The Script

script

There is a certain formula most romantic comedies rely on to convey how relations between men and women ought to go. It’s an old formula, as in Shakespeare and Greek antiquity old. It goes something like this:

An avowed Alpha bachelor for life questions the existence and nature of love, the sincerity of women, the illogic of not living just for his own self-importance, certainly the institution of marriage and lives, according to his rules, a satisfying life. He rationally observes the “madness” of his friends and fellow men when they fall in love, and out of it. He either mocks their foolishness or is analytical to the core in understanding their madnesses. He is an elemental force of one – a captain controlling the course of his own ship. He’s not wrong in his estimations; they all add up, they all make deductive, provable sense.

That is until he meets her. The ONE special woman who miraculously, alone amongst billions, has the unique power to bring the facade of all that he thinks he is into stark, insightful self-realization. He’s bit by the bug, smitten by the only woman who could fatefully tame the arrogance of his otherwise cruel rationalism. It’s akin to a religious conversion; he’s seen the light, he’s in love and all of his former concerns are proven to be falsehoods – it’s the triumph of true love! The one thing he was missing (the one thing only a woman can possess of course), the last piece to a puzzle he didn’t know he was  putting together, has been added and now he is complete. And they live happily ever after,…

Every writer from Shakespeare to Bronte, to modern writers, use some variation of this outline. The locations, time periods and actors change, but the basic story doesn’t. If you need a contemporary example watch Gerard Butler (King Leonidas, 300) in The Ugly Truth. The reason this formula is so successful and timeless is because it is essentially the fantasy of love and emotionalism trumping logic and reason. Women naturally love this because it puts them into the position of being the ‘cure’ to a man’s illness while making him look like a brooding, sulking, bitter child for clinging so tenaciously to his rationalism, when all he was really pouting about was feeling unloved.

All his intense powers of rationality, all of his implicitly provable facts, all of his monuments and achievements of deduction mean nothing without the only irrational thing a woman can uniquely supply – unknowable, fantastical love. It’s part and parcel of the Myth of the Feminine Mystique which makes women the gatekeepers of the knowledge of love; don’t try to understand it with your silly boy-logic, just leave well enough alone and be eternally grateful to whichever god you worship that a woman has favored you with the love you need to be perfected.

In this story, the build-up to men realizing this is what stokes the feminine indignation that sustains women’s interest, but the real satisfaction is summed up at the end when he finally concedes to the feminine imperative and drops all his pretense and submits to love.

The satisfaction doesn’t last long though, because it was the build-up, the tension, the anxiety, the want of a woman to scream at the TV, “SHE LOVES YOU!! JUST GET IT YOU STUPID MAN!!” that was making it at all interesting. Once he’s submitted and seen her light, all of that fades away to predictable, boring comfort. She’s done with that romance novel, puts it in the pile of them at the garage sale, and moves on to the next. And he’s left with all the echoes of his past rationalism, and explaining to all those he’s influenced and built his reputation upon, how love conquers all and how wrong he was all along.

For that man, it’s the last chapter in the vindication of feminine primacy.

And they lived happily ever after,..

For women, the only thing better than experiencing this script vicariously through movies and stories is to see it happen live. David D’Angelo, Tucker Max are a few manosphere notable who’ve played the come-full-circle surrender to the script. There are far more guys who play it in a more visual sense (the repentant ‘Womanizer’ episodes on the Tyra Banks show comes to mind), but no one really remembers them, and certainly not in the ‘sphere. While there’s a sense of vindication for women to have a guy surrender his anti-social (i.e. anti-feminine primary) lifestyle and beliefs in favor of a feminine paradigm, and “settle down” into a feminine framed, normalized monogamy, surrender is still surrender. Essentially the strong vibrant man who posed such a challenge to her, the one who’s steadfast determination and conviction made him a man she was hot for as well as one she could respect, loses his status.

He’ll say, hey, you don’t know where I’m at in life, you don’t know the experiences I’ve had, life has taught me the value of compromise. Women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices a man must make to facilitate a feminine reality, but if there’s one thing women outright despise, one thing men foolishly believe women should be able to appreciate, it’s a man willing to compromise the beliefs he’s established his reputation and integrity upon in order to facilitate her feminine reality. That’s the definition of a sell-out.

After the happily ever after comes the living. He can console himself in his new paradigm, he can hole up in a cocoon of domestication and simply not answer the phone calls of all his old friends who are also playing into the script, who are really only waiting to commiserate with him, but his new domesticity compromise wont allow him to. His old life is gone right? Love conquered him, made him a new man, ready to live up to the new, correct, feminine expectations he formerly railed against, but has been enlightened to and now calls his new masculine purpose. He’s been converted.

He looks into that girl’s eyes, the one who changed him for the better, but the memory of the urgency, the desire to tame him, the adrenaline he inspired all seem like an old song that reminds her of that thrill.

 

I would never wish ill on my fellow man, no matter his crimes, no matter his station, so I wont do so now. I sincerely hope nothing but the best for any man making this surrender, he will need every good fortune that comes along in the face of compromising his reputation and purpose in order to facilitate a woman’s primacy.

However, I’ll add that I also make it my policy never to speak ill of the dead.

Left Behind

left_behind

I’m going to relate a real story of a good friend of mine here as an illustration of a larger dynamic.

My friend Rob was what most guys would call a ‘natural Alpha’ in his younger days; fit, smart in an unlearned kind of way, and to the guys who couldn’t appreciate his straightforwardness, he had the Alpha ‘attitude’ that made him kind of an asshole to the people who didn’t know him. He was in the military for a bit right out of high school and that seemed to work well for him since he learned to be a damn good airframe mechanic and parlayed that into a pretty good career for a while.

Although he was a natural Alpha, Rob’s approach to women was very much conditioned by the influence of the feminine imperative. He had girls who were attracted to him, but he had a tendency for ONEitis so once he’d locked on to Kim that was his focus. He would say “I would do anything and everything for the right girl” because that was his belief, sacrifice and support were his mandates before they’d even met. Eventually she ‘accidentally’ became pregnant when they were both 19.

