Mrs. Hyde

In last week’s Looks Count post I broke down a particular demographic outline that loosely describes the various phases of women’s lives and the importance they tend to place on certain male characteristics in relation to qualifying for their intimacy. The focus in that post was on the importance of physical attributes women filter for, but I felt it deserved a better explanation in whole. Granted, I’m basing my estimates on women in westernized cultures and the general progression most become acculturated to, however I think in a global sense, and accounting for socioeconomic contexts, the progression remains fairly predictable.

Women’s Sexual Pluralism

In the study I linked by Dr. Martie Hasselton there was a very salient point that kind of gets passed up since the focus of that social experiment was more about isolating variables in women’s physical preferences for males. That point was illustrating women’s pluralistic sexual strategies – short term breeding strategies whilst in her sexual peak demographic, progressing to long term sexual strategies as her sexual agency becomes less valuable and subject to the rigors of competition anxiety in the SMP.

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.

Over the course of a woman’s life the priorities and criteria a woman holds for a ‘suitable’ mate fluctuate in response to the conditions she finds herself in. The criterion for short term coupling are much easier to demand when a woman is in her peak fertility phase of life and thus places these prerequisites above what she would find more desirable for a long-term pairing. The extrinsic male-characteristic prerequisites for short-term sexual strategy (hot, quick Alpha sex) preempts the long-term qualifications for as long as she’s sexually viable enough to attract men. Thus it follows that as a woman exceeds or is outclassed of her previous SMV, her priorities then shift to an attraction for more intrinsic male qualities. For the short-term strategy, quick impulsivity and gratifying sensation take precedent. For the long-term strategy, slow discernment, prudence, familiarity and comfort satisfy a desire for security as she exits the competitive stage of the SMP.

The dirty little secret to all of this is that although a woman may abandon one strategy for another depending on the phase of life she’s in, nature has seen fit to make sure she never quite abandons one for the other completely. As her environment warrants, she can readily re-prioritize her conditions for intimacy in order to achieve that sexually strategic balance.

This is a very uncomfortable truth for contemporary women in that it exposes the underpinnings of a great many feminized social conventions intended to misdirect men in an effort to maintain superiority in sexual selectivity and effecting these strategies. Men becoming aware of the pluralistic nature of hypergamy is the greatest threat to the feminine imperative. As I stated in The Threat,

Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.

Biomechanics

An even more uncomfortable truth is that women’s pluralistic sexual strategy is literally written into their genetics. In a woman’s sexual peak demographic, across her ovulatory cycle she will tend to seek out High-Testosterone cued Alpha Men to pursue for her short term breeding strategy during her pro-phase of ovulation. In her menstruation period her preferences switch to preferring the long term security of a beta provider, and thus filters for these traits in her pair-bonding.

I’m elaborating on the genetic aspects here because I think it’s important for men to understand the biological mechanics of  women’s sexual strategies in a broader scope. I endure an endless stream  criticism for implying that women are selective sluts. Obviously women in the general whole have the capacity to resist these base impulses to “go slut”, however this is the base biological impulse against which they resist by conviction, rationale, sentimentalism or simply being realistic about having a low SMP valuation. As I’ve said before, all women have the capacity to throw caution to the wind in order to pursue her short term sexual strategy. Right place, right guy, right ovulatory phase, I was drunk, he was cute and one thing led to another,.. Nature selected for women who could best effect a covert pluralistic sexual strategy.

Due to the cyclic nature of women’s sexuality it’s a misnomer to think that “women are just as sexual as men“, however, to to the importance of sexual selectivity dominance, women are much more sexual than most men are led to believe. The key is understanding that women want to be sexual on their own terms as their cycle dictates. Essentially they are serving two masters in this: they want the freedom to pursue a short term sexual opportunity (as well as the freedom from social repercussions as a result) and also the prudence to filter for a man willing to assume the responsibilities of parental investment and provisioning.

NAWALT

From a recent discussion thread:

Here is a tip – level headed girls who are intelligent have told me they don’t want to get fake breasts, even when they’re an A cup. Also some girls prefer to take it a step slower. They don’t NEED immediate gratification, they know that a good thing might take time, and here is an idea, you know how women think men are dumb – MOST ARE. That’s why they play games – to weed out players!

This was from a guy. I used to believe this, until I understood the fundamentals of female hypergamy. For far too many men it’s a comfortable fiction to think that attractive, self-conscious, “level headed” women really have the presence and forethought to ‘weed out’ what men would rationally think would be the best fit for them. However, observably and predictably, their behaviors and choices don’t bear this out. On the contrary, their behaviors prove the validity of female hypergamy even in the personalities of what we’d consider the most virtuous women. Even the bright, intelligent, good-girl selects for, and sexually prepares herself for, the most immediately accessible Alpha male her attractiveness will demand AND they also filter for the players, and develop bonds with men they believe might provide for their long term security when their necessity dictates that they should. They’re the same girl.

Women are keenly aware that men’s primary interest in them is fucking – everything else is ancillary to sex. The difficulty women encounter in perfecting a long-term sexual strategy is men’s singular primary strategy – the value a woman has beyond the sexual comes after she’s been sexual.

The Truth is Out There

Almost a year ago Ferd over at In Mala Fide wrote a very eye-opening post about what appears to be an endemic of online Self-Shooters – millions of unprompted, unsolicited young women shooting and posting nude and semi-nude pictures of themselves from a smartphone. Just image search Google keyword “self shots”, you’ll get the idea. And it goes well beyond just teenage dalliances with bathroom pictorials; with the rise of convenient digital media creation we get a clearer view of women’s true sexual landscape. Click over to Advocatus Diaboli’s blog and check his NSFW collection of links featuring home-porn.

