Biomechanics

Hyenas

In my time spent in the manosphere I’ve been asked on more than one occasion what I thought about the concept of the Alpha Female. For a time I was resistant to the idea, not because I didn’t allow for the possibility that certain women were predisposed to being Type A personalities and given to the same desire for power and control that men predominantly have, but rather due to the way that Alpha Female came to develop that personality.

As the social impulse to feminize men took root, so too was the counterbalance of masculinizing women instituted. As I’ve stated in earlier post, the concept of power, real power, isn’t invested in controlling the action of others, but in how much control we can exercise in the course of, and over our own, live’s. Freud’s concept of penis envy not withstanding, up until the time of the sexual revolution it’s been men who’ve seemingly had the most control over the courses their lives will take. This of course is a classic fiction for the majority of men, but this is the perception even the most unassuming women have had with men – even the poorest of men have more power to decide what direction their lives will take than women.

In a natural state, women’s biological, emotional, provisioning and protection needs have always been sustained by men. Women evolved to be the more necessitous sex. This isn’t to say women were patently helpless, didn’t provide nurturing or couldn’t adapt to new environmental challenges, but it is to say their individual survivability, if not entirely dependent upon men, was greatly enhanced by cooperating sexually and socially with men. Due to this male-centric necessity women’s predisposition for a want of a survival-level security evolved – and so too did the subliminal anxiety to ensure themselves against survival insecurity.

As social progress advanced (and occasionally retreated) so too did the influence of the Feminine Imperative over men. I would argue that the Feminine Imperative, as a socio-sexual construct, was evolved from a desire not so much to control men, but as a means to relieve the anxiety of women’s earliest insecurities. This struggle for power necessitated the development of the Feminine Imperative, but only in the respect that it afforded women real power – a greater control over the course that their own lives would take.

Ensuring an enduring dominance of genetic material being passed on with the best male stock (i.e. Hypergamy) was of equal importance to ensuring the survivability of her offspring. This is nothing new to the manosphere, it’s simply the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks dynamic, but reduced to its evolutionary beginnings. As women were (and still are) afforded greater control over their own lives (true power) the application of this power is spent in easing women’s dependency upon men. A woman’s desire for power is rooted in easing the anxieties and insecurities her feral and tribal ancestors hard-coded into her contemporary psyche.

For every female CEO exercising her influence over today’s (male created) corporations, for every book about the End of Men, for every speech about Feminist Triumphalism, it’s important for men to understand that all of these overt declarations of power stem from women’s primal insecurity about their own survivability without the aid of attracting and sustaining an enduring relationship with a man.

Alpha Females

I drew this up to put into context the misnomer that is the Alpha Female. I find it ironic, but not unexpected, that a fem-centric society will adamantly resist the idea of Men being Alpha, yet enthusiastically embrace labeling strong independent women® as Alpha Females. Feminists and Mangina intellectuals alike will spend endless hours elaborating over how human males can’t possibly be compared with Alpha lions or wolves in the wilderness, and that it’s basement dwelling keyboard theorists who promote the idea; yet will giddily endorse women like Sheryl Sandberg as being Alpha Females.

At the risk of reopening the “what is Alpha?” can of worms, women cannot be Alpha in the same sense that Men are considered Alpha. The operative point being that Alpha in the male sense is a derivative of the male biology. By virtue of testosterone, male animals have (by order of degree) an inborn disposition towards an Alpha behavior set. On the most rudimentary scale, Alpha behaviors and physical traits are defined by their utility to that male and the breeding motivations they inspire in females.

Before I get run up the flagpole for asserting that testosterone is a key element for determining an Alpha status, allow me to direct your attention to today’s linked video. There is a species of mammal wherein the female of the species possesses more testosterone than the male, and consequently the role of sexual agressor and pack leading Alpha status is conferred to her.

They’re called Hyenas.

Watch the video (it’s short) and contrast the female hyena’s behaviors and,..physical characteristics with the fem-centric popularized notion of an Alpha Female.

To be sure, there are Alpha traits and behavioral learnings most Beta men can develop and internalize. I’m still a firm believer that to a greater degree, Alpha status for men can become who a Man is. In fact behavioral Alpha dominance is (was) passed on from one dominant male to his offspring, or close relation. So it does stand to reason that women too can learn these dominant behavior sets. The rapid masculinization of contemporary women is proof of this, and women may also internalize this dominance schema to become who they are; but does this make them Alpha?

Obviously women are not hyenas, but the physical dimorphism of hyena sexuality is an interesting illustration for the masculinization of females in humans. Primarily it changes the social dynamic of the group. Women can do what our female hyena does in this video through anabolic steroid use and a lot of heavy lifting, and with similar physical results, but does this alter a female security desire evolved for thousands of years? That answer might be yes, but for a woman to be Alpha she must physically and mentally transform into as close an approximation of a man as societal conditioning and physical mutation will allow.

This being the case, is she really female anymore?

Genetic Celebrity

Before you hurl in disgust, watch this TED episode to the end. It’s important you do since the real meat of what Cameron Russel discusses here is towards the end. It’s very easy to dismiss her musings here as just another pretty girl suffering from liberal white privilege guilt, but what she’s driving at here is an inversion of the body (fat) acceptance movement.

Today’s topic comes courtesy of Burrough’s SoSuave forum thread, and after watching this video I felt there was a lot of interconnected gender and social issues being danced around. I have no doubt Cameron is one of the more intellectually developed ‘super models’ of the past decade or so, but her apologetic observations here are only effective because she aligns them with what she knows will be received well from a fem-centric audience.

PlayHerMan had the best comment from that thread which puts her message into context before I go any further:

Well most attractive women don’t start to really understand how the world works until they start losing their looks. Most of them are truly oblivious to the fact that their looks have opened probably 95% of the doors in their lives. I’m guessing the chick in the video was oblivious too when she was 22. This is why she is talking about it NOW and not THEN. If you told her this crap back then she probably would have called BS.