Rob’s ONEitis took on the predictable sense of masculine purpose to “do the right thing” when she told him the news. They were young, and even 20+ years ago he was aware that couples married young had a very low ‘success’ rate, but as expected he believed he and his soon to be wife would be the exception to that rule. Whether it was his predisposition for ONEitis or his righteous ‘natural’ Alpha stubbornness, at 19 he was determined to be a good father and husband.

Kim was always the less enthusiastic partner in the marriage, but she wasn’t going to have an abortion, and while she was uncertain about Rob’s future potential at 19 she married him. 5 years later they had two daughters and then a son 2 years after that. I would describe their marriage as one of convenience except that Rob genuinely loved Kim and the kids. His Alpha attitude only drove him on that much further as a good provider, but as Kim and he entered their early 30’s and their older children became more self-sufficient it was becoming clear that she was subtly and indifferently distancing herself from Rob.

At about 29 Kim went to work in a middle management position. Up until then she’d been a stay-at-home mom, but with the kids in school (except their youngest) she wanted to get into working. For having 3 children Kim was in exceptionally good shape (too good of shape in hindsight), Rob had put on a few pounds, but still had his upper body muscularity. Kim was at the gym and work more than she was at home now, and it was something that even heroic-ONEitis Rob was beginning to be annoyed with.

Kim had new friendships at work now, mostly single women in their mid to late 20’s while Kim was almost 31. All of her new work girlfriends were single and wanting her to come out with them for drinks after work. They didn’t call them GNOs (girls night out) but this is what they were without calling them such. Dutiful Rob would look after the kids and content himself with beer and movies at home. Even as this became a more common occurrence Rob still clung to the heroic, supportive, father/husband/provider role. Rob still wasn’t what anyone would call a Beta, but in his ONEitis devotion and his increasing domestic role this is what Kim saw in him.

Kim went from living vicariously through her 20’s girlfriends’ weekend stories, to watching them from the sidelines at the clubs, to actively engaging in their escapades. I’m sure most readers know where this is going, and yes Kim eventually cheated on Rob. I had the dubious, but serious, honor of talking him out of murdering both Kim and a co-worker guy she’d hooked up with at 4am after he’d tracked them both to the motel they ended up at that night. He had the kids in the car with him the whole time we were on the phone.

Missing Out

I’m presenting this story, not as some precautionary tale to scare you into not marrying early so much as to better understand the other side of doing so. Anyone who’s read my blog long enough knows I advocate men not even becoming seriously monogamous until after the age of 30. I realize that for most men this is a pretty tall order, and for most guys untenable, but the principle is that men need to realize and actualize their SMV potential before they can accurately assess their true role in the SMP, and then, evaluate the quality of any woman they’d want to become monogamous with according to their Game awareness.

My friend Rob never made that connection and lived (and still lives) by what an adolescent social skill set and his feminized conditioning had taught him. Rob was enraged about the infidelity, but he took Kim back, they went to the ubiquitous marriage counseling, and attempted the typical negotiations of Kim’s genuine desire for Rob. Rob was still playing by a rule set he believed Kim should recognize and should appreciate (i.e. Relational Equity fallacy), but after 3 kids and “missing out on her 20’s”, Kim’s Hypergamy didn’t care.

At this point, Kim’s leaving Rob was just a formality, but the end came when Rob had an on-the-job injury to his back and he could no longer perform his job. He got pretty good disability, but it wasn’t what Kim had built up to making. Blood was in the water, and Kim went feral. Eventually she took the kids and left Rob to his own means, while she moved half a state away to “find herself” and get into the scene she missed in her 20’s.

For the men in the manosphere who want to use Game as a means to locking down an idealized wife, a lot gets made about marrying (or becoming monogamous) with a woman while she’s young – preferably in or just before her peak SMV years (18-24). Generally the idea is that if you can get to her early enough – before she rides the infamous cock carousel – and she’s cut from the right cloth for monogamy, then by way of a guy being the (hopefully) first Alpha she’s encountered, she’ll solidly pair-bond with him – bearing him healthy children in her fertilely prime years and remain his emotionally bonded, loyal and devoted wife for a lifetime.

I like this fantasy, as I’m sure most idealistic men would. In fact it might even be realistic for a guy in his peak SMV years (30-36) to pull this off with the right amount of status and Amused Mastery if his own value is well established. However, as per the story of Rob and Kim here, there is another risk to the ‘marry young’ scenario and that’s what I call the Left Behind dynamic.

Left Behind

In contemporary western society, even the most farm-raised, home schooled of girls are still going to be incessantly bombarded by the ‘be all you can be’ (previously ‘you can have it all’) social advertising the Feminine Imperative has for girls. Raising a daughter in such times (and I speak from experience) is fraught with risks of appearing to be limiting her potential while attempting educate her about the real limitations of women’s fast-burn SMV and the choices she’ll have to make very early in her life that will affect her later life once she’s past those peak years. I should add that for a father to even hint at these limitations publicly makes him instantly guilty of misogyny, patriarchy, male privilege oppression and every other male-crime the Feminine Imperative has a long established name for. However, even mothers will be accused of being domineered by that patriarchal mindset for attempting to educate their daughters about the real limitations of being a woman today and choosing between different life paths.

With this as the foundation, the inherent risk of finding, not to mention wifing-up, the ideal young girl, predisposed to marriage (unplanned pregnancies not withstanding) is that as a she matures, a woman begins to question the choices she made. While it’s almost a cliché now to breakdown the life path that led to the regret of never-married or divorced aging spinsters in the age of career women, the other side of that coin is the early-married woman contemplating ‘her life that could’ve been’ and the motivation to change her path. It’s easy to find fault with women who delayed accepting a marriage proposal for their own SMV convenience or self-interest, but it’s the early-married Kim’s of the world who are far more susceptible to the Eat, Pray, Love script as they approach the downslide of their SMV.

