Inter-gender Communication

Please, Breakup with Me!


The following is an excerpt from the Red Pill Reddit forum I’ve been following recently. I had an emailer ask me to opine about this situation and, for as much as I’d like to brag about having a previous essay for any occasion, I realized I hadn’t really covered this situation. Well, not in any great depth anyway,…

Bit of background: my girlfriend and I are both working people with solid jobs. Mine involves working partly in a lab a fair distance away from where we live, and I am gone for about 2 weeks a month. We have been together 5 years, and things have always been awesome between us. No major fights to speak of.

The incident happened last Saturday night. I was due to return the following Monday, and my girlfriend and a few of her friends had planned a night out, painting the town red. I knew about it, and this isn’t an uncommon occurrence and I paid no mind to it.

Saturday was a typically busy day for me, and I was really tired and went to sleep early that night, as I had to get up early to get back to work. Get back to work Sunday, not checking my phone as I was running late, and noticed lots of messages and voicemails waiting for me when I got to the lab. All from my GF: in all the voicemails, she was in tears, and told me that she’d been out dancing in a club and that she’d been fairly tipsy, but not really drunk.

Apparently some guy started dancing around her, (this part is absolutely unclear, I only know what she told me) and after some words exchanged, yada yada, he leaned in to kiss her, and she kissed him back. I don’t know how long, or any details, but she said she realized what she’d done and returned home as soon as possible, where she started calling and texting me.

I’ve been back for 2 days now, and I’ve only had 1 discussion with her. She was pretty much at my feet when I got back, asking for forgiveness, and honestly, I was nowhere near thinking of breaking up with her. We didn’t talk much that night, just laid in bed, me holding her, thinking we could work this out. No. She has been an absolute wreck since she woke up 3 days ago, won’t look me in the eye, left home crazy early, returns extremely late, and hasn’t been returning texts or calls.

She is broken inside, and I don’t think she can forgive herself for what she did. I don’t know what to do, I can’t reach her – I guess I have to give her time, but honestly, I’m barely holding on looking at her in her state. I bear no ill will towards her, I just think she made a mistake in the heat of the moment. I’m completely lost. I don’t know how I can convince her that I can move past this, and that I still love her. Even I have been near tears at times these past few days. I need a place to vent, I don’t have many people I can talk to, and I need to write down my thoughts.

TL;DR: GF made out with someone in a bar while I was out of town and is an absolute wreck right now, even though I think I can move past it and work at getting everything back on track. I’m lost and don’t know how to convince her. I don’t know what she is thinking and I’m barely holding on.

Now, a bit later he gives this thread a status update.

UPDATE: I left her a note yesterday night in the kitchen, saying some things, we can work past this, etc. etc. She left a note at the same place I had. There were wet patches on that paper, and she pretty much wrote she fucked up big time and she was sorry. (She had already said these things last time I saw her.) Also said sorry she had shut me out, she didn’t know what to do, and that she didn’t think she deserved me after the way I treated her the night I got back. She has left for work now – (true, I called up someone I know there) – and she said she is done being an asshole, and would come home to and (I quote:) ” get out of my life once and for all. You don’t deserve the way I’ve treated you this week.”

The TRP subredd commenters have pretty much covered the majority of what I would point out. We’re dealing with an abject Beta here who, like most Blue Pill conditioned men buys into the touchy-feely ‘open communications will solve everything’ fallacy. He also feels it’s incumbent upon him to follow the ‘be the bigger man’ meme and forgive her indiscretions (at least the ones she felt guilty enough to relate to him in a text). And really, what’s to forgive anyway? It was only a kiss, right?

For a bit of context, they’re both 26, and are living together. We don’t really know much about how long they’ve been together, but if they’re roommates (always a bad idea) I’m going to guess it’s been at least a couple of years.

What this guy is experiencing is actually a very common rationalization strategy women will use when they are saddled with a man their subconscious recognizes as Beta. In The Medium is the Message I point out that there’s really no such thing as ‘mixed messages’ and that women’s behaviors will generally inform a guy as to what a woman’s real intent is. This is a basic behavioral psychology principle; behavior is the only true measure of motivation and intent. Thus, all the verbalizing of intent, verbal rationalization of purpose and ‘open communication’ simply becomes a part of the behavior which Red Pill behaviorists then parse as true intent.

Yes, this can get tedious in the beginning, and yes, it seems like a huge waste of time trying to second guess a woman’s intent, but understanding what a woman’s ‘medium’ is informing you about is a necessary step to internalizing Red Pill awareness. Once you’ve had experience in this parsing a woman’s behaviors with the behavior that is her rationalizations, it’s from this point that a Red Pill aware man can begin to predict behaviors and become more effective ‘readers’ of what a woman’s actions is somewhat reliably telling them.

In this guy’s case his girlfriend’s messaging is pretty clear to any marginally Red Pill aware man. Her behavior is born from a desire to escape the domesticity of their live-in arrangement and while she’s ‘out with the girls’ she seizes an opportunity to engage in an extra-pairing affair. Naturally, what we ‘know’ from what’s related is that she got tipsy and just kissed a guy. As you might expect, the commenters on the TRP sub jump to what predictably happened and the speculation is a lot more than just kissing.

Evo-Bio 101

However, all speculation aside, we have to make a few basic connections here. My first expectation is that she was likely in the proliferative (pre-ovulatory) phase of her menstrual cycle. I can’t be certain, but I’m sure if the guy were to be objective, he’d see the signs. Second, her behavior belies intent, and thus she seeks an extra-pair encounter and puts herself into an environment that will likely facilitate it. The kissing (assuming that’s all it was) is still a behavior that indicates she’s open to a short term breeding opportunity (Alpha Fucks) and is looking, even if just temporarily, to escape her domestic situation with her Beta live-in boyfriend.

That’s basic evo-psych/evo-bio Red Pill awareness of women’s nature. What gets interesting is when she feels compelled to relate her “infidelity” to her Beta boyfriend. The first presumption we make is that she’s felt some pangs of guilt for having betrayed his trust, but as we’ll see this is in error. We make this presumption because, like this guy does, we want to give a woman the benefit of the doubt when it comes to guilt because men and women popularly believe that women have a supernatural gift for empathy. It simply ‘sounds right’ to believe that a woman had an error in judgement whilst a little tipsy, but again we need to see this situation objectively from an evo-psych/behaviorist perspective.

When I break down this Beta guy’s rationalization process you’ll begin to see how this presumption of empathy and his Blue Pill conditioned mindset actually works against this girl, but for now we have to get a grasp of her feminine subconscious and how it reflexively interacts with the sexual imperative of Hypergamy. Most women’s confessions of extra-pair infidelity isn’t rooted in guilt. That’s not to say women don’t feel guilt or regret, it’s just to say that the functional purpose of the confession doesn’t subconsciously originate in feelings of guilt.

