Foundations

The primary principles and building blocks of Positive Masculinity.

Dispelling the Magic

Women get the men they deserve.

One point I try to make in my roaming about blogs dedicated to intergender dynamics is reading articles from many different perspectives. When I have the time, I actively hunt down articles that I know I will disagree with. I think it’s far too easy to get locked into the habit of seeking out bloggers, articles and statistics that reaffirm our own particular views. Even within the circles with which we’d be inclined to agree with there will often be a lot of conflicting viewpoints – such as the recent conflict pitting the MRAs vs. the PUAs, or Game vs. MGTOW.

I began this blog with the intent of studying the reasons why intergender social and psychological dynamics evolve, what functions they serve, and develop contingencies or actionable methods of bettering one’s life using this information – really this is the core of Game. The problem inherent in this, and really unplugging in general, is that it often comes with a healthy dose of disillusionment. Once you strip away the heady fantasies of soul-mates and expectations of ‘happily ever afters”, and replace it with a more practical understanding based on reasonably reliable, empirical explanations, what you’re left with looks a lot like nihilism. Even for the most staunch realists among the ‘community’ there’s still a desire to want to apply, however slightly, some kind of mysticism to the process of connecting with another human being. With other Men it may be some esoteric desire to cast their association in terms of honor, integrity or respect – with women it comes as idealization or predestination.

I’m not saying this desire to spiritualize these connections is without merit, but I can’t help but see the conflict it has in coexisting with the practicality of what we’re learning about ourselves. Just in the last 30 years we’ve come to understand the biochemical natures of our emotions. We know a hormone like oxytocin induces feelings of trust and promotes nurturing. We know that the endorphin / dopamine profile associated with feelings of infatuation, lust and love is chemically similar to that of heroine. Poof! There goes the magic. We have an understanding of women’s ovulatory cycles and the resulting sexual behavioral habits that are induced by them. Only the generations of the late 20th and 21st are privy to this information. Evo-Psychology has only risen to prominence as a field of study in the past 15 years.

Discomfort and Disillusion

All of this makes for some very uncomfortable realizations, particularly when men become aware of the social schemas established to keep them in a female-centric reality. Game is a recent countermeasure developed by men to better adapt to this feminine primacy, but it was only possible through advances in both communication technologies, access to globalized information and new socio-psychological theory. Prior to these advancements, and with the rise of feminization from the late 60s to the late 90s men were clueless as to their social predicament. From the start of the sexual revolution until the beginning of this millennia, western masculinity (and femininity) has been subjected to the greatest deliberate social and psychological restructuring, any generation has ever known. And I shouldn’t limit that exclusively to western culture; now we see this effect filtering into Asia, Japan, even traditionally masculine Latin cultures. As westernization spreads, so too does it’s feminization.

What have men been left clinging to? The pseudo-guilt we’ve been taught to be ashamed of as part of our past “patriarchy” to be sure, but more importantly we were left with the vestiges of that magical thinking. In the face of a yet undefined hypergamy, we wanted to still believe in the ‘Sugar & Spice’ myth, the respect her wishes motive, the marriage goal – all of which were (are) still actively reinforced by a feminine imperative that knew its time had come and men were too stupid in their romanticism to know it. That is until the Meta Game was established.

The great and powerful Oz that was feminization is finally having the curtain pulled back on it. In this new age of communication men can globally “share notes” and come to their own conclusions – and women shriek all the louder as we hit closer to the truth. Thanks to its relative anonymity, no longer is there any social stigma to fear from even broaching the subject of how best to deal with women. The great wailing we hear and read from women is less about current social implications and more about having the 30 year social program of feminization being exposed for what it truly was. Yet even in the face of men seeing the Empress with no clothes, they still make appeals to the romantic, magical association men clung to before they became aware of a hypergamy enabling feminization. We read cries of Man-Up! Accept your previous responsibilities of being a husband and leader, but don’t be overbearing and crush our spirits. And in the back row a new generation of women, the 22 year olds, scream “where’s the party?” as they upload a fresh set of nudes shot in the bathroom from their cell phones.

Women get the men they deserve. For all the crowing and publicity of feminine triumphalism, there’s still a wonderment at why men are increasingly less and less motivated to play along in their feminine reality. As tough as it is for men to disabuse themselves of their romanticism, it’s even more so for women to accept their own natures in the shadow of the experiment that was 20th century feminization. They’re reaping the whirlwind that the Matriarchy of the sexual revolution has sown. It’s all the more ironic to read the same mothers who created this generation of men lament how their daughters are unmarried and childless at 35.

The Beta Hamster

I’ve never had meaningless sex; I meant to bang every woman I’ve ever banged.

It’s endlessly entertaining to read the rationalizations men will create in order to better identify with what they’ve been conditioned to think is expected of them to achieve the ‘precious gift’ of a woman’s intimacy. They get quite creative sometimes. Aunt Susan has (yet another) anecdotal analysis of Casual Sex highlighting exactly these anonymous stabs at male pre-qualification courtesy of Reddit. And once again, in classic feminine form, the thread becomes this echo chamber circle jerk of male identifiers qualifying themselves to the equally anonymous women – parroting the ‘right thing to say’, and we all renew our faith in humanity and the hope for men who really ‘relate to what women want’.