Ironically it’s the same feminine-primary social influence that encourages ‘be all you can be’ (and demeans her for not living up to her girl-power potential) that also embraces her when she re-plots her life course after leaving the husband of her youth. Mix in her single and divorced friends’ encouragement with fem-centric social promptings and top it off with an innate Hypergamy that never stops subconsciously asking “is this guy the best you can do?” after 12 years of marriage and you can see why she’d feel left behind.

As a Game aware, red pill Man it’s imperative that you consider both sides of a woman’s choices and adjust your Game accordingly. Half the reason I made the rough attempt at graphing the SMP and men and women’s SMV’s respective to each gender’s age is so men could predict and expect the behaviors, mindsets and social variables women will be susceptible to at various phases of their lives. It is, however, important, to consider the choices women have made in the lives they led before and after they meet you. It’s becoming increasingly too easy for men to think, “damn, if only I’d have met her when she was younger and inexperienced, she’d be more attached to me now.” This isn’t always the case.

Crisis of Motive

woman-pulling-puppet-strings

I had an interesting conversation with a cocktail waitress recently about how she wore the sexy outfits she did because they reaffirmed who she was.

“I do it for me.”

“Really? Lingerie, high heels, push up bra, that’s all for you?”

“Of course. I’m my own woman.”

“So, it’s not about the attention and affirmation you get from the men around you.”

“Well, that’s nice, if it’s coming from the right kind of guy, but I don’t wear what I do for them.”

“So if I came over to your house unannounced at like, 4 in the afternoon, you’d be wearing all this while you were vacuuming the house and not in sweatpants and a t-shirt?”

“Well,..no, but that’s not the point, I’m more comfortable in sweats,..”

“I see.”

It was far too easy to box her into the corner she was painting herself into, but I wont be too hard on her since this crisis of motive is also found in men. I can’t recall how many times I’ve heard guys at Gold’s tell me the same thing as to why they workout.

“I do it for me! Yeah, of course, chicks check me out more now that I’ve dropped the fat and bulked up, but this is all for me man.”

I’ll admit, I was that guy at one time. For a guy it makes sense to cop the story of singularity of purpose since it implies that he’s his ‘own man’ and not improving himself to become more acceptable to the women he observably and admittedly wants to get with. This is the paradox of self-improvement – are you doing it for yourself or because you want to others to respond more positively to you? It doesn’t have to be one or the other, it can be both.

There are certainly many side benefits to bodybuilding – improved health, attitude, lower stress, life-preserving function that results from increased muscularity, etc. but the minute we drop ‘a better sex life’ into that equation then we have to qualify it all with the “I do it for me” standby; as if our motivating desire to get laid is any less important than all of that. I’ll tell you right now, with 25+ years of lifting on my record, while I enjoy a lower life/health insurance premium as a result, I enjoy sex far too much to ever let myself become a fat ass. I do it for me and I do it because Mrs. Tomassi (and other women) responds positively to it and I enjoy the results.

This is a fundamental question guys swallowing the red pill and adopting a new Game-aware life have to answer – who are you doing it for?

There are a lot of traps involved in answering this question; traps that other AFC crabs in the barrel will use to pull you back in, traps that will attempt to convince you that you’re ‘being someone you’re not‘ and traps that will flatter you for your insightful desire to improve yourself, but only insofar as it serves feminine purposes. This is a common tar pit for men on the edge of accepting Red Pill truth:

From the Unbearable Triteness of Hating:

16. Dancing Monkey Hate

Hater: Men who run game are just doing the bidding of women. Alphas don’t entertain women.

If you want success with women, you are going to have to entertain them… one way or the other. The same is true of women. Once a woman stops entertaining men with her body, her femininity, and her commitment worthiness by getting fat, old, ugly, bitchy, or single mom-y, she stops having success with men. We are all doing the bidding of our biomechanical overlord, and on our knees to his will we surrender, by force or by choice. You fool yourself if you believe you have some plenary indulgence from this stark reality.
Or: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

Whether he was intending to or not, Roissy was of course responding to exactly this crisis of motive. I don’t specifically agree or disagree with all the tenets of men who identify as MGTOW (I understand the reasoning), but I must point out that, from what I read, the crux of their beliefs are rooted in this same motive crisis. Is what you do, who you are, what you believe, a genuine, organic result of your own decision making (doing it for you) or is all you are the result of a latent purpose to better please a woman (or the Feminine Imperative for that matter)?

Introspect

Aunt Giggles had a post about a week ago lauding all the introspective men concerned with their own self-improvement. Bravo! Bravo introspective Beta, dig down deeper and embrace your inner white knight. While it may range between ego-flattering to self-evincing, true introspection is only useful in the light of why  you’re being introspective in the first place. You may get a pat on the back from the Feminine Imperative for introspectively aligning yourself with the Beta model it’s conditioned you for, or you may get a well needed cold bucket of Red Pill awareness splashed in your face as the result of your introspection, but the question is still who or what are you being introspective for?

With a crisis of motive, it’s very easy to not only cast doubt about the motives of others when they don’t agree with our own, but also to reaffirm our own faith in our own decision making. How many times have Game denialists said something like “those red pill guys are just misogynists, only interested in getting laid as much as possible”? This belief-disqualifier is based on the the presumption that sex is a red pill Man’s only, true, motivator – not himself, not for his own enlightenment, not of his own genuine volition. Red pill guys believe what they do to get laid and therefore dance to the tune women (or their sexual impulse) are playing for them. Distilled down to it’s base, the message is they aren’t acting as individual rational agents, but as robotic slaves beholden to external influences (in this case women or their sex drives). In other words, someone or something is controlling their decisions for them.

That’s some powerful affirmation for the one making accusations of disingenuousness, because it confirms for himself that not only is he a ‘genuine’ actor, but his insight must necessarily be more valid than the guy he’s judging. The problem with this, as I’m sure most are now aware, is that the accuser is already molded by outside influences himself. Thus, his motivation for accusation is suspect of a crisis of motive.