When women ‘cheat’, even when it’s non-sexually, their subconscious is testing the man it suspects is Beta which she’s paired with for confirmation of him being Beta. This is potentially risky, of course, but such is the prime directive of Hypergamy that if it is subconsciously suspected that a paired-with man is less that Hypergamously optimal the long term benefits of confirmation outweigh any risks. Thus, a confession of infidelity from a woman should universally be interpreted as a Hypergamous shit test from men.

If nothing else, her confession of infidelity should be interpreted as a lack of genuine desire for a man – such a lack that it’s necessitated her behavior of engaging in genuine desire with another man. What rationalizations and verbal communications that follow from this point should be consider part of that woman’s behavioral set, and in terms of the Medium being the message, should be assessed as her medium.

So what do we see in this case?

I’ve been back for 2 days now, and I’ve only had 1 discussion with her. She was pretty much at my feet when I got back, asking for forgiveness, and honestly, I was nowhere near thinking of breaking up with her. We didn’t talk much that night, just laid in bed, me holding her, thinking we could work this out. No. She has been an absolute wreck since she woke up 3 days ago, won’t look me in the eye, left home crazy early, returns extremely late, and hasn’t been returning texts or calls.

he is broken inside, and I don’t think she can forgive herself for what she did. I don’t know what to do, I can’t reach her…

On the surface we have the reports of this guy stating that she’s wracked with remorse and asking forgiveness. Sounds reasonable enough, right? No talking, cuddling, comfort and consolation, but wont look him in the eye, leaves early, comes back late. The guy presumes she’s broken inside and can’t forgive herself, but her behaviors imply that she’s disappointed in his reaction to just the marginal amount of information she’d related about her “infidelity”.

In his update we get this part, emphasis mine:

There were wet patches on that paper, and she pretty much wrote she fucked up big time and she was sorry. (She had already said these things last time I saw her.) Also said sorry she had shut me out, she didn’t know what to do, and that she didn’t think she deserved me after the way I treated her the night I got back. She has left for work now – (true, I called up someone I know there) – and she said she is done being an asshole, and would come home to and (I quote:) ” get out of my life once and for all. You don’t deserve the way I’ve treated you this week.”

In the post Gut Check I mention how men’s subconscious awareness subtly informs their conscious awareness by picking up on shifts in behavior, attitude and environment. Through our socialization, acculturation and Blue Pill conditioning, men are taught to suppress this natural, instinctual messaging that our gut is telling us. We do so because we fear being accused of male insecurity, jealousy and not subscribing wholesale to the equalist idea that men and women are co-equal rational agents who’ve evolved past anything like our baser natures.

Yet here, with the benefit of Red Pill awareness, we can see a perfect example of a guy suppressing what his peripheral awareness is basically screaming at him. This woman has essentially verified his Beta status by his default willingness to forgive her Alpha Fucks indiscretions with few (if any) questions asked. That test failed, she now hopes he will actually get angry enough to break up with her. Again, test failed, as all of his efforts are directed towards his unconditional love and forgiveness.

Please, Break Up with Me!

This woman is vocally telling him “please, break up with me”, but even this is ignored and rationalized away in his Blue Pill conditioned mindset that tells him all they need is open communication to solve her Hypergamous equation. She literally tells him, “you don’t deserve the way I’ve treated you.” This is part of her medium, this is her subconscious attempting to tell his subconscious how and why she’s done what she has, but his Blue Pill conditioning has suppressed any hope of that message being translated to him. Bear in mind here, this isn’t necessarily a case of a woman being intentionally malicious. Often this process is one in which she is only playing out as a semi-aware actor of her Hypergamous subroutine.

I’ve had guys relate many similar story in the same vein as this one. In all of them there is a subconscious hope that a paired man which a woman’s Hypergamous instinct has designated as Beta will just get it and understand that she wants him to break up with her. This may be overt, but more often it’s subtle. She’ll leave clues, breadcrumbs, for him to follow that indicate her infidelity in the hopes that he’ll become angry and break up with her. Maybe its an open diary, or an open social media account, or maybe just small convenient absences that are out of the ordinary, but the trail is one her subconscious hopes her man will discover and react to.

There are many reasons for this. The principle one being she desires an easily acknowledged reason for her exit from that pairing. Even if she’s been unfaithful women maintain large social support networks that forgive them of their sins – and this primarily because her girlfriends are living out the same Hypergamous subroutines themselves. It becomes rationalized away, chalked up to her “journey of self-discovery”, not something she was proud of, but a necessary part of her life in becoming “who she really is.”

 Blue Pill men get a sort of double jeopardy in this situation. Their conditioning predisposes them to believing that a woman’s communication is to always be taken as honest and at face value. This is really the source of a lot of Blue Pill mens’ self-inflicted wounds. They believe the notion that women and men are co-equal, rational agents whose evolved consciousness places them above natural instincts. Thus, they never make the Medium is the Message connection. Instead they consciously repress what those instincts, their own and women, are telling them.

When this instinctual suppression is combined with Blue Pill deferral to women and their false assumption that communication is the key to solving all intersexual problems, then you get into this situation. One where that woman desperately wants a guy to get so pissed off that her drops the hammer and leaves her, like she’d expect any Alpha lover to do. However, his Beta disposition makes this hope for anger an impossibility and the very Blue Pill conditioning that made him so acceptable as a provider and a comfort makes her exiting the relationship impossible without her feeling some actual guilt for having to take the initiative to leave him.

And this is where real feminine guilt becomes unavoidable. She’s the one who has to kill the puppy because his Blue Pill conditioning wont allow for him to become angry enough to do it himself. This is where her real guilt and real resentment of him come into play for her. He’s too accommodating and to ready to rationalize away his forgiveness for her to avoid the bad feelings she’s hoped to engender in him.

The Something Else


New commenter batfish55 had a stroke of genius in this weeks post.

 I do blow hours on my XBox, but even if modern graphics weren’t amazing and there was no XBox, I’d find something else.

This is exactly what male-feminist concern troll bloggers and ‘Man Up and Marry those Sluts’ Pastors refuse to understand because it completely fucks up their feminine-centric rationales and ham-fisted Beta AMOGing attempts to shame men for the disincentives that their ‘perfect women’ represent to men. The constant drone is how video games are to blame for paralyzing men’s maturation – a maturation that is always merited by how well he serves the Feminine Imperative.

What they refuse to acknowledge is: If it wasn’t X-Box it would be something else.