You can reference Ferd’s article for the NSFW photo galleries and forum links dedicated to this phenomenon. Have a look at the sheer volume and frequency with which average women will voluntarily become sexual. This is just one collection, there are countless millions more. Are they all sluts? How many of these women have uttered the words ” I want to wait so I know you want me for more than sex?” How many of these women would make great wives in 5-10 years? How many of these women are already (or have been) wife material? How many of these women are thought of as the sweet natured “good girl”? How many guys have considered these girls “Quality Women” at some point? We can look at them with their clothes off and declare them sluts, but would you know the difference if you saw her in church?

From the same critic:

Most girls wil go through an experimental phase at least. I don’t think that makes them sluts, necessarily. Depends on degree.

I half agree with this. There is most definitely a phase of life where women will opportunistically leverage their sexuality – usually this is mid-teens to late 20s, but you have to also take into consideration why this sexual attention is such an urgency as well as being so rewarding for a woman in this phase. Hypergamy and a rapidly closing window of SMV spur on that urgency.

I’m also compelled to point out that women in their 30s, 40s and even 50s will still “slut it up” and seek that sexual attention if their conditions dictate that they must return to that agency. Again, refer to the self-shots phenomenon; not all of these girls are 18 y.o. misguided youths experimenting with their sexuality for the first time. A solid percentage of them are post-30s women, and some older than that showing off their ‘new’ post-divorce body after 3 months training at the gym. Are they still ‘experimenting’ or are they feeling the need to retroactively solicit male sexual response due to changes in their conditions?

The point I was making is that the “quality woman” meme is entirely subjective to the sexually strategic conditions that a woman finds herself in. As per usual, guys would like to make their necessity a virtue and define whatever is working for them currently as an ideal situation without considering the factors that contribute to it or would radically change it if those conditions were altered. When you met your devoted, soccer-mom wife in her 20s, your first thought wasn’t “I wonder if she’s a quality woman?” It was probably more along the lines of “I wonder if she sucks a good díck?” At the time, the conditions were different for her, and her personality reflected an adaptation to them.

Now What?

So where does this leave a Man? I think it’s determined by where you are yourself in life and what your expectations for yourself are. If you’re young and just beginning to find your footing in the SMP then I’d advise spinning plates and enjoying yourself, but with the understanding that you are learning from experience. Maybe that’s as far as you want to (responsibly) go, or maybe you entertain the idea of becoming monogamous at some point. Naturally, I wouldn’t advise even experimenting with monogamy for any guy under the age of 30, but lets assume you do have the experience and have an understanding of how the SMP and hypergamy work. The most valuable bit of wisdom you can carry into a monogamy of your own decision and your own frame is to understand this sexual pluralism in women. Accept hypergamy as a woman’s operative state at all times.

The most common words  hear newly divorced men utter is some version of “I never saw this coming in my wildest imagination, we were married for 20 years, we have 4 kids, how could she be over me so quickly?” A lack of understanding the basics of hypergamy is exactly why men are blindsided.

Defining Alpha

Many apologies for my recent absence from blogging. Concurrently launching two new liquor brands in Q2 is proving very time consuming, but it has allowed me to step back briefly enough to review some of my more ‘influential’ posts. Amongst those, none generated more dialog than my essay on Alpha, so I thought it prudent to come back to this very contentious topic.

I understand why guys, both of the red and blue pill variety have a problem with using the terms Alpha and/or Beta; depending on the perspective, terms that are definitive about what someone has an investment in make us uncomfortable. It’s much more comfortable to put those issues into more subjective understandings because when we’re objective about them we can’t help the wondering or the doubt of our own status within that definition. Objective terms are very close to absolutes depending upon who’s doing the defining.

From a generalized perspective, I feel that the terms Alpha and Beta are good reference points in assessing the characteristics that women find arousing in men for both short and long term mating strategies. However, I think that beyond these convenient terms, men need to be more realistic about how they apply to their own self-impressions in contrast with how women are interpreting the Alpha and Beta cues that they exhibit. For the record, at points in my life I’ve personally been the worst, bottom scraping Beta, the douchebag Alpha stud in the foam cannon party in Cancun, and the strong (but lesser) Alpha father and husband. So it’s with this in mind that I think guys shouldn’t believe that their ‘stars are set’ and they’ll never live up to the manosphere standard of Alpha.

Living Up

The reason that so many guys get so bent about what defines an Alpha is usually because they don’t fit that general definition very well. So it’s a logical ego defense to make necessity a virtue (once again) and redefine it to better suit their own conditions. It’s exactly the same dynamic as the debate over Looks vs. Game. Game takes priority for those without Looks and vice versa. A personal definition of “what’s Alpha?” becomes whatever plays to an individual guy’s strengths, and women who can’t appreciate them (i.e. all of them) are relegated to being less-than quality women. Sour grapes are sour, but deductively it makes sense; we want to be the embodiment of what we ‘know’ is attractive to women and others. The worst beta schlub you know thinks he’s Alpha, because every woman he’s ever known has defined for him that being beta is what women want.

Ethics of Alpha

The problem then is looking at the definition objectively. In an objective light it’s difficult to look at ourselves as not measuring up to an Alpha ideal. So it becomes the first recourse to cast suspicion on the whole idea of being Alpha at all. It’s a pissing contest between immature men then. Or is it? There is a LOT of observable, provable evidence that many so-called Alpha traits do in fact elicit very predictable, desired, favorable behaviors (usually breeding precursors) in women. From an evo-psych perspective Alpha is just as unprincipled, just as efficiently ruthless and uncaring as it’s female counterpart – feminine Hypergamy.

