Hypergamy

Women Studies

Last week Heartiste had some excellent play-by-play Game analysis of this video. The guy doing the approach in the video is Steve, who is a friend of Krausers, and before I go into today’s post I just wanted to take a moment to say that Steve’s confidence and Game savvy is impressive. Whether he’s consciously aware of how well he’s internalized Game or if it’s a practiced effort, just like Krauser he gets a lot of points in the Tomassi book for application.

I’m not going to speculate as to whether Steve tapped into some natural reserve of Alpha mojo, or if he’s got his Game down to the point that it’s been internalized into his personality, or that his choice of woman in this instance was more advantageous to his personality type. Nor will I speculate that it may have been his Look and physique that led to a 5 minute kiss-close. I don’t have to because all of this was predictably scrawled across Roissy’s post comments. I say ‘predictably’ because when we observe a process we do so in terms of how it fits our own internal narratives.

As would be expected, the accusations of fraud and the disqualifications of how hot Steve’s target was started the hit parade, but amongst the “it was a set up” and “how much did it cost her to go along with it?” were some very interesting (though equally predictable) responses from The Chateau’s host of regular female commenters. The responses ran the gamut between “that’s so disrespectful”, “He’s so desperate. He comes across as a stalker and a lunatic” and “wow, did I just watch video documentation of sexual harassment?” to “that would never work on me! I have self-respect” to “yeah he’s kind of cute and has good Game.”

Geisha Kate summed it up best:

Its a simple matter of perception. An onlooker cannot feel what the people in the video felt. To them it was an awesome experience. The onlooker can’t tap into that and so it appears silly, etc. (no offense). Girls can look at this video and say, “that wouldn’t work on me,” but it likely would, and guys can look at the video and say it was because of his looks, which may be part of it, but its not the whole picture.

Kate’s was far and away the most objective of the female input; the rest of which were mostly an effort in plausible deniability of women’s universal attraction/arousal cues (NAWALT and “we’re attracted to different things”) to their, now expected, self-important anecdotal experiences absolving women of the obviously effective results Game had on one of their sisters.

Women Studies

The rest of what followed was essentially a debate between women (and less Game savvy men) coming to terms with Steve’s close and the red pill community’s dissection of the social and psychological dynamics observed in the video. The feminine side qualifies, disqualifies and personalizes the reasons why Game works, while the red pill side builds workable theories upon concrete analysis. All of this comes as the result of observing a process.

Steve’s approach video has everything the community and women alike could ask for. In it’s shot-on-video, raw genuineness it appeals to feminine indignation, the likes of which even Cheaters or Tyra Banks pale next to. Yet at the same time it is titillating enough to women’s arousal process that they’re drawn into casting themselves in the role of Steve’s Columbian target (not unlike the Twilight Dynamic). For blue-pills and white knights, it’s easily dismissed as some girl who “has no respect for herself” and they’ll continue their quest for the Holy Grail (a Quality Woman®) with a twinge of self-doubt that all women are in fact ‘like this’ and Steve’s approach might actually have merit. And that of course leaves the red-pill community with a lot of red meat to consume in verifying proposed dynamics and how well this girl’s response aligned with what’s already been established in our own version of ‘women studies’.

The manosphere is prescient if it’s anything, and as if on cue Vox fired off a very relevant post in light of the video debate at the Chateau – The logical fallacy of female attraction. As per usual, Aunt Giggles is still soft-selling the ‘betas-are-the-sexiest-of-men’ trope that only women in their 50’s can afford to invest themselves in. I say this is relevant to the debate over Steve’s video because the women (and manginas) commenting about it are uniformly conflicted amongst themselves in defining what characteristics, qualities, physique, attitude, behaviors, etc. empirically constitute attraction/arousal cues for women.

As I detailed in the Feminine Mystique, from a social perspective, the feminine imperative can’t afford men understanding the methods behind the madness with regards to optimizing hypergamy. A persistent sense of feminine ambiguity and female unknowability must constantly be reinforced for men by women. Thus women (and less enlightened men) perpetuate the myth that “women just don’t know what they want”, but is that the truth of it? Are women really unaware of their own attraction triggers? Or is it that they are so preoccupied with optimizing hypergamy (in a short window of SMV peak) that they’re simply never bothered by an inquisitive thought about what factors contribute to their being turned on enough to fuck one guy, but conversely being attracted to another for a long term commitment? Are women ever really prompted to observe their own process?

Observing a process will change it.

From the end of Vox’s Logical Fallacy post:

“Showing no emotion and saying absolutely nothing is an excellent way to avoid interrupting the process.”

Vox mentions that more sociopathic men, being entirely self-concerned and outcome indifferent, are primarily the types of men women feel the most arousal for and attraction to. In other words, the sociopath, in his self-importance, can’t be bothered to observe the process of attraction in women.

That said, I can’t help but find a similar parallel in women’s cognitive ignorance of their own attraction cues. Women’s innate solipsism (further reinforced by fem-centrism), like the self-importance of the sociopathic man, predisposes her to be oblivious to her own pluralistic sexual strategy (Alpha vs. Beta attraction). A woman’s solipsistic nature suggests she can’t be bothered to observe her own process.

In fact I would argue that evolution and hypergamy has selected-for women who are more predisposed to being oblivious to their own attraction cues, thus allowing them more cognitive brain-space to be devoted to filtering for the best mating option and the best long term provisioning option among prospective males.

