Inter-gender Communication

The Nature of Power

From Truth to Power:

Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances. Real Power is the degree to which we control the directions of our lives.

Are women attracted to Power? Yes. Why? Because a man who has it is in control of his own circumstances (to the best of his ability). People need to be reminded of this because we tend to think of power as some tyrannical dominance over others. Sometimes power is exercised as such, but that’s not what defines real power.

There exist a set of Beta men who hold this idea because it fits into their self-loathing binary understanding of intersexual dynamics. On my Incels post comment thread there’s a conversation with a 25year old guy who considers himself an Incel and his self-awareness is one that he’s hopeless to be anything else. He believes he has no power and therefore nothing a woman would ever want from a man. As he persists in this belief he’s not wrong.

I’m proud of my commentariat for giving this guy some kind of hope and inspiration, but according to the Black Pilled set all they’re doing is setting him up for failure and disappointment. Because if he attempts to empower himself he’d just be making himself a more efficient pussy-beggar and or/setting himself up for more failure. The game is rigged so stop playing it, right? And even if he had the kind of access to women he wished for ‘the juice isn’t worth the squeeze’ is the circular logic, and he’d only be a failure from within a success – or something like that.

The old saying goes, ‘Everything is about sex, except sex; sex is about power’. But what is ‘power‘? The degree to which a person has control over circumstances that would otherwise govern their lives. But power is always measured by how it fits into a particular context, so in this instance that power is a control over sexual experience, gratification and ultimately reproduction. And really, this is the basis of how Hypergamy has become the socialized, prime-directive that is gynocentrism. What is the latent purpose of a feminine-primary social order? Empowering women to unilaterally control their reproductive circumstances and then as much of their own lives as follows that imperative.

Power is one aspect of attraction (sometimes arousal) for women. I would also say, by this definition, that power is an aspect of a man being Alpha, but it isn’t the only aspect. I can point to a lot of men who have no real power, influence, affluence or even social proof who nonetheless pull women and have women pull him because they have a look that fit a woman’s sexual ideal and/or had an Alpha mindset. I have been that guy.

Power is not a prerequisite for being Alpha, but the appearance of, the potential for, power certainly is. Remember, women are hardwired to seek out competency in men as part of their innate need for security in all its forms. This is why I make the distinction between power being ‘attractive’ to a woman (in the long term Beta Need side of Hypergamy) and not always an element in arousal – though when paired with an arousing man power is intoxicating for women sexually.

The appearance of, or potential for, real power in a man represents competency in his capacity to control the circumstances that would dictate the terms of his life. If a woman is to ultimately pair monogamously with a man, his access to power will ultimately dictate the terms of her life while paired with that man. So it follows that power would be a selected-for aspected of female attraction.

This is probably pretty remedial. “Duh, chicks dig power Rollo.”

Power is a part of that Alpha ideal, but the question to ask is why is power attractive to a woman? This is where militant MGTOWs and Black Pill nihilists show their colors. Most will say it’s because they want control or some parasitic association with a powerful man to further their own ends. In essence it’s about a need to control their circumstances by using a male proxy to exercise their own self-serving plans. It’s all very melodramatic until you pick apart the latent purposes of female power.

From an evolutionary perspective, what these guys think is “power” is really just social dominance, preselection and a good physique. That’s why they’re obsessed with the “Chad” archetype that bullied them in high school. That guy seems “powerful” and made a lasting impression on them because he effortlessly got women and reminds them of what they’re not. Whether or not the guy is genuinely ‘powerful’ in the sense that he’s in control of his own destiny is irrelevant – he has the appearance of what these guys think power should look like and he’s rewarded with pussy for it.

So, what to do? Do the same shit feminists do; change the game and try to convince everyone that they are the real deal and the world that they figured out (really constructed) on their own is the ‘real’ game everyone ought to be playing. Unless you’re Thundercock the Barbarian, which you never are, all you’re doing is trying to be like him, which amounts to you accruing ‘power’, (however they define it) no matter how self-interested you think you are, with the sole purpose of giving it away to a woman – which she will use to more completely own you, because, that’s “just how women are.”

Feminists do the same thing from their own base of interest. They cannot compete for Darwinistic reproductive success with women whose SMV outclasses their own.

Solution: Change the game to suit their lesser capacity to compete; embrace fat-positivity, shame men for their innate sexual choices and expressions, disqualify hot women by disempowering and stigmatizing their strengths. Ban Grid Girls, cheerleaders on TV and remove the swimsuits from Miss America.

All of these are adaptive strategies for increasing reproductive success. The problem is nature confounds these efforts over and over again. The idea is to change the rules of the game; to literally control the reality and context in which it’s played in order to make the ones changing it the superior players. Rather than find the cheat codes to play the existing game in ‘God Mode’ the idea is to just rewrite the game to suit their skills.

Ostensibly, the cover story of feminism has always been about some effort to achieve an idealized state of equality between men and women. This has never been the actual case, but even if we were to presume that this equality was tenable it still requires the players to ignore their strengths and weaknesses in playing the existing game and pretend that a new game, based on contrived rules, is now the true game. The problem is they can never get everyone to participate in the new game. The fact remains that we evolved to compete in a naturalistic game and most people instinctively get this reality even when they espouse a belief in the new game.

Beautiful women will aspire to a feminist-contrived norm, but on a root level of consciousness they understand that their beauty and sexuality puts them above their less beautiful sisters. This again is a form of power. It provides them a control advantage over their life circumstances and their hindbrains wont allow any pretense of a level playing field stop them from exercising it.

End Games

The same principle applies to the ends of MGTOW. I’m not even sure what the consensus is as to what an idealized outcome between the genders might be for a MGTOW mindset. Every time I’ve tried to parse out what happens when enough men go MGTOW that society shifts I’m usually met with some equalist future where women ‘come to their senses’ and take responsibility for their own actions. That and crypto currencies seem to be what the future MGTOW utopia looks like.

I’m not being flippant here. I’m genuinely curious as to what the end state of a MGTOW society ought to look like. Feminists seem to think that egalitarian equalism and gender neutrality, and a world where men and women are coequal agents is a future that’s possible. I’ve read the comparisons of feminism with Marxism and it’s not too far off with regard to their stated future hopes. I don’t buy any of it of course. It’s been proven over and over that feminism is a supremacism movement, but I’m interested in what the hopes are for the the cover story of feminism.

I wonder the same about MGTOW. Both MGTOW and feminism are ultimately interested in power – in the respect that power is the control over the individual circumstances that govern our lives. MGTOW make it very clear that dealing with women is an unacceptable risk (by order of degrees) and that until such time as the risks diminish to an acceptable tolerance they’ll simply ‘go their own way’ and avoid potentially dangerous entanglements with women. Sounds perfectly logical in a male deductive logic way, but what does the intended goal-state look like for MGTOW?

I’ve yet to get a clear consensus on this. Most of it seems to be awaiting an expected societal collapse whereafter women ‘come to their senses’ and somehow realize they really need men and voluntarily relinquish the power they hold today in favor of treating men more fairly. I’m doubtful of how realistic this is, but perhaps I’m mistaken in this being the perceived end game. Women of course would see this as being an abdication of their own interests – a surrender of feminism so to speak, but what does an acceptable ‘truce’ between men and women look like to feminists as well as MGTOWs?

I ask these questions because it seems to me that both movements depend on an adversarial state existing between the sexes. What would the inter-gender landscape need to look like for MGTOWs to deal with women or compete with other men? What would that landscape need to look like for feminism to dissolve and relinquish the abusive power it’s established over the lives of men?

The Rational Process

 

One of the most vexing things a lot of Red Pill aware men encounter when they interact with women today is the expectation that women are coequally as rational agents as men. We were taught from the earliest ages by our blank-slate equalist teachers that boys and girls are all the same, having coequal potential for coequal successes in life (as they define them), then primarily focusing on the ‘correct’, female way of educating both sexes. This education isn’t limited to just the classroom; the Village uses many ways (media, pop culture, religion, etc.) to deliver what is fundamentally the same message – boys and girls, men and women, are essentially, effectively, the same with respect to their potentials. Now, that’s the message not the practice. Even when they are forced to recognize definitive differences they simply dismiss them by saying “We’re more alike than different” in the presumption that this should be enough to refocus and reinforce their blank-slate belief set.

So when men and women consider differences in gender, differences in double standards, inequalities in gender-specific issues and pretty much any empirical debate about these and other differences, men presume that the women they are ‘debating’ with are also looking for earnest, equitable answers beginning from the same coequal state of mutual interest. This is almost never the case.

The pretense that’s been embedded into men from the earliest years of their Blue Pill conditioning is since men and women are coequal agents they should both be interested in finding an objective truth together. But the frustration in this ‘debate’ comes from the simple fact that our differences are actually much more significant than the dismissals of equalists would want them to be. The roots of this deliberate misunderstanding are twofold: First, the innate solipsistic self-interest of women, and second, women’s predisposition to interpret information using the Emotional (versus Rational) interpretive processes.

When men and women debate intersexual issues of contention men opt for their innately preferred Rational interpretive process; we look for factual evidence to support a premise. Women opt for the Emotional process and then consider evidence. This difference in processing is where a lot of personal and ideological obstacles come into play between men and women. Our educational priorities of both men and women prioritizes the importance of emotion and its expression before a consideration of the Rational process. We teach boys/men to sublimate their natural proclivity towards reason by replacing it with the Emotional process. Thus, we’ve seen the push to encourage men to get in touch with their feelings or their feminine sides since the late 60s.

As I mentioned last week, women prioritize context (how a conversation makes them feel) in communication while men prioritize content (the information of the conversation); these differences are part of our biological/neurological evolved inheritances. This is where the misunderstanding starts between the sexes; however, calling this a ‘misunderstanding’ is a bit of a misnomer.