Countless guys do this already, because on some level of consciousness they get that the cost-to-benefit equation isn’t rewarding with women. As I wind my way through the third book, I’ve read through countless articles written by thoroughly feminized men, all shaking their heads over the reasons for the generation of “Lost Boys” who are so inured by the instant gratification of hi-res graphic video games and free online porn they have no incentive to ‘grow up’ and fulfill some nebulous form of manhood idealized by whatever shifting definition of masculinity their feminized minds think is relevant in that moment.

These hacks are so fundamentally locked into their ego-investment in blank-slate, gender-neutral equalism that it never registers for them that if it weren’t X-Box or widely available online porn it would be something else.

Thus, we have generations of Men in the Garage who feel some desperate need to claw out a tiny space where they’re free to be men in a home they own. These men need something else that’s just marginally rewarding set apart from their unrewarding spouse. And even in this attempt at Male Space, women feel entitled to insert themselves into it or do something compensatory.

Thus, we have married men who’d rather become “workaholics” and pour themselves into their careers rather than rush home to the minimal reward that his wife represents, the negligible appreciation for him as a man or, at best, his answering to the male indenturement that he was taught he should find intrinsically rewarding. Instead, work becomes his something else that he occupies himself with.

And thus, we have men who’ve bought into the feminine-primary conditioning that their highest sense of reward ought to be found in fulfilling the ideals of Fempowerment who instead find that women’s solipsism and their own, life-long approach to appeasing it has instead driven them to find that something else more intrinsically and/or extrinsically rewarding.

It’s not just “lost boys” staring at X-Box, smoking weed and snapping their radish to free porn, those are just young guys being pragmatic in solving the cost-to-reward equation women give them. But married men, men of all walks of life, are solving that equation for themselves now. They’re forced to solve an equation presented to them by women who feel entitled to having their Hypergamous natures optimized and appeased, with no insight as to how disposable men might adapt to their conditions.

These aren’t lost ‘boys’, they are mature, relatively accomplished men responding to their condition.

Men are deductive problem solvers. Our mental firmware will consciously or unconsciously make attempts to solve problems within the context of what we consciously or unconsciously have presented for us. Blue Pill conditioned bloggers, distraught over the ‘lost boys’, aren’t concerned with these guys’ making something of themselves. What they White Knight over is the lack of suitable husbands to join them in their own indenturement. That, or they fret over the possibility that their empowered daughters might not have a suitable Beta ready to marry her once she’s “found herself” at the end of the Epiphany Phase. They argue from the feminine-correct perspective they’ve only ever known. Complacency, like misery, loves company, especially when it confirms the rationales men use in their own denial.

These pearl-clutching Vichy men can’t see the disincentives of forming long-term monogamous bonds with women that their ‘drop out’ generation boys are just pragmatically avoiding. It is indeed a form of Soft MGTOW, but what’s harder for these manginas to acknowledge is the Soft MGTOW that’s been a part of modern marriage for four decades now.

As an aside here I should mention that a foundational tenet of the Red Pill is that a man must always put himself and his passions at the forefront of his life, or as Roissy put it, you shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority. The something else I’m detailing here may in fact be a man’s genuine passion, but his impetus to engage (or over-engage) in it comes as a result of a need for escapism rather than genuine fervor for it. This is an important distinction because what formerly was a dynamic passion for a man can turn into an unrewarding refuge if his perception of it becomes one of escaping his reality.

Market Reset?

Reader Kaminsky had a question in that same comment thread:

How do we incentivize them? (honest question, not loaded snark)

—Do we incentivize by withdrawing?

—Or by becoming yet better men?

I sought to answer this question in Spare the Rod, but I neglected to use the examples from my post Bachelor Nation in that one. This was the video I based the Bachelor Nation essay on.

I’d like to think of this as an example of the sexual market correcting itself, but when you listen to the self-important, solipsistic reasonings as to why these women believe the most desirable men ought to alter their own sexual strategies, change their minds, and rewire their arousal cues to accommodate sub-optimal women such as themselves, you begin to see why MGTOW, even soft MGTOW is a pragmatic response.

The logic of today goes something like this: Alphas change behavior, women respond and Betas follow along to women’s response.

I would argue that Alphas change behavior, women do or do not adapt, and then Betas follow the dictates of the sexual market. Whether you consider them Alpha or in some way marginally desirable by the women in this video these men have taken it upon themselves to find their something else.

In this video you have an example of men who both withdraw and make themselves better men (even if just by assuming some degree of control over their place in the SMP), but the attitude on the part of women isn’t, “Oh shit, we’d better make ourselves more acceptable mates for these desirable men or they’ll outsource us to Brazil.” Instead it’s the same entitled response we expect from women raised in a feminine-primary social order, “These men betterchange to accommodate us! It’s our game they need to play or they’ll be ass-out when they get older and lonely.” It’s this or else it’s some variation of “I make my own damn money” and they end up with the hapless Beta who would accommodate her because he too was raised to fall in line with feminine-primacy.

In all honesty I think correcting women has to begin at home. It needs to come from Red Pill fathers raising daughters from a Red Pill aware perspective. It’s got to come from a bottom up methodology, and quite honestly I don’t think that can happen until more men become Red Pill aware and accept their new role of mentoring the next generations as well as unplugging Blue Pill men today.

We have a generation of women today who are the products of fempowerment and ‘participation trophy’ equalism. That they’d EVER need to self-correct in order to have a better man in their lives is never an afterthought. Look at the women in this video, they are genuinely shocked that guys would be independent enough to save their money and take it upon themselves to look for romantic options outside of their ‘approved’ roles that ought to be in their lives. They literally don’t get it, so they fall back on male shaming and call them ‘sex tourists’ which is one degree away from ‘human trafficking’.

These women are the products of the oblivious entitlement that’s come from a feminine-primary social upbringing that’s taught them women can do anything and be anything. They’re taught to expect men to be compliant with their sexual strategies, but yet be their SMV equal-or-better without any qualifications on their part other than to have a vagina.

I believe the market can correct itself, but it must come from the bottom up and that starts by raising daughters and mentoring young women into more realistic self-understanding and more realistic expectations from themselves and others. I can hear the cries of “well good fuckin’ luck with that”, but at some stage Red Pill aware men will need to have the courage to go against the fempowerement zeitgeist. While encouraging boys to become girls is lauded in today’s world I also understand that encouraging girls to be even marginally realistic or to recognize the realities that their gender necessitates they be concerned with is this side of child abuse.

If women are to be corrected it’s going to need to begin with Red Pill fathers educating their daughters from an early age. If not, their daughters will find a generation of young men who are already looking for something else before she meets them.