By its very nature, women’s strategic sexual pluralism – Alpha Cads and Beta Dads – creates an unresolvable internal psychological conflict. Women cannot consciously reconcile the sexual impulsivity that drives them to (want to) fuck the hottest genetic Alpha with the drive for the security that a Beta provider represent with respect to parental investment. This dichotomy is even hard-coded into women’s hormonal cycle, impelling women to the sexual prowess of Alpha dominance in the follicular phase, and to Beta comfort in the luteal phase of menstruation. The solution? A healthy female psyche pushes this irreconcilable conflict to the peripheries of her conscious awareness.

The rationalization hamster we know today was psychologically evolved to mitigate the mental anguish that results from women’s pluralistic sexual strategy.

One of the contentions women participating in the manosphere have with red pill Men is that those men are observing women’s process and bringing it to conscious light in a globalized, meta perspective. Thus the scramble back to NAWALT, or women mature into new ways of knowing what they want, or “silly man, don’t try to figure out women, you’ll never figure us out.”

Recently Professor Mentu had a twitter debate with a manosphere-aware female wondering if there were in fact ‘red pill women’. Naturally in her self-congratulatory solipsism she wanted credit as a woman figuring out the Men who’d figured out women. I got a good laugh out of this, as I do with bloggers like Aunt Giggles and a few select other manosphere women because in truth, all women are red pill women – it’s dragging the truth of the red pill out of them that’s the trick. On some level of consciousness, and as evidenced by behaviors and the construction of larger social conventions, women are aware of their own hypergamy. The Threat, again, is men looking under the hood for women and then overtly attempting to get women to confirm the realities of the observations they’ve drawn conclusions from. The problem is that the feminine imperative will NEVER allow a consensus of women to confirm men’s piecing together of hypergamy. Men observe the process and thereby change it.

Play Nice

Overheard this past weekend:

“Nice guys are the real jerks if you ask me. They put up a front, acting differently when talking to women, deceiving them into getting them into bed.

And if they fail to get them in bed with them, they go on the internet and rant about their misogynist views on women.

Real men act the same with everyone. They’re not there to put up a front nor do they bitch about their failures with women.”

I’m reading this a lot lately. The Nice-Guy-as-ruse rationalization would be laughable if not for so many women using the trope to explain their misgivings or lack of judgement with a guy that pumped and dumped them. Furthermore, the False-Flag Nice Guy is also a ready-made social convention used to excuse the worst behaviors of women when a man might (albeit immaturely) make a public example of that behavior. Not surprisingly this cad-in-sheep’s-clothing rationale really pisses off the genuine beta Nice Guys, and for exactly the reason less attractive women get upset when their more attractive sisters mistreat the Men they could never hope to pull themselves.

So with this in mind I thought I’d pick apart this meme in detail.

“Nice guys are the real jerks if you ask me.”

When truly nice guys (80-90% of the masculine sphere) read a line like “Nice Guys are the real jerks” something snaps in their heads. Black is white, up is down and Nice Guys are Jerks. Most Nice Guys have been playing the self-internalized Beta Game, identification scenario out for so long that to read something like this is akin to blaspheme. “Great now all these women I’ve been trying to be so nice too (like they all say they want) really think I’m a jerk?” One would think this would be a moment of clarity for the Nice Guy and he’d realize the truth of what his ‘misogynist’ Game-aware friends had been trying to enlighten him about for so long. You’d think, until,..

“They put up a front, acting differently when talking to women, deceiving them into getting them into bed.”

Ah! Well there you have it! They’re really just Alpha cads playing at being nice in order to bed these women ,..how fiendish! Now, not only are women jaded by the players, but they’re also more wary of the ‘Nice’ men due to the players utilizing their own Beta Game. Dammit! The Jerks have poisoned the Nice well!

What they fail to realize is the inherent ridiculousness of the premise – niceties never got a man laid – and of all men, the Nice Guy knows the difficulty of actually consolidating sex upon ‘niceness’. While I have no doubt that many a Game savvy man has gotten laid by misrepresenting himself as being more interested and pleasant than he actually was, it’s understandable that no woman would ever want to admit to her active participation in that deception. Solution? Paint Nice Guys with the broad brush of the Bad Boy Jerk.

“And if they fail to get them in bed with them, they go on the internet and rant about their misogynist views on women.”

Well, we could debate the social implications of women defaulting to the easy epithet of ‘misogynist’, but that’s an old post for me. You know the more I pick this apart the more I have to empathize with the truly Nice Guy; his is a particularly cruel hell. The Nice Guy in this definition isn’t necessarily the Alpha in sheep’s clothing. This is the guy who, most likely, believed he was going about ‘courting’ his woman-to-be by the rules he knows were established as the sensible proper means to arriving at a woman’s intimacy. The fact that he plays by those rules is integral to his sense of not-like-typical-guys uniqueness.

He subscribed to the Sniper Mentality, played friends, and unfortunately after taking his big shot, got rejected by his (most likely ONEitis) target girl. If men of this stripe are one thing, it’s dedicated to their personal investments into a particular girl they know will one day appreciate their stand-out qualities,..some day. What they fail to grasp is that hypergamy doesn’t care about the equity he believes he’s building for a future relationship. That’s one thing to realize when you’re deep into an LTR, but it’s really a lesson that should be learned when you’re the chump trying to prove to your paramour how perfect a boyfriend you’ll be for her – once she’s done fucking the Jerks she can’t get enough of.