I’m sure a lot of readers think this is a longwinded way of saying women’s emotions blind them to the facts that men present to them when they debate. While this is true in a sense, this is shortsighted because, in the interests of simplifying things, most guys will just blow off the dynamics that build up this (often deliberate) miscommunication. Women don’t like the way a Rational-prioritized conversation makes them feel. Often the reality is unflattering to their solipsistically defined egos – but the communication feels wrong because women’s presumption is that men should just know to acknowledge their feelings in that debate (all communication really). On the female side the presumption is that men and women, being blank-slate equals, already know to prioritize the Emotional process, while on the male side men presume women will prioritize the Rational process because, again, we’re all the same, right?

This presuming that one sex sees the same way as the other is endemic in our time. I had a reader pose me with a similar example:

I had a conversation with my LTR at dinner tonight where I did a thought exercise with her. I asked her to imagine what it would be like if people visually saw different colors when they looked at various objects but had consistent names for those colors in their own minds. For example, person A sees what person B calls Blue, but it looks like what would be called green if person A could peer into person B’s mind. The point was we can’t know what colors actually look like from an individual subjective perspective. Although I tried several times to walk through this, she couldn’t comprehend what I was trying to explain. I then realized that this exercise involved imagining a first person conscious experience from multiple perspectives. This test could be a proxy test for (women’s) solipsism.

This thought experiment is a good way to illustrate solipsism in women, but it’s an even better example of the default presumptions men and women have of each other in other areas. As it stands today, in our feminine-primary social order, the Blue Pill conditions us to default to cognitive models that are defined by the female experience. Thus, whatever best satisfies a female-primary purpose is always considered the correct purpose. The way women think, the way women prioritize their Emotional interpretive process, is the right way for men to think – and the mutual presumption is that men already do (or should) think and process stimuli like women do. Anything else, anything that would recognize a difference in men from women, always feels wrong.

This default presumption of a female-correct way of interpreting and experiencing the world isn’t limited to our differences in communication. This misalignment of interpretive differences also extends to the false presumption that men and women approach the concept of love from a mutually understood perspective. Men love idealistically, women love opportunistically, yet men’s presumption is that both men and women approach love from the Disneyesque idealism they believe women are capable of. Men too believe that women see the same colors they do and have the same names for those colors. In this case those colors are the concepts and approaches women have towards love. I may write a new essay outlining this dynamic soon, but I’ve already written many prior posts on this experiential difference.

Rationalism vs. The Rational Process

As a result of pushing the Emotional process as the correct way of interpreting our world the Rational process necessarily gets demonized today. It feels wrong to a social order predicated on the Emotional process, so the truths that the Rational process reveals seem cruel, biased or vindictive when they refute the interpretations of the Emotional process. The importance of Emotion has been elevated above an interpretive process to where it’s now entered a metaphysical realm. This is where the Emotional process becomes Emotionalism. In the light of this, the Rational process is overshadowed and sublimated in importance. But the Rational process is what exposes emotionalism for what it is: Emotion is an evolved, biological interpretive process that serves our species well, but the feelings it generates are biological responses to environmental stimuli, not evidence of some higher consciousness or mythic existential importance that goes beyond anything in the physical realm.

The Rational process throws a cold bucket of truth on lofty emotionalism. As a result, and because emotionalism has been a basis of our social order for millennia now, the Rational process had to be debased in importance.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. – Proverbs 3:5

This scripture is an example of the conflict between emotionalism and the rationalism that popular social consciousness would like to apply to the Rational interpretive process. The Rational process is based in our collective and subjective intelligence. Healthy men and women both have the mental hardware to use the Rational process well, but where we differ is in our gendered mental firmware. When we collectively prefer one process to the other, this is where we decide which gender’s process will define our social order. In order for emotionalism to supersede rationality and ensure its preeminence appeals to the emotional above the rational have to be popularized.

If we could depend on an unbiased, unadulterated form of reason the Rational process would be a superior methodology. But as I stated before, rationalism is dependent on intelligence and that intelligence takes time. In some ways the Rational process is sensitive to both instinct and emotion, in other’s that reasoning is painfully, sometimes fatally slow. The world happens fast and vacillating in the reasoning process might easily kill an individual. Fortunately we have instinct and emotion to carry us through. The Rational process requires time because it requires learning, contemplation, theorizing and any number of high-order thinking processes to be effective. And even then, that effectiveness depends on reasoning’s accuracy. For the past three or four hundred years we’ve increasingly had the luxury to develop our Rational process, but for all the advancements it’s given us, when it comes to intersexual dynamics emotion is still the priority.

We have placed such importance on emotion at the expense of reason that we’ll risk personal safety in our ‘right’ to express it. No doubt most men are familiar with repressing their emotional responses, but it’s interesting to consider that even with this self-control and even with our innate predilection to process emotion differently than women, men are the ones accused of failing to be ‘in touch with their emotions’. On first glance Robert Greene’s quote here appears to be wisdom (I think it is) – self-control, mastery of one’s emotional state, is a virtue. Yet, in our emotional-primary social order we’ll hear women complain that men are less emotionally available. And this conflict illustrates again that whatever is expedient to the female imperative is what is to be considered ‘correct’ at that moment.

Empiric reason is the foundation of what humanity has made of itself. Setting aside emotionality and considering challenges in a Rational interpretive process is fundamental to understanding the emotional and instinctive process and their advantages and weaknesses. For the record it’s my belief that all of these interpretive processes in union are are necessary elements in the human experience, but my focus on these processes is to lay a foundation for a better understanding of them. It’s easy to get caught up in the demonization of the instinctual and the rational when the emotional is defining what’s bad or good for our collective experiences.

When I wrote Appeals to Reason I was exploring the futility of expecting women to transition into a logical reasoning of why she should logically be with a guy who was more than happy to embody all of the aspects she stated she wants in a man. The manosphere idiom is “no woman was ever reasoned or logicked into bed with a guy”, women don’t follow the Rational process when it comes to interrelating with men. It’s all Instinctual and Emotional, and usually in that order. A man might be able to use his rational facilities to better understand women’s evolved instinctual and emotional responses, and what prompts them, but reason itself isn’t the key to that interrelation.

Appealing to women’s logic and relying on deductive reasoning to sort it out is the calling card of a Beta mind. There is nothing more anti-seductive for women than appealing to her reason. Arousal, attraction, sexual tension, subcommunication of desire, all happen indirectly and below the social surface for women. It’s not that women are incapable of reasoning (hypergamy is one logical bitch) or are crippled by their emotion-based hindbrains, it’s that if you’re asking her how to be more attractive you don’t Get It. It’s in the doing, not the asking.

If you’ve stuck with me to the end of this series I want to say thanks. I really felt that these interpretive processing models needed to be fully outlined as what I’ll get into in the coming months will need this as a basis for it.

Emotional Differences

The following was from a reader’s comment exchange I had back in March. I wanted to add this here before I move on to the Rational process, because it think it encapsulates a lot of the (often misguided) presumptions we have when it comes to the primary importance we apply to our Emotional process. As I mentioned last week, for millennia now we’ve elevated our Emotional process of interpreting our reality to mythical importance. So insaturated is this importance in our personal and cultural being that to even question it seems sacrilegious. We are literally born into a dependence on emotions for our own survival. That is part of our earliest development, but the conditioning that gives rise to the primacy of emotionalism is layered onto us for the rest of our lives. Emotionalism is the religion that we’ve fashioned from our Emotional interpretive process.
Women practice emotional manipulation and men practice emotional detachment. It’s been a game playing out for thousands of years. Somehow the roles got scrambled in the last century. Things will balance out one way or another in the coming future.

What’s been popularized in our social consciousness as ‘emotional detachment‘ is not a manipulation tactic of men. Men’s mental firmware processes emotion differently from women, but because we live in a feminine-primary social order we’re conditioned to believe that the way women process emotion is the “correct” way for men to process them as well. I made the point a little while ago in another essay that what we think is men’s incorrect way of communicating with other men is really men’s natural way of communicating. I’d linked to an article in the Boston Globe about the problem of “lonely middle aged men” and how they don’t do communication and friendship like women do. Men’s natural, general, indifference to their emotional state isn’t a bug, it’s a feature of our mental firmware.

This isn’t to say men don’t get lonely or share the same emotional states as women, but it is to say that men do emotions differently than women. We are naturally predisposed to prioritize information above emotion; the Instinctual and Rational processes come before emotion in our interpretive process. I can remember early on in my marriage when I would talk to a buddy of mine on the phone and then abruptly just say “see ya” or hang up. He knew I’d call him back to relay whatever info we were discussing sooner or later, but my wife thought something was wrong. “Is everything OK with Ray?” she’d ask, and I said “Yeah, why wouldn’t it?” She explained that she thought my ending the call like that was rude or that we’d had an argument. She was used to long drawn conversations with girlfriends or her sister and then ending them by some confessions of how much they would miss each other or some other meaningful way.

She thought my way of communicating was wrong, but this is how men interact with each other – say what you mean, mean what you say and get to the point. This was also the presupposition of the Boston Globe article and many other posts; men do communication wrong, men do emotion wrong, and therefore they must be conditioned to do them correctly. That is to say, like women do.

Men lack the hardware and the firmware to do this, but they are conditioned to reflexively respond as women do from the earliest age. Thus, when a man processes emotion naturally it appears he’s not “feeling” correctly or isn’t “emotionally available” to female-correct sensibilities. In this context a man doing emotion as his innate predispositions compel him to seems like he’s deliberately playing out some ’emotional detachment’ game. But rather than accept that men and women are different and deal with emotions in different ways our egalitarian Blue Pill conditioning makes us presume the man is being inauthentic.

