Hypergamy

The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill

A lot gets made of the Dark Triad or the Dark Side of Game where a skillful player can sadistically use his newly learned red-pill super powers for evil instead of for the greater good of mankind. Game-aware women – the ones who have been forcibly exhausted of all pretense of maintaing the illusion that Game is a lie – feel as though it’s owed to them, in their concession of Game’s reality, that Men should use Game to women’s benefit. Even to the last effort women still cling to the tools of a feminized acculturation;

“Yeah, OK, you got us, Game is really what women want, hypergamy is the law of womankind, but now it’s your responsibility that you use it for the better benefit of society by molding a new breed of improved Betas to accommodate fem-centric monogamy. You owe us our security for having admitted to the grand illusion that’s kept you in thrall for so long.”

It’s an indictment of Game-aware women, and sympathizing men, that they should feel a need to delineate some aspects of Game into good camps (pro woman, pro feminized monogamy) and bad camps (manipulative, polygynous, male-centered). Even in the admission of the truth that Game has enlightened Men of, the feminine imperative still seeks to categorize the application of Game to its own end. That Men might have some means of access to their own sexual strategy is too terrible a Threat; Game must be colored good or bad as it concerns the imperatives of women and a fem-centric societal norm.

As the default, socially correct and virtuous concern, women have an easier time of this. As Game becomes increasingly more difficult to deny or misdirect for the feminine, the natural next step in accepting it becomes qualifying its acceptable uses. While hypergamy is an ugly truth, the characterization of it becomes “just how women are” –an unfortunate legacy of their evolution. However for Men, the characterizations of the harsher aspects of Game in its rawest form  (contingencies for hypergamy) are dubbed “the dark arts”.

Myth of the Dark Arts

According to common definition, the Dark Triad is a group of three personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy, all of which are interpersonally aversive. Depending upon context, that may be a convenient assessment of a sociopathic personality, but it is hardly an accurate assessment of Game as a whole. In its desperation to come to terms with a more widespread acceptance of Game, the feminine imperative had to make some effort to disuade the common man (see Beta) from embracing the means to his release from the feminine Matrix. Associating Game with Dark Triad personality traits makes this qualification process much easier, since the feminine imperative owns the definition authority of what is social and what is anti-social.

The problem then becomes one of defining what acceptable use of Game is social and anti-social. Predictably Game-accepting women will want to cast Game into terms that suit them individually and accommodating for their own personal conditions as well as the priorities of their particular phase of life. However, because of such diverse conditions, consequently there is a lot of disagreement amongst Game-accepting women about what contextually constitutes appropriate use, thus a pick-and-pull form of rationalization about aspects of Game gets thrown about in their internal debates.

For feminized men this is a very confusing debate. It’s difficult enough for them to accept that women love Jerks (despite being told the contrary for half their lives by women), but for the Game-accepting women they still think are ‘quality’ it’s a bitter pill to swallow when these women debate the aspects of acceptable, lovable Jerk-like qualities and the evil, user, manipulative, ‘dark art’ Jerk that only contextually misaligns with their present conditions and priorities. For both the plugged-in and the freshly unplugged this is an incongruency that they have a tough time reconciling against the ideals of moralism that a fem-centric society has unwittingly convinced them of.

While a broader understanding of hypergamy and Game make for useful tools for enlightened single men, the Game-accepting Beta plug-in will still see it strictly as a means to satisfying the female imperative – long-term provisional monogamy. Any deviation from this narrative, any guy using Game for personal gain, personal pleasure or to enact his own sexual strategy is guilty of crimes against (feminized) society. Since the societal Greater Good has been defined by the feminine imperative, anything counter to it is definitively evil, counterproductive, anti-social and manipulative sociopathy.

The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill

The truth will set you free, but it doesn’t make truth hurt any less, nor does it make truth any prettier, and it certainly doesn’t absolve you of the responsibilities that truth requires. One of the biggest obstacles guys face in unplugging is accepting the hard truths that Game forces upon them. Among these is bearing the burden of realizing what you’ve been conditioned to believe for so long were comfortable ideals and loving expectations are really liabilities. Call them lies if you want, but there’s a certain hopeless nihilism that accompanies categorizing what really amounts to a system that you are now cut away from. It is not that you’re hopeless, it’s that you lack the insight at this point to see that you can create hope in a new system – one in which you have more direct control over.

There are no “Dark Arts”, this is simply one last desperate effort of the feminine imperative to drag you back into the Matrix. There is only Game and the degree to which you accept it and are comfortable in using it in the context that YOU define. If that context is under the auspices of a mutually beneficial, mutually loving, mutually respecting LTR monogamy of YOUR choosing, know that it’s the fundaments of Game that are at the root of its success or failure. If that context is in terms of spinning multiple plates, liberating the affections of women from other men, and enjoying a love life based on your personal satisfactions, also understand that it lives and dies based on your understanding the fundaments of Game.

Just as Alpha is not inherently nobel or deplorable, Game is neither inherently good nor evil – the Devil is in the details and whomever’s defined context in which you use it. In the introduction section of the 48 Laws of Power, author Robert Greene explains the same about power. Power is neither good nor evil, it simply is, and your capacity to use power, your comfort in using it, doesn’t invalidate the principles of power. Likewise, your discomfort or inability to accept those principles does not excuse you from the consequence of having that power used upon you.

The unwritten, 49th Law of Power, is denying the utility of power itself, or demonizing its use both moralistically and socially. With the wide dispersion of Game theory this has been the reactionary tact of the feminine imperative; appeal to the deeply conditioned moral, ethical, honorable, virtuous ideals engrammatically planted in men by a fem-centric society, while redefining the acceptable use of the same Game the imperative demonizes for its own purposes.