This is a tough lesson for a guy who’s ideology about women and dating is virtually a mirror of his ideology on a ‘strong work ethic’. Work hard, pay your dues and you’ll be rewarded compensatory with your efforts. So, again, it’s unsurprising that this guy would get upset (maybe vindictively so) when his ‘dream girl’ proves to him that hypergamy doesn’t care about compensating all his efforts.

“Real men act the same with everyone. They’re not there to put up a front nor do they bitch about their failures with women.”

In the meantime, back in solipsistic girl-world the narrative, as always, continues to revolve implicitly around how his ‘pseudo-niceness’ impacts her reputation and her, now damaged, self-impressions. Because, of course, no genuine Nice Guy would ever feel slighted enough by her rejecting him intimately so as to feel the need to broadcast his displeasure on FaceBook. ‘Real’ Nice Guys would just shut the fuck up and accept her rejection; which then completes the circular fem-logic of being attracted to guys with the wherewithal to stand up for themselves, speak their minds and not stand for the injustice of being sold one message and having another’s intent proved for him. Sometimes, we call those guys Jerks.

You see, behavioristically, what women mischaracterize as ‘nice‘ is usually the male-methodology they misinterpreted when they couldn’t find a way to reject a guy in an efficient fashion. So yeah, Nice Guys, you’re the real Jerks and Alpha Jerks, you’re the truly nice guy’s because you “act the same with everyone.”

Ladies, stop complaining about the sheep when you’re looking for a wolf.

Girls on the Side

 

Not to be outdone by the tired ‘Man-Up’ tropes begun by Kay Hymowitz, nor the upstart success of Kate Bollick – who’s managed to parlay her chronic, unconsolidated hypergamy into a career and a new TV series – we again hear the feminism triumphalist wailings from Hannah Rosin. Apparently it wasn’t enough for Hannah to allow her End of Men article to fade into the annals of feminine primacy on the pages of The Atlantic, no, she’s extrapolated her tales of anecdotal misandry into a new book of the same title. And here I was concerned about compiling the better part Rational Male into book form (*eye roll*).

I would generally pass off of Rosin as I would the ‘concerns’ of any long post-Wall, solipsistic yenta, however in her book advertisement article Boys on the Side (h/t Aunt Giggles) there was so much feminine primacy tunnel vision it made me wonder if she’d ever read the word ‘hypergamy’. When I read the complaintive screeds of neo-feminists I expect to read a certain degree of self-confirming, self-important concerns for the female condition all reinforced by anecdotal evidence, and Rosin doesn’t disappoint. Her entire article is filled with op-ed personal vignettes of how the brutality of the contemporary sexual marketplace has reduced ‘dating’ (for women) to a series of passing fuck buddies until such a time that a (westernized, upper middle class) woman feels ‘complete’ enough in the professional realm to want to shift into marriage and mommy mode.

For all of her analysis Rosin simply doesn’t grasp the totality of feminine hypergamy and the social influence it has effected upon men and women. I can’t imagine Hannah would be ignorant of the dynamic of hypergamy, but from reading this article, it’s apparent that the feminine imperative makes acknowledging hypergamy’s influence an inconvenient truth that needs to be danced around, all while complaining that men are ruthlessly capitalizing upon it and enjoying some new boon for their own sexual strategy.

I’ve brought this up on Susan’s echo chamber more than once, but what Rosin (and really any woman) doesn’t get is that from the mid 60’s to 2012 we’ve been living in a social reality defined by feminine hypergamy. Since the sexual revolution and the advent of exclusively female controlled birthing, men have progressively become ancillary to the female reality. So when women run headlong into the negative social consequences of their own unfettered hypergamy – such as the evolution of hook up culture – the reflexive response is to presume that the downside of that hypergamy must necessarily be the results of men refusing to play by the social rules they constantly and conveniently rewrite for themselves.

Hypergamy doesn’t care about the rationalizations of the feminine imperative.

Every observation, every personal account of frustration, in Rosin’s article can directly be attributed to a modern sexual marketplace (SMP) that was formed by women’s unrestrained hypergamic impulses. The college women she interviews don’t mention ‘hooking up’ with average betas, they mention banging the hot guys on Ivy League lacrosse teams. In reality, there are likely far more average frustrated betas lining up to get with these ‘poor girls’ who are more than willing to take them out “for frozen yogurt and a $3 date.” Hook up culture or not, these aren’t the guys women are motivated to fuck. Frat guys, cads, indifferent Alphas, PUAs, incarcerated murderers, these are the guys that get the reflex response from a 23 y.o. girl.

Hannah’s mistake is in presuming, in classic feminine-primary myopia, that hook up culture is the result of men sexually exploiting women’s new life schedule for career with a side of family later. Never is there an afterthought that it is in fact women’s innate predisposition to fuck and secure commitment from the best male her sexuality can afford her has  almost singlehandedly created the environment which developed the hook up culture she and her poor college girls lament. As I’ve said before, Game is the logical countermeasure to evolve under the condition of unrestricted hypergamy. This in turn contributes to creating a new socio-sexual environment that changes the rules of engagement for how men and women relate to each other.