Sexual Zoning


Höllenhund brought up an interesting thought a few weeks ago:

This reminds me of something I wanted to ask here in general. The general narrative about MGTOW in the ‘sphere is that they are “avoiding women”. A more general narrative pushed in the mainstream media by Zimbardo, Hymowitz, Milo and other blue/purple pill journalists is that a growing number of young men are avoiding women.

What does “avoiding women” precisely mean in the current socio-cultural context in the West? The word “avoid” entails some sort of active, deliberate, protective measure. My problem with that is that the “avoidance of women”, or a breakaway from women doesn’t look like that at all in practice today, because the social context of male-female interaction has changed completely in the last 2-3 decades.

This is something our pal Novaseeker has described before. In the bygone Western social system, young people were expected to regularly interact with one another in controlled, regulated environments, in a way that fostered productive, long-term, monogamous, assortative relationships. This was a sort of “holistic” milieu, so to speak, where young people treated one another as potential future partners, sexual and otherwise, in a socially regulated manner, in all cases when they were permitted to interact. This was even the norm in workplaces where both men and women were present. The average man found a girlfriend through his extended family or social circle, because families and social circles were normally large.

What we have today is the complete opposite: “sexual zoning”. Some mixed-sex environments, like the workplace, schools and campuses, are made completely asexual – sterile, so to speak. No sexualized interactions are permitted to take place. This is demanded by law and expected by society. In such environments, you’re supposed to treat members of the opposite sex strictly as colleagues or professionals, non-sexual beings. (Hot men are allowed to get away with more, of course, but that’s another issue.) Other mixed-sex environments, on the other hand, like nightclubs, are expected to be full-on sexual. Everybody there knows that all interactions entail the future possibility of casual sex. It’s basically a meat market. You’re expected to hit on girls, and girls expect to be hit on by attractive men. Socializing in these environments requires action, engagement. If you want to find a partner, either just for sex or something more, you have to go there, you have to have Game etc.

In other words, avoidance of women in the old days was an anti-social act of disengagement that was frowned upon. Today, avoidance of women merely means that you’re not expending excess energy and time to do certain things. It’s an “action” with few or no social repercussions – you won’t be socially ostracized or something. But technically it’s not an action. You’re basically “avoiding” women by not hitting the clubs on Saturday night. You’re avoiding them through simple inaction. You can have a full-time job, or go to college, have a social circle, have hobbies, buddies etc., basically a normie life, and still “avoid” women.

I thought this was an interesting observation because there is a stark contradiction in how these sexual zones are presented to men by women. From an old books perspective, men are still expected to be the initiators. It is incumbent upon men to be the sex that approaches and expresses intimate interest in women, and men who don’t, or who fail to build themselves into acceptable mates for women are shamed as being perpetual adolescents or just “giving up.” Our feminine-primary social mandate still promotes the expectation that men will prepare for, and initiate with, women.

However, from a new books perspective men are, as Höllenhund illustrates, expected to know their place in respect to whatever sexual zone they find themselves in, as well as having an understanding of how they are perceived in the SMP. So, in an asexual zone such as a college campus or the workplace, men are expected to know their SMV and act or not act accordingly. Men not meeting or exceeding what would make for an optimized Hypergamy with women are expected not to initiate or approach. In fact, this expected understanding extends to sexual zones and fosters the avoidance Höllenhund talks about here.

For all of the handwringing from feminine-primary gender pundits about men ‘dropping out’ of life or the SMP, it is this contradiction in atmosphere that promotes the avoidance. Hypergamy, being the prime directive of westernized societies, is figuratively best served when women are in complete and unilateral control of sexual selection. Thus, we see laws and social dictates installed to encourage men to self-select themselves out of the process and make this selection easier for women. Men will be shamed for not initiating and not approaching, but simultaneously be held accountable for as much as hate crimes if they step outside what they are expected to know are their appropriate sexual zones.

Why Millennials Might Be Having Less Sex Than Their Parents

Recently there’s been a spate of articles all attempting to explain why millennials aren’t getting after it in an age when it’s never been easier to hook up. Try as they will, nearly all of the explanations fail to account for how sexual zoning has affected the sexual marketplace today. Millennials have the ‘hook up generation’ reputation, but statistically they’re not doing much fucking.

Noah Patterson, 18, likes to sit in front of several screens simultaneously: a work project, a YouTube clip, a video game. To shut it all down for a date or even a one-night stand seems like a waste. “For an average date, you’re going to spend at least two hours, and in that two hours I won’t be doing something I enjoy,” he said.

It’s not that he doesn’t like women. “I enjoy their companionship, but it’s not a significant part of life,” said Patterson, a Web designer in Bellingham, Washington.

He has never had sex, although he likes porn. “I’d rather be watching YouTube videos and making money.” Sex, he said, is “not going to be something people ask you for on your résumé.”

One aspect that these largely millennial writers themselves seem oblivious to is the complexities of sexual zones that shift constantly for guys. In 2016 hooking up is easy, we’ve got Red Pill awareness and we have instantaneous communication, but what we don’t have are clearly defined sexual zones. Put a guy whose social intelligence is sub par into the wrong zone and it’s understandable that he has better things to occupy himself with that he ‘enjoys’.

This is a common refrain from MGTOWs. It’s usually some variation of  “why should I waste my time trying to untangle some girl’s head just to put myself at risk of a sexual harassment or rape accusation?”

Fred Flange had this comment a few weeks ago:

Co-sign, and this “soft MGTOW” observation ties in nicely with the WashPost’s “no sex please we’re collegiate” article. MGTOW is now socially subsidized and easy to implement: just do nothing! At college, don’t engage in class, or even better, “attend” the lectures on-line. Say no more in class or lab than you must, then leave. Start no convos, you won’t be dragged into any. All of this goes for cubicle workers: in the lunchroom, stare at your phone, or eat at your desk, or if you can, get outside but go alone. No feelings caught, no feelings hurt. Everybody gets nothing, therefore everybody wins.

Eventually you can learn the fine art of disappearance in urban settings: yes you occupy space, but other than someone bumping into you, it is possible to go anywhere without your registering with anyone in the vicinity, not even cops. You can switch it on and off like a light.

One possible corollary to look for: see if the “bros before homes” shaming begins to die down. It should. Because before that you patriamalarkey-preaching Tumblr-inas insisted you wanted that cheesy-bro to go? He’s GONE! Soft MGTOW is the mandated social paradigm, outside of “safe social zones” like public streets, malls, clubs, etc. plus in some workplaces and colleges it’s law. You’re going to complain about men obeying the law?