Cognitivism vs. Behaviorism

“Never believe what a woman says, believe what she does.”

This phrase is almost a proverb in the manosphere. I wish I could say I coined it, but I think I remember it being used as early as 2003. Back then I was studying behavioral psychology and I remember it being significant then because it’s essentially the primary foundation of behaviorism: behavior is the only measurable, reliable evidence of psychological motivation. Most people, particularly those of a more conservative mindset, have a tendency to lump all psychology into the touchy-feely psychotherapist stereotype. What they don’t really grasp is that there are many more schools of thought in psychology than just the $75/hour couch-sitting cognitive therapists relying primarily on self-reported feelings.

I understand the dislike, but behavioral psychology is much more focused on what is empirically observable and drawing correlations about motivation from the manifested behavior of animals and people. For the behaviorist, the Medium is the Message. Cognitive psychologists are uncomfortable with the implications of a purely behavioral perspective, not just because it threatens their livelihoods, but it offends their sensibilities about humanism and placing root level, ‘hard-wired’ biological motivators above a blank-slate freewill ideology. It’s just this behavioral bent that rubs Cogs the wrong way about evo-psych as well; the behavioral foundations of evo-psych are uncomfortably close to biological determinism for their liking.

In the area of personality studies, nowhere is this dichotomy more apparent, and when you add in the complexities of gender differences and social psychology it becomes directly confrontational. Whether you’re aware of it or not, everyone you know subscribes to some combination of these two psychological camps – rational behaviorism and humanistic cognitivism. When it comes to the complexities of personality and social psych, it’s a bit too simplistic to characterize these ideologies in terms of nature vs. nurture. Only rarely do the two absolutes really exist in people’s personal psychologies, but in social psychology, the predominance of one psychological ideal will substantially set a precedent for the culture it’s recognized in.

Humanistic Cognitivism

As we might expect, women tend to opt for a more cognitive, emotive psychological perspective. As the sex with an innate predilection for communication (both verbal and nonverbal) it’s not surprising that a psychology founded on self-reporting and getting in touch with emotions would be appealing. An easy illustration of this psychology is found in women’s preference for associating anecdotal experiences with evidence of fact. Female solipsism aside, cognitivism complements women’s need for personal validation.

Cognitivism also fits well into women’s pluralistic sexual strategies in that it offers them much broader opportunities for sexual selection (i.e. hypergamy). A fem-centric society rooted in the importance of emotions and placing ephemeral personal choice as its highest motivator makes for an ideal environment in which to practice hypergamy. The unknowability of the feminine mystique, a woman’s prerogative to change her mind and the default status of victimhood, all find their beginnings in a “it’s-just-how-I-feel” cognitive psychology.

All of this isn’t to say that women are incapable of understanding a rational perspective, it’s just that this isn’t their perspective of origin. When forced to make a rational decision women can and do make choices based on empirical evidence, but it’s always tempered with the feeling that the decision is associated with. There is a necessary repression of this emotive base needed to come to a point of rationality.

Rational Behaviorism

Conversely, men tend to opt for a more rational, behavioral approach to their psychological motivations. I’m not covering any new ground in this respect, but it’s important to note that what men believe is their own predisposition for rational thinking is also a psychological perspective.

Uninfluenced by social forces, men will tend towards deductive reasoning in their psychology, but that’s not to say this isn’t tempered by an underlying emotionalism. As I’ve stated in many prior threads, it’s men who are the true romantics. We want to believe the fantasy in spite of our deductive natures telling us the opposite – and this is generally where the trouble begins for men.

Worlds Collide

Just as society is influenced by political, religious and economic beliefs, so too does our predominant social psychology color our world view. For the past 50 + years this has been a consistent push towards a feminine defined cognitive humanism. If you have any difficulty believing that men are the default rational behavioral sex, it’s because this psychology conflicts with what feminine cognitivism has been attempting to instill in society as a whole for going on five decades now; that a fem-centric cognitive social perspective should be the standard for society. The clarion call of cognitive humanistic psych has always been “get in touch with your feelings” , which by definition is easier for women than it should be for men. Women start at a point of normalcy where they presume to be more in touch, and men have the changing to do. Men’s default rational behavioral origin makes them flawed from the outset when cognitivism is the dominante social psychology.

Ignorance and Bliss

 One of the primary reasons men, and particularly the newly Game-aware red pill Men, see women’s actions as duplicitous and/or immoral is because they believe that women are on some level aware of their own hypocrisy. It frustrates men’s rational behavioristic psychology that in spite of being shown irrefutable evidence of women’s contrary behaviors they will still insist that they “just don’t know what comes over them.” It’s a uniquely female cognitive dissonance that women have the ability to separate their instinctive behaviors from their latent motivators. That’s the $10 way of saying most women are blissfully unaware of, or unacknowledging of, the source of their behaviors.

Consequently a psychological coping mechanism was needed to resolve women’s incongruent behaviors with their uncomfortable motivators. Enter the mental Hamster of women’s rationalization engine. Because of the psychological priority cognitivism has in women, rationalizing needs to be on autopilot. So when women relate that they don’t know why they preach one thing, but do the opposite, I’m inclined to believe them. Hypergamy is a raw, animalistic, unethical element of the feminine psyche, so it comes as no surprise that women’s psychologies would push this discomfort into an unconscious mental subroutine for them.

“I don’t know why I felt compelled to fuck the hot guy in the foam cannon party in Cancun, it’s just not like me.”