 

Just Get It

I don’t usually cite Athol Kay on Rational Male, but I have to give him props for his recent How Walkaway Wives Run a Dirty MAP. There’s a lot going on in this post, and as per usual Athol approaches all of his observations from a married perspective constrained by a limited single-life experience, but a few fundamental points of Game really shine here. To be sure, relationship Game (or married Game) varies widely in application compared to the Game used in single-man-sex-life, but the foundational principles are essentially the same – as are the pitfalls – only the risks are higher and the rewards negligible by comparison.

I’ve stated this before, but, having experienced the ups and downs of single-man-sex-life as well as married-man-sex-life, I can honestly say that I’ve never found Game more necessary than when it’s within the context of marriage. I’ve also written volumes about the all-risk proposition of marriage for men, and women’s utter inability to appreciate the all-risk sacrifices men assume in committing to marriage. So it should be obvious that under such conditions if a man chooses to entertain a lifestyle of marriage the only acceptable condition is that it be within his frame and his terms. And this, gentlemen, requires not only a commitment to Game itself, but an understanding of, and an internalization of a much tighter Game than would be necessary in single-man-sex-life.

Higher risks mean less margin for error

In your single-man-sex-life Game, you have the leisure to Spin Plates, drop the ones which don’t produce dividends, and non-exclusively enjoy the ones who do. Though it may pain you to lose a particular girl as the result of fumbled Game, or to miss the opportunity of experiencing a woman due to a failed approach or consolidation, it pales in comparison to the risks inherent in lacking the long-term Game necessary to contend with women’s hypergamy in the context of marriage. Dumping a girl (or getting dumped) when single may be an emotional ordeal for some guys, but the decay of a marriage and the financial, familial and emotional consequences for lacking Game in marriage is a punishment that will make a single man’s break up tears seem like a blessing. Tight relationship Game means much more than just getting your wife to fuck you more regularly after the honeymoon.

A lot of men will respond that marriage is just not worth all that contextualization of Game, and they’d be right. It’s all risk with negligible reward / appreciation and the liabilities are too steep. Furthermore, there’s a contingent of men who’ll say that it’s impossible to perpetuate the solid Game necessary to assuage female hypergamy indefinitely, and they’d be right too, if Game was a constant act for them that they felt they had to keep up forever. Some guys get mad at just the suggestion that they’d need to Game their potential wives. “She should just love me for who I am!” They expect to be able to drop the Game, relax and be who they are, only to have their wives progressively convert them into an imagined ideal which really isn’t the guy who tingles their vaginas. Then they find out that their wives loved them for who they were.

Crossover

One of the points that jumped out at me from Athol’s post:

When the lines of communication are broken between you and your wife, you aren’t going to get a message that the lines of communication are broken. That’s what the lines of communication being broken means. When she checks out of the marriage, she doesn’t tell you because she checked out of the marriage. That’s what being checked out of the marriage means.

I usually have to control my laughter whenever I overhear an AFC in the crab barrel parrot back the Matrix-speak about how “good relationships are all about communication with your GF/wife.” When this is coming from a single guy I can at least partially excuse him for lack of any practicable experience, but when it comes from a married Plug-In it’s just evidence of the totality of his conditioning. Most guys who tell you this are repeating what their girl-friends always told them was the most important key to a good relationship, but as with everything femme there’s always a latent purpose underneath the veneer of aphoristic truth they sell themselves.

A few months back I was at a liquor event with my usual ‘pour girls’ and during our conversations one tells me about her ‘guy problems’ with a “clingy boyfriend” obviously on the down end of an SMV imbalance.

“It’s so frustrating Rollo, why can’t guy’s just get it?”

With a practiced, but cute, little wrinkle of her nose, and the huff of her $5K tits, my girl had just indirectly revealed one of the most vexing complexities of intergender communication – women want men to “just get it.”

Just Get It

From Female Dating Advice:

The guy with the capacity to call a woman’s bluff with a confidence that implies she is to be worthy of him rather than the other way around is the Man to be competed for. Essentially the ‘chick speak’, ‘chick advice’ phenomenon is a shit test writ large on a social scale. And even your own mother and sisters are in on it, expecting you to ‘get it’; to get the message and see the challenge for what it really is, without overtly telling you.

She want’s you to ‘get it’ on your own, without having to be told how. That initiative and the experience needed to have had developed it makes you a Man worth competing for. Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ‘the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be.

Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shit test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.

In my Pour Girl’s example we see this ‘get it’ paradox from the single-man-sex-life perspective, and in Athol’s scenario we see it from the married-man (or LTR) -sex-life perspective. Many men will complain that they hate the presumption that they need to be a mind reader and ideally women ought to just communicate overtly and directly – just as a reason-based man would communicate. The problem is that in doing so it changes the dynamic for hypergamy. As I’ve stated so often, women say they want the truth, but they never want full disclosure. Hypergamy will not be pandered to, and will not be negotiated with.

This is why the “communication is everything” meme has been responsible for the demise of more relationships than anyone will ever admit. It’s not that you communicate, it’s what you’re communicating and how you communicate it. I’ve counseled more men than I care to recount who’ve sobbed from the depths of their souls, “IF SHE’D JUST TELL ME WHAT I HAVE TO DO TO MAKE HER LOVE ME I’D DO IT!” not realizing that their very verbalization of that and a belief in open, rational communication is the very thing that’s killing (or killed) their woman’s desire for him.

