Idealizations

Wife Porn

I once had an interesting conversation with a married friend/counsel of mine that sort of opened my eyes to something that’s becoming an interesting trend which prompted me to come up with an experiment for the married and formerly married men who read my blog. It should also be educational to see how single guys (or those in LTRs) view this too. So rather than go into complete detail right now about the subject of our conversation allow me present two scenarios for your consideration. Bear in mind these are sexual fantasies and you could easily add details to them that might invalidate them, but the illustrations and guy’s (as well as women’s I suppose) perceptions are what I’m curious about:

Scenario #1
Suppose for the moment you are single, if you’re married now, with no attachments. You and a wing go off to a party to do a little cooperative sarging where you know a good number of attractive women will be present. After an hour and a half you successfully kiss close an HB9 and she’s definitely given you enough IOIs and AIs to know she’d be a great same night lay – the stuff of dreams. Picking up on this, you propose heading back to your place for whatever made up reason you can think of on the spot. On the drive to your place she is feeling you up and all but fucking you right in the car, maybe even giving you head a bit before you arrive. Once there, she strips down to a small bit of lingerie and proceeds to grind and tease you. She then removes everything but her stockings and heels, climbs on top of you and has her way with you, finishing you off with a mind blowing hummer.

Scenario #2
You’ve been married to your wife for five years (or longer). While at work she calls you one afternoon and tells you that if you’ll come home early she’ll “make it worth your while.” You happen to be freed up enough at work to take off early and head home. When you arrive, your wife is standing in the kitchen making spaghetti in nothing but a g-string, babydoll and a sexy bra. She has a bottle of wine and a couple of glasses set to one side and informs you that the children are at her mother’s for the evening. She’s still easily an HB 7 (closer to an 8 in the nightie) inspite of having kids, and her ass looks fantastic in the g-string. After a glass of wine she tells you how hard you’ve been working lately and it’s time she shows you some ‘appreciation’. She begins to give you head in the kitchen, after which you go down on her on the counter top. You take her standing up and she frantically claws your back before she drags you to the livingroom where she rides you in a frenzy rivaled only by the sex you remember having with her when you were both single .

I apologize for the graphics, but it’s necessary. If you’re a married or divorced guy consider these questions:

  1. Which scenario do you think is more likely to be actualized and why? In other word’s which is the more likely scenario to come true in reality?
  2. Which scenario would you rather participate in in reality? Why?
  3. Which scenario do you think would make for the best sexual experience?
  4. Has a woman ever seduced YOU whether single or by your wife?

Single guys can respond to this too since it’ll show a depth of experience, but married/divorced guys, think hard about this. You’re realtively anonymous here so be honest.

 

Now then, the reason I started this experiment is because the friend I had prompt me to this gave me a link to one of the fasest growing sexual fetish (if that’s the proper term) porn sites and this is, believe it or not, married sex. No, I don’t mean cheating housewives (that’s been done to death), but actual married sex between couples that is in fact well done and pretty hot. I wont post the link, but you can Google Housewives 1 on 1 or the like and see what I mean. In each fantasy scenario the husband’s wife (all porn star hot) seduces him with a combination of lingerie, dirty talking, and at least a pretty convincing display of actual desire/lust/passion for having sex with him. After watching the trailer videos I couldn’t help but think that the reason for this becoming such a popular genre of porn is due to an unbelievability that in all rights should be believable, if not desirable. How pathetic a statement is it to think that within all of our over eroticizing society that we should come full circle and have made hot, married sex into sexual niche fantasy?

The reason I proposed the two scenarios was to llustrate just the unbelievabilty of the 2nd one in comparison to the first. The 2nd one being a rough description of one of the vignettes from a particular ‘married fantasy sex’ site. I have a pretty good sex life with my wife, who still looks like a fitness model even after our daughter’s birth. That said I can tell you that nothing would shock me more than to have my wife even remotely concoct a sexual tryst with me like these. It’s not that I have a problem with our sex life, far from it, but it’s that it would rarely cross a married woman’s mind that she would want to seduce her husband.