“He’s not really that way, it’s an act, or he’s just withholding his emotions to hurt a woman.” This is the rationale that female-correct society has to resort to because accepting that men evolved to process emotions differently would also mean that men and women are not the functional “equals” that blank-slate equalism is founded on. Thus, their emphasis is to pathologize this emotional detachment and make it one more negative aspect of maleness in need of a ‘cure’.

I think your comments are pertinent and you brought good rational arguments. However they are along the lines of “that’s how we are, men and women”, that’s how we evolved and we can’t do anything about it because it’s in our DNA and our mental programming. Feminism is marching on the fact that we’re born equal, even if there are obvious biological differences. Yes, women emote more and have the means to be greater emotional manipulators. But men can learn the so called feminine behaviors (The so called Game actually involves this and I noticed some of the PUAs mentioning that it’s the bisexual men who are actually the greatest players) and women can also learn the so called manly behaviors (there are a lot of examples especially in our current society). Is it good, is it bad? Hard to say. The thing is that the family is an artificial construction that helped our civilization flourish and it’s been lately systematically destroyed due to what you’re calling feminine primary social order.

Evolution is a continuous process and my opinion is that it’s either people will somehow transcend their biology (see AI or some kind of other conscious evolution) or after some “dark” times of men being more like women and women more like men the things will come to the previous “normality” of feminine women and manly men.

Human beings will not transcend their own evolution, they will adapt with their environments, but they will not be removed from its influences. We’ve been force fitting and conditioning men to be women for the past five generation. We presume that the feminine is the correct, unitary way that humans should be. We call that egalitarian equality, but what it comes down to is adopting a universal correct mode of being and it’s founded on feminine/female control of what is right and wrong – at least for the time being.

However, this force-fits boys and men into an unnatural state they never evolved for and all because the feminine is the presumed correct gender norm that we base equality on. We’re all expected to be equally female. What has that got us in those past five generations? A male suicide rate five times that of women. Boys prescribed sedatives for acting like boys instead of ‘correct’ girls. I can go on.

The fact remains that you and many others of your mindset believe that evolving or being in control of that process only progresses if boys and men “transcend” their biology and think like correct females. It is the height of new agey metaphysical woo woo hubris to expect one sex to behave counter to its 100,000 years of evolved nature and become like the other to accommodate what it thinks should be correct. This is the crux here; the feminine-primary social order we live in today is predicated on the infallibility of the female experience, however, this experience is only validated if both men and women are prioritizing women’s Emotional process as a way of interpreting the world.

Dangers of the Blue Pill

This clip arrived in my Twitter stream a couple of days ago and I was going to dismiss it until I read through some of the comments about this guy on the ensuing Twitter thread. I’m going to give you my take on what I think is really going on here and then I’ll contrast this with how other viewers interpreted this incident. I was about to pass on this until the conversation really made this an interesting social experiment.

I have seen things like this before. Remember, for the better part of my ‘real job’ career I’ve been around a lot of people who are socializing and drinking. I watch guys pick up women, I watch women pick up guys, and I’ve seen a lot of couples argue in public. One thing that these couples all have in common (or at least 90% of them) is the guy trying his damnedest to get his girlfriend/wife to ‘come around to him’. As you may guess, the majority of these men were Betas who ‘just didn’t get it‘ and were appealing to their woman’s reason in order to resolve whatever it is that was making her turn off to him.

Again, most of these guys were oblivious to the fact that their trying to reason with her was only emphasizing the fact that he just didn’t get it, and that she was paired off with a guy who needed to be told how to get it.

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

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

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

I have been this guy before. I’m not happy to admit that, but in my 20s, during the time I was with the BPD girl she made a habit of airing out her insane jealousy, insecurities and general relationship disorders as publicly as possible. When this becomes a way of life for a guy it changes you and particularly when it’s part of a woman’s personal neurosis. At that point in my life I had fallen very Beta (almost Omega by Vox’s standards) and I made all of the same mistakes I see guys in this predicament make when I’m working. I also know better than to try to correct these guys, because, like myself, they can get really hostile towards you or themselves when you point out the obvious to them.

So, a couple of caveats here; I don’t know for sure what’s transpired before or after this incident, and I have no idea if the guy is imbalanced (I’m being polite). It could be him, it could be her, likely it’s both, but I do know the patterns and I can see that the guy will resort to self-injury to make a point. This is a classic expression of Blue Pill Beta frustration with a girl.

The girl could be blameless and he’s just a nerdy Blue Pill Beta reacting to his frustration in not understanding how to resolve whatever it is that set him off with her. I’ve watched a lot of guys in the ‘Gamer’ social set who fall into this type. They buy into the “open communication is the key to everything” ideal that the Blue Pill told them women want, so when that ‘open communication’ is actually the reason for his problems he gets frustrated. Women are supposed to be reasonable, co-equal egalitarian agents in a relationship and when his appeals to that reason are ineffective, what’s left for the kid?

Again, this is me speculating. What we do know is his reaction. Imagine if this guy had actually broken the window and cut himself (and maybe a few bystanders) to ribbons. I mention this because it’s the reaction I’d expect from the Blue Pill mind that makes a guy believe that killing or hurting himself will in someway emphasize the seriousness with which he wants to resolve the issue he believes is crucial to his happiness with a woman. This is one of the main reasons I’ve always said kill the Beta before it kills you. There’s a very real danger that a Beta mindset will lead to you or someone else’s injury or death.

I’m actually inclined to think that the incident was his own doing though. She seems indifferent to him even after the head bang, but likely that might be due to embarrassment. She’s certainly frustrated with his attempts to get her to “listen to him”.

I’ve mentioned this before, but as women have become more self-assured about their own personal safety they feel more secure in provoking physical altercations. I understand that women love to say that they feel threatened by men all the time, or they have to always think about their personal safety no matter where they are, but I really don’t see this in real life – certainly not at my own promos. In fact it’s quite the opposite. I have seen women on many occasions (both drunk and sober) deliberately instigate confrontations that never needed to be started. All of them did so from a feeling of invulnerability because they know that no man would dare to actually assault her while she could wail on him with impunity. I think this is a new social trend with women today. They understand that if the guy she was hitting actually hit back there would be half a dozen men in the room who would beat his ass for raising a fist, much less his voice, to her. Women know the power that an opportunity to defend a woman has over men; it’s a confirmation of the old social contract that women still expect men to adhere to.

I’ve also seen women start altercations with other women in the same confidence that her man will fight the other woman’s man if the two of them get into a fight. They do so by appealing to their man’s Alphaness (or lack thereof) and having her back no matter what – even when she’s being stupid, catty or drunk. It’s kind of a new play on the ‘Lets you and him fight’ social convention, but if cooler heads prevail and one or both men pull their women away from the other they just look like pussies or less than men. Again, this is one more way women can socially reserve their bestowing or confirming manhood on a man.

Is any of this happening here? Likely no, but it’s important to remember these things in context with incidents like this. That’s important, because a few of the female readers of this Twitter thread seemed to think that, rather than his kid being a potentially terminal Beta, he had the potential to be an abuser. In fact this was their first impression. I guess I can sort of see this from a woman’s perspective, but I really think the Sisterhood Über Alles kicks in when women see something like this. Always take the woman’s side first.

I think women see this through the girl’s eyes. They understand what she’s going through in having the guy try to ‘logic’ her into understanding. They understand the girl’s frustration at just having to deal with this Beta.

I’ve probably done a really bad job at this, but my intent here is not to beat this guy up over this whole thing. When I first watched this clip I thought, “Yep, been there, done that”, and like this guy I was in my 20s when I did. It seems like this is something men must learn for themselves as part of their unplugging. I think one thing that makes unplugging more difficult today is that the stakes are so much higher when a guy just ‘doesn’t get it’. There are guys who never get past any of these Blue Pill trials because they make bad decisions that seemed logical or profound at the time and they have to live with the consequences for failing that Blue Pill trial.

I would bet that this guy is still with this girl today. Even with this going slightly viral I doubt he’s learned anything from the experience and I’m sure he’s still trying to figure out how to make this pudgy little HB 3 happy. His head bang against a window (which he had no idea was plexiglass) is really a manifestation of his own self-loathing. He wont hit her, he’ll hurt himself to make his point. This is what guys like this have been taught, to express his emotions, but in this instance that emotion is angst and frustration.

It’s easy to think that guys like this are too far gone. It’s easy for guys who’ve been Red Pill aware for a long time to dismiss Beta behaviors that they were also subject to, but have been so far removed from now that they think shit like this doesn’t happen.

Old Lies

Apparently no one has bothered to let this poor sap (I don’t know who he is) know that the “Toxic” masculinity  narrative has now been replaced with “masculinity is toxic“. I find it interesting that when it comes to the mainstream societal understandings of what masculinity once was and what it is now – or what the mainstream believes it should be now – much of these interpretations are based on fanciful, anachronistic, ideas of what contributed to our understanding of masculinity now. I’ve gone into my own definitions of what constitutes ‘conventional’ masculinity for men many times before so I won’t belabor it now, however, as the popular narrative changes I’ve noticed some very common presumptions that masculinity critics like to use and are repeated over and over.

The first of these, and the most common, is the deliberate misconception that a boy’s learning to be masculine never left the 1950-60s. In the wake of the Nikolas Cruz shooting this rationale surfaced quite a bit. It still is. The idea is that boys are born as these tender, delicate souls, all naturally ready to emote and sensate like precious little girls – that is until the nebulous evil ‘patriarchy’ gets ahold of them and batters them into “being tough”, not crying and told to stop being such pussies. This is the old anachronism that presupposes western society never left the ‘macho tough guy’ preconditioning of boys to raise them to be these future murderers, wife beaters and misogynists.