As I’ve written a thousand times, a cardinal truth of the universe is that genuine desire cannot be negotiated. The moment you tell your wife, your girlfriend, that you will exchange a behavior or attitude or belief or any other compromise for her desire you fundamentally change her organic desire into obligation. What she wants, what her hypergamy wants confirmation of, can never be explicated, it can only be demonstrated. If her desire is for you to be more dominant, her telling you to be so negates the genuineness and the validity of your becoming so. Again, observing a process will change it – on a limbic level of consciousness her innate hypergamy is aware of that truth.

She wants a man who knows he needs to be dominant with her, that is the confirmation of hypergamy.

The Warrior Gene – Is Alpha Genetic?

I held off on posting this video because it’s about 45 minutes long and I figured most readers would probably want to watch it at their leisure (rather than on their ‘valuable’ work time), but it’s well worth the investment.

Any time I write about defining Alpha or detail my interpretations of Alpha as a dynamic it’s always cause for heated debate. People are always conflicted on the issues of what biological, attitude or character traits makes a Man Alpha, and as I’ve detailed before there’s always a want to force Alpha into a definition that would best describe ourselves.

Beyond this there’s the question of what makes a Man, naturally (genetically?) an Alpha, and what factors make him a learned Alpha or a contextual Alpha as situations warrant. I’ve covered all of these interpretations in the past year, but it wasn’t until I watched this episode of National Geographic Explorer that I became aware of the concrete genetic evidence of (or at least a genetic indicator) Alpha. I’ll try not to be too much of a spoiler here, because watching this video through a manosphere, Alpha-Beta filter should be enough to give most of my readers a new insight to how Alpha can be defined.

Biological Determinism

For a lot of guys subscribing to the idea that Alpha is built upon manly virtue and noble intent, your first impression of a biological Alpha-determinant will likely be one of disbelief, or incredulity. Watch the video to the end. You’ll probably come up with rationalizations about how a biological predisposition for violence does not an Alpha make, and how humans aren’t slaves to their biology or instinct. You’ll be pleasantly surprised by the end of the show.

That said, while watching this here are some things to think about:

  • Is Alpha both nature and nurture?
  • How does this propensity for violence and /or a biologically motivated dynamism agree with our present defining of Alpha?
  • Does an ability, or lack thereof, to channel this natural (genetic) impulse toward constructive or destructive ends change the definition of Alpha?
  • How does the idea of a biologically defined Alpha evolutionarily agree with what we understand about Hypergamy? (War Brides, the attraction of violence, rape fantasy, etc.)
  • Can Alpha be learned and internalized or faked in the long term convincingly?
  • Is genuine Alpha status earned or determined, or perhaps both? (don’t answer until you watch the end of the video)

This study has given me a lot more to think about in terms of how we define Alpha, but it correlates well with my prior Alpha concepts. Alpha is a mindset, not a demographic.

I will do a followup on this post once readers have had the chance to view and opine.

Pushing Forwards Back

 

 

Recently I’ve been sifting through the comments at the Chateau and some other blogs regarding the Kristen Stewart dust up about her “infidelity” with Rob Pattinson in favor of a married, 41 y.o. movie director. The PMs barraged my inbox for a week. Alright, alright, you got me, I’ll give you my take,..

I was loathe to even broach the topic considering the yeasty pop-culture discharge that Twilight-Moms are rutting in after this “devastating bombshell shocker!” 12 dead in an Aurora theater? That’s terrible, but a 22 year old HB 6 cheating on Edward for an older established movie director? That’s fucking news. Once women make an emotional connection with a narrative, it’s a very tall order to get women to make the separation of fantasy from reality.

Needless to say, I’m hearing the manufactured indignation in real life. It’s spreading amongst social circles, on talk radio topics – even my daughter’s 14 y.o. friends are dropping their 2¢ about how worldly and knowledgable they are as to why ‘Bella’ would cheat on ‘Edward’. As I wrote in Indignation, from a very early age girls / women have a psychological need for something beyond the mundane life that their security need drives them to. Kristen Stewart is an excellent example of this conflict because she represents a strata of woman who, minus her celebrity, is very mundane herself. Put her in an evening dress and maybe she cleans up to an HB7 on the Tomassi scale. She’s not a stunner, but then, that’s why she’s the perfect Lego brick to play Bella; socccer moms and tweens can see past her as a place holder into which they can cast themselves in her role.

But hypergamy doesn’t care about the social conventions and ‘IRL’ romantic expectations of Twilightees. Hypergamy demands optimization in terms of excitement, long-term security and Alpha dominance relative to a woman’s capacity and opportunity to maximize them all.

Lost in the midst of all this we have 26 year old Edward Rob Pattinson experiencing his WTF? moment. While he’s ostensibly a good looking guy and a Contextual Alpha, the lesson to be learned here is one which may confuse red-pill noobs. Why the fuck would Stewart ‘cheat’ on a guy who’s adored and desired by millions of women? Because hypergamy doesn’t care.

When a woman’s self-perceived SMV exceeds the degree to which she perceives is the SMV of the man she’s with, this is the point at which she will seek out (or be open to the advances of) an Alpha she believes exceeds her own SMV.

If that sounds counterproductive, just remember this dynamic relies primarily upon a woman’s self-perceptions and is predicated upon her acknowledging the phase of life in which she finds herself in according to the SMP. In the age of social media, women now have an ubiquitous source of ego inflation available to them like never before. This contributes to women’s overblown sense of worth and entitlement in a way society has never experienced.