The default female reponse to this is that it’s the burdens of married/family life that interfere with acting something like this out, or that the man should shoulder the responsibility for keeping married sex passionate. I have to then go back to my conversations with virtually every married man I’ve ever counseled telling me that they are almost universally the initiators of sex with their spouses and this is a point of contention between them. Their initiating – by way of doing all of the romantic preparations their wives tell them is necessary for them to “get in the mood”  – then ends up becoming the catalyst for one more form of stress, since it then conditions her to think that the very behaviors she described as being conducive to her becoming aroused are now associated with obligations of sex. Essentially negotiating sex by proxy. We have to remember that women communicate covertly and when she feels the need to overtly tell a man (what she thinks he ought to know anyway) how to turn her on, sex becomes predictable and routine; the opposite of spontaneous and exciting.

That as an aside, the intent of this was to illustrate that the reason this form of sexual fetish is exciting for married men in particular is that it is out of the ordinary and unbelievable, yet painfully ddesirable. These are hot fantasies because they seem to feel right, yet would rarely (if ever) cross a married woman’s mind that she would have a desire to seduce her husband and make special preparations to do so unexpectedly.

50 Shades of Twilight

Since 50 Shades of Grey is essentially the same plot formula as Twilight, feel free to insert the relevant protagonists’ names for Bella and Edward here.

I’ve had a lot of PMs asking me for some input regarding the runaway popularity of the B-Grade fan porn that is 50 Shade of Grey. Vox had a brief spot about it in relation to how men can’t win for losing in girl-world. Aunt Giggles had an interesting run down of its popularity, but predictably eels her way around the operative point of how semi-violent romance porn affirms the uglier truths of Game and hypergamy – not to mention avoiding the sticky aspect of ‘committed’ women fantasizing about it.

I honestly haven’t given the book too much headspace since it only reaffirms what the manosphere has been professing for over a decade now: in spite of all protestations of the opposite, women get off on dominance. Big shock, I know. It’s ironic that The Chateau should need to cite psych study upon psych study, ad infinitum for 6 years to reinforce a dynamic that women will now gleefully admit to only after a cheap, fanfiction sub-porn hack calls them blushingly out to the carpet on it.

If this book represents any significant turning point it will be its role in provably, viscerally, forcing women to acknowledge their own bullshit. I can hardly wait for the girl-world collective mental twistings in the wind – the desperate whir of millions of rationalization hamsters grasping for a plausible deniability or a freshly minted social convention (male shaming for bringing women to men’s porn mentality) that will excuse them from the guilt of an inconvenient truth. Perhaps the NAWALT trope, that one’s always the Swiss army knife for the feminine cause. Really anything that will put the Hypergamy Genie back in the bottle and keep the questioning Betas from getting too curious about feminine nature will do.

In the Bitter Taste of the Red Pill comments, esteemed colleague Dalrock had a timely and profound post that fits this porn-dominance formula perfectly:

These women don’t just want to build a better beta, they want to tame the alpha. In fact, I think the former is just another way they are trying to approach the latter. They want to take an inherrently unsafe activity and make it safe. They want to submit to a man without having to submit; they want a man who can tame their feral self. They want him to trip their danger signals. Even better if he is a stranger from a strange land.

They wan’t this all to happen without giving up their freedom; they want to play this out in the context of serial monogamy, so they can feel loved while also claiming their promiscuity is moral. They want to lose controll to a string of strangers who have all of the hallmarks of very dangerous men, and they want a promise that this will always end well.

They want to know that this will be safe, without it losing the excitement of it feeling unsafe. They are telling men to build a sort of serial monogamy amusement park where they can ride the roller coaster and experience the fear of falling or crashing, while knowing that just behind the scenes grown ups are actually in charge and are responsible for them safely feeling unsafe.