So then the definition moves into an ambiguous moral ground; is it ethical to be / act Alpha? To be Alpha implies that you necessarily rise above a certain degree of common mediocrity depending upon the context – whether you do so like a guy from hotchickswithdouchebags.com or like a perfect “honorable” gentlemen is irrelevant, you still position yourself above “other guys”. To some extent this is selfishness or implies a self-importance that questions moral tenets.

At this point I should also add here that women NEVER doubt themselves on moral grounds for outshining their own competition in the sexual market place – they just do so covertly and with a polite smile, unburdened by ethical doubts. Hypergamy is its own excuse.

Alpha Selectivity

And that brings us to the subjectively deductive end of defining Alpha. Every sexual competitor seeks to disqualify their rivals from breeding opportunities. Most animals fight for territory or harem rights. Humans generally (though certainly not exclusively) do the same combat in the psychological. We seek to disqualify sexual competitors by calling into doubt the sexual credibility of a rival. “Yeah, he’s really good looking, but that means he’s probably gay” from a man, or “You think that blonde with the big boobs is hot? Girls who dress like that are usually sluts” from a woman are both psychological, sexually disqualifying forms of combat.

This also applies to the observably, provably, sexually successful male capable of OVERTLY flaunting his high sexual value with two (or more) concurrent women. He must be of low moral character to so flagrantly manipulate his multiple girlfriends, right? His observable success, as a sexual competitor, conflicts with what a beta believes should constitute a beta-defined definition of Alpha-ness as it characterizes him personally. Ergo, the polygamist either must be disqualified as a sexual competitor based on subjective (moral) grounds, or a guy is forced to alter his own definition of Alphaness and therefore his own self-estimate.

Every guy has a Game. Everyone thinks they are Alpha in their own way. Even the worst doormat Nice Guy, hammered flat by women for a lifetime, thinks his supplications or Capn’ Save-a-Ho mindset is the best way to win a woman’s intimacy. He’s invested in thinking he’s unique in his understanding of how best to arrive at sex with a woman. Likewise, Alpha-ness is a moving target that’s conveniently applied or disparaged based on personal circumstances.

Personally I believe Alpha-ness can, and does, have a concrete, objective definition. The problem arises when anyone asserts that they can definitively outline Alpha traits when it conflicts with the subjectiveness and ego-investments of those who define it personally for themselves. So we get a wide variety of what makes a man Alpha – he’s the guy of high moral character, princely ambition and integrity, as well as the self-important cad banging his wife and “their” girlfriend. They are BOTH Alpha. Thus I would propose that while certainly contextual, objective Alpha-ness is NOT exclusive to social status or personal integrity, but rather an attitude of expressly manifested traits. These can be innate or learned, but the definition is not dependent on moral grounds (or a lack of). A scoundrel and a champion can be equally Alpha or Beta in their own psyche’s.

The ‘A’ Guy

 

From the inimitable STR8UP (he knows who he is) in venerated SoSuave archives

Women either HAVE an “A” guy, or they desperately want one. It has something to do with needing that emotional rush.

What does this mean?

It means that if a woman already HAS an “A” guy, you either have to be the right guy at the right time that has what it takes to usurp the crown, or you will be relegated to “B” or “C” status, depending upon her level of attraction.

See, my problem lately is that I have been meeting a fair amount of women who I manage to get to “B” status with, but lately becoming that elusive “A” has proven difficult. I have to give myself credit though. I can honestly say that I DO NOT accept a “C” position, which is basically “friend zone” orbiter, and I am quick to recognize when it’s a losing battle to try to become an “A” guy.

I have seen this play out with women I have been with and even MORE so with other people and their relationships. You meet a chick and get along well. She shows most of the classic signs of high interest when you are WITH her, however when it comes time to get together she flakes. Why does this happen?

Well, lots of times it’s because she might like you, she might even REALLY like you, but unless you got what it takes to dethrone her “A” guy, you are really nothing more than a temporary distraction/ego booster for her.

The “A” guy could be an Alpha ex b/f who cheated on her and dumped her and still calls her from time to time to keep the hook set. Or he could be a guy who she is currently dating who has so far refused to commit to her exclusively. He could even be the guy in the corner office who she has done nothing more than exchanged smiles with, who she has built up in her head to some sort of god-like status. Or, he could be any guy in between.

The point is, there are MILLIONS of women out there who are walking around with their heads in another place, TELLING people they are single, even going on dates, even getting MARRIED TO OTHER MEN, who are actually NOT really single. In their minds they are having a relationship with Tom, Dick, or Harry. Sure, she may be out on a date with YOU. She might even be laughing at your cheeseball humor and touching your leg when she talks to you. But deep down inside she can’t wait to get home to check her facebook or email to see if her fantasy man sent her something.

Basically what I’m saying is that it’s often hard to tell if a woman is secretly longing for another man. All you can do is keep your eyes open, and even then it’s tough when a chick is flipping her hair and leaning toward you and talking about your next date ten minutes into your first one just to flake on you three days later. But this is why you need to be EXTRA vigilant with women, and not invest too much time into a losing battle.

The easy analysis of this phenomenon is the 5 Minutes of Alpha dynamic, but what the ‘A’ guy represents is the feminine version of ONEitis. While a guy may pine away for months or years for a woman who’ll never reciprocate intimacy, he’s more easily self-convinced of another ONE who will be sexual with him. This is how men are wired; at some point the diminishing returns of an emotional investment gradually drop to nothing when presented with another, more viable, sexual opportunity. Not so for women. Women being primarily emotional beings, sex cements that emotional investment in her ONE. This is precisely why the boyfriend (even an abject Beta boyfriend) to whom she loses her virginity tends to become such an overwhelming emotional proposition for her. Barring a forced situation, more often than not he becomes the ‘A’ guy by default.