Going Feral

The Kristen Stewart affair is really an illustration of a much broader dynamic however. Recently on the SoSuave forum member Backbreaker related a story about a friend who’d gone through much of the same thing (albeit to a more mundane degree) poor Rob Pattinson has just experienced. The thread is extremely long and well debated, but the plot summary is really one of an unfortunate guy on the receiving end of his girlfriend’s hypergamic optimization. His friend was traded for another, better option. From a life perspective, he’d failed to keep pace with this girl’s hypergamic imperative and was thus selected-out by it.

As I wrote in Navigating the SMP there is a particular window of opportunity for women whilst in their prime SMV years (22-24) that less and less women want to consciously recognize – or at least they aren’t encouraged to recognize thanks to feminized social conventions, and the ego-fuel of social media. Precious few women are self-aware of the hypergamic impulses their subconscious is driven by, and thus their behaviors are manifestations of.

When women get to be 25-29 there is a limbic, subliminal understanding that her window of hypergamic opportunity is closing. A woman’s hindbrain knows on an animalistic level that her period of maximally optimizing her hypergamy is closing, thus the motivation to pair off monogamously with the best provisioning male begins to take priority over fucking the best genetic (most sexually arousing) males she was happy to pair off with in her prime (22-24).

In Backbreaker’s, our subject woman is merely a common illustration of this process. So, in this respect, and strictly for purpose of example, I can understand Backbreaker’s line of reasoning. Young men need to be aware of the ruthlessness and callousness of this feral, evolutionary process. As a Man, you do in fact need to keep pace with the hypergamic imperative that WILL rear its ugly head when the moment and opportunity of a better hypergamic prospect present itself. Sometimes, even a woman’s perceptual prospect of a better optimized hypergamy is enough to set the process in motion. A woman’s hypergamic urgency declines as she comes to accept her diminished capacity to optimize hypergamy, but as a Man, the need to prove yourself will always be an aspect of your relationship with a woman.

If there’s fault to be found it’s not in women’s seeming duplicity about her ‘feelings’ versus her hypergamy-motivated actions; the real fault is in young Men believing in pollyanna fantasies about true love, soul-mates and feminized romance porn in favor of the harsh realities of hypergamy.

Ethical wonks will want to have their say, “She’s a slut! She’s a hypocrite! Perfidious woman! Have you no honor? Men are made of different stuff, we’re the moral cement that holds society together, unlike you amoral weaklings.” No one gets mad when wolves on the tundra tear the throat from a caribou. No one calls them evil for messily devouring the carcass; they’re just doing what nature has embedded into their instincts to do.

“But human’s aren’t wolves Rollo, we have freewill, you wouldn’t understand because you’re not as morally attuned as I am.”

Yes, human’s aren’t wolves, and we do in fact exercise a great measure of freewill, but for all of that, presumptively righteous, self-guided refusal of determinism we are still subject to the same feral instincts. Our natural state is not one of self-control, so why are we shocked at the environment that sets the frame for us to even have any concept of what control even means? Evo-psych, hypergamy, natural instinct isn’t deterministic, it is probablistic.

We ignore at our peril the evolutionary results that directed us to the conditions we find ourselves in. When it doesn’t serve our purpose we call it weakness or moral turpitude; but when it does, that feral energy, that righteous anger, that sweaty bloodlust we evolved in the wilderness so long ago that helped us run down a caribou ourselves, that instinct we call courage or determination and we put angels wings on it in appreciation.

Backbreaker took a lot of heat for his assessment of his friend’s ‘progress’ in life. The title of the thread, “If you aren’t going forward, you are going backwards” set the tone for the discussion. In a sense he faults his friend for the demise of his relationship due to his lack of progress or ambition, but this doesn’t come from malice or ill intent. Rather he uses the scenario (not unlike the Stewart affair) to make the point that a Man must continually grow and become more than he is in order to survive and thrive. The distinction that men need to make is the difference between success motivated by the need for pussy, and an abundance of pussy that is the by-product of a man’s success.

Hypergamy doesn’t care about your moral interpretations. Hypergamy doesn’t care about your personal motivations to achieve and become more than you started with, it only cares about what you are. If that makes you feel slighted or morally indignant, go read War Brides. Yeah, that’s some really fucked up hypergamy right there, but the question isn’t whether it’s moral or not, the question is ‘what do you plan to do about it?’

The Meaning of Sacrifice

Take a deep breath and check your heart-rate before you hit play gentlemen (and ladies), you’re in for a ride.  In general I don’t necessarily promote nor disparage the MRA movement, but after watching this video I can better understand the contempt behind the groundswell. However, my point in posting this wasn’t to trigger any MRA outrage (The Spearhead and A Voice for Men has that covered), rather it was prompted by Rational Reader Dan’s comment in my 16 Years On post:

Rollo, you mention that men make a sacrifice of their desire for sexual variety and their sex life in general, when he marries.

But you are forgetting that for many men, marriage *is* the only or most feasible way to have a regular sex life. one-night-stands, flings, FWB’s, casual relationships – these are not for every guy. Most men dont get the opportunity to be promiscuous. Most men are simply not built for the going out in the jungle and hunting…physically or mentally.

I dont want marriage. I dont even want a committed relationship at this stage But I feel compelled to consider commitment and marriage because of my sexual / intimate needs. I am sure many mediocre young men are in the same boat as me. But you havent considered them here. You’re talking from the perspective of a man who is atleast relatively attractive and can sexually attract women with reasonable ease.