I understand this is some heady shit to take in, but I think it’s important to consider for guys on the cusp of Game-awareness, doubting their genuine want for changing themselves, as well as for guys falling back on motive crisis reasonings in order to justify why other men might disagree with them. I think an important question Men need to ask themselves is why am I changing my belief, my customs, my interpretations? It may be that it comes as a result of introspection, or a new awareness brought to them from an outside influence (the manosphere), but the answer to the question of who do you do it for is both yourself and the outside motivator.

So what made you change? Was it something I or another blogger wrote? Was it a traumatic experience that shocked you into awareness? Or were you just getting what you’d always gotten by doing what you’d always done?

You Need Sex

Index1

When I first got laid in 1985, I went to the bathroom, toweled off the equipment and walked down to 7-11 for a big gulp. No blue birds landed on my shoulder to whistle Disney songs and no ray of sunlight broke through the clouds to shine on me. Nor did I think “damn, that was terrible, I’ve lost all respect for myself, I’ll never be the same again,…sob!”, it felt pretty good. The traffic lights still worked, the busses ran on time (sorta) and food still tasted good.

I’ve had sex with over 40 women since then. I got laid first when I was 17 and on average I’ve been having sex with my wife 2-3 times a week (and a hummer on her off weeks) for coming up on 17 years now. Sex is a great part of life, sometimes it’s memorable, sometimes it’s taking care of myself, but it’s never been some epic experience of cosmic importance. It keeps you healthy in body, mind and spirit, and the best I can describe sex is that it’s an important part of a balanced life experience. People have been fucking a lot longer than anyone’s had time to contemplate the esoteric significance of sex.

I can remember listening to an episode of the Tom Leykis show when he was on terrestrial radio, and he described what sex is like for men. He said, sex is like taking a piss for a guy – sooner or later he’s got to take care of himself and let loose. Now, most guys would prefer to take a piss in a nice clean bathroom, where the towels smell good and he can feel comfortable and unhurried. Sure, he’d love to have the occasion to take a piss in the bathroom of a four star hotel with gold plated faucets and all the trimmings, but when he really has to go, he’ll stop along the side of the road or take a piss at a dirty gas station urinal. Sooner or later he’s gonna have to go.

What prompted today’s post was my reading a recent blog entry of a notable christo-manosphere commenter. I’m not going to name him since I think most of the readers who frequent Rational Male  from Dalrock or Sunshinemary’s blogs already know who I’m referencing. What’s important is his life’s plight. The nuts and bolts of his post was his lament in finding a suitable, monogamous mate to marry, have sex with and (presumedly) have a life and children with.

It’s not too tall an order for even the most abject Beta of men. To be sure, nowadays it increasingly requires a good amount of self-delusion and / or faith for a guy to consider monogamy, and red pill disillusionment can help or aggravate, but statistically more people are engaging in monogamy than not at some stage of their lives. However, this blogger feels doomed and relegated to what I can only assume is a self-inflicted life of celibacy due to his religious convictions and his inability to connect with the properly prescribed virgin bride who fits his ideal.

Now before I dive too far in here, I’m not going to debate the merits or limitations of this guy’s conviction. Before I started considering this post I realized I’ll be run up the moralist flagpole for even using his predicament as my example, but what I’m going to focus on is the need men (and by association women) have for sex. Try to keep this in mind.

Big Heads and Little Heads

One very common dismissal of red pill awareness I read from blue pill men is this feigned, blasé indifference to sex.

“All that Red Pill, PUA shit is for guy’s who obsess over sex. They only go to the lengths they do to get laid and never see the bigger picture. You don’t need sex you know, you wont die from not getting laid.”

For the most part this pseudo-indifference is really a feminized, conditioned, response couched in Beta Game. The idea, of course, is for the blue pill guy to promote the public perception that he’s above his sexual impulses in the hopes that any girl within earshot (or reading his comments online) will recognize his uniqueness in not letting his cock do his thinking for him. From a male deductive logic standpoint it makes sense to the feminized male – women have all told him how put off they are with guys who only think about sex, so he’ll identify with the women he’d like to get with and “not be like other guys.

Boys subscribing to this identification usually find themselves sexually frustrated by the very women they hope to connect with in their sexual indifference because, on a core level, women are psychologically insulted by men who actively desexualize themselves in order to get with them. Despite every verbal protestation women can muster, women are aroused by, and ego-affirmed by, Men who unashamedly display the covert social cues of wanting to fuck them.

Thats the Beta Game behind the “you don’t need sex” Buffer, but there’s more too this rationale than that. Technically the Beta reasoning is correct; physically, you’re not going to die if you don’t get laid. You could probably masturbate to relieve yourself or live a sexless existence due to a physical disability and live a productive life as satisfying as you can manage it. If you don’t know what you’re missing or if a sexual substitute does the job, what’s the difference, right? The line of reasoning is that if it isn’t food, water or oxygen it isn’t really a necessity for existence.

From an absolutist perspective it’s one of those conveniently unassailable positions that excuse a guy’s inability to get laid – “no one really needs sex, and if you think you do you’re obviously preoccupied with it and letting your little head do the thinking for you.” By this line of reasoning, basic necessities like clothing and shelter could be considered superfluous needs for living, but since it’s sex, and in most respects hedonistically enjoyable, special consideration has to be given.

The unhealthy disconnect here is that human beings do in fact need sex. We can attach other ephemeral aspects to the sex act (or masturbation if that’s the only recourse), like love, emotion, commitment, etc., but on a base level your body needs sexual release in one form or another. Yes, you can willfully override the need, just like you can overcome hunger while you’re fasting or on a hunger strike, but the need is still the operative in that act of will. Once hunger, breathing and thirst are satisfied, sex is the single most influential drive the human species (really, most any species) is motivated by. Society is driven by sex, cultures evolve around it and personal achievements, as well as horrible atrocities are the result of our inborn prompt to satisfy our sexual urges.