Even when this isn’t the case, the A guy becomes the benchmark who sets the bar for her B & C guys. As I proposed in Five Minutes of Alpha, be less concerned with a woman’s notch count and more concerned with the impact the last Alpha lover she had etched on her psyche. Bear in mind it was women, the feminine, who first proposed the notion of the Soulmate, or the ONE, in terms of romanticism, not men. Men have only recently bought into this since at first it seemed to prove “sensitivity” as a means to a woman’s sexuality, and then as an ego-invested part of their own personalities to be used as AFC leverage to keep a straying woman around longer. It’s kind of a using her own weapon against her (which never really works because his approach is rational and hers emotional) dynamic in Beta Game.

There was a topic on the Tom Leykis show on (or around) Valentines day where he asked married or LTR female callers to call in and tell him if they were really with their “Prince Charming” – the guy they idealized, dreamed of, swept them off their feet and was the ONE soulmate for them. Of about 30 callers maybe 2 called in to say they were with their ONE. The rest had very emotionally charged testimonials about their ONE who they still ache for and how their ‘B’ guy, the man they settled for (in most cases had children with) doesn’t know it and could never measure up to their ‘A’ Man.

I think there’s a certain degree of mythologizing the ‘A’ guy since he’s unattainable and therefore really unknowable. That casts him in an idealization that can really never be proven. It’s like women who get addicted to romance novels; the rush comes from the imagining, not the actualizing. However this puts the ‘B’ guy in a bad position – particularly if he’s an AFC who thinks his ship’s finally come in and the girl who settled for him capitulates to marrying him because the situation is hopeless with her ‘A’ guy. Of course this doesn’t have to be limited to marriage; I’ve personally known women in live-in situation who’ve left ‘B’ guy to go back to the original ‘A’ guy to have that self destruct and go back again to ‘B’ guy who welcomes her with open arms because he thinks it makes him the bigger man..

Guilt of Conceit

The Grue on SoSuave had a recent encounter with a rebounding woman that I found interesting. Have a read of his story for the details, but suffice it to say that date #2 pretty much killed the vibe. Over all I think he handled the situation by the book, but this last part I wanted to riff on,..

Irene called again on Sunday to apologize for her behavior during our date…I was cool with her but cordial. Then she repeated that she had “nothing to offer…” and I replied that I am more than cool with that because I like to be with people who have something to offer…and then I said goodbye….[ed. Nails!]

She then sent a text message about 2 hours later saying

“I wish I weren’t afraid and could give you an opportunity with me! Thanks for understanding!”

I guess she just couldn’t resist getting a jab in…I don’t think I’ll reply at all…

Grue played this perfectly, but this last text wasn’t a jab, it was meant to affirm for herself that she’s still a good person. Think back to your plugged-in AFC experiences. Ever wonder why a woman who not only rejected you, but completely disrespected your efforts to prove you were the perfect boyfriend felt compelled to making things right after the rejection? Women cannot bear the thought that someone, somewhere might think they’re a bitch, psychotic, or may not actually like them “for them”. It’s like they can’t sleep at night knowing that someone doesn’t like them. Proportionally this can be attributed to women’s innate need for attention and the fear of social ostracization they learn in early childhood, but it goes a step deeper than this.

The problem is that when a woman seeks your post-rejection understanding it’s not a genuine contrition for women. The average guy thinks, “wow, maybe there’s more to her than I thought if she’s self-aware enough to be apologizing to me”, but the latent purpose is to make herself feel better knowing that ‘you’re cool with her’. The apology is for her, not you.

Even for men that a woman has no sexual attraction for, women will still look for this confirmation of their likability.

This is a very common dynamic for women when a Man outright refuses an LJBF rejection, or he ‘goes dark’ on her with a No Contact cutoff. From a behavioral perspective, she’s seeking to reestablish the reward of his attention (which she didn’t have to earn previously), but beyond that she’s looking to protect her ego by getting him to agree with the ‘correctness’ of her assessment of him in having rejected him.

I can do better

Whenever a woman decides that a man isn’t worth her investment of intimacy, she’s making an estimation of him. That estimation may come immediately in that she’s not physically attracted to him, or as part of a process of evaluating his personality, status, social intelligence, social proof, provisioning capacity and/or any number of other criteria, but the end result is always based on the same hypergamous question: “Can I do better?” which is really the root fundamental of every shit test.

Answering this question with a ‘Yes’ will always involve a certain degree of self-conscious conceit for a woman. And because there are only two parties involved in her rejection (her and him), she has to reconcile for herself having come to the conclusion that ‘she can do better’, with the guilt of being conceited enough to reject the guy. As I stated, this is by order of degree; if a guy is so repulsive to her, if she has perceptually better options available or if she’s more predisposed to sociopathy in general, this guilt of conceit may simply be a non-issue for her to internalize. However, if a man has invested himself in being accommodating, sweet, generous and interested in her, this guilt of conceit will be more pronounced, thus requiring her to seek reconciliation for herself and affirmation from him that “she’s not a bad person” for having concluded that she ‘can do better’.

Right about now you’re thinking, “that’s great Rollo, but how do I benefit from this?” Two ways, first being knowledge is power – understanding women’s internal process and the predictable ego-preservation that results from it will give you a much better gauge in reading a woman’s interest level. It’s part and parcel of the Medium being the Message, so be pragmatic in understanding when you’re being rejected and that her pseudo-contrition is NOT a fresh sign of interest or regret on her part. Men with the best grasp of Amused Mastery are the ones who’ve learned women’s internal processes to the point of predictability – and thus find it amusing.