I think I covered this identification motive as a primary element of Beta Game fairly adequately in Identity Crisis, but lets look under the hood at this specific dynamic. The inherent problem with doubting what is intended as the noble motives of a guy to eschew casual sex is that you risk appearing shallow for doing so. Betas generally love to wallow in preconceptions of nobility and delusions of being more ‘deep’ than the general mass of men that they hear women complain of. They think it gives them an edge. It’s an integral part of the beta mating strategy; the more alike you are with women the more they’ll appreciate you as being unique and reward you with sex.

The Spinning Wheel

For beta men this mindset also has the added bonus of giving the perception that he is unique among men in his ability to place the importance of relationship above his natural impulses. In publicly confirming his stance on placing relationship (women’s first security priority, i.e. wait for sex) above his ever-present physical need for sex, his subconscious hope is to appear so in control of his feelings and so above his feral nature that women will have to appreciate him as a paragon of female identification. That’s some REAL pre-fucking-qualification there Mr. Alpha. This guy not only has the capacity, but also the depth and conviction to turn off his sexuality in order to better comply with the relationship security priority women need to enable their own sexual strategy. This is the ultimate in pedestalization of womankind – to put women’s emotional criteria above his physical need for sex. And the god of biomechanics laughed atop his throne of genitalia.

The Beta Hamster

It’s very difficult to criticize social dynamics rooted in personal feelings. All one need say is “it’s just how I feel” and the discussion grinds to a halt because who am I, or who are you, to doubt the veracity of what they’re telling me? Add to this that it’s men who are the true romantics of the sexes and it gets even harder to be suspect of an underlying self-serving motive. In fact it may not even be a conscious effort on the part of a guy to express this. Feminization has conditioned into society a greater, almost default validity for personal feelings. As men have become increasingly adaptive to a feminized culture, placing primacy on identifying with, becoming more like, women, so too have they developed their own version of the female imagination – the feminized-male version of the mental Hamster that spins the wheel in women’s heads. The doubts, suspicions and anxieties caused by the male Hamster are directed towards an idealized female-centric goal state which they mistakenly believe is a male-centric goal state.

Behaviorism

Self-reporting has always been an unreliable measure in psychological analysis, particularly when the one doing the reporting isn’t aware of the latent purpose of the psychology behind those ‘feelings’ they’re sharing. The only truly reliable, provable means of demonstrating motive or intent is observable behavior. It’s kind of a cliché in the community now, but bears repeating: never believe what a woman says, believe what she does. We use this meme more liberally with women because men make the mistake of wanting to believe that women are more rational agents than they are emotional agents, but this should really apply to men as well, and particularly when men are predisposed to women’s mental models.

From a behavioral standpoint, we’re going to see a lot of incongruent behaviors vs. the Beta Hamster’s rationalizations. To begin with, I’m not going to deny that there is some base element in men that desires a real emotional connection with a woman. However, sex is a man’s priority, it’s a biological imperative, and actively denying that it isn’t or creating mental schemas that attempt to sublimate this imperative are disingenuous at best, psychologically retarding at worst. Sex is the glue that keeps a relationship together, and it’s sexual arousal that prompts a relationship in the first place. Deemphasizing sex, actively desexualizing yourself in the hopes that it will make you more sexually arousing is an effort in self-defeat.

To paraphrase Joe Rogan, men will blow themselves up for the very unlikely possibility of sex in another dimension. That’s the degree to which men place a value on sex, any sex, meaningful, a fuck buddy, a hooker, any sex. Pornography isn’t a multi-billion dollar industry because guys are concerned with adding some nebulous ‘meaning’ to sex. Women are concerned with applying meaning to sex because it is integral to their long term mating strategy and locking down a commitment of male provisioning. The men who claim to share in this importance (at least initially) are listening to the Beta Hamster and repeating what it says to them back to the women they hope to fuck. Even anonymously on a Reddit thread, they can’t let the pretense drop for fear that they’d miss a potential opportunity to prove themselves as ‘deep’ meaning oriented guys.

I have to laugh when men make these self-effacing claims to be seeking more ‘meaning’ after they tire of their long string of ONSs or ‘cheap sex’. Statistically, most men never even approach a lay count that could validate such a claim. According to the most recent studies I’ve read, most men have an average of 7 sexual partners over the course of a lifetime. That may be changing, but even if it were an average of 10 or 12 it would still make the rationale for seeking ‘meaningful’ sex as a result ridiculous, as well as suspect of a feminine-identifying mating strategy. Add to this that 80% (a conservative estimate) of men are plugged-in betas, hopelessly lacking the social skills and motivation to rack up a lay count that would ever justify this reasoning. So what is it that compels them to concoct these self-convincing rationalizations? The Beta Hamster.

It’s a far healthier mentality for men to embrace their own sexuality. God forbid a woman actually might think you find her sexy and want to fuck her. Despite their protestations, women want guys to want to fuck them. Women often complain that the reason they don’t feel sexual is due to their not feeling sexy, and they wont feel sexy if you approach sex from an asexual starting point because you think it adds ‘meaning’. Of the 40+ women I’ve had sex with, not one do I regret banging. I most definitely regretted some of the ensuing drama as a result of a few of those relationships, but I thoroughly enjoyed the sex. Sex for the sake of sex is OK. Trust me, after the one thousandth time you’ve had sex with your wife or LTR, sex for the sake of sex is fantastic. Stop writing poetry about sex and get fucking.