Sigmund Freud once said, “all energy is sexual”, meaning that subliminally we will redirect our motivation for ungratified sexual impulse to other endeavors. Thus it’s men, being the sex with the highest amount of libido inducing testosterone, who must look for far more outlets to transfer this motivation to than women. So is it any real surprise that it’s historically been Men who’ve primarily been the empire builders, the conquerors, the creators, and destroyers who’ve (for better or worse) moved humanity the most significantly?

Life Experience

If I said I felt pity for men like the blogger I mentioned earlier, who through their own conviction or bad circumstance, have never had sex in their lives, I don’t think I’d be accurate in expressing myself. I feel a profound sadness for them; a sadness similar to when you meet someone who’s lost a limb or has had to live with a physical or mental disability. For guys who want to tell you that you don’t need sex to live a fulfilling life I’m sure this sounds like conceit. There are plenty of inspirational individuals who live their lives without arms or legs, or with other disabilities, that we can all look up to for “overcoming the odds”, but the reason they are inspiring is because they must strive for a quality of life that others simply take for granted. Run a marathon and it’s quite an achievement, but do it as a paraplegic and it’s a triumph of human will.

Sometimes a sexless life is a choice of conviction, but more often it’s not a choice for men, it’s simply their circumstance. I grieve every time I read a comment by, or receive a painful request for help from a late 30’s man who’s still a virgin. Sex is a part of a healthy human experience; if you want to apply meaning to it, if you only consider its legitimacy within marriage or monogamy, or if you enjoy sex with many women, the function is still the same.

I felt this way after I read the aforementioned blogger relating his frustration about his not being able to find an appropriate woman to wife under today’s social climate. This post isn’t an attempt to convince him to adjust his expectations; I can’t necessarily empathize with his convictions or his reasonings (I’ve always enjoyed sex, and never felt guilt for enjoying it), however, I can empathize with his deep desire to become intimate and sexual with a woman. This healthy human experience is denied to him by conviction, but it doesn’t alleviate his desire for it.

He needs sex.

SMV Ratios & Attachment

Print

Since I produced the SMP graph last year I have had more than a few earnest readers and irritated critics call me to the carpet about the variables involved in estimating even a rough sketch of the modern, western, SMP landscape. Before I get into today’s post let me reiterate that my SMV chart is an imperfect tool; sexual market evaluation doesn’t happen in a vacuum, I know that, but it is a necessary starting point and framework against which we can better understand social, behavioral and psychological dynamics between the genders.

One of the larger messages this SMV life-overview brings to light is the rise and fall of an individual’s sexual market value according to their age and the personal implications that phase of their life has on affecting that valuation. I originally published the SMV chart with the intent of enlightening men as to what their future SMV (should) will be in relation to women’s faster burning SMV, and the social conventions women, and the feminine imperative, have established in order to derail that awareness to better service women’s sexual priorities and hypergamy. However, since then I’ve seen this chart passed around the manosphere and into outside forums as an example of other related gender dynamics. The chart has other uses than my original idea.

The Ennobled Beta

With this in mind I was debating the idea of secure attachments in relationships with a friend over my summer hiatus. He’s what I’ll call an ‘ennobled Beta’, not necessarily guilty of outright white knighting, but is steeped in his Matrix conditioning enough to conflate a prescribed male role in egalitarian equalism with masculinity. In other words, to him, to be a ‘supportive husband’ ® is to presume a position of absolute equalism in his relationship. Since he subscribes to the feminized notion of an historic condition of ‘male privilege’, generally this means he believes that limiting his inborn masculine nature allows his wife to be “more equal”. To him, real manhood is repressing his innate masculinity (such as it is) so that his wife will feel less inhibited in becoming something more than what a ‘masculine’ society will permit.

Yes, it’s classic Beta Identification Game; nothing I haven’t engaged already in the past decade. And yes, it’s also the classic feminist boilerplate that feminism has bred into contemporary males for over 50 years now. What hit me during this conversation is the presumption of an idealized equalism that can in some way be realized between a man and a woman in an LTR. The reason the topic came up with us was due to his wanting for his wife to be more aggressive with him sexually. He simply couldn’t grasp that his wife didn’t want to take the initiative with him in the bedroom. Here he was explaining the virtues of being a ‘better male’ in his playing fair and even with his wife, yet for all his giving her space to grow, she wouldn’t be the sexual instigator with him despite his equalist expectations that she would feel comfortable being that instigator. In a way he subscribes to the Relational Equity fallacy – he believes she ought to appreciate him sexually because he’s invested so much of himself in ensuring she  feels like his equal.

True Neutral

The problem he’s dealing with is the result of his belief in true gender neutrality. Learn this now, taken to its logical extreme, the end result of true gender neutrality is androgyny. No sexual dimorphism, just simple homogenous androgyny. Fortunately for us, nature abhors homogeny and has always found dynamic ways around the dead ends that the inbreeding of androgyny produces.

My friend’s wife’s sexual passivity (and general disinterest) is one such dynamic. Try as he may, no amount of social equalization will prompt his wife’s biological sexual impulse – in essence he’s attempting  to negotiate her desire with himself.

For all his frustration and inability to accept red pill truths I have to thank him because it was from this conflict that I had a starting point in estimating relationship attachment theory and its relation to SMV.

Roissy once proposed that the strength and security of any relationship rests in the disparity between each person’s sexual market value. While I endorse this principle entirely, I’m going to take it a bit further. As a general principle it works well for the guy wanting to maintain his frame in an LTR, however there’s more wrapped up in that SMV disparity than I think has been explored thus far.

As I began here, SMV doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Men may have an Alpha dominance established only to have it knocked back down after failing a particularly bad shit test. He may rate lower or higher depending on a social status that’s in flux. A woman must find ways to cope with an ever decaying SMV once she reaches her SMV peak and begins her decline towards the Wall. Childbirth and rearing, weight gain, satisfying a security need, and many other factors may also accelerate this process.