“I’m appalled by rape and BDSM, but I can’t help but get off on reading 50 Shades of Grey.”

Men hear statements like these and our rational behavioral psychology screams “BULLSHIT! Everything has a reason, you throw an object into the air and gravity brings it back down!” However, women (for the most part) literally don’t know why they don’t know their instincts make them hypocrites. They retreat to the rationalization Hamster, but even this isn’t sufficient in the face of very stark realities. So an entire social psychology, one favoring women’s humanistic cognitivism, was needed to maintain that cognitive dissonance. Thus women caught in the act of infidelity (acting contrary to professed behavior) are still protect and insulated from their own ignorance of motivation.

Is There Anything Good About Men?

As I am flying off to Las Vegas for the WSWA show today, my blog posting may be getting a bit more sparse next week. To hold readers over for a bit I wanted to drop a quick post on an article I read back in 2007 that wasn’t very well received by the fem-centric establishment, but is nonetheless one of the seminal articles I think should be required reading for (especially young) Men.

I thought this was brilliant. I think this message is severely lacking in how we raise boys into Men. There used to be a time when some cultures had a rite of manhood or a passing into adult responsibility and masculine respect. Jews have a Bar Mitzvah, certain native American tribes had similar traditions, etc. I think that if there’s a modern social complaint about men remaining perpetually juvenile this is the root of it – we don’t respect Manhood enough to define what’s expected and when it’s due.

There’s been a lot made of feminist triumphalism recently and how the new gender paradigm is challenging hypergamy, at least in the sense that it applies to women’s imperatives being the cultural imperatives – not the inescapable, bio-evolutionary kind of hypergamy. If momma aint haaaappy, well the whole damn world shouldn’t be haaaappy. This may be rather depressing news for average men, but after reading  Roy F. Baumeister’s fantastic piece you might actually begin to understand the lies fem-centrism is selling you with a little more optimism.

I look forward to the comment discussion.

Is there anything good about men?

Insanity Plea

From member Backbreaker on the (fresh new server) SoSuave forum:

So.. we all have our hobbies and things. My wife has this twisted fascination about death row. Like anything that is on TV or a movie or documentary about death row she has to watch it. So she found a documentary about this dude on death row in Texas.. actually a quite young guy, he can’t be 25 years old. it’s not a bad documentary

This is where I trip out. okay the dude, on death row. has killed 3 freaking people. Over a late 90’s Chevy Camaro. the dude is not very smart. He is not very good-looking. The guy, I mean shit he’s on death row need I say more?

So they interview his attorney who is doing the work for him. She lived in Nebraska and was doing the work pro bono for him to get him an appeal / out of prison. honestly. She’s not very bad-looking at all. She’s pretty cute. and she’s a lawyer. this woman, mind you, has never seen this dude in her life, falls in love with the dude on death row, drives from Nebraska to Texas, meets him and they confess their love for each other upon first sight.. mind you he is behind a glass on a phone talking to her. She tells her friends, and her friends tell her that she is in love and she needs to do what she needs to do and she goes outside and sees a rainbow outside and how that is a sign that this is the guy she needs to be with.

The story even gets better. not only did she drive down there, one of her beta male friends actually drove her to meet the inmate. Do you know how much of a failure you have to be in life to drive a woman down to see a guy on death row and she looks at you and looks at him and looks at you and looks at him, and says yes this is the guy I want to be with, the guy that is on death row.

For all you guys that talk about how there are no woman out there, STFU. This woman is easily a HB 6.5-7 and she’s smart and MARRIED a dude that is going to die very soon. You are getting out gamed by a dude that can’t even touch his wife.

This just goes to show to me how much women are looking for Men and how they aren’t very many out there. When a woman has to stoop to this level to find a man who states a hell of a lot about the dating pool. I mean she is faithful as a mofo too lol. She is in love with her damn man.

There’s an interesting mental process that men, and women interested in secreting the more innate aspects of hypergamy, will engage in when presented with blatant manifestations of that evolved hypergamy. The natural presumption, and convenient rationalization, is that any woman seeking out the Alpha seed of an incarcerated murderer must, by definition, be insane. After all, women constantly relate their need for comfort, trust and rapport. We all know how safe women need to feel before conceding their intimacy with a guy, and what could be more threatening or intimidating that a death row murderer?

My good friend DJ Damage expounds upon this:

I don’t believe that “some” women’s morbid fascination with dudes behind prisons or female teachers fucking their students have a whole lot to do with “being Alpha” but rather have to do with them being a little fucked up in the head.

What my astute colleague fails to grasp is actually quite simple,..

Hypergamy doesn’t care if you’re incarcerated.

What appears to be insanity in women is usually the manifested result of their evolutionary imperatives. Anders Breivik had multiple offers of marriage in prison from women he didn’t even know the day before he went on his killing spree. Richard Ramirez (night stalker), Scott Peterson, both had small cult followings of women ready to bear their potentially murderous offspring. There is no uniquely male phenomenon of men deliberately taking action to seek out the intimacies of incarcerated women.

It may seem like only insane or celebrity seeking women would be attracted to convicted murderers, and this may be the case, but there is an underlying attraction/arousal to a man with the capacity to kill another man. In our evolutionary past, killing a rival was the ultimate social proof of Alpha dominance. It would stand to reason that this act would have evolved into a conditional prompt for female attraction. While provisioning traits that fostered trust and nurturing may have been selected-for in the interests of parental investment, the traits unique to the physical capacity to kill a genetic rival would be selected-for sexual cues for women.