Second, and more useful, is manipulating that process (assuming the reward is actually worth it). Doubt is a key element in stimulating a woman’s imagination about you. Understanding the dynamic of women’s guilt of conceit from the outset will help in consolidating her interest in you. Hypergamy demands resolution so powerfully in women that evolution has hard-coded it into their subconsciousness. But the enemy of hypergamy is doubt; it’s the guess work that women have to do and the subsequent rationalizations for the decisions based on that doubt that confounds hypergamy. If you suspect that a woman is beginning to find you too accessible, adjust your Game to stimulate doubt.

Three Strikes

From European DJ on the SoSuave:

How many dates max, before you fuck her?
Let mé know your thought and an explanation.

Regards

The problem inherent with coming up with hard and fast Game rules of engagement is that there’s always going to be a caveat or special conditions for a guy’s particular girl of focus at the time. Even when there’s not, guys are prone to think “there’s something special about this one.” Part of the reason that Plate Theory is integral to Game is that it encourages Men to disabuse themselves of their previous beta impressions of each woman they accidentally drew interest from as some unique little snowflake. It’s hard for your average chump to think of a woman showing base-line rudimentary IOIs (indicators of interest) and NOT think she’s predestined for him by virtue of his self-acknowledged scarcity mentality. When you’re starving in the desert, Saltine crackers seem like mana from heaven.

Risk & Reward

In Game, there is a subtle balance that needs to be recognized between risks of over-investing in a particular woman with regards to practicality and not throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water and losing on a potentially rewarding opportunity. Women, as is particular to their own Game, will naturally come down on the side of casting doubt on a man’s valid assessment of a woman’s potential value, both in long term perspectives and potential sexual satisfaction. This presumption of doubt is a built in failsafe social convention for women; if only you’d been more patient, if only you invested a little bit more, you’d be rewarded with a great mother for your children and the best pussy of your life – don’t blow it now!

The short version is that it’s not in women’s best sexual-strategy interests for a man to have sexual options. Women’s sexual strategy is very schizophrenic – ideally women want a Man that other women want to fuck, but in order to assess his sexual market value to other women he’s got to have exercisable options for her to compete against, or at least display indirect social proof to that effect. So, she needs to limit his options while simultaneously determining he has those options. Now add to this the hypergamous necessity of maintaining  a reasonable pool of suitors suspended in doubt of her own SMV in order to determine the best one among them for short term sexual provisioning and long term security provisioning.

Pragmatism

In light of understanding women’s sexual strategy, it’s important for Men to adopt an mental schema of pragmatism – in the SMP you’re really another commodity in hypergamy’s estimation. I realize the difficulty most guys (particularly younger guys) have with mentally training themselves for thinking this way, so let me state from the outset that I’m not suggesting you kill your romantic, artistic souls in favor of cold calculations. In fact it’s vital you do keep that side of yourself intact for the survival of any future relationship and a more balanced human experience. Plate Theory and, really, efficient Game can seem dehumanizing, but what Game denialists fail to grasp is that they’re already operating in a dehumanized environment – it’s the social conditioning of the feminine imperative that makes men believe that Game is inhumane, because the feminine imperative has made itself synonymous with humanity.

Hypergamy doesn’t care if you’re a great, poetic soul. Hypergamy doesn’t care about your most sincere religious devotions. Hypergamy doesn’t care if you’re a great Father to your kids. Hypergamy seeks better than its own level, it wants the best commodity it’s capable of attracting and maintaining. Hypergamy is above all, practical, and thus Men, the True Romantics must be pragmatists to enact their own sexual strategy.

Three Strikes

I had a lot of shit slung at me when I offered up Wait For It? As I stated above, I had the predictable feminine doubt doctrine lobbed at me in response from the beginning. I expected that, but to answer European DJ’s question more definitively, be pragmatic.

Put it this way, with just average Game, in 3 dates you should be able to determine if her desire level is high enough to want to fuck you.

In 3 dates you’ll know if her desire is genuine or if it’s mitigated by something else – another guy in rotation, sexual hangups, filibustering, etc.

In 3 dates you’ll have had sex or you’ll have had the “I wanna wait / I need to be comfortable talk.”

If you have sex on the 1st date or a same-night-lay, in all likelihood she’s really hot for, and into, fucking you based on physical criteria alone.

If you have sex on the 2nd or 3rd date, she’s into fucking you and probably wants a relationship because she wanted to give you a token impression of her not being ‘easy’.

If she fucks you after the 4th date, you’ll do as her first alternate.

If you’re sexless after 5-6 dates you’ve probably been at it for over 6 weeks and The Medium is the Message. NEXT.

The Gatekeepers

My Services Rendered post generated a lot of response in the comments, PMs and even sparked a good debate on the SoSuave forum. All of this got me thinking about economics in the SMP.

It’s funny, I can remember a time in the early 90s when getting your GF to shave her snatch clean was scandalous. It seemed to imply that a guy’s true desire was to bang prepubescent girls. Shaved pubes was ‘niche porn’ back then and you’d have to actually seek it out in the print and VHS days. Now it’s just incidental, and hairy bushes are the niche.

I also remember when I first saw strippers with navel piercings and thinking “goddam that is hot!” Then I started seeing hot ‘normal’ girls doing it, but there was this initial stigma that only sluts, porn stars and strippers got their belly buttons pierced so it was slow to catch on at first – which of course made it all the more hotter when you got with a girl who had one. Don’t even get me started on tongue piercings.

Same thing with tramp stamp tattoos. Initially hot, now, no big deal. I think maybe nipple piercings might be the next thing, but it’s not like average girls go about getting them and showing them off as readily as other “slutty” fashion statements.