This is, of course, the “boys are broken” narrative I addressed in Good Humans. It’s kind of ironic when you think that this narrative would have us believe boys naturally wanting to be boys is a net social negative and it takes some strong intervention in their upbringing to turn them into good humans. So what is it? Are boys being their natural selves by wanting to be rambunctious, risk taking, shit-giving, masculine boys, or are they naturally these tender little emo-beings coming fresh out of the womb only to have their ‘genuine’ sensitive emotional souls crushed by “hyper-masculine” fathers, male teachers and school coaches. This is one of the more stupid, but deliberate, paradoxes the Village and the Feminine Imperative conveniently switch between as circumstances require yet one more anti-masculine response.

Lies for Boys

You can see this confusion in the above Tweet.

Our society teaches boys to “toughen up”.

Actually no, the feminine-primary social order that has been systematically feminizing boys into feminine-identifying men for the past 50 years does nothing of the kind. Since the mid-seventies the cultural narrative took a hard turn to the feminine-correct in raising boys into pacified ‘harmless’ men. We’re going on five generations of telling boys it is incumbent upon them to get in touch with their mythical feminine sides if they want to evolve beyond ‘traditional masculinity’. There is no ‘toughening’ being taught to boys in a female primary education system that teaches boys in a manner that presumes they are defective girls.

…which is okay, but not okay when “toughening up” also means suppressing feelings.

Feelings are perhaps the only thing boys are being taught to prioritize in their feminine-primary educations today. This fact deserves a bit of explanation here. Male and female humans process emotions differently. Women in particular process negative emotions in a much different way than men. Men tend to prioritize information through a filter of rational discernment first and then sort out how they feel about that information in an emotional context. Women are much the opposite; girls process information through an emotional filter first and then sort out what the information actually means to them (and after that, how it might affect others). If this sounds like the essays I’ve written about how men’s and women’s communications methods differ you’re not too far off. Men prioritize the content (information) of a conversation while women prioritize the context (the feels she gets) from a conversation. This is how our brains work, and when one method isn’t socially favored above the other both methods can be complementary to the other.

But in a feminine-primary social order this is not how things work. As I mentioned, for the past 50+ years our educational system has shifted to favor the learning methodologies of girls at the expense of boys. This ‘girls style’ teaching has been the standard for so long now that we largely take it for granted that it is the only correct style of teaching. Today, men account for less than 25% of all teachers in the United States. In the UK it’s 25% and n Canada only 17% of elementary school teachers are male. Teaching is a female dominated profession and especially for younger kids. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics only 2% of pre-K and kindergarten teachers, and 18% of elementary and middle-school teachers, are men. How do you think stats like these affect the learning methodologies applied to boys and girls?

Yet still this lie that boys are the victims of some overwhelming toxic masculinity in their upbringing is the first reflexive explanation we hear from women and feminized men when a kid commits a criminal act. Why?

Lies for Equalism

Because it sounds right. It sounds like it should be right. The presumption is that boys are, in fact, girls; or at least they should be a functional equivalent of girls when it comes to educations. Over the past 50 years the baseless presumptions of blank-slate egalitarian equalism has not only inserted its lies into our social consciousness, but also into our presumptions about educating kids. I’ll repeat, men and women are biologically and psychologically different and boys and girls are equally different. The ways they learn are distinct to their sex. Yet for the past 4 generations egalitarian equalism has convinced (mostly female) educators that boys and girls are functional equals and gender differences are learned rather than innate.

While equalism informs (mostly female) teachers that boys and girls are the same, the teaching methodology that works best for girls and women is the predominant one today and for the recent past generations. The only way to justify this method as the universal one is to presume that boys are the same as girls – just ‘defective’ girls that must be taught to quash their innate maleness. If boys and girls are presumed to be blank-slate equals then it must follow that boys are just as emotion-prioritizing and sensitive as any girl, and it is through a process of an imagined patreo-misogyny social conditioning that boys psychologically cover over their “true” natures – that of precious little (defective) girls. In essence the equalist belief is that all babies are born as little equal blank-slates, but the ideal template for those blank-slates is a female nature irrespective of the sex of the child.

When a boy’s real, masculine, inborn nature expresses itself the first thing it meets in this equalist-but-feminine-primary education is derision and shame. For as much as boys would be boys they are taught that they aren’t good for being so. They’re encouraged to self-repress, self-deprecate their gender and self-police their brothers. They’re taught that the correct way to think is to emote like girls because that’s correct for the template of a “good human”. Despite the female-centric teaching boys innate nature still find ways for boys to be boys and when this happens an egalitarian (feminine-primary) social order presume the ‘bad behavior’ must be the result of the influence of an evil patriarchy that truly hasn’t existed in the way they believe it does for 50 some odd years.

 

As I’ve detailed in past essays, society only sees fathers as tolerable and superfluous when it comes to raising boys. Single mothers are celebrated as super-human and in the equalist lie that would have us believe that women can not only ‘have it all’ but they can ‘do it all’ we rarely question the necessity of a masculine influence in a child’s life. We give it lip service and parrot back the need for a man to “step up and take responsibility as a parent”. The message to dads is always “do better”, because the pretense for fathers is that they are inherently irresponsible and ‘broken’ just like all boys are.

The Village might even concede that a father is some advantage to a child, but ultimately he’s superfluous – that is until that kid is involved in some kind of criminality. Then the questions become “Where was this kid’s father? Why wasn’t he around to teach this kid some discipline and respect for human life?” The children of single mothers are overwhelmingly more likely to be come involved in criminality, but we don’t look at her half-measure parenting as a possible cause. Remember, she’s a super-hero and blameless, so any blame for this kid’s acts fall on the shoulders of a weak or absent father. Then fathers are necessary. Then the kid needed to ‘toughen up’ and dad should’ve taught it to him. And all of this comes full circle and feeds into the idea of father’s inherent incompetence again.

Lies for ‘Defective Girls’

The next lie is that boys can be,…

…both tough and fragile, vulnerable and resilient. Being vulnerable doesn’t affect your manliness.

I’ve written a lot about the lie of transvaluation and  Vulnerability in the past, but this was really in terms of how women perceive men and require strength and dominance. Another aspect of masculinity that is encoded into women’s mental firmware is to seek out men with superior competency. A woman just is, a man must become is the first maxim of a man accepting his Burden of Performance. Part of this masculine competency involves strength, know-how and determination; all things that have been replaced with feminine-primary emotionalism and naval gazing for boys.

Men are expected to know how to do everything and what they do not know, what they are not competent in is one criteria of how they are judged by women. A lot of guys might think, “So the fuck what? I don’t base my self-worth on the opinions of women.” As well you shouldn’t, but it doesn’t change the truth that if you don’t know how to change a tire when you get flat, or you need another man who does know how to do it to change it for you, a woman sees you as less competent – and by extension less capable of providing her with the security she needs from a masculine ideal. Women evolved to see men as a Jack of all trades, master of some.

A man’s vulnerability (taught to him as a child by his female-primary teachers) most definitely affects his manliness. Vulnerability is, by definition, a weakness. It is a flaw in the design, a chink in the armor and vulnerabilities will be exploited by enemies and rivals to ensure that man fails while a stronger one succeeds in all things. This is Darwinism so simple that to question it seems illogical, but in our equalist utopia toughness and fragility find no contradiction; vulnerability and resilience are bed partners. Again, we must consider that this illogical balance can only exist in the female ‘good human’ template and the idea that everything is learned and nothing is innate about male and female humans. Promoting the idea that ‘vulnerability doesn’t affect manliness’ presumes that the person declaring it is in some way an authority on a manliness that has been already demonized and conditioned out of our boys today.

They hate the very idea that a boy might act in accordance with an inborn masculine proclivity. They hate the idea that a boy might learn to be tough and resilient at the expense of a vulnerability (weakness) because it contradicts the equalist belief set. They hate the idea that boys and girls have innately, biologically, different ways of dealing with emotions that don’t align with their belief in a blank-slate. To force them to accept this would be to force them to abandon deeply ego-invested beliefs that they themselves had conditioned into them by the same feminine-primary education.

Boys don’t naturally emote like girls, but when they refuse to align with the female-correct way of emoting we say that some patriarchal macho man, somewhere, in some movie, in some song, in some household taught that kid not to feel. He somehow learned that allowing his emotions to rule over him, to be vulnerable, to prioritize his feelings above his sense of rational self is what it actually is – a weakness that in our evolutionary past was far likelier to get him killed than to earn the praise of his equalist teachers.

Boys are simply not as emotional as girls – our brains did not evolve that way – but because we value the feminine above the masculine today we say this kid is doing it wrong. We say he learned to be an asshole from his macho dad or he learned to love firearms because of the latest rap song or a toxically masculine society that doesn’t exist. A kid like Nikolas Cruz was bound to happen in a world that teaches boys to prioritize feelings above rationality. He was taught like a defective girl. He never learned the masculine inspired discipline, determination and resiliency because all that conflicts with the lie that vulnerability is ever a strength. All that conflicts with his feminine-primary upbringing.

As such, these ‘defective girls’ are unequipped to handle the rejection of a girlfriend. The participation trophy generation, the one where everyone’s a winner and no one ever has to deal with defeat, never teaches these ‘defective girls’ what to do when they finally do taste a bitter defeat. They never learned how to come back from it because that would mean admitting that vulnerability and emotionalism (the female-correct way to handle it) are in fact weaknesses. So, predictably, a ‘defective girl’ like Nikolas Cruz does what any petulant teenage girl would – he has an emotional outburst. Only his outburst consists of gunning down 17 kids with an assault rifle.