Forgive me Dan, I’m not trying to run you up the flagpole here. My assumption is that Dan hasn’t read Appreciation or Women In Love in their entirety. There’s much more to men’s sacrifices than just a trade off between a regular piece of ass and the potential for more varied sexual experiences. The predictable, feminized reflexive response is to presume that men would fixate on how their sacrifices would impact their sexual strategies, but sexual opportunism is only a single sacrifice among many. The feminine imperative would like nothing better than to have both men and women presume that men’s only concern is about the legs that might have been spread for them had they not opted for marriage, but there’s a lot more to men’s sacrifices.

As illustrated in this video, career, relationships, family, education, and the overarching threat of losing all of his investments in a no-fault divorce are all very real risks men tend not to consider and women would rather they not. A lot of men lament losing half (or more) of their financial assets, but what gets lost in that is the personal investments necessary to establish those assets. Those investments required a sacrifice of time, effort, emotion, determination, etc. and all whilst maintaining an intimate relationship with a woman who cannot appreciate in-full the totality of those sacrifices – because she never experienced them from a male perspective. Men’s sacrifices are only appreciated through the filter of women’s expectations and perceived benefit.

At 46 years old, I have no doubt that Charles Bruce had well over half a lifetime of personal investment into himself, his wife, their family and extended families. For most Men, and manosphere readers in particular, the initial response to Mr. Bruce’s dilemma is one of (understandable) blind rage at the feminized system. As hard as it is, I’m going to ask that readers look past this anger and see the conditions, investments and sacrifices Bruce made that makes his story so tragic.

BRIFFAULT’S LAW

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

In other words, hypergamy doesn’t care about Relational Equity. It’s one set of conditions to consider this in terms of how your girlfriend might’ve cheated on you in spite of all your best efforts to invest in your relationship and play by the “rules”, but it’s entirely another when you consider fallacy of Relational Equity in terms of a life long, expected, entitled, commitment. Charles Bruce is on the sharp end of women’s inability to appreciate men’s sacrifices.

If you’ve ever wonder why no male hormonal contraceptive has ever been developed or marketed since the sexual revolution, look no further than Briffault’s Law. For all the bleating about equalism and gender equality of the past 60 years, women have effectively organized and fought like cornered animals to keep the power of controlling the family unit out of the hands of men.

I’ve read studies documenting men’s most productive, creative, endeavors being attempted and/or achieved in the years before they married; innovations, academic degrees, scientific discoveries, great masterpieces of art. etc. Then, a precipitous drop off in what we are meant to assume is ambition and motivation occurs after marriage. Roissy has more than a few links to these articles, but my impression of these studies is less about the neutering effects of marriage (i.e. the responsibilities of settling down) and more about the lack of opportunity inherent in maintaining a committed monogamy and addressing the sacrifices a man must make to advance his interests. Missing opportunities to get laid with new and varied women pales in life-importance when you consider the sacrifices a man makes in having to turn down opportunities that would advance his (and possibly society’s) better interest. Women are the Dream Killers because they cannot appreciate men’s sacrifices.

This is an interesting quote from a man citing Briffaults Law:

“Men love women, but I truly believe that women are incapable of what we men call love. “Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends.” How many women are willing to die for their husbands, friends, country, or comrades in arms? Damn few, if any.

Yet it is commonly expected of men (made compulsory under certain circumstances). How many men continue on in their marriages, supporting their family and their wife, while the wife is making their life a living hell? Far too many. How many men choose their wives over their parents and siblings? Most.

Women do not behave like this. Men take out large insurance policies so their wives and children will be well taken care of should they die. Even if the wife is making (nearly) as much money as the husband, she will not have insurance. She sees no reason to reduce her current ability to spend to take care of others after she is dead. She could care less what happens to the husband, and doesn’t want the husband to be able to spend money on some young bimbo, after she dies. The life insurance gender statistics are well known, and widely available. None of this should be a shocking revelation. When my second wife died, her mandatory insurance (free) provided by her teacher’s union covered her funeral expenses. It would have made life much easier if her insurance had paid the over $350,000 my life insurance would have paid.

When does the expectation of mutual benefit in marriage go seriously wrong in the west? It goes wrong as soon as the “I Dos” are said, or very shortly thereafter. Why is this so? Because you, the man have just entered into a contract with the state where you have promised that you will provide everything to your bride, and where the bride has promised nothing. By the way, the full weight of the law and public opinion will support her stripping you of every thing you have, including your children, and most of what you will ever make in the future, when (not if) she decides to dump you.

Hence, once you enter into the contract you have nothing left to offer her. Everything you have, or will have, is already hers.

Seem like a harsh statement? I thought so too, the first time I heard it, during an argument with my first wife towards the end of our marriage. She asked me the eternal female question, “What do you do for me?” (i.e. what benefit do I get from associating with you?) I responded, “I pay all your expenses. I feed, clothe, and house you. And, I am paying for your college tuition.” She told me that all the money I earned was her money and that if she let me have any of it that was pure charity on her part, so I was doing nothing for her. I thought this was unduly harsh.

The divorce courts showed me that it was pretty much just a statement of fact. The wife has it all, and can make her part of the marriage contract, the portion where she is to provide you with companionship, comfort, loyalty, sex, etc., null and void at any time while keeping everything you have/had/will ever have. She has no need to associate with you further once you are married.