I bring all this up as a starting point to illustrate the progression of how the feminine sexual arms race evolves in the sexual marketplace (SMP). It would be very easy to simply pass all of this off as just further indications of society’s moral decline, but that’s too easy an answer. Everyone thought Elvis Presley’s hips and rock & roll would be society’s ticket to Sodom and Gomorrah too. Sexual trends and catering to men’s sexual imperatives makes today’s fetishes tomorrow’s normalized expectations. I expect there was a time when getting a hummer was considered sexually deviant; now it’s expected sexual behavior to where it’s a point of pride for women to give a good one, thus making women uncomfortable with oral sex the deviants.

I can’t think of porn clip I’ve seen in recent memory where a woman didn’t have a navel piercing or shaved snatch. Porn sets a sexual standard, but it also takes it’s cues from larger society. When women complain that they can’t compete with porn stars (dubious in an age of instant amateur porn) you’re listening to a woman resorting to men’s preferred method of communication – overt communication. Essentially she’s exasperated to the point where she needs to make absolutely sure that men unmistakably understand her anxiety, so she speaks his language. “I can’t compete.”

Ironically it’s the same women who were ‘competitors’ in their youth, are the same women who consider their husbands viewing porn to be tantamount to marital infidelity.

The Gatekeepers

Controlling access to sex (women’s primary agency) is the most important aspect of a feminine-primary reality. This reality necessitates that Men’s sexual interests are by default, deviant, hurtful and shameful, while women’s sexual expressions are normative, correct and above reproach. Men are perverts when they masturbate, yet women are so sexy when they masturbate that there’s a niche for it in pornography. The problem the feminine faces in maintaining this control to sexual access is that the same competition that drives women to restrain it is the same competition that forces them to ‘up the ante’ and allow it in order to beat their competitors.

What’s interesting, and ironic, is that women’s push to ban pornography is motivated by the same impetus that makes pornography appealing. Pornography is simply a manifestation of men’s desire for unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Women’s desire is rooted in hypergamy, from which the best possible situation would be unlimited access to the best quality males. In order to effect the best possible sexual outcomes, both sex’s mating schemas are at odds.

In a male-centric sexual reality, most women would simply never be able to compete; in fact unlimited access to unlimited sexuality ensures they will be outstripped at some point by a sexual competitor. Even in a feminine-centric reality this is at least the mitigated situation. They certainly cannot effect their own sexual schema under these conditions, so the recourse is to use that same sexual agency to control the narrative and enforce their own sexual primacy as the correct one. His access, in fact his very exposure, to sexual competitors must be limited in order for her to select from the most, best, suitors. Limit the experience, limit the options, make her sexual schema the primary normative, inflate the value of her sexuality as a reward, and enforce it with specifically defined moralism.

From a pragmatic, power retention point of view, it makes sense that women would expect men to submit to what best fits their reality and sublimate their sexual imperatives to accommodate a female sexual imperative. This can be effected by reward and punishment. Reward in that a man is allowed sexual access for compliance to her imperatives, and punishment via shame and ridicule for noncompliance or even being critical of it.

The Morality Clause

Appeals to religion or morality are simply convenient tools of this punishment to enforce a female-centric reality. It’s hard to argue against religion or puritanism in a “gender appropriate” debate – it’s unassailable. God / Polite Society dictates that women are to be respected, protected and valued as an unquestioned default position, and even when her actions do not match her words or convictions she’s to be given the benefit of the doubt; and even when she’s caught in her indiscretions it makes a man a Man when he forgives her.

At present, all tenets of conventional morality exist to serve a feminine imperative. That may seem like a bold statement, considering that moralism can be considered a form of ‘slut control’, but think of any example of a vice or a virtue and you can link it back to a latent purpose for it being considered such that serves a female reality. Pornography and prostitution are only considered vices by society at large because they conflict with a broader female-primary reality. Encouraging virtues like temperance and honesty, still serve a female specific reality in that men believe they will be considered higher value mating potential than men who do not possess these virtues – and they help to keep men rooted in one set of social rules while they are free to operate under another set.

Workarounds

As feminism progressively ’empowered’ a more overt feminine reality, so too were methods adapted to circumvent this by men (i.e. Game). Since the sexual revolution, men have been forced into 3 camps; those who embrace and function within the feminine imperative (male feminists), those who reject and remove themselves from it either temporarily or permanently (what Jay Hymowitz calls “man-boys” or “Kidults”), or those who learn the mechanics of the female imperative and subvert it to their own purpose (PUAs, DJs, Game).

These camps, and men’s increasing refusal or abdication to play in an overt, female-centric reality, is the reason for more and more litigation intended to get men to either comply or be legally bound to the responsibilities of living in a female reality. For centuries women have relied on passively engineered social conventions that were accepted into our cultural consciousness that carried shame or some attached social stigma for a man who wouldn’t comply with them. Since the beginning of the sexual revolution however, these social conventions have become increasingly less effective as women perceive them as vestiges of a male patriarchy. Men see women eschewing these “traditional” conventions, but are themselves still expected to abide by them while respecting women for NOT abiding by them. So over the course of 2 decades men become less controlled by the old social structure, and unwilling to participate in a female-centric reality. What to do?

Now, as men are becoming increasingly aware of the raw deal they’ve gotten, and with the advent of global interconnectivity with other men, the female-centric response is to legally force men into that reality. Thus the laws enacted which pertain to a specific gender become more and more gratuitous for women and more draconian for men. If men will not respect a feminine imperative by social means, then it will be necessary to petition the state to enforce their reality upon men.