Now that she is past her “prime” she has realized her looks meant everything in her life. Once her looks deteriorate, she will be tossed out of the industry like yesterday’s donuts and be invisible to most men of dignity.

Once the bloom of youth starts to fade and stuff starts to sag.. its a real wake-up call for most women. For the first time in their lives everyone is not kissing their ass. For the first time in their lives they have to pay a speeding ticket. For the first time in their lives they actually have to be qualified or connected to get a job. For the first time in their lives, men are not drooling over them. For the first time in their lives they face the harsh reality that all men face from adulthood onward = Be useful or perish. 

Entitled women who figure this out early get knocked up ASAP so they can mooch off the state as an insurance policy should they not find a willing man to serve them financially.

If you spend your life in delusion exploiting men and thinking you can live that way forever, its a harsh wake up call when you find yourself in your 40’s with no skills, no money, no kids and no men to take care of you. Scary stuff.

PlayHerMan gives us a good point of origin here. Cameron is having her ‘come-to-Jesus’ moment in that, while she’s still attractive as she’s aged, she sees the Wall for what it is finally and requires some sense of catharsis, some degree of absolution, for having lived in (willful?) obliviousness of it for so long. She knows  full well that the majority of the womyn in a TED audience will likely have gone through various stages of hating women exactly like her in their upbringing. She also knows that at some stage she’ll gradually have to join their ranks in a post-Wall existence and needs to make the peace with them in order to coexist in their own phase of life.

For their own part, these women living on the outside of beauty, in the context Cameron represents to them, even the most staunchly intellectual amongst them wants to feel some sort of kinship with her. These are the women who’d hack up in disgust at commercials with the message “don’t hate me because I’m beautiful”, but when Cameron delivers the same message in a more intellectually palatable way, they embrace her surrender to the greater sisterhood. The hate her, but they love her.

The Genetic Celebrity

Cameron Russel is correct in one assertion, she did win a genetic lottery, contextually speaking. She’s been too insulated in her own version of model’s girl-world to really have pause to think any deeper about beauty and the biological associations with it beyond what’s served her feminine solipsism. She acknowledges the genetic aspect of beauty, but only insofar as she’s experienced the utility of it in her very insular model’s world. To her, beauty is just the luck of the draw. Maybe a woman can enhance herself with cosmetic surgery and maintaining her diet, exercise, etc. but for a girl who already benefits from natural good looks and a high metabolism at an early age, you can hardly expect her to develop the insight to see beauty beyond fate or luck.

As with most women in search of a rationalization for the unforgiving brutality of their genetic draw (or inability to build upon it), she predictably resorts to the beauty-as-social-construct feminist trope. It’s interesting that even former supermodels will embrace feminist boilerplate when it serve their interest better than their looks used to. You see, it’s not that you’re not beautiful it’s that the patriarchy society has perverted beauty into what’s commercially applicable.

While this fem-centric rationale serves to assuage many an HB4’s sexless  Alphaless existence, there is one kernel of truth to it. It’s not that men respond to a prefabricated  social norm for beauty, it’s that we tend to idealize certain biological templates for beauty. In Why Men Are The Way They Are Dr. Warren Farrell describes this idealized female as a Genetic Celebrity. This is the girl that most closely resembles what a teenage boy sees as his dream girl. She is the one who in real life best matches the Playboy Centerfold, the SI Swimsuit Model, the TV personality, etc. who turns him on. This is just the surface level idealization, however, the degree of idealization becomes further compounded with layers of idealized personality, a woman’s sincerity, an emotional connection, sexual availability, and a host of other attributes is added as a man matures.

That said, in the beginning, the Genetic Celebrity is what most boys start with. Show me a guy with really bad ONEitis and I’ll show you a guy who’s psychologically sold on her being his Genetic Celebrity ideal on some level of consciousness. For myself it’s easy, I love pretty blondes with flat stomachs, long legs, perfect small asses and mediumish tits. Back in the 80’s Heather Locklear was my teenage Genetic Celebrity template. Since then I’ve experienced a variety of different women, but by far the most common recurrence of woman in my LTRs, including the evil BPD, and yes, Mrs. Tomassi, have followed this Genetic Celebrity template.

I think it’s very important for men to recognize this preferential template in themselves. I don’t think it’s inherently a bad thing, but it can predispose a Man to make bad decisions, relinquish frame or develop ONEitis to make that dream girl come true for himself despite the dangers she may represent.

While I can’t pinpoint it now, I think there may be a vestigial, psychological purpose to a man developing a genetic template for his idealized mate. Sex sells for obvious reasons, and commercialization of sexuality picked up on this long ago, but the added bonus for commercial interests is the compulsive tendency for men to imprint that template in their psyches.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that this template is the result of it being manufactured for men – this is feminism’s rationalized ego salve – the associations a guy must make to elevate a woman to Genetic Celebrity status are founded upon the environmental sexual cues that we evolved long ago. In other words the reason Heather Locklear was my template, instead of Rosy O’ Donnell, was due to her physique aligning with what my hard-wired sexual response found arousing. If it were true that beauty is a social construct, then it would stand to reason that with enough social reengineering the Rosy O’ Donnells of the world end up becoming Genetic Celebrities. The lie in this, and in Cameron’s beauty analysis, is the genetic part of the description; it’s the biomechanics that make beauty in the first place.

 

Vestiges

vestiges

The greatest inconsistency that most people discussing Social Darwinism fall into is the “survival of the fittest” falacy. Nowhere in any of Darwin’s writtings will you ever see this terminology refered to in the context of natural selection. It’s not survival of the fitest, it is survival of the species best able to adapt to it’s changing conditions and environments. Dinosaurs ruled the earth as the preeminent species for eons (far longer than humans). Then in the relative blink of an eye, they were extinct because a radical environmental change, for which they were, biologically, completely unprepared wiped them out wholesale. They simply couldn’t adapt to that environment.