One more thing. As I mentioned above they don’t want to be hemmed in. So instead of building an actuall amusement park, they want roller coasters to spring up randomly in the same exact circumstances where the real danger they mimik would appear. They want to be driving their car on the freeway one instant, and the next experience the fear of careening out of controll the next. They want to impulsively jump off the edge of the Grand Canyon and have a parachute appear and deploy at the last minute. And all they ask is your guarantee that all of this will be safe.

Behold, the female porn dynamic perfected. Danger without danger, bad boy with a heart of gold, a guy who wont cheat, but could cheat,..

The Surrogate Boyfriend

From a soon-to-be-unplugged 30Darren from the SoSuave forum:

I made a big mistake and got involved with a coworker. We dated for a little about a year ago but it never went far. Never slept with her. We became close friends though. We would hang out, Go to movie, Get dinner go for drinks and just hang out. We always talked even late with text and everything. I liked her a lot and she seemed comfortable with me.

I guess i felt i always had a chance with her because when we hung out she always flirted with me and having sex with each other seemed to be the topic we most talked about. She even mentioned shooting a porno with me. I don’t know if it was just mind games or if she was serious. Right now i don’t know what i was thinking, i should of let actions speak louder than words. But i really felt for her so i grasped on anything that made me feel like she was interested in me. This went on for about 8 months.

We had up and downs. I’m not completely stupid, there were times where i was trying to leave her alone and let each other move on but then she would get this increased interest in me and id fall back in line. I would leave her alone when she would have her little flings but eventually she would gravitate towards me again.

This week was a crazy week though. We went out had she took something i said completely the wrong way. We decided to give each other space (which i did) but then she was all over again when i gave her no attention. She started telling everyone i was her best-friend and then when we went out for drinks with co-workers she started calling me her Man. I didn’t play into and give that too much attention because i felt it wasn’t real. Two days later she is completely ready to end it with me. Said she was blocking my number from her phone and to not expect to hear from her again. she said it was “time for her to spend energy talking to a guy she actually likes more than just friends and that she’s not attracted to me and cant force herself to be, good-bye”. Ill admit. That really hurt. So abrupt and harsh. And remember i work with her.. What am i to do and how do i act. Is it a power game or is this is.

Women have Girlfriends and Boyfriends. If you’re not fucking her, you’re her Girlfriend.

One of the more heinous crimes inflicted upon the men of Generation AFC is the curse of the Emotional Tampon. Hapless Betas being cast into the role of perpetually having to be “supportive” and emotionally available for a woman he’s enamored with all in an effort to prove himself the ideal boyfriend is an 80’s Brat Pack movie plot cliché now. Oh, if only she could see past the hot jock jerks and find the true love that’s been here all along,…swoon,…

Typically when I read classics like this it’s on the high school forum at SoSuave, and for good reason; usually all it takes is one or two passes at this experience for young men to come to an understanding that they’re being manipulated. As we progress through adolescence and into early adulthood (if all goes as it should) there are a series of valuable learning experiences that teach us (albeit harshly) a mature adult set of social skills. This is generally where I begin when I assess particular intergender situations – are the participants using an adolescent social skill set? Has some factor retarded this maturation (such as premature monogamy, or a stubborn clinging to Disneyesque ideals) into an adult social skill set?

What makes Darren’s situation interesting is the pseudo-relationship he’s entertained with this girl for 8 months. For all the shit slinging about Three Strikes or the sex never being worth the wait for a Wait for It girl, it amazes me how readily and willing a majority of Beta men will be to entertain a sexless, quasi-monogamy. I’d like to blame the girl for her playing along, but I can’t – she’s only doing what women do when they pursue their pluralistic mating strategy. Don’t blame the Doberman for eating the juicy steak. It’s Darren’s failure to consolidate, and consolidate early, on ratcheting up his sexual interest in the girl that’s the primary issue.