While it may offend men’s sensibilities and morals, hypergamy doesn’t care what your preconceived notions are about what constitues Alpha according to the male perspective. Women are attracted to Men with a capacity for dominance, by order of degree. How that dominance manifests itself may be measurable, but know that the Alpha indicators of that dominance are all that matters in feminine arousal.

By Reason of Insanity

So while you may think a woman is mentally imbalanced for ‘choosing’ a criminal as her soul-mate, understand that the precious, quality, good-girl you’re patiently trying to convince to be comfortable enough to fuck you is subject to the same attraction cues of this ‘insane’ lawyer. Your quality woman may be well grounded and psychologically stable enough to consider the extreme of pursuing a death row inmate to be crazy, but rest assured she gets off on the fantasy of an outlaw biker, a rebel artist, a non-conformist musician, a powerful attorney, an indifferent surgeon,..etc.

It serves hypergamy’s purpose that a social convention presuming women’s insanity in cases like this be reaffirmed. For men it’s an ego buffer. As Backbreaker pointed out, if a guy on death row can ‘theoretically’ (if maybe not physically) score with a semi-desirable woman what does that say about his efforts to placate women with beta Game? They’d have to be insane if their behavior contradicted their stated beliefs and desires for comfort and trust, right?

For women this uniquely female phenomenon is further evidence of a pluralistic sexual strategy – get the Alpha seed, secure the Beta provider. A soon-to-be dead Alpha’s genetics is almost an ideally blameless situation for securing both imperatives with an after the fact Beta providership. It’s technically an insanity plea. However, in the interests of women not willing, or lacking the capacity, to go to such an extreme, this presents a potential security breach with regards to overtly exposing feminine hypergamy in all its ugly, socially unacceptable glory. Ergo, they readily embrace the meme that only insane women lacking any self-esteem or integrity would stoop so low as to entertain the idea that a convicted murderer might be her soul mate.

Pseudo-Virginity

There’s a lot being made of sluts recently. Vox, whom I’ve got a great respect for,  just made an (admittedly unscientific) poll attempting to estimate mate worthiness and establish some hard data amongst those aware of it, on rates of fidelity by asking the right questions. I took part in it, but to my disappointment my particular input was useless because I’m a ‘snowflake’ – I’ve been with 40+ women, had 4 significant LTRs, cheated on 2 (was also cheated on by the same 2, but that wasn’t on the questionare), been married almost 16 years, never cheated on my wife, nor have ever been cheated on by my wife (who’s had at least 6 prior BFs I’m aware of) – yep, I guess I’m an outlier. Or at least an outlier in respect to the correlations that other’s wanted to find evidence of.

As expected, Aunt Giggles was eager to gobble up the ‘hard data’ to make her case for fem-centric feminine framed monogamy (despite very loose parameters), but it struck me that, within both the manosphere and team woman, there is indeed an emphasis on the virtues of a woman being as close to pseudo-virginity as is socially manageable. I touched on this briefly in The Slut Paradox, and I do understand the evolved psychology behind it.

If Men are willingly or forcibly going to sacrifice their polygynous sexual strategy in favor of a female specific long-term strategy of parental investment, they innately want reassurances of a woman’s fidelity and that his biological investment is in fact his own. There have been some entertaining experimental studies on men’s innate ability of recognizing their own children’s faces amongst a crowd of uniformly dressed kids; Men are more accurate and faster to identify their kids in a crowd than women. So, for men it’s not a stretch to assume there’s an evolved aspect to confirming paternity if not actual fidelity.

On the feminine side, the psychological fallout ranges from a need for absolution of their sexual pasts (revirginization, spiritual and physical), to notch count revisionism, ASD, and simple cognitive dissonance. With so many coping mechanisms, it would appear that secreting our sexual histories is of paramount importance to ensuring our genetic legacies.

Virgin Pluralism

The problem is that feminine Hypergamy and women’s pluralistic sexual strategies conspire against each other. It is in a woman’s genetic best interests to breed with Men of superior stock (or at least perceptually so) whilst in her prime fertility years. Rationalizations and conscious efforts aside, a woman’s hindbrain subroutine compels her toward striking while the biological iron’s hot. This characterizes Hypergamy in her prime fertility window, but later when long-term security becomes the imperative this Hypergamy fluidly changes toward the best provider of security. It’s at this time that there is a psychological schism for women; as the wall approaches, a need for cognitive dissonance splits between her former sexual strategy and is replaced by a long-term security strategy. This necessitates forming new mental schema to replace the soon-to-be obsolete schemas that allowed her to pursue her sexual imperative when younger. Suddenly she’s concerned not only for her own long-term security, but the sisterhood’s as well. Ask her to tell you the best way to live and it’s always been about monogamy, security, fidelity, relationship,..etc.

All of that doesn’t sit well with a Man’s conflicting sexual strategy. In a woman’s sexual prime, his scattershot sexual strategy makes for a complementary tactic (as far as evolution’s breeding the next crop of humanity is concerned), but when it comes to a strategy of parental investment, psychological contingencies and countermeasures had to evolve to lessen the risk to his genetic legacy. Enter the importance of pseudo-virginity.

The New Virgins

I don’t think I need to reiterate the importance a purported low sexual partner count on the part of women seems to be for men. No wants a slut right? Why?

Vox’s study and the resulting speculations on its indications is evidence enough of this desire, but there is a concerted effort for both parties interested to maintain at least the presumption of a low N-count. The conflict arises in conflating a high partner count as the causation for infidelity.

Is past sexual selectivity / promiscuity an indicator for low / high pair bonding instances, or is it the conditions that prompted those behaviors the cause of infidelity? We definitely would like reliable predictors of infidelity, but I think what we fail to see is the causality of what contributes to the predictability. While infidelity may be morally reprehensible, from an evolutionary standpoint it may actually be the most beneficial recourse depending on circumstance.