Alpha

The Alpha Buddah, Corey Worthington.

What I’m about to type here is not going to make me any new friends. I know because any discussion of what constitutes Alpha characteristics in a Man always becomes clouded by the self-perceptions of how well we think we align with them. As I’ve covered in prior postings, the ‘community’, the ‘manosphere’, the new understanding of gender relations that’s picked up momentum for the last 12 years has always generated it’s own terminologies for more abstract concepts. The danger in this is that these terms lack real, universal definition. For purposes of illustrating a concept these terms are usually serviceable – we have a general understanding of what makes for a ‘Beta’ or a Herb, or a man who falls into a ‘provider’ mentality. Even ‘Alpha’ in a specific context is useful as an illustrative tool, when the subject isn’t directly about ‘Alpha-ness’. It’s when we try to universally define what constitutes Alpha that the sparks start to fly. So before you continue on reading further, think about what you believe makes a guy Alpha. Got it in your head now? Good, now put all of that aside, purge that from your head, and read the next few paragraphs from the perspective that you don’t know anything about Alpha.

I was first introduced to the Alpha Buddah courtesy of Roissy and this post “Umm, sorry?” You can go ahead and read this from the Chateau’s perspective, and I think the analysis is pretty good. I call Corey the Alpha Buddah not in the hopes that men will aspire to his almost Zen like ‘being’ in Alpha, but rather to provide an example of Alpha in it’s most pure form. He literally IS Alpha, unclouded by pretense, afterthought, or conscious awareness of any influence that could have a hope of prompting introspection about his state.

Corey Worthington is a piss poor example of a human being, but he’s a textbook example of Alpha. I could use a lot of adjectives to describe this kid, but “beta” wouldn’t be one of them. What’s funny, and a bit ironic, is this kid has probably never come across Mystery Method or “the community” or even heard of ‘peacocking’ and he gets naturally what millions of guys pay small fortunes at PUA seminars to acquire over the course of a lifetime. He’s a selfish little prick, but what makes him insulting to ‘normal’ men is his having the natural, internalized Alpha bravado so many AFCs wish they had. If you could bottle and sell this Alpha essence, you’d be rich beyond imagine.

Right about now all of those self-affirming preconceptions you had about Alpha-ness (that I told you to stow away before reading this) are probably yelling to be let out of the mental box you put them in. “,..but, but Rollo, how can you possibly think this arrogant douchebag kid could ever be an example of anything remotely Alpha?!” You’ll be pleased to know I fully empathize your outrage. You work hard to be a “better man”, you put in the self analysis, you paid your dues coming to terms with unplugging and reinventing yourself. You’re a success, Corey is fuck-up. Corey’s not a better Man than you are, however, he understands Alpha better than you do.

Alpha is mindset, not a demographic.

Alpha is as Alpha does, it isn’t what we say it is. There are noble Alphas and there are scoundrel Alphas, the difference is all in how they apply themselves. There’s a tendency to approach every “Alpha” argument from what a guy thinks is righteousness; ergo, his personal definition of Alpha is what appeals best to his sense of virtue. He earned his Alpha cred, played by the rules, and by God people (women) should respect that. However, the sad truth is that prisons are full of Alpha males who simply channeled their drive toward destructive and anti-social endeavors. There are plenty of examples of indifferent Asshole Alphas who you wouldn’t say are upstanding moral leaders at all, yet women will literally kill each other (or themselves) in order to bang them because they exude a natural Alpha-ness. Just as Corey does here. There are Alpha drug dealing gang leaders, and there are Alpha husbands, fathers and leaders of industry. It’s all in the application. Genghis Khan was Alpha as fuck, and a leader-of-men, but probably would be on most people’s douchebag list for that era. Here’s an illustration:

 

Guy’s like Corey infuriate men who have invested their self-worth in the accomplishments of what they think ought to be universally appreciated and rewarded. So when they’re confronted with a natural Alpha being undeservedly rewarded for brazenly acting out of accord with what they think the rules ought to be, they seethe with resentment. The natural response in the face of such an inconsistency is to redefine the term ‘Alpha’ to cater to themselves and their accomplishments as “real men” and exclude the perpetrator. The conflict then comes from seeing his new definition of Alpha not being rewarded or even appreciated as well as a natural Alpha attitude and the cycle continues. Your respect (or anyone else’s) for an Alpha has nothing to do with whether or not he possess an Alpha mindset. 3 failed marriages and 100+ lays has nothing to do with his having or not having an Alpha mindset. There are many well respected betas who’ve never had a passing thought of infidelity, or may have 300 lays either with prostitutes or because they possess fame or stunning good looks and women come to him by matter of course.