In addition, Darren still doesn’t want to acknowledge that he never had a relationship with her, instead wondering if her ‘abrupt'(?) rejection is some kind of power game, and hoping against hope that he can salvage a monogamy that only existed in his head. What his part really amounts to is a Buffer against the very real rejection he could potentially experience by putting himself out into the real world by spinning plates. The longer her perpetuates his pseudo-relationship, the longer he forestalls having to face potential rejection.

The Surrogate

Darren was playing surrogate boyfriend, voluntarily accepting and internalizing all of the responsibilities and accountabilities of being a woman’s exclusive, monogamous partner with no expectation of reciprocating intimacy or sexuality. It is the ideal situation for a woman in the same manner a Booty Call is for a man – all sex with no expectations of monogamy, commitment or emotional investment.

You essentially become a surrogate boyfriend for her – fulfilling all the emotional availability and security needs the Jerk isn’t providing with no expectation of reciprocating intimacy on her part.

How Cruel?

From the standpoint of a guy who’s aware he’s become a surrogate boyfriend, and those who can objectively see that he is, it seem incredibly manipulative and deliberate for a woman to put a guy whom she knows has a definite interest level for her into that role. I would argue that, more often than not, a woman doing so has done so repeatedly in the past so often that it becomes normalized for her.

Is she aware of it?

On some level of consciousness perhaps, but it’s comfortable for her to do so because she’s unable to have both her emotional / security needs paired with her physical needs in the same guy. So her coping mechanism is to entertain a Nice Guy (sometimes multiple Nice Guys) from whom she gets emotional support and a security response from, while wallowing in the physical rush and the resulting drama caused by the Jerk. I go into this splitting of needs in Schedules of Mating:

There are methods and social contrivances women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male’s genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she’s capable of attracting. Ideally the best Man should exemplify both, but rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by an innate need for security, the feminine as a whole had to develop social conventions and methodologies (which change as her environment and personal conditions do) to effect this.

Maintaining a series of surrogate boyfriends is one of the most directly observable manifestations of women sexual pluralism.

Women get off on perfecting a gestalt boyfriend from both the Nice Guy and the Jerk, but relatively few are aware of it, and among those who are, even fewer will expressly admit to it. They’ll quite happily allow a surrogate to continue in his qualifying himself to her in his efforts to “be a good listener” and “be there for her” until such a time as he grows frustrated and he becomes a liability in his own right, or a liability to her Jerk sex / drama interest. The hot guy who uses her up and leaves her on the bed wanting more will always take precedence over the emotional surrogate because they’re so easily attracted and entertained.

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.

HB10

One of the most entertaining and enjoyable aspects of being active in the manosphere is reading the experiences of other men and then formulating some codified references of what guys relate. The Urban Dictionary is chock full of these colorful euphemisms. For instance, does anyone know what a “cranston” is?

Cranston
The cranston is the gap where the vaginal mound can be seen dipping into the space between the tops of the inside of a woman’s thighs and the bottoms of the inside of her buttocks.

Originally a military term.
I’d say she was about a two finger cranston to be honest.

I love a nice cranston.

The  most contentious term of reference almost always revolves around what physical body type men prefer as the feminine ideal. On damn near any major community forum you’ll find a thread attempting to definitively determine what hot piece of ass can be unanimously agreed upon to be the apex of male sexual desire – the mythical HB10. Even the Chateau used to have a dedicated page to just this purpose. As an aside, I’m still a bit confused as to what the HB actually stands for in this inference, ‘hot bitch’? ‘hot babe’? ‘hot butt’? I know Mystery coined this reference, but the “perfect 10” notion predated his by decades.