Hypergamy doesn’t care if you’ve only ever fucked your wife. For every rare snowflake who moves from a high N-count to life-long marital fidelity, there’s a rare couple of high school sweethearts divorcing who’ve never fucked anyone but each other. We want the True Love couple to live happily ever after because it appeases our emotions and sense of fantasy, while we also expect the slut or the incorrigible cad get their just rewards of a life of self-loathing resentment. Reality doesn’t always cooperate with our idealizations, but the more important question to ask is why we think one couple is deserving of happiness while the other merits scorn?

Notch Count

Women don’t pine away for past beta lovers. All of this handwringing about a woman’s notch count and how numerically close she is to virginity is only so much semantics if you don’t factor in the psychological impact a single Alpha lover has on a woman. Ever wonder why the guy a girl shares/loses her virginity with is so memorable for her? Barring instances of rape, he’s a default Alpha just for having been her first. This is the primary reason I advise Men against deflowering virgin women; the sex is often negligible, but the impact is so significant that it forms an emotional attachement in a girl that most guys are unprepared for.

Once a woman has experienced that Alpha dominance, only another Alpha experience can delimit the previous experience. This is an example of the role conditionality plays in pair bonding. If a woman has had 10 prior lovers who’ve all amounted to beta experiences, an Alpha experience may be all it takes to make her loyal. On the other hand a woman with only one prior Alpha lover may be impossible to convince to be loyal to anyone she sees as a lesser experience.

These are the Alpha Widows. In fact, I’d argue that most female initiated infidelity is a result of hypergamous impulse seeking to find its previous level. Women don’t trade down in experience, they are always perceptually trading up. One of the liabilities of hypergamy is that there is a risk to benefits equation playing in women’s hindbrains that assesses what she can potentially lose. This is a pre-established dread that has to be repressed or ignored in order to for a woman to cheat. Women are prone to infidelity with better options, not worse ones. It’s a mistake to assume that only notch count is the precursor for infidelity.

Letters from the Pedestal

Background

The following is an instant message transcript detailing the soon-to-be break up of an 8 month live-in relationship. Our heroine in this classic tale of dutiful Beta vs. memorable Alpha had recently moved in with the Beta subject after a tumultuous two year Alpha relationship with “Chris” (names changed). From almost the moment she agreed to living with our Beta she began pining for her former Alpha lover. Chris was a musician who’d moved to a large metropolitan area to “make it big”. He was the perfect brooding, inflective, creative archetype, but suffered from the usual maladies, alcohol, drug abuse, overly self important – basically the perfect recipe for the artistic Alpha. Needless to say this was what led to the first breakup.

For the want of a more stable relationship, and a place to stay, she takes up with our Beta. They’d been ‘friends’ for so long, and he’d been so supportive in her time with Chris it seemed the natural fit for her. No more chaos, just the down-to-earth comfort of a relationship with a “familiar friend.” Needless to say thing don’t go as planned, and the secret phone calls to and trips to vist the former Alpha lover commence.

Before you read this analysis, I want to express that my focus in this is the Beta guy and to detail some of the more common misconceptions men have whilst plugged-in to the Matrix. Yes, our heroine’s behaviors are cruel, but only serve to illustrate the machinations of the Beta mind in this study. Is she blameless? Absolutely not. Is she following her hypergamic imperative? Absolutely so.

From the top, Beta’s commentary is in blue:

They say absence makes the heart grow fonder, you have proved that with getting back with chris.
I never stopped loving you less or caring for you less when we were together. You say, I gave up, stopped trying, after I won you.

This statement here is a textbook illustration of what I call a “scarcity mentality.” As if the initial cliché weren’t bad enough, he refers to getting together with her as “winning you.” This puts her attention/desire into a reward status – classic AFC preconditioning. SHE is the PRIZE to be won rather than making himself the PRIZE who is to be sought after. This mentality is an instant confirmation of a lack of confidence. It’s she who should be appreciative of his own self-worth and identity, and desire to be associated with it, but from the outset he puts her on the pedestal and confirms for her that he is of lesser value. Off to a very bad start. Also, his hammy referencing of an old cliché is only one more glaring illustration of his lack of depth in experience; this just screams “I’m a beta.”

Thats not true in the least. I never stopped trying, it was the first time I had ever been in a relationship with you and the first time we had lived together, and over the first 4 months we were together we had only been in each other’s company like 12 days. I was trying to get comfortable with us. It was still kinda weird at first since I hadn’t talked to you in so long and we were together. So awesome and so sudden but that made it interesting. I never stopped doing for you, I never stopped being spontaneous with us.

Here, and in the previous comment, he interprets her telling him that “he gave up” as an accusation that he gave up on the relationship – not the real message, which is, he gave up on himself and his own identity to better identify with and accomodate her in order to secure and maintain her intimacy. As I’ve discussed before, he’ll “do anything” to make her happy and this is precisely why she has no respect for the guy. I think this is where the main point of conflict is rooted. He has a fundamental misunderstanding of what she meant by saying “he’d given up.” He thinks he didn’t identify enough or didn’t figure out the secret combination of sappy romantic gestures that would make her desire him because it’s been so mentally ingrained into him that a woman should always be considered a prize to be ‘won’. This is the root of his own frustration because her words and behaviors contradict his ego-invested expectations of himself and how relationships ought to be. So consequently he falls back on victimhood as a defense – according to his mental schema he’s done everything by the book and it’s she who’s been disingenuous.