What I’m going to do here is propose a general outline for SMV disparity based on the ratio between both sexes. Before you read my outlines, keep in mind the Cardinal Rule of Relationships: In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. The overarching concept here is that the person in the relationship with the superior sexual market value will at least be perceived by the person of lesser value to need them less than the other. If it is established by concrete social proof that one person is of higher SMV than the other, it’s usually an accepted reality of that relationship, but bear in mind that it is the fluctuating perception of SMV that has more influence on the attachment and strength of that relationship.

Finally, from a feminine perspective it’s important to remember that Hypergamy is a game of perceptions, testing, confirmations and retesting new perceptions. This process has a pronounced effect on SMV evaluation, which is then influenced by a woman’s own self-perceptions.

1:1

This is the position of Tue Neutral I illustrated with my friend’s situation above. I’m starting here because this ratio is the mythological ideal every equalist will tell you they’re striving for. Be they male or female, what adherents of equal balance fail to consider is that real, sustainable equilibrium in SMV is an impossibility. What every modern woman and gelded male in an LTR will tell you is that they believe they are common examples of that SMV equilibrium. The truth is that their ego investment in that equalist idealism wont allow for the real introspect necessary to accurately evaluate what their true individual SMV really is –both in relation to themselves and the greater whole of society in their demographic.

A 1:1 SMV doesn’t exist. I’m sure there will be naysayers who feel they “play it fair” with their wives or girlfriends, but the fact remains that SMV is always in flux and doesn’t allow for a true, sustainable equilibrium. Hypergamy is an easy example; fail one too many shit tests and your equitable 1:1 ratio slips to 2:1 in a woman’s favor. A man getting to the gym more frequently or getting a promotion in status may be enough to upset that 1:1 balance. There are simply too many variables in a contemporary relationship to take the notion of SMV equilibrium seriously. Furthermore, we must consider the effect that social media plays in women self-evaluations of their own SMV. And this is only one (albeit significant) social distortion that can upset the idealistic equitable balance.

Even in the most stable and SMV balanced pairings, the simple fact that both sexes’ SMV peaks occur at differing phases of life makes the notion of a contented balance laughable. However it is important for a Man to bear in mind that his SMV will eventually exceed that of any woman if he continues to improve himself and grows personally, physically and financially into his SMV peak years. There will eventually come a time when a woman’s SMV will decay to the point that her necessitousness will exceed her value. In other words, due to her fast burn-fast decay SMV, and recognized or not, she will eventually need a Man more than he needs her when he enters his peak SMV phase and she’s declined to the Wall of her own.

It’s during this critical phase that a woman must rely on her man’s socially expected love, charity, obligation and parental investment to maintain his secure attachment to her in the face of an obvious SMV imbalance. As I’ve covered before, women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices men make to facilitate women’s reality – and once those facial wrinkles and cellulite can no longer be disguised by makeup or collagen, women will still persist in the expectation of monogamous obligation, in preference to the genuine desire, love, devotion, etc. a man may legitimately feel about her regardless of her wrinkles.

2:1

Roissy has defined this ratio in the past as the golden mean of SMV between the genders – so long as the man is on the beneficial side of it. The most successful, stable and loving relationships don’t result from being equally yoked – they result from a mutually acknowledged SMV superiority of a positively masculine male and his adoring, yet subconsciously anxious, woman who’s up to a point below him in SMV evaluation.

Some guys get to this position by default. Either by genetics, prior hard work or simply being single at the phase of life when his SMV is peaking while hers is in decline, a man can prolong this ratio far longer and far more realistically than the 1:1 idealization. This isn’t to say his SMV can’t be reduced by failing a shit test or by unfortunate personal circumstances, but the durability and resiliencey of his higher SMV affords him more leeway in recovering from these missteps or calamities.

A man need not necessarily be an Alpha cad to establish this ratio, all that’s required is an acknowledged recognition of this SMV imbalance and the appropriate appreciation and adoration from the woman involved. There are plenty of Betas who enjoy (or eventually will enjoy) the benefits of a 2:1 ratio even when they don’t (or refuse to) recognize an SMV imbalance that weighs in their favor.

From a female side a 2:1 ratio is generally what most modern women find themselves dealing with; through realized fact or by self-deluded overestimation of their own SMV, most women already presume they are the party with the higher SMV. These are the naggers, the brow beaters, the women who wistfully to aggravatedly wish their men were more than they are. They crave the SMV imbalance that a dominant Alpha would satisfy, yet through their own ego investments, or due to their inability to lock that Alpha down, must relegate themselves to being the less necessitous person in their LTR.

3:1

While this is a tenable situation for a Man it borders on the unhealthy. Marginal fame, notoriety or an actualized condition of widely acknowledged social proof can make for a 3:1 SMV ratio. These are the Men who other women can’t help but be attracted and aroused by, and other men aspire to be in one way or another. The women they do pair off with are faced with two options: either maturely accept this inequity and rely on feminine wiles (and sexual performance) to create a situation of ‘value added’ emotional investment and secure his monogamy, or accept that she will only be a short term breeding option for him before a woman who’s a better SMV option presents herself to him.

Only the most secure of women in this ratio pairing don’t suffer from an state of passive dread. While a 2:1 pairing may force a women to deal with marginal self-doubt and underlying competition anxiety, a woman in a 3:1 pairing will have to confront the dread of loss that accompanies a less stable pairing. From a Hypergamic perspective, she’s hit the evolutionary jackpot – sexual pairing with a mate she wouldn’t normally have access to. Fat women who garner the drunken attentions of an out-of-options man of higher SMV make for the most common occurrences of a 3:1 pairing. Irrational jealousy and ‘accidental pregnancies’ are not uncommon in this pairing.

I should point out that a 3:1 pairing may also be the result of a 2:1 pairing that lasted into a man’s peak years and bumped him up a point, or more likely, the woman depreciated down a point or more as she hit the Wall.

From the female side, a 3:1 ratio is generally only a temporary condition. Leaving a man who is recognizably a full 2 points beneath her in SMV is really only a formality. Generally this female-side pairing is the result of an extreme circumstance, a particularly materialistic woman or a man who convinced a woman he was more Alpha than he seemed only to backslide into abject Betaness once he mistakenly thought he could get comfortable with her and expected her to love him for just being himself.