I really enjoy these threads because it brings such diverse experience and perspective to the table. In particular I love the individual posts where guys will attempt to define what an HB 1 through 10 is to them by posting pictures of examples of each strata of woman. I must credit these threads for disabusing me of the one-size-fits-all mentality I’d been conditioned to believe men had with regards to what they found arousing in a woman. This was one of the last residual mental schemas of feminization I needed to purge from my  head in my own unplugging – despite women’s protestations that all men have “impossibly high, media fueled, bikini model physical standards for women” I’ve come to understand that this is simply a canard that despondent fat / post-Wall women comfort themselves with.

While in a general sense it is true that men largely have a predisposition for physical traits that imply youth, fitness and fertility, within those parameter is a myriad of physical variety and permutations of body type, age and ethnicity. Even guys with a ‘thing’ for MILFs are still looking for physical features that fit into this parameter.

Attraction vs. Arousal

Attraction and arousal are really two different things for men. We may be attracted to a woman’s personality, her femininity, her playfulness, her spirit, etc., but we are aroused by her body and sexual availability. There are many women I’m attracted to, but I have a very distinct physical standard for women I find arousing. I think this was one of the difficulties I had in assuming all men had a similar archetype for physical perfection in their cues for arousal. I came to realize I have exceptionally stringent physical standards for the women I find arousing, but that didn’t my standards were every guy’s standards as feminization would have me shamed to believe.

Myself not withstanding though, there is so much room for variety in men’s arousal cues I think it’s a shame that fem-centrism has convinced women that men are universally corrupted to seek only a very narrowly defined set of physical prompts for sexual desire. For instance, I happen to think that women with big assess are too fat for my particular arousal, but I cannot ignore the fact that a significant proportion of men like nothing better than a nice ‘ghetto booty’. I don’t understand it in the same way I don’t understand foot fetishes, but I can’t deny the fact that there are men who get off on feet.

So take heart ladies, unless you are grossly malformed, or morbidly obese you’ll probably find a subset of men who ‘have a thing’ for fucking exactly your body type. You may think men’s evaluating you so clinically is offensive, but we are far more forgiving in our arousal cues that women will ever be in their own physical standards.

HB’s & SE’s

Since so much has been made of HB scales and ratings I don’t think it’s too unfair to present my own observation here.

On the Tomassi scale, there is no such thing as a an HB10 that you haven’t slept with. The last point to half point is ALWAYS earned on performance. I’m sure you wouldn’t buy a Maseratti if it had a VW engine under the hood. Subjectively I believe there are HB10s it’s just that the last point is earned on performance not attractiveness. An otherwise HB10 who turns out to be a ‘lick it around the edges’ girl instantly falls back to an HB7 or so,..That said, I feel the scale also has to be adjusted for geographic region. An HB 8 in Butte, Montana is an HB 5 in Los Angeles. You have to adjust the scale for regional concentration. Hot women tend not to congregate in remote places, they go where they know their looks will serve them best. This then increases the benchmark for that place since the field of competition is deeper. Based on personal experience, an HB 9.5 in South Beach, Miami etc. is well beyond anything NYC, Houston or Chicago could offer up on a consistent basis. The rating curve is more pronounced. Conversley a Miami HB 7, becomes an HB 9.5 in Boise, Idaho. However, after having lived in Hollywood, Las Vegas and Orlando, and traveling somewhat extensively, I think my standards are exceptionally high in this respect.

Lastly, I don’t think that the HB scale is entirely helpful for men’s assessment purposes since it only accounts for physical appeal. There needs to be a second rating attached to the HB (physical) standard, one that accounts for self-esteem SE.

If you rate looks (HB) on a 1-10 and self-esteem (SE) on a 1-10 scale, realistically you’ll want different ratios at different times. If you’re sport-fucking and have no desire for a LTR this ratio might be around HB9 to SE3, no lower than this though since a 3 (the way I’d rate it anyway) would indicate the threshhold for self-destructive personality disorders. If you’re looking for a companion for the long haul of monogamy, then you’ll adjust your ratio accordingly. An HB8+ to an SE 5-7 might be ideal. It’s when you perceive imbalances in the ratio that is cause for concern. For instance an HB7 with an SE of 8 (too self-important for her looks). Or extremes like HB2 to an SE of 9 (most rad-feminists, easily avoidable) and an HB9+ to an SE of 1 or 2 (the suicidal death spiral girl).