This is what people fail to see; adaptation is the coin of the realm in evolution. 68% of the population in the U.S. is overweight, not because of “bad” genes, but because the environment has changed and people have adapted to it. Our bodies naturally store fat. We evolved from a necessity to do so since food sources were scarce in our biological past, however now the environment has changed. Food is too abundant, too convenient, too calorie dense, etc. for us not to be fat. Our metabolism favors carbohydrates over protien and stored fat, why? Because our environmental reality thousands of years ago meant that a good sugar kick made for a better chance of evading a predator. Now this biological legacy only makes us fatter when you can buy ding dongs at any 7-11.

Legacies

With regards to monogamy or polygyny, essentially what we’re observing in this era is a result of a restructuring of adaptive methodologies to account for changes in our environment. Single motherhood, readily available forms of birth control, greater potential for security provisioning for men and women that isn’t based on physical prowess, etc. Yet, in light of all that we still struggle with the legacy of our biological pasts.

Men and women, biologically, have different methodologies for reproduction. It is in a woman’s biological best interest to mate with the genetically superior male best able to provide long term provisioning for her and any potential offspring. Again, it is in her best interest to find a man best fitted to share in parental investment. This is due to her comparatively prolonged period of gestation (9 months), the rigors of rearing a child to self-sufficiency (at least adolescence) as well as her own insured survival. They ovulate in a 28 day cycle and are at a peak of feritlity 5-7 years after puberty. They posess a limited number of eggs and become biologically inviable after a certain age (at or around menopause). Their hormone and endorphin biochemistry also reflect this reproductive schema; they produce in bulk oxytocin and estrogen, both responsible for prompting feelings of nurturing as well as serving as buffers for sexual indescretions. At the peak of their menstrual cycles they produce more testosterone in preparation for sexual activity and in the low periods produce more estrogens and progesterones. In addition, both during and after pregnancy they produce high levels of progesterone and oxytocin, both primary in engendering feelings of love and nuturement for offspring.

Men’s methodologies are much different. Biologically, we produce 12.5 times the amount of testosterone than women. As a result we have higher accuity of vision, hearing and touch. We have more muscularity, lean towards feelings of aggression in preference to sadness. And of course we are easily prompted to a state of sexual arousal – we’re always ready for it in our natural state. We produce millions of reproductive cells daily and are sexually viable until very late in life. Our reproductive methodology revolves around “spreading the seed” as indiscriminately as possible. Ours is quanity, women’s is quality.

Now, having done the break down of this, you can see the conflict in mating methods; thus enters adaptive sociological and psychological mechanisms to regulate this process. Thus, being social animals, we introduce ethics, morality and implied responsibilities to buffer both methodolgies. In our biological past, sexual arousal in both men and women was mitigated by physical prowess. Large breasts in women, an appropriate hips to waist ratio, physical symetry in both sexes, muscularity in men, physical manifestations of testosterone (square jaw for example) etc. we’re the call signs for sexual activity. Physicality was (and still is) the primary motivator for sexual activity and this is literally encoded into our genetics.

However, as society progressed, conditions and environments changed, thus social adaptation changed. A lot of freshly unplugged guy’s make an astute observation in this progression – Why is it that women are still hot for:

  • Celebrities
  • Musicians
  • Criminals
  • Drug dealers
  • Daredevils and risk-takers

Social proof began to become a secondary consideration for intimate acceptance (from a female mating methodology) for women as society progressed. Physical prowess, while still a primary sexual attractor and indicator of prefered genetics, didn’t necessarily ensure a continued committment to parental investment. Men and women’s reproductive methodologies have always been in a see-saw balance since we began as hunter-gatherer tribal societies. As society (see environment) changed other factors for parental investment became important. Artists became attractive bcause they possessed creative intelligence and this was manifested in their creative abilities to solve problems. When you see the broke musician with the dutiful girlfriend this is that legacy at work.

Social proof and intersexual competition, while always present, began to move into the psychological. It was far more efficient for women to compete for a desirable male covertly – usually by not confirming his acceptance – than to do so overtly. As society further progressed, male competition moved away from the physical and into a provisioning capacity. A drug dealer and a high powered corporate executive could both be “alpha” males – both have high social proof and provisioning capacity – albeit in different social strata.

Polygyny and Monogamy are natural human methodologies. Polygyny serves a mans biological imperative better, while monogamy serves a woman’s better. The conflict arises when either is compromised. A single man who’s non-exclusively dating is essentially in a state of polygyny, while a married woman is in her prefered state of secured monogamy. Either sex must surrender their prefered methodology to accommodate the other’s. This is why, socially, we have stages in our modern lives where one is exercised over another.

Animal Planet

I was recently watching an animal planet special on dogs and cats that compared their “domestic” behaviors with those of their wild counterparts, like preadatory cats and wolves. Not so surpisingly a dog will instinctively do circles and tramp down his bed in exactly the same fashion as a wolf will his sleeping area. So too will cats cover up their own excrement, burying it so predators wont catch their scent so readily, just like house cats will. To us, these and many other behaviors seem cute, but entirely unnecessary for domesticated animals to habitually perform. One would think that after literally thousands of years of domestication, as well as selective breeding, these behaviors would be less prominent or entirely “bred out” of them, but this is obviously not the case. They are hardwired, unlearned behaviors that are imprinted into them from birth that proved to be valuable in their species’ survival over the course of generations.

Using this analogy, how much more complex are our behaviors and the motivations behind them? There are many global studies that compare physical features in attraction across culture and race for both sexes that show very frequent commonalities for physical attraction. Broad shoulders, squared jawline and chest to waist ratio in men and symetry of facial features, breast size and hips to waist ratios in women are universal attractors for each respective sex. In fact the very common propensity for women to exclude men shorter than themselves from their consideration for intimacy is specifically derived from what evolutioanry psychologists call vestigial sexual selection.

Bear in mind this is attraction and how our subconscious interprets external cues for prompting desire. You see a naked woman in Playboy and the result is a hard on. External prompt – biological response, pure and simple. That’s a quick and easy one, but there’s a variety of other reponses that occur too – quickening of heart rate, release of hormones and endorphines, dialation of pupils, flushing of skin, etc. Again this is a reaction that was unlearned and part of our chemical make up.