The take home message here is that you are not Alpha because of your achievements, you have your achievements because you are Alpha. You possess a mindset you either had to develop or it came naturally to you. I constantly field questions from young men asking me whether some action or behavior they displayed to a woman was Alpha, or Alpha enough. The real answer is that Alpha behaviors are manifestations of an Alpha mindset. And just like Corey the Alpha Buddah, the introspect required to wonder if something was or wasn’t Alpha wouldn’t ever be a consideration enough to ask. You almost need to have a childlike understanding to really appreciate what Alpha really is. Kids get Alpha. Even the picked on, introverted, beta-to-be kid has a better understanding of Alpha than most adult men do because he lacks the abstract thinking required to rationalize Alpha for himself. Most men, by our socialization, and to varying degrees, lose this in-born Alpha mindset over time. The naturals, the Corey’s of the world, have a better grasp on it’s usefulness and repurpose it; either to their adulthood advantage or their detriment.

The Honor System

“An unfamiliar feeling for one of you, but a horribly familiar feeling for the other.”

The concept of Honor that men began has been made to serve a feminine purpose. I have no doubt that the principle of honor dates back from as long ago as we can track human civilization, but like so many other social foundation Men have instituted, the feminine will covertly position them to their own purpose.

In the introduction to the Art of Seduction author Robert Greene explains why there was an original need for seduction to be developed into an art. For this we can look back to ancient civilizations where women were essentially a commodity. They had no OVERT external power to control their fates, but they excelled (and still do) at COVERT psychological internal power, and this of course finds a parallel in men and women’s preferred communication methods. The feminine’s primary agency has always been sexuality and manipulating influence by its means.

Much in the same way that each gender communicates, so too is their method of interacting within their own gender. As Men we’re respected when we keep our word, sacrifice ourselves for a worthy cause (even to the point of disposability), solve problems rationally, our word is our bond, and a whole host of other qualifiers that make us respectable and worthy of integrity. We must be OVERT and above board; and when we encounter a man who is COVERT in his dealings we call him ‘shifty’ and think him untrustworthy. Even for the most noble of purposes, practicing the art of misdirection is not something men are respected for – at least not publicly.

It’s just this overt masculine interactive nature that women are only too ready to exploit. In combination with their sexual agency and influence they use this overt male social interactive dynamic to position themselves in places where they can use indirect power. Cleopatra was an excellent example of this – sending armies to war by appealing to powerful men’s pride and honor, while reserving her sexuality as a reward. Virtually every Feminine Social Convention is rooted in appealing to, or attacking male social institutions – a dedication to an idealistic sense of honor being chief among them. The obvious example is of course “shaming” and the “do-the-right-thing” social contract.

In fact to be a “Man” has become synonymous with living up to a feminine imperative that’s cleverly disguised as masculine Honor. It’s not that women created Honor, but rather that they’ve recreated it to serve their purpose. In the Biblical Ten Commandments we’re told not to commit adultery – don’t sleep with another man’s wife – which probably wasn’t too hard to abide by when polygamy was the norm. In fact multiple wives was a sign of affluence, it used to be the conspicuous consumption of the epoch. Why then is polygamy a social perversion now? What changes occurred that made polygamy honorable (even enviable) into a very evil taboo?

Along with language and culture, social conditions evolve. What we think of as Honorable today are the result of centuries molding. It’s very easy to romanticize about times when Honor among Men reigned supreme, and then lament the sad state of society today in comparison, but doing so is a fools errand. Honor in and of itself is, and should be, a foundation for Men, but it’s only useful when we understand it in the perspective of how it can be used against us.

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

In contemporary society we have a very different understanding of what Honor was, or was intended to be initially. One of the psychological undercurrents I see in most AFCs is a strong, self-righteous dedication to a very distorted conviction of Honor. A main tenet being an unearned, default respect for women; essentially an unearned Honor placed on a woman for no other reason than she’s female. We learn this (usually) from the time we’re children, “never hit a girl”. Naturally, this has only been ferociously encouraged by the feminine since Victorian times because it served a latent purpose right up until on demand (feminine exclusive) birth control was offered, and then prompted the sexual revolution.

Today, we still have women using the anachronism that is male Honor in a manner that serves their interests, but it’s contrasted with a sexually emphasized opportunism. A Man’s responsibility should be “Honoring” her as ‘the fairer sex’ while recognizing her ‘independence’. The AFC gobbles this stuff up and in an effort to better identify himself with her ideals he begins to convince himself that he’s unique in that he better exemplifies this false-virtue, this feminine defined sense of Honor than “other guys”.

Indignation

In the absence of indignation, women will actively manufacture it for themselves.

Over the weekend, The Chateau had an interesting quick-hit post extolling the Game virtues of a man losing his cool. This is an interesting concept from a behavioral psychology perspective in that it unexpectedly rattles comfortable, predictable, behavioral patterns women come to expect from their men. When controlled and used tactically it can reinvigorate a woman’s failing interest level, but I should add the caveat that for it to be effective you already need to have established a relationship to the point that doing something unexpected conflicts with a set expectation of behavior from you. If a woman doesn’t know your character “losing your cool” will only make you seem erratic and unstable.