The answer to incidents like this doesn’t lie in gun control or further feminization of boys. It lies in reimagining how we educate boys and how we see masculinity as a net positive that can deter exactly this kind of emotional outburst. If you truly want these shootings to stop it’s time we embrace real men teaching real toughness and resilience in our boys. It’s time we teach boys like they will become tough, strong, invulnerable young men we may need to provide future generations with a much needed security. And the time where we’ll need them is coming faster than anyone today really thinks.

Transactional vs. Validational Sex

You cannot negotiate genuine desire.

This is one of my best known quotes because it resonates with so many men. There was a time in the early 2000s when I was doing peer counseling for men – most of whom were at least a decade my senior – as part of my undergraduate study and one consistent theme I got from almost all of them was how their marriages (or LTRs) had been so much more sexually satisfying when they were dating their wives or before they’d committed to some kind of exclusivity. That’s always the crux of it for guys. They mistakenly believed that the hot monkey sex they were having with their women prior to “doing the right thing” and getting married or committed was something that would be characteristic of their quality woman into a long term relationship with them.

Why was this the case for guys? I can remember coming up with this quote as part of the advice I was giving while working for one of these men. He, like many of the other guys, had gotten to the point that he would do almost anything to get back to that real desire that convinced him to commit to his wife in the first place. And, like many of these guys, he’d convinced his wife to go to marriage counseling in order to find out what exactly it was that he needed to do to “get her to come around” to wanting to bang him. Nothing was working for him. Even after his sessions he was still either sexless or his wife only begrudgingly would have lackluster ‘starfish’ sex with him. We called that a ‘grudge fuck’ back then.

As a student of behavioral psychology my interest was (still is) in what motivates or incentivizes behavior in people (sometimes animals). What was it that inspires genuine desire as opposed to behavior that still has a purpose, but was more motivated by future outcome. You can make a case that genuine desire is also motivated by a perceived outcome, but in this instance I’m making a distinction between a natural, unsolicited desire as opposed to an incentive based on a preconceived outcome – if all goes according to plan.

This guy broke down in tears with me on at least two occasions. He just couldn’t understand why what was supposed to work (open communication, rational discourse and honest negotiation) wasn’t getting her to “come around” to having sex with him. It was then I thought, you cannot negotiate genuine desire. Either a woman wants  to fuck you or she doesn’t. There are definitely ways to prompt that genuine desire – most of which are behavioral and conditional – but as has been stated many times in the ‘sphere, attraction is not a choice. The key word there is choice. Few men would ‘choose’ to be attracted by an obese woman and in many ways this choice dynamic is why women promoting the ‘body acceptance’ narrative have a tough time of it. For all the nonsense about beauty being a social construct, arousal for men is very much rooted in evolved biology. Men can’t choose to get an erection for a woman they’re simply not aroused by.

The same holds true for women, but the conditions are different. Women can and do have sex for reasons other than genuine desire. Negotiated desire really isn’t desire at all, but women have readily used sexual access to achieve those perceived outcomes I mentioned above here. Negotiated desire only ever leads to obligated compliance. A talented hooker or stripper may be very convincing in her act that she’s really into having sex with a man, but the negotiation that takes place before the act can never make a woman want to have sex with her client. Attraction is not a choice, but really, arousal is not a choice either.

Hormonal

I am presently about half way through my read of Dr. Martie Haselton’s new book Hormonal. I was really anticipating this book’s release, and I had intended to do my first-ever book review of it here, but as I read through I’ve decided not to. I still highly recommend reading it. As you might guess it’s chock full of stats and research confirmation of so much of what I write here that I want to put it at the top of the required Rational Male reading list. I’ve been referencing Dr. Haselton’s (and her colleagues) work since I began this blog, but the delivery of the information was disappointing, and in a lot of instances, very immature and sophomoric. It’s written almost as an apologetic to feminists for having to kill a lot of sacred feminist social convention cows. I feel as if she’s writing ‘down’ to the women who she’ll inevitably market this book to, but, if you can get past her constant attempts to legitimize her feminist credentials, the information is absolute gold.

One aspect of female sexual dynamics that Haselton and her team detail quite a bit is the idea of an Estrus state in human females. I’m not sure how well appreciated this research is in the manosphere, which is one reason I included it in Positive Masculinity, but this concept is really integral to how we define Hypergamy. As most of my readers know, Hypergamy – women’s dualistic sexual strategy (and really life strategy) – is much more than a tendency of a woman to ‘marry up’. In Hormonal the ideas of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks really solidify with the research.

However, as useful as it is as a catchy euphemism Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks could better be described as Alpha Seed and Beta Need. In a woman’s peak ovulatory phase of her menstrual cycle she enters an estrus state and becomes subject to behaviors that can only be defined as a pretext of seeking Alpha seed. In other words, nature and Hypergamy are very practical in maximizing the chances that a woman may get pregnant with the best available genetic specimen. Granted, the true outcome of all of that is subject to environment and a woman’s personal conditions, but the practicality of it remains the same as it has for 100,000 years. It’s also important to keep in mind that a woman’s behaviors, strategies, rationales and her own interpretation of all of them in those various times and conditions are also a part of the overall latent purpose of a woman consolidating on the best Alpha Seed and Beta to supply her needs.

While women are subject to an estrus state they still require the second half of Hypergamy – the Beta need for security, provisioning, protection, comfort and at least the sharing of parental investment responsibilities for any offspring. Estrus in women is concealed, meaning it is (or used to be) nearly, but not totally undetectable in women. There are in fact various ways men evolved to intuitively determine whether a woman is in an estrus state of fertility; most of these today are socially shamed in men so as to further confuse them and advantage women, but that’s a topic for another essay. A concealed estrus aids women in optimizing both Alpha Seed and Beta Need and it’s likely that much of what accounts for women’s sexual strategy is the result of this concealment.

Now, a lot has been written by myself and others about the impact of meeting a woman’s Beta Need aspect of Hypergamy being served by the state and/or direct or indirect transfers of resources from men to women. Most of my readers are well aware of how this side of Hypergamy has been progressively accommodated for over the past fifty years. In spite of this it’s important to remember that this accommodation of provisioning needs doesn’t eliminate the deeper needs that this side of Hypergamy engenders in women. It may be true that women have never been better provided for in history as far as money and opportunities go, but women still look for emotional security, protection, dominance and comfort in men as part of their innate mental firmware.

As a result of Hypergamy and this concealed estrus state women have been put into a condition of evaluating sex in different aspects today.

Validational Sex

When women look for that Alpha Seed in their peak ovulatory (proliferative) phase, the sex they seek is a desired sex with a man who meets evolutionary criteria. He’s the ‘hawt’ guy, or the man who leaves a woman with an perception of danger or excitement. A lot of men who don’t meet this criteria have a tendency to over-exaggerate this type of man as the ‘Alpha Chad’ and make a ridiculous parody of him as an ego protection mechanism for themselves. Let me state for the record here that every aspect and adjective that this type of guy embodies is mitigated by conditions and contexts. It is just as likely that this conventionally masculine dominant guy is only so according to his most immediate social situation. So spare me the “Chad Thundercock” anxieties.

The sex that women give “enthusiastic consent” for is validational for them. The easy assessment here is that women have a genuine desire to mate with conventionally masculine men who look and act the part – yes, behavioral congruency is vital. If you follow the research women consciously and unconsciously will actively put themselves into environments where the likelihood of their meeting a dominant masculine man who most closely matched that masculine ideal when they are in estrus. They openly and discreetly look of arousal cue from men who best embody what can only be described as Alpha Seed.

I should also add that women in “satisfying relationships” (meaning LTRs where a woman is still very hot for her husband/boyfriend) report an increase in sexual desire (proceptivity) for that guy during this phase. A lot of guys mistakenly think ANY woman will want to seek out extra-pair mating (cheating) opportunities when they’re in estrus. This is only true if a woman isn’t into her current man.

I don’t want to get too lost in the descriptions here. Rather, I want to focus on the associative feelings women get in and after having sex with that Alpha man during estrus. I would argue that Alpha Widows are made in the estrus phase. This is the sex women want to have and are enthusiastic in both the hunt and the act itself. This is largely (presumedly) the sex that men have with their wives-to-be before they marry. It’s this validational sex, the sex that women fantasize about, that men and women want to get back to once they are committed to each other monogamously but now have a dead bedroom. This sex validates a woman’s ego in that it proves to herself that a man of this SMV caliber would want to pin her to the bed and have marathon sex with her. Remember, the latent purpose of this sex, on this side of Hypergamy, is to access the sperm from men with high reproductive value as defined by what our evolved nature predisposes women to be aroused by. Validational sex is sex by choice and genuine desire, and is satisfying on both a psychological level and an evolutionary level.

Transactional Sex

One of the benefits of a concealed estrus is that it allows women a few luxuries. One of these was the ability to confuse men of their paternity. Today this confusion is little more difficult because we’ve got DNA figured out well enough to make accurate assessments, but in our evolutionary past it was important to trick cuckolded fathers into second guessing whether a child was his or not before he killed it and impregnated a woman on his own (this is also why men evolved mate guarding behaviors).

The other advantage of concealed estrus was essentially prostitution. Now, to pretty this up a bit, lets say that women who were sexual with men outside of their fertility window found that sex could be leveraged with non-Alpha men (men they didn’t want to have children with) to encourage them to help with a lot of the chores more Alpha men were less willing (but not entirely unwilling) to do. Enter transactional sex.

