood and every variety of schema I outline in Preventive Medicine.

The new, post-sexual revolution order is a model ostensibly based on ‘sexual freedom’, but what this really represents is a return to that naturalistic sexual order based on pre-agrarian, evolutionarily incentivized Hypergamy. We revert back to an open acceptance of the 80/20 realities that, if we’re honest, always informed even a Regulated socio-sexual model of monogamy.

In the new era of Open Hypergamy, women’s only necessitated compromise of her sexual strategy depends on her exaggerated self-impression of her SMV measured against her capacity to lock down an optimal male. This also explains the endless push to create self-confident, self-important ‘independent’ women. Women’s naturalistic predilection for the 80/20 Pareto Principle of sexual selection virtually assures their long term isolation – thus the need for a self-created impression of women’s self-sufficiency.