There’s also no shortage of articles decrying the absence of boys and young men these days too. The frequent bugbear in these always point to guys ‘dropping out’ and playing X-Box all day. From America’s Lost Boys:

Young men, significantly more so than young women, are stuck in life. Research released in May from the Pew Center documented a historic demographic shift: American men aged 18-30 are now statistically more likely to be living with their parents than with a romantic partner. This trend is significant, for one simple reason: Twenty- and thirtysomething men who are living at home, working part-time or not at all, are unlikely to be preparing for marriage. Hurst’s research says that these men are single, unoccupied, and fine with that—because their happiness doesn’t depend on whether they are growing up and living life.

Now, granted, this article presumes men’s adulthood ought to be measured by his capacity to get involved with a woman, support a family and maintain a steady job. It’s very hard for writers who tackle this topic to pull their heads out of the old books reasonings. Thus, the go-to answer to the question of ‘why do guys drop out?’ is video games. It’s far easier to goof on men as a whole if they can be made to look juvenile, lazy or stupid to the point men not knowing what’s good for them.

It would take a real effort to tackle the larger reasons as to why men drop out, and men like Samuel James (article author) would be forced to acknowledge the disincentives for men to participate in what his old books reasonings tell him is some mutually beneficial arrangement. Those disincentives don’t paint women in a very flattering light, so it’s much easier to dismiss them as garden variety misogyny.

The drop out generation are content with their lot in life because they’ve accepted the realities of a social order that debases men and manhood to being appliances to better serve women’s imperatives. And the risks of investing themselves in a relationship or finding the inner will to become better men for the sake of “growing up” are significant when the rules of engagement and the acceptable sexual zones are constantly changing.

The Damage Done By ‘Mattress Girl’

“Even in less extreme situations, young men are more skeptical of women’s ability or propensity to consent to sex, which some women on campus consider demeaning.

“I find that men are more and more interested in ensuring that I’m consenting before sex, which would seem like a good thing,” Columbia student Dylan Hunzeker said. “But sometimes I don’t necessarily feel that way. Especially when I have to answer a man’s question: ‘are you sure you’re not too drunk?’ Or ‘you want to have sex with me?’ In a sense, it’s annoying and debilitating to be constantly questioned about whether or not I have agency and am a sexual human being.”

“Men are scared of women on campus now, and fear breeds anger and prejudice. Women are frustrated by men, which inspires a lack of desire to collaborate for solutions.”

I would argue that a large majority of men accused of sexual harassment or even just suspected of impropriety are men who’ve found themselves in an environment they believed was an acceptable sexual zone. We are fast approaching a time when all zones will be so arbitrary and ambiguous that every environment with sexual potential will be avoided. This will have the effect of putting women into unilateral control of their own Hypergamy. It will be a state of Sadie Hawkins world – only women will make approaches on men and only those who match her Hypergamous ideal, an ideal fostered and reinforced by a steady diet of social media ego inflation.

It’s ironic that authors bemoaning the drop out generation of men never acknowledge the other side of the disincentives for men – those generated by a feminine-primary social narrative – the generation of women who remain unmarried well into their middle age. When this is explored, once again, it’s the result of the juvenile, ridiculous men that same narrative has created for itself.

Spare the Rod,…


Two weeks ago in A Woman’s Prerogative I explored the possible social changes that a male-controlled birth control might mean to our feminine-centric social order. I think it’s important to bear in mind that the primary reason something like Vasalgel would be in any way controversial is because we’re considering it from a social state where women are already allowed a unilateral control of birth, and by extension a virtually unilateral control over their Hypergamous choices. More importantly though is the fact the both women’s hormonal birth control and (prospectively) men’s Vasalgel birth control are both concealed forms of contraception. In other words there is always a certain degree of trust or an acknowledgement that a woman will faithfully take her pill, while a man’s word that he is or isn’t on Vasalgel would be the card he plays close to his chest.

I don’t want the discussion to be lost on the mechanics or the semantics of how Vasalgel would or wouldn’t change the intersexual landscape in this post. Rather, I think it’s important to keep in mind just how one-sided the process of Hypergamy is for women today. In all of the post-sexual revolution generations we simply take for granted things like sperm banks, safe and legal abortion, and unilaterally female-controlled birth control that is for all intents a trust-contract for men.

I use the term feminine-primary social order quite a bit in my essays. What I mean in this respect is that we tend to take women’s imperatives as the correct ones in virtually all arenas of westernized societies, and women’s benefits, real or imagined, will always come before any man’s imperatives are considered, if at all. The more we progress socially the more the feminine base of control becomes more evident. Case in point, we don’t really consider the gravity of women’s power in a concealed form of birth control in which women are the only arbiters and only they know the truth of until something like Vasalgel is invented to give men a similar degree of control.

All social mandates revolve around satisfying the insecurities and doubts inspired by women’s Hypergamy, or allaying fears and justifying the fears of having to live with the consequences that result from it.

I coined the term feminine-primary social order because there comes a lot of confusion with other terms like Gynocracy or Matriarchy, also not to be confused with Matrilinear. It’s important to delineate these ideas because Matriarchy implies a direct and overt form of social control while Gynocracy is a self-perpetuating form of indirect or covert social control enforced with the aid of both sexes but neither acknowledging the feminine-primary focus. Men aid in Gynocracy willingly because men (the majority Beta) see a deference to women as an expectation and a benefit to their own sexual strategy.

A feminine-primary social order is a manifestation of a Gynocentric pre-understanding on the part of both sexes, but neither sex considers, overtly, the power imbalance because common understanding is that women are always the victims of male oppression. This is a self-perpetuating status that will never be appeased because in so doing women lose a default form of power.

It’s ironic how, in an egalitarian perspective, women are supposed to be independent, rational free-agents right up until the consequences of their actions begin to impact their lives. Then it’s either men’s fault for their state, men are held accountable for those decisions and behaviors, or they are expected to forgive those consequences and solve the problems women created for themselves.

Self Improvement

One reason I don’t think Vasalgel will be legalized for mass consumption (or will eventually meet stiff legislative resistance) is because it puts a measure of Hypergamous control in the hands of men. We’ve already seen attempts to make ‘sex by deception’ equitable with rape. And we’ve already seen the legislation that makes even approaching a woman on the street equitable with a hate crime. My guess is that not disclosing a guy is on Vasalgel or he’s had a vasectomy could easily be construed as such too.

But what’s really at issue is the presumption of control a woman ought to have over men in this respect. There is no reason a woman would ever consider improving herself to be a more acceptable candidate for an LTR when it is all supply and no demand for her.