“Yep, I won her heart finally, its time to sit back and relax.”

Again with the ‘Sleepless in Seattle’ romantic comedy banter; but also, again, he restates his position of supplication by making her ‘heart’ a PRIZE to be won.

Never would I think that. Nothing was set in stone, you could leave me at any point and for any reason. I knew you were still an independent person.

I was just trying to get on a comfortable grounds with us. God, we only lived together 5 months, in that 5 months, from June to Oct, is when you formed your opinion, cause it was all over in November when you decided you loved Chris more than me.

More melodrama, but rather than find fault in his own actions for even considering the fallout from living with a woman he’s involved with (much less, one in need of a home and fresh out of an intense relationship) he’d rather apply for victimhood again and make a plea for circumstance. In all likelihood her opinion of both he and Chris were already set, but he finds fault with her because it more easily fits his romanticized (and feminized) ideals. I swear, the guy should get into daytime dramas when he gets out of college, he’d be brilliant at it. But I can’t let her off the hook entirely here – she knew your own set of conditions and this guy WAS a convenient out for her. It’s just now she’s paying for that misjudgment.

Before you decided that everything you had done was a mistake and that you regretted coming here, and dating me.

You even said that. You did say that to me, so whats that say about you and our whole relationship. You think I quit trying and just wished you’d never have come here and/or dated me.

See my other comments, I think I addressed this fairly well. He misunderstands that ‘trying’ has nothing to do with the relationship, but rather establishing himself as his own person. He then finds it easier to accommodate his own idealized fantasy relationships against her indiscretions. She’s the flawed one now (and rightfully), whereas before she was his ideal, because it conflicts with his romantic mental narrative.

So which one is more fucked up, I think yours was much worse. Regretting me, having feelings in your heart for Chris that started pushing me out 5 months after getting here and for good 7 months later. So yeah, when you think and say to yourself  I wasnt a good boyfriend, cause his faults were just too great. He cared too much, would do too much for me and quit trying after I gave him a couple of months before I totally pushed him out of my heart and decided that Chris wass my main objective.

Our hapless Beta is in the right, but for the wrong reasons.

Restating the obvious here, but it does show that he enjoys the time he spends concocting ways to confront her on the righteousness of his efforts in order to change her mind. He falls into the same binary thinking trap that most AFCs do – “If I can just plead my case well enough and logically enough while applying a good amount of indignation, guilt and conviction she’ll see I’m the perfect boyfriend and desire me again.” This logic is great when you’re an attorney or arguing on a debate team, but he hasn’t come to the realization yet that desire and attraction cannot be negotiated. He only consolidates her estimate of his Beta status by lamely employing shame in an effort to engender the guilt he thinks will make her come to her sense and love him.

This is a very important lesson that beta chumps MUST transition past; shame will NEVER make a woman hot for you. You can be 100% justified in your judging of a woman’s behaviors and character, but in jarring her into self-awareness you will only generate her resentment of you – and especially when you’re unquestionably correct in your estimations.

You were much worse in the relationship than I was. Your total basis is pretty much irrelevant. Cause givin just a bit of time and you voicing any concerns it would have been different. Relationships are about change for both parties involved. You never came to me with the problems you had. You didnt care enough about me to do that, like you were looking for an excuse.

It’s important to remember here that this was the first “real relationship” this guy had ever engaged in. Would he know that “Relationships are about change” due to his many past, successful relationships? No, but his life long Matrix conditioning has taught him that this is ‘what’s expected of people in a relationship’. Here, he is qualifying her against his own preconceptions and trying to make himself the martyr rather than realizing that he’s just as culpable as her for even allowing the ‘relationship’ (such as it was) to happen. When women’s real-world behaviors conflict with beta men’s fem-centric life conditioning, worlds collide.

You came to Chris, you told him what needed to be changed, gave him an ultimatum basicly. You gave him lots of chances over the 2 years. For the last 8 months when you were getting any dick from him you told him.

You loved him enough to do that, you wanted him in your life enough to do that.

2nd, 3rd and 4th (and more) chances are for Alphas. Betas must be bulletproof from the start until they attain, perceptively, Alpha status in a woman’s estimation. Alpha can fail far more shit tests than any Beta would ever be given leniency for.

Our Beta can’t see past his own drama to ask why she allowed Chris more leeway and how this applies to himself. Even when she left, Chris was still his own person, he was the PRIZE, not her. In standard Beta fashion, he will interpret Chris as indifferent or uncaring towards her and try to play this as a card in his favor, but the subtext of it is she had respect and tingles for the Chris well after she broke it off (5 Minutes of Alpha) and his sense of identity is what planted the seed of doubt in her head. Betas will never come to accept this until they re-evaluate their own preconditioning. In the meantime he’ll conveniently use her returning to Chris to reinforce his own estimation of her, use Chris’ indifference as leverage in pleading his case (shame) for being a logically better boyfriend choice, and affirm his own Beta-Game beliefs. It might be interesting to compare how she feels about leaving the Beta to how she felt when she left Chris.

You didnt do that for me, not at all. You made your decision within 6 months of being down here together. Chris was in your heart the entire time. I never had you.

I was in love with you and you only thought you were in love with me. So dont ever think that you had it bad and that I was the one at fault. My faults were nothing, and you know that in your heart, they were nothing that couldnt have been easily changed with a little time. They werent deal breakers.

Im not saying I feel this way, im saying this is what I think and i believe it is absolutely true. at least most of it.