It’s all in the balance my sons.

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.

Dread Games

I’m not exactly sure why, but somehow last week became the unofficial ‘dread’ week. I’ve had so many other irons in the fire both work-wise and blog-wise this month that I find it particularly annoying that my attentions should be distracted by this topic again, but I will admit that the comments about the evils of Men manipulatively employing a sense of dread in their LTRs has given me pause to analyze the dynamic in more detail. So, OK, I’ll bite, what’s all this dread about anyway?

The original huff about dread came in the wake of Roissy’s seminal post about instilling a sense of dread in a woman in order to help maintain a consistent frame control in a relationship. Naturally, women’s unconditioned response to this overt assertion of control was to demonize the whole idea of dread. When you think about it dread, as proposed,  is really a sense of conceptualizing the potential outcome of a losing the intimacy of a partner and the resulting fallout (emotional, financial, familial, personal, etc.) from that loss. Such an overt declaration for promoting a sense of dread conjures melodramatic images of fiendish men blackmailing their women into emotional enslavement to their insecure whims.

I think what’s lost amongst all this sensationalism about dread – a very weak term for the concept – is the applicability dread has in a much broader scope (and particularly for women) than the overly dramatic characterization of it when men openly discuss using it themselves.

Faces of Dread

I have a good friend, Jim, who’s just this side of 37. I love the guy, but Jim’s not much to look at. At around 30 he essentially gave up on himself. He got married far too young on the business end of a do-the-right-thing ‘accidental’ pregnancy, and from a personal standpoint that was the end of his window of opportunity to explore any other options he may’ve had. His wife let herself go just after the 2nd pregnancy, turned into a beach ball, and he followed suit. In actuality it wouldn’t take much for him to get back on top of his game, but he has no desire to.

Now, after detailing Jim’s situation you might think he’d be the last candidate to participate in anything resembling a manipulation of dread in a relationship, and you’d be right, but he, and guys like him are often the unwitting participants in their wives’ own dread-games. Although Jim isn’t going to spontaneously attract women with either his looks or due to his complete obliviousness to Game, he is an exceptional provider for his family. He regularly busts his ass as a programmer for a legal agency and is the sole breadwinner of the family – singlehandedly funding his wife’s nursing school. In addition he’s a very attentive father, husband and is somewhat of a handyman around the house. In spite of all this his wife tends to be a bit of a shrew, browbeating him on a regular schedule which has been passed onto the personalities of his teenage daughters who engage in the same heavy handedness their mother does.

Yet for all the passive-aggressive derision, Jim’s wife is easily one of the most possessive women I’ve ever known. He literally lives in a constant state of surveillance as to his whereabouts. She calls to verify he is where he says he is, and continually suspects him of running off to a strip club (which to my knowledge he’s never set foot inside one) or engaging in anyway with another woman. It’s gotten to the point that it’s comical to think that she’d have any worry that he’d be snatched away by a better woman, but there it is, the dreaded competition anxiety prompting unease in an, albeit LSE, woman with no realistic possibility of it ever occurring.

“I can’t compete with that,..”

Some of the most neurotically possessive women I’ve ever known have been the girlfriends and wives of amateur circuit bodybuilders – my brother’s former GFs actually being among them. Most of these girls, even the fitness competitors, had to either be very self-assured or they resorted to controlling tactics and possessiveness due to the constant reminder of how desired their Men were by other women. Even when that was explicitly not the case, the perception of their desirability was enough to bring this out in them. They had the love and desire of very elite Men, but this still wasn’t enough to pacify that innate sense of dread.