A lot of frustration most men and women endure in our modern socio-sexual education is the result of a psychological attempt to reconcile the vestigial behaviors and predilections of our feral past with the need for adaptation in our present environment. Hypergamy is the prime directive for women, but precious few are cognitively aware of it, and even the ones who may be still find themselves subject to it. Hypergamy is a vestigial, mental subroutine running in women’s peripheral awarenesses. So vital was this species survival methodology in our past that it had to become part of a woman’s limbic understanding of herself.

So when these processes are brought into our awareness (i.e. feminine hypergamy, male polygyny, etc.) we tend to play them down or dismiss them wholesale. Sometimes the truths of these vestiges are ugly – in fact the reason we find them uncomfortable or offensive is the result of a societal effort to keep them under the surface in ourselves. They offend our sense of justice, or notions of equitability, but they did serve to bring us to where we are now as a society.

A lot of critics of evo-psych (in particular), as well as the revealers of some of the more unsettling aspects of human social and sexual evolution, like to start their criticisms by conflating the revelations of these dynamics with condoning  the behaviors that are results of them. Yes, hypergamy, in all its permutations, can be a very ugly truth to witness, but exposing it, attempting to understand it, is not tantamount to endorsing it. Human beings can’t handle too much reality, so the recourse is to attempt to stuff the Genie back into the bottle. Being aware of our feral natures and attempting to deconstruct the vestiges of those we deal with today is not the same as expecting absolution from the consequences of them.

Just because you know the reasons for your behaviors doesn’t grant you a license to engage in them. Yet neither should anyone be discouraged from legitimate inquiry into the natures of our primal selves for fear of the shame that others would want to apply to you to ease their own discomfort.

Male Sexual Response

This now cancelled show was the brainchild of the creators of Mate Check.

The short version of this is basically this is a “service” that tests (attorneys call this entrapment) a man’s fidelity by setting up an encounter with an attractive woman who approaches them in an effort to see if the man will ‘bite’ and seek out more intimate contact with her. Generally this service is paid for by insecure women involved in LTRs. I should also add that 100% of men so tested fail the test and pursue the attractive woman.

Salacious, stupid, and basically everything you’d expect from a FOX reality show, but also a very interesting social experiment. This is Social Matching Theory in practice. If you’re approached by a woman obviously not in (what you believe) is your “league” and she’s expressing blatant IOIs and approaches you, it’s much the same as the ‘Stripper Effect.’ Men are so accustomed to having to be the initiators and dealing with rejection (and potential rejection) that they’ll willingly pay for the attentions of an attractive woman giving them a $20 lap dance and this becomes physically and psychologically gratifying.

In this scenario, the element of plausibility is introduced (as a bait). You can say that these guys took the bait because they were already predisposed to do so because of their foundering relationships, but I’d argue that few men (if any according to the stats on this site) would turn down an exceptionally attractive and visibly sexually available woman if she were inclined to be as forward as to actively seek out a man and pursue him.

I’ve read psych experiments where attractive college age women approached men they’d never met on campus and proposed having sex with them after 20 minutes of converstaion. Close to 100% of the men accepted the offer (much like this service), but when an attractive college age man performed a similar experiment with women the acceptance rate was around 60%. I think that this service is playing to this very dynamic.

Now here’s a thought, do you suppose the ‘investigators’ at Mate Check get a picture of their mark and match him up with a girl they think he will believe he could get? I would think they’d have to have a variety of women “investigators” of varying levels of attractivness in order to allay suspicion. For instance, a hugely overweight guy (unless he’s very stupid, despreate or both) would be skeptical (at first) to believe that a stripper grade woman would thorw herself at him voluntarily. So I wonder if Mate Check matches like for like in attractiveness when running their scam?

Disinfecting Sunshine

Sunshine Mary think’s she’s busted some manosphere myth today in asserting (with entirely anecdotal points) that men don’t necessarily have to be hitched to a frigid or obese woman to be moved to cheat. I’m inclined to agree, however, those factors are what behavioral psychologists term Establishing Operations:

Establishing operations work by changing the reinforcement properties of a reinforcer. If a reinforcer is made to be more reinforcing, the consequence will be more desirable which should have a greater effect on eliciting the target behavior. Establishing operations for reinforcers make us want something more that we might have.

Ergo, hunger, thirst, and yes, sexual deprivation can be considered establishing operations, thus making satisfaction of those operation much more potent reinforcers.

For her part, I’m afraid that Mary’s isn’t going to like what crawls out from under the rock she’s just turned over. What she’s digging at here is the nature of the male sexual response, and as with most women, she expects that response to align with a feminine-centric interpretation of it. Women’s solipsistic nature predisposes them to define the male sexual response in ways that make sense to what their own response is.

As I stated in Women & Sex, until a woman lives in 12.5 to 17 times her present testosterone levels 24/7 she cannot ever understand male sexuality. And since she lives in a fem-centric reality (both personally and socially) her awareness and expectations of male sexuality is defined by the only terms she has a frame of reference for – female sexuality.

So it should come as no shock that women are bewildered (and disgusted) by a male sexual response that is incongruent with their own. They want to force fit it. In the Feminine Reality I stated:

For one gender to realize their sexual imperative the other must sacrifice their own. This is the root source of power the feminine imperative uses to establish its own reality as the normative one.

One of the reasons I repeatedly assert that women lack a fundamental appreciation for the sacrifices men make to facilitate their reality finds its roots in women’s lacking a male frame of reference. In general, Men are far more self-controlled than any woman can realistically understand. When we analyze the realities of the male sex response and the underlying biology that contributes to it, the control men exert over it is actually a triumph of evolved psychology and social directive.

As Men we take this control for granted because (for most) it’s a living state for us – even we don’t apprciate how controlled we really are over our sexual impulse. We live in a condition of controlling this drive, but the drive still motivates us.