Here, he’s looking for absolution of his efforts at this point and using the only psychological skillset he’s ever developed – an adolescent one. He’s feeding his emotionality by concocting rhetorical scenarios about her that he’d like to be true in order to reaffirm his self-righteous, AFC idealisms, when in fact this whole experience is essentially a challenge to his ego-investment in moon-eyed romanticism. When something attacks this investment it also attacks his personality because he’s internalized it so fully. So in order to protect it (and because it’s easier than self-analysis) he transfers the blame to her for not playing the role of his fantasy girlfriend. She becomes the flawed one for not affirming his idealism. ‘Quality Woman’ becomes ‘Damaged Goods’.

Epilogue

It was not long after this that our heroine left our subject and temporarily got back with her former Alpha lover. It didn’t last long. For all his brooding and pensive Alpha-ness he was still the same loser she left. Not long after she eventually married another Alpha with the same self-confidence, but much better long term prospects. Her now-husband was, and still is, the prize for her, and that’s what she wanted, a prize.

Pure Evil

Presently I have two new brands of liquor I’m launching concurrently. In an average year I may introduce one or possibly two, but these are progressive releases and really don’t hit the consumer market until Q3. So with that and my upcoming travel schedule I’m finding it a challenge to do daily updates on RationalMale. Forgive me, but I don’t blog for a living.

Even so, I’m still managing to put ideas to page, but every so often I get stopped in my tracks by something that interrupts my thought train so significantly it demands an immediate post. The lead ‘secret’ from PostSecret (today’s pic) this week was one such article.

In Bitter Misogynists I outline the facility with which our fem-centric socialization will label men as ‘burned’, or presume to ridicule the length of a man’s cock, if he should so much as offer a passing critical thought about women’s motives. I understand why plugged-in men (and women) read the ideas of the manosphere and think that it’s anti-women, misogynistic, cynical and plaintive. With critical thought comes the attendant risk of becoming iconoclastic, and iconoclasts don’t play very well with ego-investments in a system of belief.

Before I go any further, and for the benefit of those unfamiliar with my writing, I unequivocally do not hate women. Got that? I love women; and in fact I sincerely doubt that, but for a negligible few, you could find a Man in the community who genuinely ‘hates’ women. True misogynists are just as rare as true misandrists – the grey area in between the two extremes is where we have to live. However, that said, under the fem-centric social pretexts we live in today, and due to the innate, subconscious hypergamy that motivates it, women are generally unaware of their own misandrist social conventions. As I’ve stated in many a prior post, anything can become normal.

I realize that explaining the latent motivations and core concepts behind feminized social norms to women (and plugged-in men) doesn’t sink in when, on some level of consciousness, they understand that their functioning in society depends upon them NOT thinking too much about them – and discouraging you from doing so either.

Pure Evil

There was a time I thought that the ultimate female-centric lie a woman could tell a man was, “It’s your baby” – I stand corrected, this is it:

“I killed our baby and it’s your fault I did.”

No verification necessary, just pure, wracking, potentially life enduring psychological and emotional distress based entirely on her ability to sell it convincingly. Why go the Carrie Underwood route and smash his car when you can do THIS kind of psyche-damage to him? This is the nuclear option of covert, psychological revenge. As I’ve stated in countless posts, men fight in the overt and physical, women fight in the covert and psychological; and here it is writ large and bold.

I mean really, what an absolutely brilliant tactic this is. She knows you’ll be amenable to her coming back to you a few months later, what better time to drop a bomb like this? In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if this “Your Fault Abortion” revenge isn’t covered on a few websites or forums devoted to getting back at him.

This psychological combat is what gave me pause to write this. I’m sure there’s a contingent of men who will think it’s no big deal, or that a guy would come up with his own rationalizations to cope with any guilt of having a woman purport to be pregnant and then, allegedly, abort the child. He dodged a bullet, right? I would think so too only that, in all the manosphere discussions about the overwhelming male risks associated with marriage, the single most common (only) upside was that marriage is the best environment in which to raise kids. Theoretically, marriage is worth the marriage risk for men who want children of their own. Furthermore this presupposes a motivation in men to want children at some point in life. My assertion is that on some level this registers for women and the opportunism it represents is something viewed as a bargaining token.

NAWALT

Not all women are like this, I know, and I’m not trying to conflate this particular instance to the whole. I love women, remember? What I am illustrating is women’s psychological gender combat skills and how the hypergamic imperative hones them – even when they’re unaware of it doing so. This is an extreme example of a greater dynamic. Irrespective of whether a woman actually is pregnant, or even if the paternity doesn’t belong to you, the fact is that in pregnancy women assume a much more powerful role. If women are socially respected by default, mothers are veritably deified. In a fem-centric world, the life-givers are absolved of any circumstantial indiscretions that led to their pregnancies.

There’s an assumption that men would prefer abortion; to further his wanton sexual strategy of scattershot sexuality, men necessarily would rather avoid the entangling responsibility of parental investment. Yet we have men contemplating entering into an institution that is knowingly stacked against his own best interests in order to “raise a child in the best environment”. That upside must really be important to men to involve themselves in such risk.

On this blog, in my analysis I always try to remain as objective as circumstances permit. By definition I make my best attempts to leave issues of morality out of the discourse (unless the topic IS morality), however in this case it’s unavoidable. This is deliberate evil.

 

The Hypergamy Conspiracy

Rollo Tomassi:

“Hypergamy is a selected-for survival mechanism.”

Aunt Sue:

“Hypergamy states that a woman seeks a man of higher status than herself for marriage. Nothing less, nothing more.”

Escoffier:

“I don’t think that’s right.