It should also be considered that a 3:1 female-side pairing may also be the result of a post Wall professional woman pairing off with the only Beta so intently conditioned in feminine-primary psychology that she would consider him preferable to celibacy.

4+:1

We’re pushing into the improbable here, but these pairing do exist. Your first thought may be the famous celebrity or musician who marries a ‘commoner’, but the more likely scenario is one where a previously more equitable pairing was solidified and one partner decayed so dramatically that this extreme imbalance resulted. It’s easy to find online before and after examples of women progressively fattening  from a trim sexy girl of 19 to a 200lbs+ landmonster of 26. I wish I could say these were outliers, but as all too many bloggers in the manosphere will attest, it’s increasingly common.

Women in the ‘before-and-after’ demographic who find themselves in a 4+:1 are often the most dependent upon the feminine social convention established to delimit men’s sexual selectivity. The Body Fat embracers and the ‘shallow’ men shamers are the most obvious examples.

Other than for the most egregious of gold diggers a sustainable 4:1 balance from the feminine side is a virtual impossibility.

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.

Dreams of the Future Past

Untitled from Where the Dreams were Growing Wild

For about the last two weeks I’ve been conferring with a good friend about a situation I’ve yet to address since becoming red pill aware.

My friend James is an interesting fellow. Now at 56, he’s had a life of ups and downs, and varied experiences. He’s travelled extensively both in his impoverished youth and now in his affluence (and relative celebrity) he still makes trips to location most people wouldn’t have on their vacation destinations list. He’s insightful, mature and what I’d call a lesser Alpha.

James has been through two tumultuous marriages – one from an idealistic phase where he pedestalized not just his young wife, but the institution of marriage itself, and one from his 30’s after not having learned his lessons in idealism. He’s been on the receiving end of the divorce industry, but thankfully he didn’t come into his money until after these were settled. He is presently on his 3rd marriage and this is the “one that stuck” for him. They compliment each other well, but considering they were in their late 40’s and he’d finally come into some marked success when they married I’m hardly surprised.

For the most part, and by my own estimation, James is a successful, well-intentioned Man – his only delusion in being still firmly entrenched in his blue pill understanding about women and the greater game that’s influenced his life thus far. He’s resisted my efforts to educate him in Game-awareness for a while now, and since he’d married a woman who complements his personality so well I didn’t see the harm in just letting him be and focus my efforts elsewhere. James has a demonstrated predilection to white knight and his somewhat Alpha attitude has made him one of the more vocal opponents I’ve had in explaining red pill truths to him or others involved in our past conversations. He has a knack for baselessly rejecting or sidestepping red pill truths that just don’t fit into his personal narrative, or he feels in someway invalidates how he’d handled the women in his past.

The Mentor

One thing James was never able to do situationally (not biologically) with his past wives was to have children. He makes the convenient declarations about how he “never wanted to be a father” most successful childless men do. Once he’d met his 3rd wife they were both at an age where kids were impractical for them. Remarkably his present wife was childless when they married and both of them didn’t want to run the risks of pregnancy at such a late stage in life. Neither did they feel any compulsion to adopt since James’ success came to him at a later stage in his maturity, however that didn’t stop him from wanting to, at least indirectly, be a father to someone.

Almost six years ago James became a mentor to a relatively impoverished boy of 12. Over those six years, he’s filled in for the father role of this boy who’s own father left his mother when he was 5. Whether it was from a sense of wanting to pass on his wisdom or an unachievable need to be a father in some respect, James admirably took Michael under his stewardship.

Over the years James played the role reasonably well considering the demands of his job and personal life. He payed for Michael’s schooling needs, encouraged him in sports, made attempts to motivate and inspire him, and gave him opportunities to experience things he would never had the chance to without his mentorship. He was certainly a great father figure for a kid who had no father.

The years went on and like most father’s James had to deal with his ‘son’s’ teenage misbehaviors. Nothing criminal occurred, but the requisite delinquency and sometimes truancy that boys will engage in was off-putting for him. In actuality Michael’s personality was a lot like James’, a lesser Alpha when he wanted to get his way (or ignore other people’s ways), but a confirmed beta when it came to deference to women. Michael has the predictable ‘promise keeper’s‘ Oedipus beliefs about his biological father, as a result of his having been raised by a single mother’s predominantly feminized influences.

The Perfect Storm

All of this investment and third hand discipline has come to a head now. James is currently dealing with a 17 (soon to be 18) year old boy who’s entered into the perfect storm phase of his life. He’s gotten himself a girlfriend, and is struggling with what to do with himself after high school ends in June. Michael has no interest in planning for a future beyond graduating from high school. He’s become increasingly disconnected with James – which is really putting James off for having invested himself in his adolescence – and essentially disregards anything James has to say about his interests in his future.

Recently James footed the bill for Michael to take the SAT and ACT exams for which he never showed up for, and this set James off. His understandable reaction was to lecture him about the necessity of a good education (something James himself only came to after ‘exploring’ on his own for the first 3-4 years after his graduation) and was met with simple ambiguous disinterest in his ‘fatherly advice’. Michael claims to have a plan, but say “college isn’t for him”.

James’ next step was to seek advice himself on how to deal with his ‘family’ crisis from other fathers he knew as well as anyone he thought might have more insight than he. He’s only been doing the father thing for six years as it is, so logically he needed some outside advice from other parents. Most predictably sided with his indignation. The kid is just ungrateful and doesn’t realize the advantage he’s been given to him from people truly invested in his future success. The tough love route was suggested and James is no longer going to be paying for certain bills he’d assumed for Michael while he was in high school.

James says it’s not a punishment, but a learning occasion to teach Michael the necessity of having a job in order to pay for things, but it’s difficult to believe coming from James who’d had high hopes for future appreciation; for doing good in some young man’s life – it’s almost a Savior Schema. Only now that expectation of a shared association of Michael’s future success is looking more like a dead end.