Women are shocked that men are literally, neurologically wired to see them as sex objects. The parts of our brains that are attuned to using tools is stimulated when we see scantily dressed women. Women may be horrified by this, but one thing you will never hear them utter is a word of how astounding it is that men (largely) have such psychological self-control over it.

The New Thin

new_thin

My Reddit Q&A on Monday generated a lot of good questions:

Ever notice on Facebook, when ever an average/fugly/fat chick post’s her picture you have like ten women (only women) chime in with their comments under the picture saying stuff like “HOT!” “you’re so pretty!” “damn you look good” when in fact she isn’t?!

Are women trying to make their not so attractive friend feel better about herself?! Or is there another scheme involved here of setting the bar low in order to boast their own attractive scale up.

I see, hear and read this constantly. What we’re observing however is a carefully constructed feminine social convention, and a feminine-combative one at that. By tacitly reinforcing the “good looks” of an obviously overweight woman with positive compliments, the latent message is that she doesn’t need to improve her looks to attract men. The truth of course is that she could be semi-fuckable after dropping another 15 pounds, but in telling her she’s hot ‘as-is’ the idea, in the form of an encouraging compliment, is to get her to relax and stay fat. Thus the complimenter(s) simultaneously feel relaxed in their fat.

It’s really a socialization attempt by less physically appealing women to regulate the sexual market in favor of themselves.

I can remember experiencing this firsthand long before the advent of social media. In the days I worked in the resort casino industry, I was in the lunchroom with the largely (heh) female advertising department and the conversation came up about how some woman in accounting was “too thin” or she need to gain some weight. I emphatically disagreed; I knew the woman they were going on about and she could’ve lost 10 pounds and still been overweight. The ladies lost their shit when I said she could stand to lose a few pounds and hit the gym more often. The hens practically pounded the table with their fists and the accusations of misogyny, and the old chestnuts about men’s “shallow” desires for the physical all flew wild and furious.

You see all the women at the table were as heavy if not heavier than the woman in question. I had insulted the herd by association.

The funny thing about body image is that most people tend to judge obesity based on their own physique. If you’re overweight and your regular peer group is fatter than you, you tend to think you’re “normal”. It’s similar to eating a donut from a box someone’s brought to work for all to enjoy. If one person is eating a donut it tacitly gives others “permission” to enjoy one too.

I was once at a distillery in Panama with a group of Dutch people I work with and a stunningly attractive Panamanian secretary asked me if I was Dutch. I told her, no, I was American and she said “oh, you don’t ‘look’ American. I laughed at this for a minute and asked her what an American ‘looks’ like and she said, “well, they’re all fat.” I took it as a compliment, but I had to agree with her.

Books and Covers

You can’t judge a book by it’s cover, but more often than not, it’s a good indicator of what the story’s about. An attractive cover should make the reader want to read it.

Women have far more rigid prerequisites for what makes an acceptable man for an LTR than men do for women. Women base their estimate of a man on his confidence, status, affluence, looks, humor, intellect, creativity, ambition, determination, decisiveness,..and the list goes on. Men’s requisites for intimacy? Looks and sexual availability, that’s it. Beyond that, you can make a case for any ephemeral quality that convinces you the girl’s worth your long term investment, but if she’s not hot enough to keep your physical interest, you’re going to look elsewhere to make up for it.

Yet what is the single most common shaming tactic women use for men? Painting them as ‘shallow‘ for requiring her to maintain a good shape and be sexually available. Men have far too much on the line in the long term NOT to be concerned with demanding the highest standard from a woman for an investment that goes beyond anything she could hope to genuinely appreciate or match by other means. For all of the personal investment a man must make in himself to meet women’s ‘attraction prerequisites’, it only makes pragmatic sense that his (physical) standards for women be strict and exact.

It’s really up to you to make the judgement call, but by no means should you allow accusations of superficiality influence your decision in that. As a Man, you are well within your rights to expect a maintained physique from a woman, considering the far greater sacrifices she expects from you. Would you leave her if she got fat? Damn right you would. Would she leave you if you went beta-listless-unemployed-alcoholic? Damn right she would.

All that said, what it really comes down to is the reason why this girl lost the weight. There are plenty of fresh divorcees frenetically working out at Planet Fitness in the hopes of reconditioning themselves enough to attract another husband – only to fatten up again once she finds the guy who “loves her for who she is”. Women who once were fat, who slim down are prone to this. That’s not to say there aren’t women who make a definitive lifestyle change and go from being a walrus to a Fitness America Pageant contestant and parley that into modeling or  personal training career, but these are the most rare and notable exceptions.

I should also point out that it’s a uniquely White Knight habit to publicly defend a woman’s body image insecurities in order to get the identification / affirmation strokes they believe endears them to women. I hear these guys parrot back the same lines women self-affirm when talking about their body shape or trying to disqualify a sexual competitor, in an effort to be more ‘like’ the women they hope to get with. The idea is that they believe they’ll be rewarded for taking the “fat acceptance, love-who-you-are” tact and be perceived as more modern or up with the right conventions, and that guy’s who actually have the temerity to say they prefer a tight body are the neanderthals – again, to disqualify their own sexual competitors.

The Mechanics of Sexual Selection

Whenever the ‘fat is OK’ debate pops up all it does is serve to further illustrate yet another feminine social convention. All of these conventions are sociological and psychological methodologies with the latent purpose of securing breeding opportunities for less than physically optimal women.

  • Point 1: Women know on an instinctual, biological level that, overall, men generally base their breeding selection on the physical conditions of a female. Hips to waist ratio, breast size, facial symmetry, fullness of lips, youthful appearance, etc.

  • Point 2: In order to compete with similar women in meeting the physical standards of a given demographic of men, women must create physical methods in order to compensate for this deficit. Thus they have make up, cosmetic surgery, high-heels, hair dye, etc.

  • Point 3: Failing this, sociological and psychological constructs are necessary to ‘level the playing field’ in the sexual marketplace. Thus, fat, out of shape women attempt to convince men to feel ashamed for wanting a physically superior female by converting that desire into shame. It becomes superficiality. Likewise, older women who’s sexual marketability wanes with every passing year, must create social constructs that praises the sexual prowess of older women.