The Disposables

Martyrdom is the ultimate expression of social proof.

After I finished my Chivalry vs. Altruism post, I had to kind of pause for a moment to consider the impact of ‘women & children first’ as an operative social convention. Even before the overt rise of the feminine imperative, this female protectionism was in effect, and I’m fairly certain that this was a result of our primal hind-brain wiring to protect our families. Most higher order animals have evolved this instinct so I don’t see that as much of a stretch. However, human’s being a much more complex species, I think that the social convention of WaCF goes a bit deeper than a simplistic protectionism. In fact, I’d argue that ‘familial protectionism’ is more of a convenient foil for women (and sympathetic men) who’d rather see men’s mortal sacrifice in honorific terms than the much uglier truth.

Tits for Tat

In its rawest form, the sexual marketplace of our early ancestors would’ve been one where feminine hypergamy and Alpha dominance would’ve been more or less in balance. Obviously men being the stronger sex would’ve forcibly put women into a weaker position in the earliest incarnations of the SMP, but also consider that men fought and killed each other for access to those breeding rights – short version; men were disposable. As our species began to socialize, collectivize and cooperate, our earliest social conventions would’ve revolved around the environmental prompts and biological stimuli that were essential to the survival of their more feral ancestors.

The earliest form of proto-Game would’ve been a sexual quid pro quo. Can’t figure out how to seduce that hot, hunter-gatherer woman in the tribe? Save her ass from being torn limb from limb by a sabre tooth tiger and she’ll reciprocate her gratitude with open legs. In other words, risk your life and women will reward you with sex in gratitude. Today that may not be a reality in practice, but it’s the A+B=C  logic that’s led to the psychological internalization and the social doctrines that follow it. It’s such a primal, male-deductive-logic principle that’s worked so successfully, for so long, that social contingencies were evolved to both mitigate it and exploit it. Don’t believe me? Promise a young middle eastern girl 70 virgins in heaven and see if she’ll strap explosives to herself. The downside to this is that men often do “die trying.”

All of this kind of brought me around to thinking about the psychological ‘software’ that’s been evolved into our species as a result of environmental adaptations of the past. In War Brides I went into detail about the Stockholm Syndrome women seem to have an inborn propensity for, which logically makes them predisposed to abandoning emotional investments more readily than men. Considering the brutality of our feral past, evolving a capacity for quick emotional abandonment and reinvestment would’ve been a valuable survival trait for women (thus insuring a perpetuation of the species), however, in the present it serves to complicate newly developed social dynamics in terms of parental and ethical considerations.

Likewise, men have evolved into the disposable sex as a result of that same feral past. In today’s environment it’s very easy for men to draw upon ethical indignation about our disposable status, but it’s not primarily due to social influences. To be sure, social influence has definitely exploited men’s disposability, but the root of that devaluation (in contrast to women’s) really lies in our evolutionary past and our biological make up. Men have always been disposable – so much so that women evolved psychological contingencies (War Brides) to cope with that disposability.

As socialization and acculturation progressed, so too did the social rationales for men’s disposability. It became honorable to sacrifice oneself, ostensibly for a greater cause, but subversively as a means to recognition.

Martyrdom is the ultimate expression of social proof.

Appreciating the Sacrifice

Unfortunately, as is women’s biological imperative, once a man’s martyred himself women seek a suitable substitute within the week. I’m still getting a lot of response on my Appreciation post, and predictably most of the criticism is rooted in assuming my intent was to illustrate women being inferior to men in terms of sincerely appreciating the sacrifices he must make to facilitate her reality. The inability of women appreciating men’s sacrifices isn’t an issue of who’s better than who, it’s merely an observation of facts and corollaries. What I think critics fail to recognize is that I’m simply relating the observed mechanics; any conditionality they choose to apply to those mechanics are their own opinions and biases.

“Yeah Rollo, it’s pretty fucked up that women have some inborn ability to ‘switch off’ their emotions for you in favor of a higher SMV male…”

You’re right it’s pretty messed up. It’s also unethical, insincere and duplicitous when you also consider the planning involved in dissociating her emotional investment in favor of a new investment; but all of these are social conditions we apply to the underlying mechanic. It’s also pretty fucked up that men’s lives intrinsically have less value than women’s – but we can apply esoteric principles of honor, duty and courage to men killing themselves and engaging in the dynamic of their own disposability. We can also apply principles of cowardice and betrayal to men who refuse that sacrifice in favor of self-preservation, but these are qualification of social conventions that we establish as a culture.

The biomechanics are what they are, irrespective of the social paint we color them with. It’s not that women lack an intellectual capacity to appreciate men’s sacrifices, it’s that this isn’t their evolved psychological predisposition. The social constructs which tells her to expect a man’s sacrifice, which normalizes his martyrdom, have evolved to better dissociate her own investment in her biological imperatives (i.e. Hypergamy). In English this means evolution has prepared her socially and psychologically for his sacrifice, and readies her to move to a better provisioning should one present itself in her surroundings. Likewise, men putting themselves in harms way is rooted in our competing for resources – in this case breeding rights.

Ravenous wolves tearing apart a moose aren’t evil; they’re doing what nature has prepared them to do in order to survive. This isn’t to give anyone, male or female, some biologically determined free pass for bad behavior, it’s just to understand where this behavior originates and how it came to be what we make of it today.

Free Lunch

“Rollo talks a lot about shaming tactics from women, and one I’m hearing now is that if the man doesn’t pay for the date, he is actually being feminine and passive, and is attracting more masculine, ball-busting like girls because he’s giving his role of pursuer up, and feminine women will be repelled by men who don’t pay for their drinks/dinner/dates etc.