As mentioned, the most overt form of transactional sex is prostitution, but it’s impolite to call every woman a whore. In fact it’s impolite to even imply a woman may be having sex for other reasons than validational sex. Today women are contemplating whether or not transactional sex is itself rape since it technically meets the definition of rape (sex women don’t want to have). I discussed this “grey area sex” recently in another essay, but it’s interesting to see women wrestle with transactional sex in an era where the Future is Female and women ought to only have the (validational) sex they want to enthusiastically have.

For most men (i.e the 80% Beta men) transactional sex is where the rubber meets the road. In fact, I’d argue that for most Beta men transactional sex is the only definition of sex they ever really know. That’s kind of sad to think about, but most men never really experience the unfettered feral lust of a woman they’ve chosen to spend the rest of their lives with. I got into this in Saving the Best and Hats Off to the Bull, but I think it’s important for the average man today to acknowledge that it’s highly likely that their wives have shared parts of themselves with, and have lost all inhibitions with, men in their sexual pasts they may never know anything about. That’s a cold bucket of reality a lot of men who unplug from all this have to confront.

Marriage today is almost entirely predicated on on the transactional sex side of Hypergamy. I’m not saying it has to be, nor am I saying it always is, but I’m fairly comfortable in speculating that for most married women sex is reward she uses in the operant conditioning of her husband. And the very fact that this is effective with most husbands throws the power dynamic and Frame of the relationship firmly over to the wife. This has the effect of disqualifying that man from ever (or very rarely) being a candidate for validational sex within that marriage. And this too is another aspect of the transactional sex dynamic that modern feminists are contemplating today – if a woman doesn’t want to have sex with her husband, but does anyway, is it rape? But again, NAMALT, not all marriages are like this or have to be like this. I would also argue that a confident man whom a woman admires, who she recognizes as being above her SMV even if slightly and who has internalized Red Pill awareness within that marriage needn’t be doomed to transactional “duty” sex in his marriage.

Unnegotiated Desire

And so now we come full circle to the men I was counseling back in the day. Because all they’d ever known was transactional sex their deductive male brains attempted to solve their “sex problem” in the most logistical and pragmatic way – negotiate with her. If all sex ever is for a guy is a transaction – a quid pro quo – then it follows he’ll try to find the best way to ‘pay’ for his wife’s sexual access. Hunter Drew and I were recently discussing a man who Dean Abbot has been counseling and one thing we’ve all seen a lot of from young and old Blue Pill Beta men is this logical tendency for them to want to ‘sacrifice their way to happiness with their wives’. It’s as if the more they sacrifice the more they pay for that intimacy they seek, but what they never get is that this only buries their sex lives that much more.

One amazing turn around a lot of married and single Red Pill guys experience when they unplug is the attention they receive from women when they switch from a transactional disposition to a validational disposition with regard to sex. When a man unplugs and cuts himself away from his Blue Pill conditioning one change he makes is a shift from viewing sex as transactional to validational. In the beginning, when men are first learning Game and becoming more Red Pill aware about the nature of women they really don’t recognize this shift in attitude towards sex. When I say men need to make themselves the “prize” with regards to sex and their attention what happens is they go from the “how can I pay for sex to qualify for it with a woman” to “women will recognize that I represent and opportunity for validational sex”.

The Blue Pill conditions men to base their understanding of sex on a transactional paradigm. It’s all scarcity, and luck or providence that a woman might want to fuck them. This is why women get aggravated by the presumption that men might feel they are ‘owed sex‘ in exchange for what they do for them. And why wouldn’t men feel that way? They’ve been conditioned for half a life to believe that they should follow the old social contract and become a man with a lot to offer a woman, a wife. This is the transactional paradigm; I build my life to better accommodate a woman and she reciprocates with sex. Women know this too, so all pretenses of indignation about are complete bullshit. What upsets women is that a Beta man would feel entitled to her sexuality for having accommodated her. Alpha men are entitled to it, accommodations be damned, because he’s the man they want to have sex with.

Thoughts on Aziz Ansari

I’m going to make a confession here; until a week ago I had no idea who Aziz Ansari was. I get he was some low limit comedian, and in today’s social environment that means he lectures an audience about social justice issues for an hour while trying to insert some humor into his act. I’ve pretty much given up on most comedians these days, and I’m a guy who used to love standup. However, my unfamiliarity with Aziz was actually a benefit in assessing his recent pillory in the mainstream. Had I known about him before all this, and his comedy activism, I likely would’ve just dismissed his case as the next guy to be put into the MeToo deadpool of celebrity men – and I’m being generous about the “celebrity” part.

I had actually resigned myself to blowing off his whole story until I started digging into the particulars of the ‘date’ he had with the anonymous “Grace”. On first pass this whole incident is easy to dismiss even for Red Pill aware men with better things to do than bother themselves with another Hollywood chump to go down to the open power grab that MeToo and TimesUp have become. There is, however, a lot to unpack in the whole thing though. If you want the whole story you can read about it here on Babe.net, the blog for “Girls who don’t give a fuck”, which is interesting because apparently they give a lot of fucks according to the story.

Just to break down some of the particulars here:

  • She (Grace) approaches Aziz in the beginning. Flirts with him and then goes back to her date she was with that evening. They would catch each other glancing at the other durning the night (IOIs). They ‘ran into each other’ later and he number closes.
  • Aziz Beta texts her almost immediately and tries to text Game/flirt with her before he asks her out
  • Before meeting Ansari, she tells friends and coworkers about the date and consulted her go-to group chat about what she should wear to fit the “cocktail chic” dress-code he gave her. She settled on “a tank-top dress and jeans.” She showed me a picture, it was a good outfit.
  • After the white wine she didn’t like, they end up back at his place. She complimented his marble countertops. Ansari turned the compliment into an invitation. “He said something along the lines of, ‘How about you hop up and take a seat?’” Within moments, he was kissing her. “In a second, his hand was on my breast.” Then he was undressing her, then he undressed himself.
  • Ansari tells her he was going to get a condom within minutes of their first kiss, Grace voiced her hesitation explicitly. “I said something like, ‘Whoa, let’s relax for a sec, let’s chill.’” She says he then resumed kissing her, briefly performed oral sex on her, and asked her to do the same thing to him. She did, but not for long. “It was really quick. Everything was pretty much touched and done within ten minutes of hooking up, except for actual sex.”
  • Ansari repeatedly attempts ‘The Claw’. on her “The move he kept doing was taking his two fingers in a V-shape and putting them in my mouth, in my throat to wet his fingers, because the moment he’d stick his fingers in my throat he’d go straight for my vagina and try to finger me.” “It was 30 minutes of me getting up and moving and him following and sticking his fingers down my throat again. It was really repetitive. It felt like a fucking game.”
  • Ansari physically pulled her hand towards his penis multiple times throughout the night, from the time he first kissed her on the countertop onward. “He probably moved my hand to his dick five to seven times,” she said. “He really kept doing it after I moved it away.”
  • Ansari presses her for sex. He asks repeatedly, “Where do you want me to fuck you?” while she was on the countertop. She says she didn’t want to fuck him at all. He keeps asking, so she says, ‘Next time.’ Aziz says, ‘Oh, you mean second date?’ and she says, ‘Oh, yeah, sure,’ and he goes, ‘Well, if I poured you another glass of wine now, would it count as our second date?’
  • She later says she doesn’t want it to seem forced and this wakes Ansari up from his sexual stupor. “He said, ‘Oh, of course, it’s only fun if we’re both having fun. Let’s just chill over here on the couch.’ Ansari instructed her to turn around. “He sat back and pointed to his penis and motioned for me to go down on him. And I did. I think I just felt really pressured. It was literally the most unexpected thing I thought would happen at that moment because I told him I was uncomfortable.”
  • Halfway into the encounter, he led her from the couch to a different part of his apartment. He said he had to show her something. Then he brought her to a large mirror, bent her over and asked her again, “Where do you want me to fuck you? Do you want me to fuck you right here?” He rammed his penis against her ass while he said it, pantomiming intercourse.
  • They got dressed, sat side by side on the couch they’d already “chilled” on, and he turned on an episode of Seinfeld. While the TV played in the background, he kissed her again, stuck his fingers down her throat again, and moved to undo her pants. She turned away.  “I remember saying, ‘You guys are all the same, you guys are all the fucking same.’” Ansari asked her what she meant. When she turned to answer, she says he met her with “gross, forceful kisses.” After that last kiss, Grace stood up from the couch, moved back to the kitchen island where she left her phone, and said she would call herself a car. He hugged her and kissed her goodbye, another “aggressive” kiss. When she pulled away, Ansari finally relented and insisted he’d call her the car.

All of this detail is important to consider because Ansari’s actions here are classic Beta Game desperation tactics. It is literally one Beta move after another. Many of the reviewers of this incident like to point out that it was really a misunderstood date gone wrong, or else they use it as proof-positive of a sexual assault, but I’m going to argue something different here – Ansari is simply a Beta chump with very little Game savvy who, if he’d had even a hint of Game awareness could’ve had a good sexual experience both for himself and her.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not a proponent of men attempting to push past last minute resistance. For as much as “enthusiastic consent” will be used as a tool of fear to dissuade Beta men from even attempting to approach, I can’t say that I wouldn’t want a woman to have a genuine desire to fuck me in any sexual episode. I can remember in my ‘rock star 20s’ doing exactly this. If a woman wasn’t into having sex with me or she had some reservations or some hoops she expected me to jump through in order to get her to “come around” to fucking me I would simply excuse myself from the situation. I was at a point in my life where I had many other (proven) options, and if a new prospect wasn’t an absolutely ‘enthusiastic’  “Hell Yes!” girl I had at least six other women who were eager to come over and fuck me. This was just a subconscious awareness I took for granted at the time, but it was an attitude that stemmed from abundance.