Women have been trying to convince themselves for centuries that there ought to be more to sexual attraction for men than physical appeal, and for centuries this method has been thwarted by simple male biology. Rather than play the game better, they attempt to change the rules of the game to better fit their own limitations in a variety of ways.

The problem with the idea that “it’s what’s inside that counts” is that it’s what’s outside that arouses. All the “feeling good about your body” that a fat woman can muster is NEVER going to be an aphrodisiac or a substitute for having a great body that men are aroused by.

Queens, Workers & Drones

mount

As I’ve stated in many prior posts, it is Men, not women who are the True Romantics. It is actually Men who will more readily alter their lives in the most radical of ways to achieve what they think is an idyllic state of monogamy with their ‘Woman of Quality’. I understand how this statement may conflict with women’s (and mangina symp’s) characterizations of ‘typical guys’ just wanting to fuck anything that smiles at them, but this sentiment is only designed to maintain the feminine as the victimized gender.

It is in fact Men who are more prone to wanting commitment from a woman. The operative word here is “wanting” commitment.

Men are now also just as likely to want to get married as women and more likely to fall in love at first sight.

Experts said that the results were evidence of ‘gender blurring’ in which women have become more like men and men have taken on the characteristics usually associated with women.

I doubt that last quote from this article will shock my regular readers. Considering that the overwhelming majority of men are corn-fed betas, raised from birth to be devoted, “supportive”, wives to their masculinized fem-husbands, it’s really no surprise that men would be the ones seeking solace in a monogamy they’ve been conditioned to believe should be their goal-state for so long.

While betas are concerned with qualifying for an idyllic monogamy, Alphas tend to focus more on fidelity – their women’s fidelity, not necessarily their own.

Feminized Commitment

One very effective meme the feminine imperative has cunningly inserted into our social awareness is the feminine ownership of the term ‘commitment’. Calling a guy a ‘commitment-phobe’ is really a 90’s shaming cliché that’s been a retread for the Man Up! generation. There are different variation of this shaming – a guy can be ‘phobic’ because he lacks maturity, or because he’s become bitter and burned by a spurned woman, but underneath all that is the association that the concept of commitment uniquely applies to a man committing to monogamy with a woman.

From the Paradox of Commitment:

The idea is that commitment should only have meaning in a feminine defined reality. Ironically, it’s Men who commit far more readily to ideals, family, military, business ventures or partnerships, and servitude than women have the capacity to appreciate, because recognizing this doesn’t serve their imperative. In other words, a commitment to anything that doesn’t directly benefit the feminine isn’t commitment; answer? Redefine commitment to reflect feminine interests.

One thing that needs to be understood about women’s innate feminine solipsism is how it’s expressed on a meta-scale. It’s very easy to observe and consider individual examples of women’s subconscious sense of self-importance (read any comment from women on a manosphere blog) , but what most men aware of this phenomenon don’t consider is how this solipsism scales up to the larger social narrative.

I’ve written extensively about the Feminine Reality and Feminine Social Primacy, but these have been ‘top down’ assessments with regard to how society follows a feminine primary narrative as the correct premise of origin. Put simply, if it benefits women, it benefits society – society is better when benefiting women’s imperatives are its focus.

However, from a ‘bottom up’ perspective it is this proclivity for solipsism in women that collectively becomes the social narrative (or paradigm if you prefer). Millions of women solipsistically expressing the demands that would ensure a secure hypergamy for themselves makes for a fem-centric social narrative. And from this develops an expectation of, and entitlement to a default, secured commitment to satisfying women’s hypergamic impulses.

Selective Breeding

So powerful is this sense of entitlement, so consuming and convinced of the correctness of their purpose is the feminine that women will literally breed and raise generations of men to better satisfy it. Hypergamy is cruel, but nowhere more so than in the relationship between a mother overtly raising and conditioning a son to be a better servant of the feminine imperative.

But to breed a better worker, the feminine imperative’s queens can’t afford to have any corrupting, masculine, outside influence. On a societal scale this might mean removal (either by disincentives or forcibly) of a father from the family unit, but this is the easy, extreme illustration. There are far more subtle social and psychological means that the imperative uses to effect this filtering – via mass media, social doctrines, appeals to (feminized) morality, the feminine is placed as the correct imperative while the masculine is filtered out or apologetically tolerated as vestiges of an immature and crude reminder of masculinity’s incorrectness.

Yet for all of this social engineering Hypergamy still demands satisfaction of women’s most base imperative, Alpha seed. The queens need physically / psychologically dominant drones – if just for a season and at their ovulatory pleasure. While beta workers are endlessly vetted in sisyphean tasks of qualifying for the acceptance of the feminine imperative, the Alpha drones live outside this shell; their qualifications only based on how well they satisfy the feminine’s visceral side of  hypergamy.

The great irony of this social solution to hypergamy and long term parental investment is that the vast majority of the offspring of this arrangement would be raised to be better workers. Those betas-to-be boys must be insulated from the corrupting influence of the drones lest they devolve into the Alphas they crave yet cannot control. It may seem counterintuitive, to raise what should ostensibly be optimized genetic stock as a cowed, sometimes medically restrained, feminized beta males. However it is through this harsh conditioning that truly dominant Alphas must rise above. Essentially the genetic lottery isn’t won by women in such a social environment – it’s men, or the ones who rise above in spite of the conditioning efforts of the feminine imperative.

Generation AFC

We’re just now seeing the results of almost three generations of this selective breeding effort. While women bleat and bemoan, “Man Up!” over the lack of suitable men to meet both their hypergamy and their provisioning, they only grind their teeth at the results of a social momentum set in motion by women two or three generations before them. While more boys are raised to pee sitting down by women concerned that their sons’ testosterone poisoning will make him a potential rapist, the fewer and fewer “suitable” males present themselves 20 years later.