Lets dig a little deeper here – what makes this break in routine so appealing to women’s psyches? You can of course argue that it’s outburst of feral Alpha that sparka ‘gina tingle, and that’s definitely a visceral effect, but what drives that glandular response is the prompt of indignation. Women live in a quandary when it comes to security. On an evolutionary level, the security impulse is a primary directive. Long term provisioning, parental investment and the innate understanding of the rigors of hypergamy and it’s relation to breeding make ‘security seeking’ a woman’s primary impulse. This isn’t to discount the influence of other impulses – sex being the next in order – however, herein lies the problem; the very cues that fire a woman’s sexual triggers are the same that conflict with her security needs.

On the surface, women have a social responsibility to present the perception that their interests are those of the uniter. Everything should revolve around home and hearth and security above all, but their behaviors tell a much different story about their appetites. Women need indignation. Watch one episode of ‘Dance Moms‘ and you’ll get a much clearer picture of the value indignation holds for women. Whether the source is gossip, living vicariously through third parties or eating it up in popular media (Oprah, Tyra Banks, romance / fan fiction media), in the absence of indignation, women will actively manufacture it for themselves. A lot of men believe that this need for indignation is the calling card of a “high drama” woman when in fact it’s really psychological predisposition for women.

Women’s biology predisposes them toward security, but they chafe in a condition of total security. In contemporary terms this translates to living under the conditions of relative security whilst seeking out avenues to create that indignant spark. The wise Man will develop tactical, measured ways to make himself the focus of that need for indignation. The Chateau’s article actually illustrates the most common way Men stumble upon the usefulness of this dynamic. You get fed up and pissed off, either at some boundary she’s crossed or some 3rd party has, and your anger flares up. Your usually patient countenance is gone and you go caveman. The reason this is shocking is that most men will tolerate far more personal indiscretions from their romantic interests, or want to present the appearance of humility or patience with others while she’s around, in an effort to convince his LTR interest that he is a good security provider. And while this may appeal to her provisioning instincts it directly conflicts with her more feral instincts of physical attraction.

Most plugged-in men don’t like this reality. It’s far more comforting to think of women’s attraction as requiring less confrontation. Women who are grossly overt in this need for indignation are (rightly) labeled ‘Drama Queens’, but what they don’t consider is that ALL women have this innate need by order of degree. It can be a useful tool for a Man who can use it covertly and skillfully. Accepting a feminine need for indignation is the first step, the next is to center her focus for it on yourself – instead of Dance Moms and gossip. An occasional, well timed flare up is sometimes all it requires to grab her attention, but be damn sure you’re in the right about whatever issue you decide to explode upon. Send a perfectly good plate of food back at a restaurant. Find some issue that meets with your disapproval and “let it get to you”.

The Power of No

A perceived righteousness of purpose is often best when you “get upset”, however, it’s not always necessary. One very powerful assertion of frame control is simply the word “no”. For as often as men will blather off a complicit “yes” in order to keep the peace, women NEED to be told “no”. Get into the habit of saying no, even when it seems unreasonable. Get comfortable in saying no for the sake of establishing your authority. Most men don’t see the purpose or value in this to even consider experimenting with their respect and frame control. They just want to keep their heads down, not rock the pussy boat and get along. That’s the recipe for a beta-herb divorce.

Here’s an example: there was once a point in my life when Mrs. Tomassi asked me if we could buy a new bed for our daughter; I told her no. I had the money, it was really no issue, I just didn’t want to build a new bed at the time and get rid of the old one. Besides, her bed was more than fine for the time and Mrs. Tomassi really wanted it because of the style. She got indignant; “I don’t see why we can’t, it’s a good price,…blah blah blah,..” and against my first impulse toward contrition I again said “No. We’re not getting the damn bed.” At that point the dynamic of the conversation shifted. It wasn’t about a bed, it was about frame. Of course lesser men will laugh and think, “yeah, she turned off the pussy after that to I bet, heh, heh,..” and for about a week they’d be right, but learn this now:

No amount of negotiated pussy will ever be worth losing frame for.

It’s always better to fuck a woman who accepts you as her authority than some half-assed lay with a woman who’s only fucking you out of a sense of obligation. Learning to use indignation is a fantastic primer for frame control.

Dream Killers

Women should only ever be a complement to a man’s life, never the focus of it.

How common it is today to be married or getting married before we’ve realized any of our potential. For all the articles I read moaning and groaning about what a listless generation of “kidult” males we’ve inherited, that’s far removed from the reality of the young men I do consults with. No, what they want is just enough Game knowledge to connect with their Dream Girl and relax into a blissful beta cocoon of monogamy. They want to commit. Their lifetime AFC psychological conditioning makes commitment an urgency.

It never ceases to amaze me when I talk with these young men in their teens and 20s and they try to impress me with their fierce independence in every other realm of their lives, yet they are the same guys who are so ready to limit that independence and ambition in exchange for dependable female intimacy. They’re far too eager to slap on the handcuffs of monogamy, rather than develop themselves into men of ambition and passion that women naturally want to be associated with.

The truth however is that the longer you remain uncommitted, the more opportunities will be available to you. It’s been stated by wiser Men than I that women are dream-killers – and while I agree with this, I’d say this is due more to the man involved, and their own complicity and apathy, than some grand scheme of women.