That was essentially my Game back then. It was the natural reflex of an Alpha man and women responded to it. The behaviors and attitudes I exhibited just flowed from my unrehearsed subconscious. It was who I was. Dread is much more effective for a man when a woman sees that he’s oblivious to his causing dread.

Most men never really experience this kind of sexual abundance and as such it colors their outlook and how they expect sex to work for them. One big problem inherent to men’s Blue Pill conditioning is the idea that sex must be negotiated for a woman to feel comfortable enough to fuck a guy, but more importantly in this era, to avoid any misunderstandings that would lead to his getting a sexual misconduct allegation. The Blue Pill teaches men to respect women by default, for no other reason than she has a vagina, but also that open communication, full disclosure and negotiation are necessary elements of sex. We can see this played out in the ludicrous expectation that every sex action a man involves himself in requires vocal enthusiastic consent. This is the acculturation; men are expected to negotiate every sexual detail of a sexual experience.

Needless to say this is patently ridiculous, but it’s also the surest way to kill the actual enthusiasm a woman might actually have for a guy. One thing that will separate Alpha men from Betas in the future will be that man’s honed capacity to remove himself from any sexual situation that is negotiated. Women want to play the Game, they don’t want the Game explained to them. They want a man who Just Gets It and the men who don’t get it will be the ones whose dutiful Blue Pill conditioning prompts them to start any and every approach at intimacy by negotiating the terms for a woman’s desire.

You cannot negotiate genuine desire, but this negotiation is exactly what modern feminism simultaneously fosters and struggles against. The idea of ‘enthusiastic consent’ is really a want on the part of women to have the sex they genuinely have a desire to experience with a man. This is all women want to write about now and the Ansari incident is a textbook example of the kind of negotiated sex women don’t want to have, but sometimes go through with for transactional reasons. Remember, sex with Alpha men is validational for women – lackluster ‘meh’ sex with Beta men is transactional sex. If you only read what women are writing about sex today you’d think that transactional sex is all they’ve ever been having – and sexist men see women as ‘soft’ prostitutes. Now it’s suddenly some revolutionary act for women to have the sex Alpha sex enjoyment they’ve always “deserved” but have been repressed by transactional sex with Betas.

That said, I can’t disagree entirely with the want for an enthusiastic sex partner who genuinely wants to fuck me 12 ways to Tuesday. And this is women’s rationale today, “Don’t you want to fuck a woman who really wants to fuck you?” It’s hard to argue against the “Hell Yes” girl, until you realize that the sex they are describing is only reserved for the guy they really want to bang and mistakenly believe their overinflated self-value warrants.

Now, I’ve read the debate from PUAs who make the point that it is entirely possible to make a ‘No’ girl into a ‘Hell Yes’ girl. I’ve seen the infield videos so I’ll spare you the linking. My question then is, after deftly applying Game and calibrating all the minutiae to do so, how does this compare to a woman who has a genuine desire for you from the start? I think one huge hurdle for guys unplugging from their Blue Pill conditioning have to face is the presupposition that sex is only the result of a process of negotiation. That negotiation is what the Blue Pill teaches boys and men from a very early age.

Aziz! Light!

The Ansari incident has a lot of Red Pill lessons to teach. First and foremost is the fact that Ansari is a consumate Beta. Looking at the guy he resembles any number of Indian computer programmers frustrated by a want for the secret formula to make a gorgeous American blonde with big tits fall in love with him. Don’t get me wrong, I counsel these men personally, but he fits that schema. Next, Ansari is a vocal and outspoken White Knight for feminism and regularly proves his male self-loathing as part of his standup act. I mean, the guy wears a Time’s Up pin. But like most male feminists, he gets hung by his own Beta Game bullshit – this is the fate of all male feminists.

Lastly, Ansari is a Beta who made good. I’ve talked about the Blue Pill White Knights and self-righteous AFCs in many a post, but I’m not sure I’ve emphasized how dangerous this mindset can be for a Beta who has a combination of affluence, celebrity and social proof. There comes a self-validation in that Blue Pill mindset when women want to be associated with him. He develops a belief that it’s his Blue Pill conditioning, and his adherence to it, that is the reason for his relative success with women. This insulates these guys from ever disconnecting from that conditioning, but it also lessens an incentive to see women in any other perspective. The result of this is exactly what Ansari experienced in this incident. He was too comfortable in presuming his pro-woman, female identifying, Beta Game would make his sexual expression ‘Okay’ with any woman who gave him positive sexual interest.

Another big indicator of this, and really much of Beta Game, was his repeated pawing of Grace and repeated sexual expressions with her. It wasn’t working as he believed it should, so what was his solution? Continue with the negotiation and hope for a positive sign of reinforcement from her. Every act that Ansari attempted with Grace was a form of negotiation. I can’t get sex? How about a blow job? No? Okay how about if I go down on you? She feels forced? Woah, default to female identification persona. Presume the sale, “How do you want me to fuck you?”

This is all one big negotiation – there is no genuine desire and no enthusiasm of the part of Grace – but since Ansari has never had the incentive to learn Game he keep going back to what he thinks should work on her.

To wrap all of this up, I should mention that the reason this whole affair went viral is should really be no surprise. It’s one more example of everything MeToo has been harping on for almost 5 months now, yes, but it’s also an illustration of exactly this new sentiment of the “grey area” sex I brought to light in Dangerous Times – Part 2. It’s sex women have out of courtesy (Aziz got a courtesy hummer) or convenience or just as something to do. It is exactly the obligated sex I’ve been talking about since The Desire Dynamic. This incident is exactly the story this ‘grey sex’ sentiment had needed, but in the larger picture it highlights the difference between transactional sex and validational sex.

As Open Hypergamy becomes yet more normalized it’s now time that the Feminine Imperative acknowledges the type of sex women desire and enjoy, and the type of sex they feel obligated to perform as part of a negotiation or transaction. And naturally the need to define what women’s Hypergamy dictates becomes a new form of shame for men. Evil Patriarchal men are to blame for women having to openly acknowledge that they only want to fuck Alpha men with any real enthusiasm. Men are to blame for validational and transactional sex, and now absolved, women can take the next steps in consolidating on Hypergamy.

No, there’s no current legislation that makes ‘unenthusiasitc sex’ a sex crime (yet), but remember that the sexual arms race is always fought in the court of public opinion before anything is written in ink.

Dangerous Times – Part 3

In writing and editing this series for the last few weeks a lot has happened in the Future is Female movement. I’m not a big fan of awards shows for obvious reasons; they have all gone from being a celebration and acknowledgement of creativity and performance in entertainment to being little more than a stage upon which political and social protests are aired by pampered celebrities. However, the recent Golden Globes anti-male / anti-masculinity screed by Oprah Winfrey initiated the next step in what can only be described as socially accepted misandry. I have no doubt that the (now annual) Women’s March planned for January 20th will see this anti-male, female supremacism go far beyond what it did in 2017 and echo Oprah’s open hatred for men and an unapologetic call for the removal of men and the criminalization of any semblance of conventional masculinity.

The original intent of this series was to raise awareness of the dangerous inherent in our coming intersexual social relations. And in the time I’ve been considering this I had to finally take a birds eye view of where we’ve come from and where we’re likely to end up with regard to the social direction I see the sexes headed today. For the final installment of this series there are a couple of articles I’m going to reference that got me thinking recently. The first was an article on Quillette by William Buckner titled Romanticizing the Hunter Gatherer. I’m using this as a starting point today because I think this piece speaks to some common misperceptions of our evolutionary past as hunter gatherer, tribalist beings.

When it comes to evolutionary psychology (evo psych) and biology (evo bio) there is always a tendency to want to focus certain speculations on particular ideological bents. In fact, there is a current push to typify all science as being inspired by male-primary sexism and a motion to reform the sciences by requiring them to basically concur with what ever serves the Feminine Imperative’s most flattering interests. Another popular idea amongst egalitarian equalists is the speculation (really romanticization) of our hunter gatherer ancestors being natural egalitarian equalists themselves. Equalists love to presume that human beings’ natural state is one of collective cooperation and gender equality, but according to new studies there’s no evidence to support these ideas (emphasis mine):

But what about egalitarianism? In a 2004 study, Michael Gurven marshals an impressive amount of cross-cultural data and notes that hunters tend to keep more of their kill for themselves and their families than they share with others.12 While there is undeniably a great deal of sharing across hunter-gatherer societies, common notions of generalized equality are greatly overstated. Even in circumstances where hunters give away more of their meat than they end up receiving from others in return, good hunters tend to be accorded high status, and rewarded with more opportunities to reproduce everywhere the relationship has been studied.

[…] In the realm of reproductive success, hunter-gatherers are even more unequal than modern industrialized populations, exhibiting what is called “greater reproductive skew,” with males having significantly larger variance in reproductive success than females.15 Among the Ache of Paraguay, males have over 4 times the variance in reproductive success that females do, which is one of the highest ratios recorded. This means some males end up having lots of children with different women, while a significant number of males end up having none at all. This is reflected in the fact that polygynous marriage is practiced in the majority of hunter-gatherer societies for which there are data. Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8, while the average age at marriage for males is 20.7.16 Rather than defending what would be considered child marriage in contemporary Western societies, anthropologists often omit mentioning this information entirely.

Much of this article confirms a majority of what the Red Pill has been observing and considering for a long time now. The Pareto Principle being the highlight in this last part here; 20% of men reproducing with 80% of women. I’ll also draw your attention to the studies that suggest that only one man for every 17 women reproduced as little as 8,000 years ago (after the advent of agriculture). The Quillette article is a fascinating read, particularly from a Red Pill perspective, and I’d encourage you to read it. The operative point in this is that this research confirms that, despite the feel-good belief that human beings are naturally monogamous and naturally egalitarian, our hunter gatherer ancestors were largely polygamous.