A lot has been made about men just checking out or giving up on themselves as they reach a projected notion of maturity. The feminine complains about them not living up to the standard set before them by the feminine imperative – women are owed reverence and tribute of an enduring security, why are men not sacrificing themselves on the altar of the goddess? In the face of all the so called social advancements in women’s independence over the past 50 years we still hear a deafening cry for ‘real men’ to measure up, to qualify themselves for acceptance, to be worthy of providing for her and (her) offspring. Despite the refutations of masculinity and claims of independence, women still want Men.

In the manosphere it’s been argued that the reason for this sexual disparity and men’s ambivalence is due to some new awareness among men of the way the Game has been rigged against them. It’s been argued that men are consciously opting out – going their own way – in some new social movement causing a de facto ‘marriage strike’. I think this estimation is greatly exaggerated.

The male crisis of this generation isn’t the result of men’s conscious decision to opt out, but rather due to being forced out by this selective breeding. As exampled in my first link, men want to get married. It’s part of their feminized conditioning to view long term monogamy as a goal state. No, the men that women want to “man up” are the ones they’re already married to, or the ones they’d consider worthy if only they acted (not actually became) more like drones and less like dutiful workers.

It’s not that the vast majority of men wouldn’t eagerly bind themselves to women in monogamy, it’s that they’ve been bred in grand proportions to be ‘less-than-men’ by the feminine imperative.

Too Hot

too_hot

Over the Christmas break I had Dalrock and several SoSuave members alert me to a recent story about the firing of a dental assistant for “being too attractive”. I’d thought it was pretty laughable at first glance, but there’s a lot more going on in this situation than just what’s on the surface here. Naturally the fem-centric media starting point is the egregiousness of the all-male Iowa high court unanimously agreeing that a woman could be fired for something other than her job performance. It’s always interesting to observe the legal twistings when when the feminine imperative smacks into a law it hasn’t yet distorted to its own purposes (like right-to-work laws). I’m sure the case will be taken up the chain to even higher courts, but the operative will be the same – women don’t want to be beholden to general laws that conflict with the feminine imperative. Give it time and new definitions of what constitutes sexual discrimination, and you’ll see how fluidly the imperative achieves its ends.

Beyond the indignation prompting social fallout, there’s an interesting illustration in Game theory here. Melissa Nelson, a semi-attractive 32 year old dental assistant has her 10 year employment stint terminated by 53 year old Dentist, James Knight for representing too tempting a  potential lover and too potential a threat to his marriage. This is where it gets interesting:

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.

Well, considering all she wore were standard issue medical scrubs it would appear that it didn’t take much to arouse the good dentist.

While her former boss claimed her clothes were so tight he couldn’t look at her without being aroused, Nelson said the only outfit she wore to work was standard scrubs worn by many nurses and assistants in dental offices.

Think about this for a moment, when Knight hired her 10 years ago she would’ve been 22 and he would’ve been 43. Looking at the more recent pictures of Nelson, I can see she’s followed the standard SMV curve, and while I wouldn’t rate her higher than maybe a cleaned up HB7, no doubt Knight was privy to watching her progress from her SMV peak at 22, to the inevitable two child, postpartum “chop it short” mommy-do at 32. After watching this and enduring the slow-burn, sexual pangs for a decade I suspect that Knight probably spent in inordinate amount of masturbatory energy on her mental image.

He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, “that’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”

No doubt about, we’ve got a beta here. Blatant and obviously telegraphed sexual interest ham-fisttedly delivered  as a compliment not only belies the beta, but no woman in human history has ever responded positively to it. In all my time counseling in the manosphere I’ve heard some derivative of this line constantly used by beta orbiters hoping that their ONEitis will get the message that she’s not being treated as well as she should be, and he’s uniquely qualified to appreciate her for her rarity. What chumps like Knight don’t get is that genuine desire and sexual impulse cannot be negotiated.

All a long-married beta like Knight is doing is falling back on his adolescent social skill set. This is the hallmark of a chump who’s never developed his Game beyond what it took to convince his wife to marry him.

Knight and Nelson — both married with children — started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.

Once you see the pictures of Mrs. Knight all of this crystalizes for us.

mrs_knight

Now we add in the element of Mrs. Knights suspicion and a healthy dose of parochial shame from their pastor (most likely at Mrs. Knights behest) and we see the good dentist moved to terminate “just an ordinary mom”.  Here we see an all too common theme of the feminine imperative; using men to settle a score between women. My guess would be that had Mrs. Knight not discovered said texts, Nelson in all her ‘hotness’ would still be employed.

Knight is a very religious and moral individual, and he sincerely believed that firing Nelson would be best for all parties, he said.

I generally reserve my interpretations of the religious ramifications of Game to blogs like Dalrock’s, but at the risk of encouraging the moralist commenters on my blog, I have to draw attention to how the feminine imperative influences religious perceptions. This very religious and moral individual in all likelihood had been devising scenarios in his head about how he might engage in some kind of sexual tryst with Nelson through out her peak SMV years. He watched her progress through a relationship, watched her get married, gave her maternity leave when she had two kids, and still he pined. That pining only ended when Mrs. Knight demanded Nelson’s termination. Once again, biology trumps conviction, and did so for a decade, but once his back is to the wall he makes necessity a virtue.

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month’s severance. He later told Nelson’s husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

When you compare James Knight to David Petreaus’ situation you can’t help but notice some surface level similarities. Both married to well-past the Wall wives and open (at least ideally) to getting with younger, better looking women. Their stories are an all too common theme in today’s SMP. Just based on what I see from the pictures, Knight strikes me as that archetypal mature guy who married young (well before fully realizing his true SMV), played by the rules, and probably only woke up to his SMV when a hot 22 year old made him realize his past potential. When a guys like this make sexual allusions comparing undriven Lamborghinis to the objects of their sexual desire, the real message is their own sexual dissatisfaction with their wives. Harboring that angst for 10 years while your ‘too hot to work with’ ONEitis is only infrequently getting banged is a special kind of beta hell.

When I wrote about the redefining of men’s mid-life awareness, Knight’s circumstance is the uglier side of that.