It’s actually in women’s best interest that you don’t commit to them for a variety of reasons. I realize how counterintuitive that reads, but in your being so readily available you decrease your value as a commodity to them. Scarcity increases value, and particularly when the reason for that scarcity is something that serves another’s interest (hers in this example). The mid-20s Man pursuing his ambition to become an attorney in law school or the pre-med intern spending long hours at the hospital with aspirations of becoming a doctor is hindered and encumbered with the complications that maintaining a monogamous relationship necessitates of him. His time and efforts need to be applied toward acheiving his goals to become an even higher value Man – not just in terms of financial success but for his own edification and confidence. Needless to say, the constraints and obligations that maintaining a monogamous relationship require – both in time and emotional investment – make achieving these ambitions far more difficult.

I tend to promote the idea that Men should be sexually and emotionally non-exclusive until age 30, but this is a minimal suggestion. I think 35 may even serve better for Men. The importance being that as a Man ages and matures in his career, his ambitions and passions, his personality, his ability to better judge character, his overall understanding of behavior and motivations, etc. he becomes more valuable to the most desirable women and therefore enjoys better opportunity in this respect. Women’s sexual value decreases as they age and it’s at this point the balance tips into the maturing Man’s favor. It’s the Men who realize this early and understand that bettering themselves in the now will pay off better in the future while still enjoying (and learning from) the opportunities that come from being non-exclusive and non-commital make him a Man that women will compete for in the long term.

In your mid-20s you are at the apex of your potential with regards to the direction you will influence your life to go. I’m not going to make any friends by pointing this out, but what pisses off most “serial monogamists” is the unspoken regret of having assumed the responsibilities, liabilities and accountability of what monogamy demands before they truly understood their potential.

If you are single at 35 with a moderate amount of personal success, you are the envy of man-dom because you possess two of the most valuable resources most men your age or older statistically do not – time and freedom. I envy you. You are unshackled by the responsibilities, liabilities and accountabilities that most men your age in marriages, LTRs, with children, or recovering from divorce must contend with daily. Without any intention you are in such a position that you can go in any direction of your choosing without considering the impact of your choice for anyone but yourself. Many other men, in the most ideal of LTRs, do not have this luxury.

When you think of all the responsibilities that are required of most men (and women) in modern life today, you have won the lottery! I was once asked what I’d buy if money were no object, to which I answered, time. Power isn’t financial resources, status or influence over others; power is the degree over which you control your own life, and right now you are powerful. Trust me, this is as good as it gets and this is made all the better because you are old enough to understand and appreciate what is really at work here.

Women are damaged goods for you now? So what? You have the freedom to sample as indiscriminately or as particularly as you choose. Can’t find a good LTR? Why would you want to?! Let her find you! You fear you’ll end up old and lonely? I’d fear ending up so paralyzed by a fear of loneliness that you’d settle for a lifetime of controlling misery in a passionless marriage.

I’m an adherent of the ‘build it and they will come’ school of thought in this regard. Women should only ever be a compliment to a man’s life – never the focus of it.

Is it better to choose the path of least resistance to get to an idealized, prefabricated intimacy or self-develop and get the same intimacy? True, both instances put women as the focus of a Man’s life, and this is a position that most women will find endearing at first, but suffocating in the end. Women want to ‘want’ their men. Women want a Man who other men want to be, and other women want to fuck. She doesn’t want a slave to her intimacy since this puts her in the masculine role. Rather, she wants a decisive mature man who has the confidence to put her off, to tell her ‘No’, in favor of his ambition and passions as this serves two purposes. First, it sets his direction as the one of authority and his development as the primary; the results of which she and her potential children will benefit from. Secondly, it puts her into a position of chasing after him – essentially his legitimate ambitions and passsions become the ‘other woman’ with which she must compete for his attention.

Note that I stated ‘legitimate’ ambitions here. A woman involved with a law student or an intern who have the potential to become lawyers and doctors are fairly solid bets for future security. An artist or musician, no matter how talented or committed to their passions will only be viewed as beneficial if they can prove their case to select women. However this can be offset by singleminded determination, once again, with select women with a capacity to appreciate this. This said, think about the fellow who’s chosen to be a plumber or a mechanic as his calling. The best plumber in the world is only going so far unless he has dreams to own his own business.

All of this is limited by a man’s attitude towards the opposite sex. Women are dream killers. Not because they have an agenda to be so, but because men will all too willingly sacrifice their ambitions for a steady supply of pussy and the responsibilities that women attach to this.

So yes it is better to develop yourself rather than take the path of least resistance. That’s not to say don’t sarge until you’re out of college, in your 30s and have your career in order. It is to say don’t consider monogamy until you are mature enough to understand it’s limitations and you’ve achieved a degeree of success to your own satisfaction according to your ambitions and passions. It is also to say that women should compliment and support your plans for your own life.

Frame

Iron Rule of Tomassi #1

Frame is everything. Always be aware of the subconscious balance of whose frame in which you are operating. Always control the Frame, but resist giving the impression that you are. 

The concept of “frame” is yet another ephemeral idea that had need of a term in the very beginnings of the great masculine awakening that’s become the ‘community’. If memory serves I think it may have been Mystery who first picked up on what’s really a very rudimentary and well established psychological principle. In psych terms, frame is an often subconscious, mutually acknowledged personal narrative under which auspices people will be influenced. One’s capacity for personal decisions, choices for well-being, emotional investments, religious beliefs and political persuasions (amongst many others) are all influenced and biased by the psychological narrative ‘framework’ under which we are most apt to accept as normalcy.