To me, it just sounds like women being afraid of losing an advantage they’ve always had, free stuff.

How do you see it? First date is coffee, do you pay for that? Does she pay for her own? Do you look cheap if you buy that first cup? Do you look needy if you buy that first cup?”

Law 40: Despise the Free Lunch
What is offered for free is dangerous— it usually involves either a trick or a hidden obligation. What has worth is worth paying for. By paying your own way you stay clear of gratitude, guilt, and deceit. It is also often wise to pay the full price— there is no cutting corners with excellence. Be lavish with your money and keep it circulating, for generosity is a sign and a magnet for power.

Read this again, what has worth is worth paying for. The feminization of culture has simultaneously distorted the formality of a man paying for a date into a form of masculine control while still being a required masculine obligation. It’s a Catch 22 – screwed if you do, screwed if you don’t, and there are two conflicting perspectives for this.

As I’ve expressed on a few occasions; as a man in this life, you will ALWAYS pay for sex in one form or another. That may be buying coffee, drinks, dinner, a concert ticket, a wedding ring or a mortgage payment, but always trust that there is going to be a cost associated with you and sex. Whether it’s with your nebulous ‘Quality Woman’ or the prostitute you picked up off the Trail for half an hour – you’re going to pay.

The second perspective is the ‘Chivalry’s not dead’ approach. Nothing has served the feminine imperative better over the years than to convince the male populace at large that it’s his codified moral obligation to prove his provisioning capacity to her in an effort to qualify for her intimacy. This point of view has had a long history of perpetual requisites for a man, but the holdover, and starting point today is paying for the drinks / date / etc based on a traditional, gender specific, obligation.

In light of that, if it makes you feel a sense of completed duty in paying for a woman’s drinks / meal, then by all means continue to do so, but not because a woman’s convinced you of a moral obligation. My approach is to recognize this ‘tradition’ for what it really is. You’re a Man. Men of power despise a free lunch; not from business associates and certainly not from a woman he intends to make his pleasure.

What has worth is worth paying for. By paying your own way you stay clear of gratitude, guilt, and deceit.

You also stay clear of obligation. There can never, and will never, be an egalitarian equality between the sexes: we are different. The good news is this is the way women want it in spite of their feminization conditionings. Covertly, women want a Man who initiates, approaches, drives, and yes, pays the tab. However, when overtly pressed about ‘paying her way’, she is forced into a position of denying this because her conditioning has taught her “she is her own person” and the expectations of her day say she should at least pay half, not be afraid to approach a man, initiate a date herself, etc. Make Sadie Hawkins proud.

These are masculine expectations, and much like the “virtues” of the professional woman, feminine masculinization conditions her to equate her value on masculine terms, while still being a woman. The fallacy being that a Man ‘should’ be attracted to the same masculine traits she finds attractive. And predictably, innate gender nature continues to contradict this.

So yes, pay for the drinks, date, etc., just know what you’re paying for. What has worth is worth paying for – is she worth the payment? You are the Prince, your attentions have value, does she appreciate them? Have a plan, make the decisions, direct the course of the date. If she’s unresponsive or only luke warm in her reciprocation – NEXT! Hypergamy makes ALL women opportunists by order of  degree; accept that, it’s simply how the world works. Golddiggers are women who overtly acknowledge this opportunism in word and behavior; they’re not too hard to recognize if you want to see them.

You’ll know more about her the morning after you bang her brains out than you ever will on a casual, comfy dinner date.

I want you to want me

,..but, Rollo I want it to be because of who I am, not what I can pay for.

This is an uncomfortable truth, and a lot of guys don’t like to hear it, but your capacity to pay is PART of who you are.

Your accomplishments, your career, your passions, your aspirations, your physique, are all PART of you. There are parts of you that are more attractive than others, but the sum is what makes you who you are. There was a thread on the SoSuave forum a week ago regarding career choices and how this relates to life and women etc. I realize this may be an unpopular opinion on this, but what you choose to do as a vocation is part of who you are. It may not be your source of personal identity, but for better or worse, your vocation and it’s associations become a part of your identity. It’s similar to how you look physically is part of you. It’s a comfortable fiction to think that women are less interested in a man’s physique, or should be attracted to a guy unbiased by what he does – but these are all part of a whole.

Egalitarian Equalism is self-defeating; it leaves a vaccuum of power or responsibilities to be filled by either sex in the wrong instances; for instance, expecting a man to possess the equitable feminine qualities he’s lacking yet still holding him accountable for them. In other words, if a wife feels her husband is incapable of providing for her and the kids with the decisive, confident security of leadership she will feel compelled to assume the role of the husband and he will be relegated to the role of being the passive, submissive wife. In the egalitarian model this is acceptable, socially reinforced and passed on as learned behavior to their children. And in this generation (and perhaps the one prior) it’s not a stretch to assume that contemporary male submissiveness was in fact taught to them by their own parents.This may seem like I’m being overly analytical, but look at this framework from the perspective of paying for a date / drinks / events etc. from the beginning stages of an LTR or even just spinning a plate. This egalitarian model has filtered into the male social identity to the point that a guy thinks it common place for a woman to initiate and approach him with a date proposition. He thinks it normal for a woman to want to pay the tab, open doors for him, etc. These are traditionally Men’s behaviors that AFCs believe women think are empowering and attractive in women.

Your Grandfather never pondered whether he or your then-to-be Grandmother would get the bill; it wasn’t even an afterthought. He payed the tab and Grandma was appreciative. And that’s what’s at issue – appreciation. Feminization has stacked the deck against a guy to the point where he questions a woman’s motives. Does she appreciate his generosity or does she feel entitled to it?