I touched on this dynamic in Sexy:

Show Up Naked, Bring Beer

Another great irony of our age is that we still cling to the idea that it’s women who are the best seducers of humanity. In the same misdirection that women would like to believe that they are the more romantic gender, so too would they like to believe they are the most effective seducers. Both of these are far from the truth. It’s Men with the greatest art that have gone down in history as the greatest seducers of the genders. So much more is required of Men to be effective seducers than women.

In this age female seduction amounts to show up naked, bring beer.

Men are stimulated primarily by the physical, but there’s a lot more a woman can do to be seductive. Quite honestly I think seduction is a lost art for women. Very few women know how to be sexy, much less seductive. Even fewer ever feel a need to be seductive. This is due to an environment that, for the past 50 years, has simplified sexual exchange for women to the point that all she need do is stay somewhat fit and wear a thong occasionally. So many men have become so acclimated to just these visual prompts as sexual cues that women don’t really need to learn seduction. There is no greater reward for being sexy or seductive beyond what she’s already capable of prompting in a man, so seduction practices aren’t reinforced for her.

Now add to this the feminine priority westernized culture has placed on women’s sexuality. Any woman feeling a need to be seductive for a man is cast in the role of putting his sexual value above her own. Remember, according to Cosmo and Oprah it is he who needs to be sensitive to her needs. Her sexuality is a GIFT he qualifies for, not something she should ever feel a need to sell to him by means of seduction.

Women don’t need to seduce men anymore. The feminine-priority dynamic has put a default value on women’s sexuality. Those hot enough to simply wear something revealing never need seduction, and those not hot enough can’t sell it anyway. And the girls who’re in between – the one’s who’d benefit most – are discouraged from learning seduction since it’s denigrating to women who should already be on a pedestal to begin with.

Ever since the sexual revolution there’s been less and less motivation for women to develop seduction skills. If anything there’s a resentment for ever having needed them in the past. I’d argue that feminine seduction skills have been replaced with emotional and psychological manipulations (see BPD) in order to make men comply with their imperatives as a result of having abandoned those seduction behaviors.

It’s Men who are learning seduction skills now. How many men do you suppose have read the Art of Seduction by Robert Greene in comparison to women? It’s men who’ve created a global community dedicated to seduction techniques. Perhaps this is the best evidence of the gender reversal the community discusses so often? Women’s sexuality has been elevated to such a degree that it’s men who find it necessary to collectively study seduction.

In the manosphere men are constantly working at self-improvement. For most, self-improvement is their only imperative. Not a day goes by that I don’t read some Red Pill guy talking about how he’s changed his life for the better with his new found Red Pill awareness. Of course, it’ll be argued that this is for our own benefit apart from what women would like as the better of him. Be that what it is, that improvement still raises his SMV and still improves his prospects even its a ‘peripheral’ reward to him.

At present there is no need for women to be anything more than arousing and sexually available. There are no ‘femospheres’ dedicated to women’s self-improvement that parallel that of men’s. Even “Red Pill Women’s” forums would be hard pressed to explain how they planned to improve their selves.

Women no longer have any real incentive to dedicate themselves to self-improvement, to seduction or to embracing femininity for a prospective man. This harkens back to my post Crisis of Motive, why do you do what you do? However, what motivation does even an average woman (HB5-6) have to learn to cook, clean or make a home today? Even when women do, it’s never for men. The criticism is always not wanting to be a man’s mother and this is an interesting feminist oxymoron – literally any act of domesticity is construed not just as servitude on the part of a woman, but the necessity of it on the part of a man, or for men, reinforces the idea that men are all innately children in need of mommy’s services.

Correcting Women

In the last post I mentioned a need for ‘correction’ on the part of women. Naturally, the binary reflex response for some was to presume I meant that some kind of scolding or shaming was due on the part of men. And, of course, the images of men and husbands talking down to women like errant children was the predictable impression.

I think it needs to be said that correcting women needn’t be some in-her-face directly overt affair. It may be as simple as deciding for oneself what a man deems unacceptable behavior from women and voting with their dicks and their wallets. As Red Pill awareness spreads and men become more sensitive to seeing the truths inherent of today’s women there should also come a new pragmatism in men’s dealing with women. Correcting women will always be far more effective when it’s indirect. As I said, women will not learn so long as there is a feminine-primary social infrastructure that absolves them of any accountability. And if a man so much as offers his take on why a woman is in the shape she is or he’s bold enough to tell a woman how to avoid the pitfalls she’s likely to fall into he’s accused of misogyny and being a “monster” for daring to attempt to correct her.

In fact, this correction will likely be something Red Pill men won’t even consider as ‘correction’; it will simply make sense not to bother with women whose character has been molded by feminist influences or whose egos have exceed all sensibility in contrast with her sexual market value. And it will be women who actually inspire this new pragmatism of correcting women.

As open, overt, Hypergamy is more widely embraced by women, as the duplicity of their sexual strategy becomes something women triumphantly use in popular media and culture the more unignorable, that hubris, that raw deal, becomes evident to even the most Blue Pill of men. Mix in a degree of real, unilateral control for men – such as Vasalgel or its like would – and you put women into an uncomfortable and unfamiliar need to actually have to develop some sort of ‘value-added‘ to their characters.

I remember laughing at a Leykis 101 rule where Tom said something like if a woman you’re on a date with insists on looking at her phone or takes a call or is texting you should casually excuse yourself and leave her there to pick up the tab.

I used to think that was harsh, but I understand the sentiment that makes it necessary today. Women can’t learn what men wont teach them. Now, I get that women have Beta chumps on speed-dial ready to console them right after you do something similar, but it’s that drastic experience that’s needed to send a message. If you were Alpha enough to make an impression on her she’ll understand she fucked up. I’ve always advised men that if they know they’re heading for a breakup they need to be the initiators of it. It’s far better to leave her with the impression that the Frame was always in your terms.

I wish I could say that women will eventually learn from their mistakes, but women’s innate nature of solipsism combined with a social order that never holds them accountable and constantly reinforces their ‘correctness‘ in spite of it keeps them perpetually indignant to any insight a man might offer to them. One more reason a woman should only ever be a complement to a man’s life, never the focus of it.

When you combine women’s opportunistic concept of love with a society that never holds them accountable for the ramifications of it, no matter who it impacts, you get generations of women who are simply not worth anything to men beyond sex.

What we’re experiencing is the end result of a blank-slate egalitarian social order; you reduce human interaction to the lowest acceptable transaction. It will be interesting to see how something like Vasalgel will shift this condition by putting the choice of birth in the control of men. I get that Betas will always be available to breed, but women aren’t hardwired to be aroused/attracted to Betas. The onus of shifting their behavior in order to optimize Hypergamy will be on women if they want to consolidate on it with a better-than-deserved man with a higher SMV that her.