The concept of frame covers a lot of aspects of our daily lives, some of which we’re painfully aware of, others we are not, but nonetheless we are passively influenced by frame. What concerns us in terms of inter-gender relations however is the way in which frame sets the environment, the ambience, and the ‘reality’ in which we relate with both the woman we sarge at a bar and the relationship with the woman we’ve lived with for 20 years. One important fact to consider, before I launch into too much detail, is to understand that frame is NOT power. The act of controlling the frame may be an exercise in power for some, but let me be clear from the start that the concept of frame is who’s ‘reality’ in which you choose to operate in relation to a woman. Both gender’s internalized concept of  frame is influenced by our individual acculturation, socialization, psychological conditioning, upbringing, education, etc., but be clear on this, you are either operating in your own frame or you’re operating in hers. Also understand that the balance of frame often shifts. Frame is fluid and will find its own level when a deficit or a surplus of will is applied to change it. The forces that influence that lack or boost of will is irrelevant – just know that the conditions of an operative framework will shift because of them.

Pre-LTR Frame
Often I’ll see forum posts lamenting some loss of frame – “Lost the frame, how do I get it back?” A lot of times guys believe that because a woman initially gave them IOIs or was ‘really into them’ in the beginning that they had ‘frame’. This is another unfortunate misconception about frame – and I partly blame the PUA culture for it – but frame is not interest level (IL). Simply because a woman is attracted to you does not mean she’s ready to ‘enter your reality’. Her entering your frame may become a byproduct of that attraction, but it by no means guarantees it. In truth, under today’s social environment, I would expect a woman to resist tooth and nail from rushing into a man’s frame. This is why women have psychologically evolved a subconscious propensity to shit test; to verify the legitimacy of a man’s frame.

Most Game incongruencies develop around a guy’s inability to establish frame and opting in to a woman’s frame. What’s ironic is that on a base level, we understand frame imbalances instinctually. If you feel like you’re being led on, or being made to wait for sex, you’re operating in her frame. Are you in the ‘friend-zone’ or did you accept an LJBF rejection? You’re in her frame.

Ideally, you want a woman to enter your reality. Her genuine (unnegotiated) desire for you hinges upon you covertly establishing this narrative for her. Famous men, men with conspicuous affluence and status, and men with overwhelming social proof have very little difficulty in establishing frame – they can’t help but establish frame in a very overt fashion. A woman already wants to enter that world. She want’s an easy association with a man who’s unquestionably a proven commodity and offers her hypergamy not just a actualized fantasy, but also a high degree of personal affirmation in being the one a Man of this grandeur would choose above other women.

Unfortunately, you and I are not this Man, he’s a feminine idealization. However it’s important to understand how hypergamy plays into establishing frame. The Man who impassively accepts women’s hypergamous natures has a much easier time establishing frame from the outset. You or I may not be that be that famous guy with an automatic, overt frame control, but we can be by order of degrees depending upon our personal conditions and the conditions of the women with whom we choose to associate. The default pedestalization of women that men are prone to is a direct result of accepting that a woman’s frame is the only frame. It’s kind of hard for most ‘plugged in’ men to grasp that they can and should exert frame control in order to establish a healthy future relationship. This is hardly a surprise considering that every facet of their social understanding about gender frame has always defaulted to the feminine for the better part of their lifetimes. Whether that was conditioned into them by popular media or seeing it played out by their beta fathers, for most men in western culture, the feminine reality IS the normalized frame work. In order to establish a healthy male-frame, the first step is to rid themselves of the preconception that women control frame by default. They don’t, and honestly, they don’t want to.

Post LTR Frame
In most contemporary marriages and LTR arrangements, women tend to be the de facto authority. Men seek their wive’s “permission” to attempt even the most mundane activities they’d do without an afterthought while single. I have married friends tell me how ‘fortunate’ they are to be married to such an understanding wife that she’d “allow” him to watch hockey on their guest bedroom TV,…occasionally.

These are just a couple of gratuitous examples of men who entered into marriage with the frame firmly in control of their wives. They live in her reality, because anything can become normal. What these men failed to realize is that frame, like power, abhors a vacuum.  In the absence of the frame security a woman naturally seeks from a masculine male, this security need forces her to provide that security for herself. Thus we have the commonality of cuckold and submissive men in westernized culture, while women do the bills, earn the money, make the decisions, authorize their husband’s actions and deliver punishments. The woman is seeking the security that the man she pair-bonded with cannot or will not provide.

It is vital to the health of any LTR that a man establish his frame as the basis of their living together before any formal commitment is recognized. As I stated in the beginning, frame will be fluid and conditions will influence the balance, but the overall theme of your relationship needs to be led and molded by you. Even very influential, professional, intellectualizing women still crave the right man to establish his frame in her life. They may fight it bitterly, but ultimately it’s what will make for the best healthy balance she can achieve. There’s a growing undercurrent of mid-life women questioning and regretting their past decisions to remain single into spinsterhood. And for all their late game rationalizations, the one thing they still simply refuse to accept is acknowledging that a man’s frame, the frame their “fierce independence” wouldn’t allow for, was exactly the salve their egos so desperately wants now later in life.