Revelation

About a week and a half ago James asked me for my input. I’ve been familiar with Michael and James’ commitment to being a good surrogate father with him for about 4 years now. I wasn’t sure that James really wanted to hear what I was going to tell him, because it was going to require that he listen to the red pill reason he didn’t like.

Having been raised by the feminine imperative, Michael is now making the transition into dealing with the insecurities that come as a part of that conditioning. He’s finally having sex with his first girlfriend and everything revolves around ensuring a future where he can perpetuate it. His girlfriend is one year behind him in school so his greatest ambition at this point is finding a way to guarantee they will be together once she graduates and moves on to some college of her choosing. His plan for his future is to follow along with whatever plan is her future.

Asking Michael to abandon her, in his own best interests, is to ask him to be selfish – much in the same fashion that he associates his biological father as being selfish. Michael can’t think past this because focusing on himself would be aligning himself with his real father. Beyond this, the reinforcement of semi-regular sex cements the certainy of his duty to making his future her future.

As expected, James didn’t like this revelation. He was a white knight, and to a degree so is Michael, but the point of contention was too obvious to ignore – Michael’s dependency on what the feminine imperative had conditioned into him (really both of them) was now at a loggerhead with the financial, personal and emotional investment James had committed himself to, and expected appreciation for, over the last six years.

James went into denial. He wouldn’t accept that what I’d been telling him for years was the source of his frustration with Michael. Out came the standard boilerplate platitudes, “Ah kids, they never appreciate anything you do for them! He’s just at that age. Who really knows what they want to do at 18? I didn’t.” I thought his words were ironic, not because he’d only been a parent for 6 years, but because of how similar his own experience was with Michael’s. It was almost a surrender for him. He wanted better for Michael, but that desire was conflicting with his own ego-investment in the feminine imperative.

So I find myself at an impasse here. I’m attempting to simultaneously unplug a soon to be 18 year old kid and a 56 year old man, both suffering from from the same infection. James, like I think most men do, had hopes of directing his ‘son’s’ path towards a brighter future by avoiding the pitfalls he had to endure. Only now he’s being cruelly reminded of how his own social conditioning began by re-experiencing it through Michael.

For his part Michael isn’t going to have any ambition for himself until he has nothing left to lose, including his girlfriend. He’s not going to join the military, sees no point in taking the SAT and will most likely only do just the bare minimum to sustain himself until such time that his girlfriend’s ambition supersedes his own and she moves on, or worse, he knocks her up. Even James’ framing the possibility of his girlfriend leaving him due to his lack of ambition doesn’t register for him because Michael’s feminine conditioning has ‘taught’ him that she’ll inherently appreciate his investment in her.

Case Study – Inspire Her

My good friend Greasy Pig from the SoSuave forum needed some Game analysis.

Damn, Rollo! Now I’m starting to second guess myself. lol
One of my plates sent me a topless pic, so I responded very positively. I didn’t gush compliments, I just told her it was an awesome pic and she had nothing to be ashamed about with her body.

I was using the `reward good behaviour by giving her your attention’ philosophy.

Interestingly, she hasn’t sent any more pics. I’ve subtly suggested she should send more but she just laughs it off.
Maybe I shouldn’t have been so quick to respond? But how do you know when and what to reward with your attention?

Context is King.

The deductive (beta) response for a guy receiving a topless pic is to applaud it, encourage it and reinforce it in order to get more and / or confirm for himself that he’s “in there” with this girl.

The problem is that the attention you give her is in the context of your approval. Your approving of her topless pic satisfies her reason for sending it – male affirmation of her attractiveness. Once satisfied there’s no reason to send more, or really any reason to pursue a guy who will default to giving her unearned approval. Strippers know this dynamic well.

The counterintuitive (Alpha) response is a measured disapproval, or casual indifference. That disapproval shouldn’t be a negative rejection of her, but rather an invitation to try harder with the next one. This is exactly why short text-long response time Game is effective – it provokes imagination in women. Neg Hits are based on the same premise; redirection of qualification. Most of women’s shit tests can be circumvented or turned to your advantage by keeping your focus on redirecting her qualifications of you into her qualification for you.

Shit Tests (revisited)

The subconscious understanding is that a man with options (a presumptive Alpha) will be preoccupied with more important issues than a topless shot of some new girl he may or may not be interested in, and, is so flush with other potential women who are interested in him that hers may be one of many women’s boobs he’s seen previously or even that day.

Try to imagine the process of what went on in this girl’s head. She had to think about taking the shot and what it would prompt in you. She probably wore something she thought was sexy to cover the rest of her, looked herself in the mirror, posed, took the shot, reviewed the picture to make sure she looked good, then pressed ‘send’ and sent it to you. It may not seem it, but that’s a lot of complex decision making on her part.

The suspense, the imagination of what your response would be, all serve to stimulate that chemical rush she finds thrilling. You might think, “well duh Rollo, that’s the principle of ‘gina tingles”, but it’s really different because she is the one self-stimulating that rush, not a guy, not you. She may get tingles from your response, or her imaginings of how you’ll respond, but it’s the uncertainty that prompts the rush. Now think about the millions of ‘self-shooter’ girls doing exactly the same thing, for exactly the same reason.

When you immediately respond in the affirmative it ends the rush she wants to savor. Conversely, when you prolong that rush (and maybe add a bit of playful indignation) you stoke that Alpha fitness uncertainty in her even further. In a sense this puts you into the position of being her drug dealer – you’re the guy who gives her that rush. And like the junkie she is, she will pursue you to get it.

Right now this girl is laughing off your suggestions to send you more topless pics because you failed her shit test. A lot of men think that a shit test always comes in the form of bitchiness or sarcasm, but women test more often with lures of access to their sexuality as a measure of men’s Alpha fitness. And the more you suggest that she send you more pictures of her tits, the more certain she is that you aren’t the Alpha who gives her that rush.

You must inspire a woman to acts of sexual spontaneity, you can never ask for it. When you ask a girl “show me your tits” and she does, it’s great, but when she flashes you without asking, it’s inspired.