Women need the correction of men. How this correction is implemented is really what’s at issue. Being the apex male in a woman’s life as a means to initiating this correction is the first step. Dread can cause a women to self-correct of her own volition, but Dread is only effective if a man has real appreciable value to a woman.

Women will actually need to correct themselves to access the men aware of their Game, who demonstrate higher SMV, and have that guy actually be interested in her for more than a fuck – a fuck he wont need to worry about getting her pregnant with. Women have reduced themselves to sexual commodities and the only means to improving that state is to put a real, actionable, degree of control into the hands of men. At present, men have nothing to barter with beyond their own SMV and their hard won resources.

All that said, men must be prepared to walk at the first signs that he isn’t a woman’s first priority. The correction comes from a woman learning the value of a man the hard way. Demonstrate, do not explicate. You correct a woman by fucking her best friend. You correct a woman by putting all her shit out on the curb when she cheats on you. You correct a woman by being a man so valuable to here that she wants to comply with your rules. You correct a woman by being so valuable to her Dread is an ambient passive dynamic for her. You correct a woman by being aware of Alpha and Beta tells and acting according to the message her medium is telling you.

Women are never expected to shoulder consequences of their actions and as such they have no incentive for introspection or correction. There’s a social infrastructure that’s been established and revised for centuries that expressly excuses women from the consequences of their behaviors and ideologies. Women need correction, but they only learn it from the ramifications of their actions when men enforce it by their non-participation, non-cooperation with women’s ‘correctness’ or by women’s loss.

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies


When I first began writing on SoSuave over a decade ago I used to get into what I consider now some fairly predictable arguments about monogamy. It was an interesting time since it was around then I was getting into some heated arguments in my behavioral psychology classes in college.

I had just written what would later become my essay, There is no One and a good majority of my classmates and all of my teachers but one were less than accepting of the theory. I anticipated most of the women in those classes would be upset – bear in mind this was around 2001-02 and the Red Pill was yet to be a thing – what I was surprised by was how many men became hostile by my having challenged the soulmate myth.

I got a lot of the same flack from women then that I get from uninitiated women when they read my work now; “Aren’t you married? Isn’t she your soulmate? Don’t you believe in love? You must’ve got burned pretty bad at some time Mr. Hateful.” Those were and are what I expect because they’re the easy subroutine responses a Blue Pill ego needs to protect itself with. There was a time I probably would’ve mouthed the same. That’s how the conditioning works; it provides us with what we think ought to be ‘obvious’ to anyone. And at the same time, we feel good for ‘defying the odds’ and believing in what we take for granted, or common sense.

This is how deep the subconscious need for assuring our genetic heritage goes. For women this assurance is about optimal Hypergamy, for men, it’s about assurances of paternity. In either case, we need to believe that we will reproduce, and so much so that we will attribute some supernatural influence to the process of doing so. The fulfillment of your own sexuality is nothing less than your battle for existence, and on some level, your subconscious understands this. Thus, for the more religious-minded it gets attributed to fate and faith, whereas for the more secular-minded it’s about the romanticized notion of a soulmate.

Monogamy & ONEitis

I contemplated the idea of ONEitis for a long time back then. I’d most certainly been through it more than once, even with the BPD ex-girlfriend. By then I understood first hand how the belief absorbs a Beta and how it is an essential element, effectively a religion, for a Blue Pill life experience. I didn’t realize it then, but I was maturing into a real valuation of myself and I had the benefit of some real-world experiences with the nature of women to interpret and contrast what I was learning then.

Honestly, I had never even encountered the term ‘ONEitis’ prior to my SoSuave forum days. I referred to the soulmate myth in my writing as best I could, but it wasn’t until (I suppose) Mystery had coined the term. Outside the ‘sphere people got genuinely upset with me when I defined it for them.  Back then I attributed this to having their ego-investment challenged, and while that’s part of it, today I believe there’s more to it than this.

The old social contracts that constituted what I call the Old Set of Books meant a lot in respect to how the social orders prior to the sexual revolution were maintained. That structuring required an upbringing that taught men and women what their respective roles were, and those roles primarily centered on a lifetime arrangement of pair bonding.

It’s interesting to note that the popular theory amongst evolutionary anthropologists is that modern monogamous culture has only been around for just 1,000 years. Needless to say, it’s a very unpopular opinion that human beings are in fact predisposed to polyamory / polygyny and monogamy is a social adaptation (a necessary one) with the purpose of curbing the worst consequences of that nature. We want to believe that monogamy is our nature and our more feral impulses are spandrels and inconveniences to that nature. We like the sound of humans having evolved past our innate proclivities to the point that they are secondary rather than accepting them as fundamental parts of who we really are.

Women, in particular, are far more invested in promoting the idea of ‘natural’ monogamy since it is their sex that bears the cost of reproductive investments. Even the hint of men acknowledging their ‘selfish gene’ nature gets equated with a license to cheat on women. This is an interesting conflict for women who are increasingly accepting (if not outright flaunting) of Open Hypergamy.

I’ve attempted in past essays to address exactly this duplicity women have to rationalize with themselves. The Preventive Medicine book and posts outline the conflict and how women internalize and ‘hamsterize’ the need to be both Hypergamously selective, but to also prioritize long-term security at various stages of their lives. Ultimately a woman’s position on monogamy is ruled by how she balances her present Alpha Fucks with her future prospects of Beta Bucks.

Seed and Need

It might be that women would rather share a confirmed Alpha with other women than be saddled with a faithful Beta, but that’s not to say that necessity doesn’t eventually compel women to settle for monogamy with a dutiful Beta. In either respect, the onus of sustained, faithful monogamy is always a responsibility placed upon men. The indignation that comes from even the suspicions of a man’s “straying”, a wandering eye, or preplanned infidelity is one of the most delicious sensations a woman can feel. Women will create syndicated talk shows just to commiserate around that indignation.

But in an era when the likes of Sheryl Sandberg encourages women to fully embrace their Hypergamous natures and expects men to be equally accepting of it, it takes a lot of psychological gymnastics to reconcile the visceral feelings of infidelity with the foreknowledge that a less exciting Beta will be the only type of man who will calm her suspicions.

It’s important to also contrast this with the socialization efforts to make women both victims and blameless. As I mention in the last post, men who lack the appreciation of the necessity to prepare for a sustained monogamy with a woman are considered ‘kidults’ or prolonging their adolescence. They are shamed for not meeting women’s definition of being mature; that definition is always one that centers on the idea that men ought to center their lives around being better-than-deserved, faithful, monogamous potentials for women’s long-term security and parental investment.