Gentlemen, you will establish frame in any monogamous relationship you have. You will enter her reality or she will enter yours.

Compensation

One of the higher orders of physical standards women hold for men is height. There are countless threads in the community that address this, but I think that for the better part it’s not difficult to observe this in the ‘real world’. I should also add that this is one characteristic that is central to the Social Matching Theory in that human’s are sensitive to asymmetrics and imbalances.

Now, before I get told in so many ways that this isn’t always the case or the “not all girls are like that” exceptions to the rule, let me start by saying that this isn’t the point of this thread. I don’t want to debate the logistics of why women prefer a taller mate or the tendency for like to attract like in this respect. No, what I’m on about is really the root of the infamous “short man’s disease.” That’s right, you know who I’m talking about; the ultimate in compensation for inferiority, the dreaded ‘short man’s disease.’ You know the guy. About 5′ 6″, pounding out the weight on the bench press. Bad ass attitude, hangs with the bigger guys (which is pretty much all of them) and throws his ego around. What a tool, right?

But if you think this is only limited to short men (or women), you’re making a mistake. You see, in so many ways we all compensate for deficiencies. I recently read a thread on another “non-community” forum that saw fit to start a topic asking why men lie and it got me to thinking why any of us lie, man or woman. I’ve also been fielding a lot of questions regarding issues we kind of take for granted after having discussed them to death in the manosphere; one of those being the nature of personality and one’s ability to change their own or have it changed by circumstance, or often both. I think it’s a tragic miscalculation on our part to think of personality as static, unchangeable or to question the ingenuousness of that change, but more tragic is the doubting ourselves for that change.

One simple truism that a lot of people love to use as their convenient escape clause is the JBY (just be yourself) notion. This of course is just what ones says as advice when they really don’t know what else to say. Given that though, what is it that makes a personality shift ‘genuine’. Any number of us probably know an individual who began acting differently at some point in their life. This can be the result of some kind of tragedy or trauma (think PTSD) or it can be that the individual felt a need to change their fundamental way of thinking and made the change of their own accord. Usually in these cases we think of them as posers or try-hards, trying to be something they’re not. They reflect this change in their appearance, their regular practices, their friends or the people they associate with, attitudes, behaviors etc. And this is what’s jarring for people who knew their prior personality.

From the 48 Laws of Power:

Law 17: Keep Others in Suspended Terror: Cultivate an Air of Unpredictability
Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. Your predictability gives them a sense of control. Turn the tables: Be deliberately unpredictable. Behavior that seems to have no consistency or purpose will keep them off-balance, and they will wear themselves out trying to explain your moves. Taken to an extreme, this strategy can intimidate and terrorize.

What makes us doubt the sincerity of a personal change is what’s at issue. If their change is something we agree with or generally think of as positive, we are less inclined to doubt the ingenuousness of this change. But when their change conflicts with our own interests, when it dramatically clashes with what we’ve come to expect of that individual, this is where we doubt their sincerity. We say “dude, stop trying to be something you’re not”, we tear it down, we fall back on JBY platitudes because it clashes with our interpretations. And in this doubt, we fish for reasons as to why a person would want that change; essentially, what are they compensating for? It may be funny to presume someone driving a monster truck down the highway is making up for a small penis, but the root of that ‘compensating’ is what makes us feel uncomfortable in our own internal compensating.

It’s a difficult enough task for an individual to critically assess their own personality, and even more so to effect a change in it, but the final insult is to have other’s doubt the veracity of it. What others fail to see is that at some point in the development of their own personalities, they themselves had to compensate for deficiencies, discontentments and prompts to grow and mature. This is a gigantic hurdle for most AFCs wanting to transition to being something more. On SoSuave we’ve always called that being a DJ (Don Juan), but that doesn’t encompass the entirety of maturing. I like the term positive masculinity, but the crux of all that is the ingenuousness of the actual change. Why are you changing?

There is a saying that AFCs are like a bunch of crabs in a barrel. As soon as one is about to climb out there are always half a dozen ready to pull him back in again. Add to this a self-doubt from societal conditionings that tell him to stay the same, not to aspire to more, he’s doing it right, and it’s amazing that any AFC becomes a DJ. This has been termed the ‘Societal Cockblock’; they tell him he’s compensating, and in a way they’re right, but for the wrong reason. PUA skills, DJ psychology, Positive Masculinity are all compensations for deficiencies. They go beyond behavior modification – that’s the easy answer. PUAs teach a set of behaviors and scripts to be aped in order to mask a deficit. These are easy pickings for the JBY apologists because they are actions that generally don’t match a person’s prior personality. They’re not “really” like that, so they’re posers, or worse, they’ve been duped by guys hawking the PUA brand of self-help tools. What they don’t see is the genuine desire to change and the reasons for it.

When we compensate, we improvise, we fake it till we make it; but who determines when we’ve stopped faking it? We do. I read all kinds of articles doubting the realized capacity a person has to adopt ‘natural Game’ into their personality. It’s an internalization process for sure, but there has to come a point of transition where a Man’s default response IS his Game response. That’s who he IS now.