Dalrock has blogged ad infinitum about the feminized notion of how a man’s viewing “using” porn is conflated with adultery. To say nothing about the constant push to pathologize the male condition, this is an easy out for women following the Eat, Pray, Love script wanting to exit a marriage with cash and prizes. However, the fundamental point in that conflation is a woman’s, often overstated, inability to compete with the “porn star ideal of physical perfection and sexual acrobatics that no normal woman could ever be comfortable with.” Considering the sheer variety of men’s sexual appetites this is ludicrous on the surface of it, but it is illustrative of the predominance dread plays in women’s psyches. It doesn’t matter what the particulars of his sexual appetites are, she feels inadequate in that competition and fears a loss of intimacy.

Dread Games

I catch a lot of hostility from the femosphere for even suggesting a Man directly foster competition anxiety in his LTR, but the underlying reason for this venom is a preexisting condition of dread in women that can barely be tolerated when it’s under the surface, much less when it’s exposed. Dread, in this context, is an innate fear of loss of security that intensifies as a woman progresses further beyond the Wall and with her diminishing capacity to reestablish that provisioning security with a new partner. In fact it’s exactly this dread that is the root source of the gynocentric laws that award women cash & prizes in a divorce settlement. So powerful is this fear that legal assurances needed to be instituted to account for a woman’s lessened ability to secure long-term provisioning after a failed marriage, after the Wall, after pregnancies, etc.

Dread, for lack of a better term, is a female condition.

Although I’ve suggested casually returning flirtations with other women as a means to amplifying desire and illustrating social proof, this is hardly the only, or best, means of fostering competition anxiety. Overt flirtations are a blunt means of  stoking this anxiety, but often all it takes is a nuanced shift in a predictable routine to trigger that imagination. The idea isn’t to instill terror from fear of loss, but rather to demonstrate higher value; particularly when a woman’s attention is straying into comfortable, routine familiarity and she begins seeking indignation from other sources.

Sometimes all that’s necessary to provoke that imagination is to get to the gym, dress better, get a raise, travel for work, change your routine, adopt a Game mentality, hang out with a new (or old) friend, be cocky & funny with her – risk to offend her sensibilities. Most women believe that their pussies are sufficient to hold their men in thrall for a lifetime, but as a woman’s SMV declines and a Man’s appreciates their confidence in this form of leverage falls off, thus forcing them to adopt new schemas for controlling the fear of loss. When you head off to Las Vegas for that trade show and your wife fucks the ever-lovin’ shit out of you the night before you go, you’re experiencing one of those new schemas. It doesn’t take much, most times the lightest touch will do. Good dread game doesn’t even have to be initiated by you. Often enough, women will do it themselves.

In light of this ambient fear of loss women seek to avoid, one might be tempted to use a more sympathetic approach in order to allay a woman’s fears. This is hardly worth mentioning here since this is generally the tact that most men intuitively use in their LTRs anyway – a constant reassurance of love and devotion. Guy’s like my friend Jim will follow a perpetual strategy of appeasement in spite of themselves.

Lets be clear, the vast majority of women are secure enough not to allow this condition to get the better of them, and it’s in the extreme cases I’ve used above that real neuroticism flourishes. Contrary to popular belief I’m not an advocate of the Dark Triad methodologies of Game. Not because I think they’re ineffective, but rather because, with the right art of Game they’re not even needed. Only in extreme cases are the dark arts to be employed, and if a situation necessitates their use it’s important for a guy to understand that a line has been crossed with a woman who necessitated their use.

So yes, you should be seeking to reassure an LTR of your love and devotion, but know that due to women’s intrinsic fear of security loss, you will never achieve an ideal state of contentment of it, and certainly not by relying solely on comfort and familiarity. She want’s you to rock the boat, it’s what makes her feel alive.