The truth about men’s mid-life crises isn’t about recapturing youth, it’s about finally understanding the trappings they’ve been sold into through their 20′s and 30′s and coming to terms with that often horrible truth. Some men do in fact buy the sports car, get the new hottie wife or act in some fashion that appears reckless and irresponsible. This isn’t due to infantilism, but rather new understanding of their own position as men. They’ve “lived responsibly” for so long and for so little appreciation that when that true realization is made they feel the need to move. They’ve become respected, put in the hours, the sacrifice, the censoring of their own views. They realize now that they’ve sold off true passions in favor of maintaining what others have told him was his responsibility – whether it was his choice or not. And all for what? A fat wife? A shrew? Maybe even a fantastic marriage and a wonderful family life, but also a nagging doubt about not seeing enough of the world by 40 because of it.

Now, before it gets said, I’m not suggesting that Knight have gone ahead and got after it with Nelson (if that was ever a consideration), but I do understand his predicament and the motivators behind it. If anything Knight serves as yet one more warning for men in realizing their SMV too late. The real tragedy here is that for a brief moment Knight was becoming aware of his (waning) SMV only to reinsert himself back into the Matrix with the aid of his wife and pastor. The real damage will be dealt in his new need for constant repression of this knowledge every time he bangs his wife, every time she nags, every time she gives him that doe-like thousand yard stare; he’ll understand the oldest manosphere proverb – once you know about the Matrix there is no going back.

The Couch

Romance according to Tomassi, A Field Report

Oddly enough this happened last weekend so it’s still pretty fresh in my head. Friday night I was going to meet up with my partners for a holiday drink promo, but due to a scheduling error we cancelled it. Rather than call my wife to tell her I’d be coming home (which would only make her expectant of me), I waited until I was about 2 blocks from my home to call her on my cell phone. I said to her, “I’m thinking about doing something, if I blow off this thing tonight, I want you wearing that hot, white lingerie I like when we fuck.” (presume the sale) I could tell I’d caught her off guard and I was telling her we were going to have sex later that evening (no asking permisson or “can we please fuck tonight?”). She laughed and said “uh sure,..”, this was right as I pulled into my driveway and I still had her on the phone when I walked in the door and said “OK, here I am.”

Our daughter was at a friend’s place so I made martinis for us and purposely only had a light one for myself. I used C&F on my wife while we chatted on the couch. Now, she’s used to this from me, but because I’d prefaced the evening with giving her the impression that I was taking time away from other things to come home and knock it out with her. She was eating it up and mirroring my advances back to me. I never saw the lingerie that night because we were too busy going at it right on the couch and then moving to the bedroom. I kept up the C&F while we were at it and there was no “let me get cleaned up before we do it” there was no “we better hurry it up so I can be asleep by 10:30” – it was Game On and we had some fantastic sex all because I was setting the frame.

This is how you “keep it fresh.” Understand, this is the same woman I married 16 years ago. There were no roses, there was no ‘date night’, no wine or a candle lit dinner. There were martinis in my home and me setting the frame. And Monday I brought her a few flowers to reinforce a desired behavior.

Primary Focus

There’s a part in American Beauty where it looks like Kevin Spacey’s character is going to actually reconnect with his sexually ambivalent wife (actually she’s cheating on him, but we don’t discover this until later). They’re getting hot and bothered with each other for the first time in a long time on a very nice (and apparently expensive) couch.

This is significant because the guy and his wife are on the verge of divorce due to their lack of a sex life and for the first time in a long time she genuinely responds sexually for her husband, and you think for a moment there’s some hope for them.

As they get more into it his wife becomes fixaed on her husband’s hand holding a beer and almost spilling it on the couch that they’re on. He is totally focused on her, kissing her and not thinking about the beer in his hand. Her eyes are locked on the beer though until he finally notices what is distracting her from him – the beer.

He tries to take her mind off it by focusing more on her, and she becomes even more concerned that he’ll spill beer on the couch while they’re going at it. She says, “Lester you’re going to spill beer on the couch,..” he says, “it’s just a couch,..” she then gets indignant about how expensive it is and then he yells, “IT’S JUST A COUCH!”

Do you see what this gets at? This is the real challenge of marriage. Making desire and passion go beyond the mundane. That is what needs to be kept fresh in the face the routine. Single people in the throes of passion don’t care if a bottle of wine is spilled on the carpet in the process, married people do. Most marriages aren’t destroyed from the outside, but rather the inside. External temptations are easy to resist; it’s when it’s coupled with internal conditions that predispose us to it that it happens. Telling right from wrong is easy, determining right from right is difficult.

This is the perfect illustration of what marriage has become for most women – there is more attention directed toward externalities and little or none devoted to genuine desire. People experiencing genuine desire for one another don’t care about externalities. Nothing else exists to them but the object of their passion (and consummating it); there is no dirty laundry, no stain on a carpet, no neighbors who may hear them fucking, there is only them. Today’s couples don’t have a problem with trust or comfort or logistics, or even respect for the most part – what they have a problem with is desire. Men forget how to create it, women for get how to respond to it.

The New York Times had a recent article detailing the short shelf life of love (particularly in marriage). It’s essentially a fluff piece written by a woman obviously looking for an answer to her failing desire by expressing a similar lament for other women in her position. The irony of this article is that when men consider the biological / psychological reasons for why they want to bang other women, they’re shamed for lacking self-control or personal conviction. Let a woman do the same and it’s a new scientific discovery of self-enlightenment. I also thought the reframe about women actually being the more ‘novelty seeking’ of the sexes only lacquered on yet more irony.

Be that as it may, it’s interesting that the aspect of desire-killing familiarity is finally entering the popular consciousness in our feminine defined world. When you’re single, women love to prattle (mostly to betas and themselves) about how necessary it is for them to feel comfortable with a guy before having sex. Of course Alphas learn the lie of this earlier than most, but how telling it is then when the same comfort and familiarity that single women cry for is the marriage-killing factor that married women lament.