To be a married man entais a sacrifice of such utter powerlessness, on so many levels, that no woman will ever comprehend, much less appreciate.

Flashes of Alpha

I was about 26 when I was in the waning days of dealing with the neurotic hell that was the BPD woman I had become psychologically ensnared with for almost 3 years at that time. I was sitting in her dorm room wondering just what the hell had happened to the sexualized, happy, and indifferent Alpha junior-rockstar I had been just a few years prior. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I’d gone from idealistic teenager, to organic Alpha, to a defeated, needy beta on a dangerously close slide into omega-tude. Some part of me knew what I needed to do, and as my living situation gradually began to deteriorate the very real prospect of cutting myself loose from who I believed was my “soul mate” only made my depression worse. However, that same part of me was also pissed off.

That relationship was defined by my sickly childish beta mentality combined with the insane co-dependent ravings of a psychotically jealous BPD girl. For her, my character was to be beta, so on the rare occasion I had the temerity to actually get pissed off it was a real call for alarm with her. For a brief moment I had flashed Alpha and that was always a shock since it was so out of character. From the time I was 17 until I was 24 that Alpha was who I was in a more or less natural sense, but after years of my BPD’s constant barrage of insecurity, and my endless attempts to ‘perfect myself’ in order to cure her neurotic jealousy, I was apologetic for any outburst of Alpha no matter how just and righteous my reasons for being so were.

Roissy and a few other manosphere notables have written about how flashes of anger and semi-justifiable bouts of indignation can be a powerful form of demonstrating higher value (DHV). Sometimes these burst are in fact genuine and/or unprompted responses to a situation. These Flashes of Alpha serve as source of stimulus, a shock, to a woman’s regulated, routine perceptions of a man. Semiconsciously checking out another woman, Freudian slips, provoked and unprovoked aggressive responses are all intrinsic examples of these Alpha flashes. It’s a man’s internal Alpha refusing to be restrained by all the social doctrines and conditioning of the feminine imperative.

Unbeknownst to me at the time I was shocking my BPD in a similar fashion back then.

For all of the on again, off again sexual insanity present in that relationship, the occasional flash of Alpha served to spark what had devolved into self-shamed episodes of frigidity dotted with incidents of porn-worthy sexual highs. At that time I didn’t have the fortitude of mind to think that tapping that Alpha energy full-time would make anything better – actually I bought my Matrix conditioning that Alpha was misogyny and to be avoided for fear of offending women’s sensibilities – but I found that when I expressed concern as to where I was going in life, my BPD interpreted this as a threat of losing me (the parasitic host). Just my contemplation of mustering the balls to leave her was both Alpha-exciting for her and cause for hysteric panic at the fear of losing me.

I can remember the day I discovered she’d been fucking some new guy at the college she attended. I lost my fucking mind. There I was, a beta with the patience of Job, content in the amniotic bath of the feminine Matrix conditioning that told me I was doing everything by the rules when she finally copped to the truth. She didn’t tell me outright, I had to discover it by way of her making it so obvious that I couldn’t ignore the truth. Then, Mr. Self-Control who’d tried for so long to allay the fears that he’d be his BPDs loyal boyfriend, Mr. Self-Control who’d endured years of neurotic accusations of even looking sideways at another woman, that guy put his fist through the bathroom wall while she was still in the shower.

I didn’t even think about it. It wasn’t some bravado or some dramatic attempt to convince her, myself or anyone else about how badass I wanted to be – it just happened. I don’t know how else to explain it, but the old Alpha flashed, and at that point her first inclination was to want to fuck me. She made a lame attempt to put on the black lingerie she knew I liked, but I knew she’d fucked this other guy in. The Alpha flashed again. More gina tingles. Then it dawned on me that just a day earlier I had shook hands with the same guy after she’d introduced me to him as one of her classmates. The Alpha was back.

Alpha Shock

I think what a lot of men experience in Matrix-defined relationships has a lot to do with this cycle of Alpha shocks. By way of pre-established beta frame abdication or by a progressive slide into beta supplication, guy’s girlfriends and wives ease into an normalcy where their man is not living up to be the Alpha they’d hoped for, or later realized they truly needed in their relationship. So when that LTR begins to decay and the very real prospect of divorce or breakup is looming, these sporadic flashes of Alpha (really flares of frustration and anger) serve to make a woman pause in her hypergamic assessment of him. For all the seeming discernment women claim to require is necessary to become sexual with a man, that hypergamic sense of discernement is far more pronounced for women to leave a man whom they’ve already established a sense of security with.

There is a greater need for certainty in a woman’s decision to leave a man than there ever will be for her to fuck a man for the first time.

I’ve posed the question to women before, what’s the best sexual experience you’ve had; after a date-night where your man spared no trouble or expense to make a “romantic evening” for you, or was it the make-up sex after you’ve had a blow out fight, just a hair’s breadth from him walking out of your life forever? Every one has said the make-up sex was best – some conceived children as a result of it.

Those flashes of Alpha are cyclic. Women thrive on indignation to be sure, but it’s the uncertainty in their hypergamic doubt that makes it exciting and the mundane beta security sufferable. A lot of what men construe as Drama Queen behavior is the direct result of this beta-Alpha-beta cycle. The more stable, healthy relationship follows an Alpha-beta-Alpha frame where the man maintains his Alpha presence, with just an occasional beta episode to “prove he’s human”.