Rationalism in the Matrix

It would appear that I mixed up the proverbial shit pot with last week’s The Gift of Anxiety post, which was itself a response to another post on another blog’s response to yet another post made by your humble author here. If it sounds like a tangled mess, just know that it’s happened before. For my readers, I feel apologies are due, because I think this blog’s purpose deserves more than to be dragged down by the petty machinations of fem-centric Matrix-speak; and particularly the variety that censors any rational challenges to its venerable vulnerable ideologies.

If you find fault in my having even entertained a response to this, well, I can’t say as I blame you. If I’m guilty of anything it was in attempting to logically reddress what amounts to a brick wall of socially reinforced fem-centric ideology that by definition has no margin for any critical analysis of it.

Reader BJ’s comment:

RT, you’re engaging with an emotionally charged being in an analytical argument, a battle whose W.O.M.D are the very tools which make you a man, logic and reasoning, for which there are no comparable counter measures.

However it was reader Höllenhund who really brought this home for me:

By the way, older, experienced MRAs have stated that it’s completely pointless to try to have a rational debate with women about these issues. They’ll always get angry or react in some other irrational way, and you can bet white knights will immediately come to their defense. It’s a waste of time. As Alte said, “if you have a rational argument, take it to the men”.

Guilty as charged, but if there was any benefit to this clusterfuck of idealism vs. censorship it brought to light the necessity to protect the social system that is the feminine Matrix.

Censoring for Affirmation

Reader Umslopogaas wrote an interesting post in reference to just this dynamic that inspired an awareness in me. The feminine social Matrix is a system that was built upon, and depended upon an older social paradigm that never accounted for a globalized connectivity. If men becoming aware of their true SMV was a primary Threat to that system, then the rise of social media and global connectivity was its facilitator. For men, the Meta Game and true unplugging began as a result of meta-connectivity and the free exchange of observations and ideas that followed.

Although I think it’s a bit of a dramatic stretch to compare Aunt Giggles’ censorship with the Gestapo, I do think there’s another, more apt comparison – that of religious figures’ censorship.

The rise of social media has inspired a more open means of discourse in previously closed social arenas. Nowhere is that more obvious than in religious / theological debate. Where in previous times a religious leader’s ‘inspired insight’ was closed to interpretation or discussion, now they must be prepared to defend their position online to the global consortium of the internet.

This globalized marketplace of ideas doesn’t make for a comfortable environment for people with an absolutist mindset used to receiving constant praise, if not acquiescent silence. Now, courtesy of blogs, social media, and the general connectivity of the internet people can voice their criticisms of ideas that, in a ‘real time’ social setting, they would never dream of initiating out of repressed courtesy or fear of ostracization.

For those unaccustomed to a contrary position in their ego-invested beliefs, this proves a to be a challenge. To remain effective in their message they must stay contemporary and use the ‘voice of the age’ – in this case social media – however they also must entertain the risk that some dissenting voice will call them to the carpet on their perspectives. The inherent problem with this is that it necessitates a critical insight that may conflict with that ego-invested belief.

For religious leaders this is a very tough trade off: Posting your sermon on your blog to reach the massess is simply good marketing, and implies certainty in the relevance of that message and/or idea. However the strength of that message must stand up to public scrutiny for it to be considered a strong theory, assertion or  perspective. The same holds true for the religion of the fem-centric society.

Since the apex of feminization in the 90’s, fem-centrism has taken its social positions as articles of faith. It just is because it always has been, and no one questions its purpose or validity. Old ideologies die hard, but are the ones most tenaciously clung to by those whose livelihoods depend on the old paradigms to endure. To preserve this system in the face of a building volume of social critique, a degree of dissociation has to be instituted. Thus we have the professors and pastors of previously unchallenged ideologies selectively filter out conflicting ideas, thus recreating the echo chambers they were accustomed to under the old paradigm, or take the lazy way out and simply brook no audience for any feedback by turning off anyone’s ability to comment on their ideas.

People who have questions don’t frighten me. People who have no questions scare the shit out of me.