The theory is more like this, from what I have read. Hypergamy is a woman’s natural (which is to say, genetically wired) preference for a higher status male–that is, higher status than herself and also higher status than the other men in her field of vision and also perhaps higher status than men she has known in the past and even (at the extremes) higher status than most men she can personally imagine meeting. That cuts across a range of possible relationships, all the way from a ONS to marriage. In all cases, women naturally prefer the highest status man they can get. And sometimes they want so much status that they won’t settle on ANY man they could actually get.

“Status” has a varied meaning in this definition. Certain things correllate with high status, for intance money, prestige, social standing, etc. However a man can have all of that and still be low status because of low status intrapersonal behavior (i.e., needy schlumpitude). The highest possible status male would be rich, good looking, fit, well dressed, high social cache, high prestige job (preferably one which involves risk, physical risk being better than mere monetary risk), and also extroverted, dominant, the leader of his group of friends, able to command any social situation, and so on. However, women are wired to be turned on more by the latter BEHAVORIAL traits than by be the former SUBSTANTIVE traits. So, if you have have to choose one or the other, to get women, be socially dominant and a broke societal loser rather than socially awkward and a rich societal winner. But best to be both, if possible.

As to marriage, sure women want to marry up. But this does not exhaust the effects of hypergamy. Women can marry up–both intrinsically and in their own mind–and still ditch their catch because someone “better” comes along. That is hypergamy at work.

Also, when women are pursuing short and medium term mating, hypergamy has no less force. They always prefer the most socially dominant male they can get. This is often relative (A&B are both a little dweeby but A is more alpha than B and since I want someone NOW I choose A) but sometimes it is more intrinsic (A&B are both a little dweeby and even though A is a little more alpha, since I don’t have to have someone NOW, I am going to hold out for the Real Deal).

It’s not all about marriage. It’s about mate selection accross the range of circumstances.

That, at any rate, is how I believe the manosphere understands “hypergamy.”

Aunt Sue:

“Yes, because they made it up. Researchers do not recognize that definition. It’s pure Game.”

The main reason I only sporadically participate in the comment threads at Aunt Sue’s echo chamber Blog is because conversational gems like this have a marked tendency to get buried under, sometimes, thousands of other comments. I think it’s a shame really. I wanted to draw particular attention to the difference in interpretation of terms with regards to the dynamic of Hypergamy here.

Escoffier makes an astute analysis of Hypergamy in a much broader perspective than Susan’s definition-approved “researchers” are willing to recognize. On the fem-centric side we have Sue casually dismiss “Hypergamy” (twice) in this context as some fabrication of the Game-set and therefor not a legitimate analysis. A rose is a rose, and as I’ve stated in prior threads, Hypergamy is a term that should have a much broader definition when considered in context with the feminine imperative and the eminently observable feminine behaviors that manifest as a result of Hypergamy’s influence.

That the term Hypergamy should be so wantonly limited in its definition, and in such a way that it serves to deliberately confuse a better understanding of it as an evolutionary impulse on the feminine psyche, speaks volumes about the importance of maintaining its misunderstanding to the feminine imperative.

It’s almost ironic that the collective feminine ego should even need to deign to recognize Hypergamy in the terms that it is cast as in Susan’s default response. “Hypergamy states that a woman seeks a man of higher status than herself for marriage. Nothing less, nothing more.” forces the feminine to at least begrudgingly accept that women are in fact basing their long-term commitment prospects on status (as defined by researchers), and not some ephemeral soul-mate, emotional precept. God forbid men (PhDs or otherwise) should have the temerity to extrapolate any further social, psychological or evolutionary implications that could’ve influenced that Hypergamy dynamic into existence.

While I wont argue the credentials of the researchers Sue will undoubtedly quote – I often acknowledge all of the same in other posts and comments – I will however make the point that her interpretation (as is everyone’s) is subject to bias. And in this case, that bias serves the feminine imperative in keeping the definition of Hypergamy in as closed a way as possible to benefit the feminine. In the evolving understanding of the motivators that influence intergender relations there are going to be terms that describe concepts.

AFC’s, Alpha, Beta, Hypergamy, etc. are all defined by the concepts they represent.

‘Hypergamy’ serves well in a much broader capacity, but should the feminine imperative find that broader definition threatening to its purpose it will casually dismiss it as illegitimate. The real question then is, why would that concept be threatening to the feminine? You can delegitimize the term, but the concept is still the operative issue. Why is the concept of that larger scope of the term so offensive to a fem-centric society?

The Conspiracy that Wasn’t

One issue many of my critics have is that in exposing these inconsistencies, these operative social conventions and the latent purposes behind them, my writing (really most of the manosphere) seems to take on a conspiratorial tone. I can fully appreciate this, and it might shock a few readers to know that I  reject much of the popularized MRA perspective in this respect. I agree with an MRA perspective in a rational analysis to a certain degree, but there is no grand conspiracy, no secret mysterious cabal pushing a negative perception of masculinity – and this is exactly why what I outline on this blog is so pervasive. There doesn’t need to be a unitary group of ‘anti-men’ bent on some melodramatic goal of world domination; because this feminized ideal is already embedded in our socialization. Fem-centrism IS our collective social consciousness.

It doesn’t need a centralized directorship because the mindset is already so installed and perpetuated by society at large it’s now normalized, taken for granted and self-perpetuating. AFCs raising AFCs leads to still more AFCs. This generation doesn’t realize their own bias because it’s been standardized, encouraged and reinforced in them, and society, over the course of several generations now.

What’s to question, especially when calling attention to the feminization dynamic leads to ridicule and ostricization?

So to answer the conspiracy question; no, there is no illuminati shadow conspiracy and that’s exactly what makes feminization the normalized and overlooked default.