The second article I’m going to reference is The Link Between Polygamy and War from the Economist last month. This is a very in-depth research that breaks down the connection between modern polygamous social orders and their tendency for political unrest and unstable societies. The Economist is a paywalled site, but again it’s well worth the read. This is a very thorough detailing of how men in these countries are systematically disqualified from reproduction in polygynous social and religious societies due to their lack of resources. Only wealthy men are permitted a wife (the only sanctioned way a man can have sex) and if a man can afford more it is a sign of his prestige that he can take as many as he has the resources for.

Men in South Sudan typically marry as often as their wealth — often measured in cattle — will allow. Perhaps 40 percent of marriages are polygamous. “In [our] culture, the more family you have, the more people respect you,” says William, a young IT specialist in search of his second wife. Few South Sudanese see the connection between these matrimonial customs and the country’s horrific civil war. If you ask them the reason for the violence, locals will blame tribalism, greedy politicians, weak institutions and perhaps the oil wealth which gives warlords something to fight over. All true, but not the whole story. Wherever it is widely practiced, polygamy (specifically polygyny, the taking of multiple wives) destabilizes society, largely because it is a form of inequality which creates an urgent distress in the hearts, and loins, of young men. If a rich man has a Lamborghini, that does not mean that a poor man has to walk, for the supply of cars is not fixed. By contrast, every time a rich man takes an extra wife, another poor man must remain single. If the richest and most powerful 10 percent of men have, say, four wives each, the bottom 30 percent of men cannot marry. Young men will take desperate measures to avoid this state.

The article goes on to link the unemployment of young men to their resorting to criminal (and often open war) means to take the wealth necessary for them to procure a wife. This then leads to violent and social unrest. When we look at militant Islamic organizations one of the first, and probably most convincing, rewards young fighters are offered is the guarantee of a wife – even if she is the spoils of war. Much of what prompted the Arab Spring uprisings has been attributed to the unemployment rates in these countries and the consequent result that those young men cannot ‘legitimately’ afford to marry or have a family. They literally have nothing to lose and a wife (sexual release) and a family to gain.

When one man can monopolize 20 wives and thereby force his rivals from the gene pool we have a similar condition to that of our hunter gatherer ancestors. Only in this instance polygamy (really polygyny) is a socially mandated, socially approved convention.

One persistent debate I read in the manosphere is the contention that human society, achievement, stability, etc. is the result of post-agrarian monogamy. Usually this debate crops up between the more traditionalist faction of the sphere and the more brutally pragmatic of Red Pill aware men. I understand the premise from the traditional perspective; there is every evidence that the conventional family structure has been the lynchpin of social progress. I agree with this assessment, but from an evolutionary perspective human beings are not innately monogamous. Our conventional monogamy and family structure, and the resulting progress is really in spite of ourselves. The evidence is there in our genomic records. Our success as a culture was due to controlling the feral aspects of both men and women’s natural sexual strategies via social conventions, religion and personal conviction. And the result of this control is a social contract that is based on monogamy.

That said, there is no denying that monogamous societies make for the most stable societies – or at least they have up to this point in history. Even the Economist article highlights this fact. Monogamy reduces reproductive stress on Beta men – or at least until recently. One reason we have Disney myths of soul mates so prevalent in the past generations is as social a social reinforcement for monogamy. The social convention of idealistic love being a mutually accepted concept between the sexes is also a social reinforcement for monogamy. These were conventions that held men in an idealized state of monogamy. Even the worst Beta still had a hope to reproduce if the mythology was such that “there’s someone for everyone.”

But again, all of this idealization of monogamy is really in spite of ourselves. Left to our own means and our unfettered sexual strategies men will be ruthlessly polygynous and women will resort to ruthless Hypergamy.

The New Polygamy Polyandry

You can probably see where I’m going with this now. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution (and unilaterally female-controlled hormonal birth control) we have seen a systematic degradation of this monogamous social order in favor of a female-primary social order. This social order is predicated on women’s complete control over the reproductive fate of society. Whereas before there were social checks and balances in conventional monogamy, these have been replaced with the unrestrained, unquestioned imperatives of women’s sexual strategy – Hypergamy. In just 5 short decades men have ceded any claim to not only our own sexual strategy and interests, but to any right to paternity.

When we look at how social trends have shifted with regard to women’s sexual selection process we can see the end game more clearly. We’ve gone from ’No Means No’ to ‘Yes Means Yes’ , to itemized permission documentation of every sex act, and now to “enthusiastic consent”. Women’s end game is not unlike our original state of polygamy in that only the most desirable Alpha men will be allowed breeding rights to women – with the social contract being all women are entitled to Alpha Fucks. Enthusiastic consent is a ‘thing’ because on some level of consciousness women loathe the idea of transactional sex with Beta men. And as women’s provisioning and security needs are already met by the state and men’s own direct or indirect resource transfer, there is no longer any desire for “sex they’re really not that into.”

If not for ubiquitous, free online porn and soft prostitution (Sugaring, Tinder, Seeking Arrangements) western culture might find itself in a similar situation to the polygamous countries described by the Economist.

I think it’s important for Red Pill aware men to consider that as women consolidate more and more power via social conventions that only apply to men (MeToo, Times Up, etc.) the end game is one of polyandry for women. This cartoon was a funny one because it accurately describes women’s sexual selection process, but it’s unfunny because it also belies women’s idealized state – one in which men are either draft animals or breeding stock. 

I had quite a few men ask me where I think we’re headed with regards to intersexual social dynamics and I would say that what I’m ultimately seeing is an erasure of conventional monogamy replaced with a Hypergamous polygamy in which women will have uncontested control over reproduction. I see a lot of similarities occurring with men who drop out of life, and either neglect or refuse to build their lives around supporting a family or entertaining a wife. The guys I talk to very much want to get married and have kids, but the downsides are so unimaginably dangerous for men it seems hopeless to them. The old monogamous social contracts no longer exist, but men are still being held responsible for not putting themselves on the line to take risks that only apply to them.

So, not unlike the young unemployed men in the Arab Spring, today’s drop out guy has very little hope for a monogamous future with a woman. But this hopeless circumstance is being instituted by western women, not a religious dogma. Un restrained Hypergamy leads us back to our feral, tribalist polygamy, simply because women have no use for Beta men. Sex with Betas is (or soon will be) considered rape and without porn or some other sexual sedation Betas would likely resort to violence to solve that problem.

What to Do

Anonymous Reader hit me with this comment:

Distilled to it’s essence this is how women in uncontested control of men and masculinity will view men: according to their basest Hypergamous needs and in the context of complete solipsistic self-interests.

Something more like an ant colony or beehive than a civilization of humans. A society of women owners, a handful of males allowed to breed and a whole lot of neutered workers.

I’ve used the Sadie Hawkins’ World analogy for some time now, but this is what the new order of Fempowerment has created for men and women going forward. As much as it goes against every evolved instinct for women, it will be women who must pursue and make the effort to initiate sex and intimacy with men. There will likely be some pushback from more traditional/conventional women who truly desire men to pursue them – nothing is more flattering for a woman’s ego – but the social environment will be such that the risk of personal destruction will become so high, and the juice not being worth the risk of the squeeze will be so low, that even the top tier men in the SMP will be incentivized to allow women to make the first move.

Essentially what MeToo, Enthusiastic Consent and Fempowerment is establishing is an even higher standard of what constitutes an ideal Alpha. It is a tightening of the market of sorts. Women are reluctant (and then resentful) to settle for a less-than the best Hypergamy with a suboptimal male as it is now, but add to this the condition that only the most ideal of Alphas represents the only legitimate sexual experience

Some Solutions:

  1. Play the Game better: Learn Game so thoroughly that you can use the corrupted system to your best advantage. The bar is set so low for men today that even marginal self-improvement, Red Pill awareness and Game savvy can set a man apart from the overwhelming majority of Beta, feminized symps. In essence men can make themselves into commodities women will compete for. There is a danger in this though; women who want to consolidate on the Alpha who wont commit open themselves up to false accusations in reprisal.
  2. MGTOW: As there are varying degrees of MGTOW I can’t say that the most isolationist of MGTOWs response is really a solution. Distilled down, MGTOW is an abdication of meta-Frame to women. However, not all MGTOWs are cut from the same cloth. Many will explain that MGTOW is just men not using women as a benchmark for their ego validation, and my response is, great, I think any Red Pill aware man ought to do the same. Taking womankind off the pedestal and replacing them with your own Mental Point of Origin is key in any man’s unplugging. That said, isolation may not be the best approach to dealing with the Future is Female crowd.
  3. Transactional sex: Reducing intersexual relations to Tinder hook ups, Sugar Baby/Daddy contractual agreements, or ‘Seeking Arrangements’ will preclude a transactional understanding and imply specific positive consent. This still has its dangerous though. Even a Tinder hook up can go bad for a guy if a woman still has regrets at a later date. However, at least from a social standpoint a woman seeking a sexual encounter can be thought of as being proceptive about the experience and not a victim of coercion.

I’d encourage more solutions in the comments. I’m sure a lot of this series seems overly reactionary or disheartening for men who are looking for a return to that stabilizing monogamy. There is an element in the manosphere today who are looking for their Red Pill Trad-Con woman who will police the worst of herself in order to return to the golden era of monogamy. I have my reservations about the real motives of the few women who subscribe to this story, but the issues isn’t about what they will do, but rather what they can do in a feminine-primary social order that allows them to renege on their convictions without consequence.