On the other hand, women are never subject to any qualifications like this. In fact, they are held in higher regard for bucking the system and staying faithful to themselves by never marrying or even aborting children along the way to do so. So once again, we return to the socialization effort necessary to absolve women of the consequences that the conflict Hypergamy poses to them – they become both victims and blameless in confronting a monogamy they expect from men, but are somehow exempt from when it’s inconvenient.

Pair Bonding

Arguably, pair bonding has been a primary adaptation for us that has been species-beneficial. It’s fairly obvious that humans’ capacity for both intra- and inter-sexual cooperation has made us the apex species on the planet. However, the Feminine Imperative’s primary social impetus of making Hypergamy the defining order of (ideally) all cultures is in direct conflict with this human cooperativity. A new order of open Hypergamy, based on female primacy (and the equalist importance of the individual), subverts the need for pair bonding. There is no need for intersexual interdependence (complementarity) when women are socialized and lauded for being self-satisfying, self-sufficient individuals.

Add to this the conditioning of unaccountable victimhood and/or the inherent blamelessness of women and you get an idea of where our social order is heading.

Both sex’s evolved sexual strategies operate counter to the demands of pair bonded monogamy. For millennia we’ve adapted social mechanisms to buffer for it (marriage, male protectionism of women, etc.), but the cardinal rule of sexual strategies still informs these institutions and practices:


The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

In this respect, it is men who are expected to make the greater compromise due to an evolved sense of uncertainty about paternity and the social mandate to accommodate women’s sexual strategy.

The counter to this is that women have always borne the responsibility of parental investment if they chose a father poorly (or didn’t choose), but in our post-sexual revolution social order, the consequences of this responsibility have been virtually eliminated. In fact, those consequences are now viewed as evidence of women’s independent strength.

Even aborting a child is a source of pride now.

Men bear the greater effect of compromising their sexual strategies to accommodate and resolve the strategy of women. When we account for the normalization of open Hypergamy, soft cuckoldry, and the legal resistance to paternity testing (ostensibly centering on the emotional wellbeing of the child in question) it is much clearer that men bear the most direct consequences for compromising their sexual imperatives.

From Warren Farrell’s book. Why Men are the Way They Are (h/t to SJF):

Why are men so afraid of commitment? Chapter 2 explained how most men’s primary fantasy is still, unfortunately, access to a number of beautiful women. For a man, commitment means giving up this fantasy. Most women’s primary fantasy is a relationship with one man who either provides economic security or is on his way to doing so (he has “potential”). For a woman, commitment to this type of man means achieving this fantasy. So commitment often means that a woman achieves her primary fantasy, while a man gives his up. — P.150

Men who “won’t commit” are often condemned for treating women as objects — hopping from one beautiful woman to the next. Many men hop. But the hopping is not necessarily objectifying. Men who “hop from one beautiful woman to another” are usually looking for what they could not find at the last hop: good communication, shared values, good chemistry. — P.153

The meaning of commitment changed for men between the mid-sixties and the mid-eighties. Commitment used to be the certain route to sex and love, and to someone to care for the children and the house and fulfill the “family man image.” Now men feel less as if they need to marry for sex; they are more aware that housework can be hired out and that restaurants serve meals; they are less trapped by family-man image motivation, including the feeling that they must have children. Increasingly, that leaves men’s main reason to commit the hope of a woman to love. — P.159

Dr. Farrell is still fundamentally trapped in a Blue Pill perspective because he still clings to the validity of the old order books/rules, and the willfully ignorant hope that women will rationally consider men’s sexual imperatives as being as valid as their own.

That said, Farrell’s was the germ of the idea I had for the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies, he just didn’t go far enough because he was (and still is) stuck in Blue Pill idealistic hopes of monogamy. Bear in mind, Farrell’s book is based on his intrasexual understandings of everything leading up to its publication in 1986, however, this does give us some insight into how the old order evolved its approach to monogamy then into an open, socially accepted form of Hypergamy now.

He relies on the old trope that men are afraid of commitment by reasoning that men only want to fulfill a fantasy of unlimited access to unlimited sexuality – all shallow, all superficial, while women’s priority of commitment is correct, selfless, valid and blameless. Farrell also reveals his Blue Pill conditioning by making the presumption that men only Game women in the hope that they’ll find a unicorn, and they’re endlessly fucking women for no other reason than to find a woman with good communication, shared values, good chemistry, etc.

I sincerely doubt that even in the mid 8os this was the case for men not want to commit to a woman, or essentially compromise his sexual strategy to accommodate that of women’s. Farrell never came to terms with dual nature of women’s sexual strategy and how it motivates women over time because he believes men and women have, fundamentally, the same concept of love and mutually shared end-goals.

Mandates & Responses

In the decades since this publication, the normalization and legal mandates that ensure men will (by force if necessary) comply with this compromise is something I doubt Farrell could’ve ever predicted. Legal aspects, social aspects, that used to be a source of women stigmatization about this compromise have all been swept away or normalized, if not converted to some redefined source of supposed strength. Abortion rights, single parenting (almost exclusively the domain of women), postponing birth, careerism, freezing women’s eggs, sperm banks, never-marrying, body fat acceptance and many more aspects are all accepted in the name of strong independence® for women.

Virtually anything that might’ve been a source of regret, shame, or stigmatization in the old order is dismissed or repurposed to elevate women, but what most men never grasp (certainly not Dr. Farrell) is that all of these normalizations were and are potential downsides to a woman’s Hypergamous decisions.

MGTOW/PUA/ The Red Pill, are all the deductive responses to this normalization, but also, they’re a response to the proposition of the compromise that the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies presents to men in today’s sexual marketplace.

In all of these ‘movements’ the fundamental, central truth is that they all run counter to the presumption that men must compromise (or abandon) their sexual imperatives – long or short term. Thus, these ideologies and praxeologies have the effect of challenging or removing some of the total control of Hypergamy women now have mandated to them. Even just the concepts of MGTOW/PUA/TRP are equatable to removing this control.

However, it is still undeniable that there is a necessity for monogamy (even if it’s just temporary) or some iteration of pair bonding that ensures men and women raise healthier, stronger, better-developed children. We are still social animals and, despite what equalism espouses, we are different yet complementary and interdependent with one another. Mutual cooperation, tribalism, monogamy and even small-scale polygamy have been beneficial social adaptations for us.

Gynocentrism and the respondent efforts against it defeat this complementary cooperative need.

Gynocentrism / egalitarianism defeat this cooperation in its insistence that equalism, self-apart independence, and homogeny ought to be society’s collective mental point of origin in place of the application of differing strengths to differing weaknesses.

So we come to an impasse then. It’s likely it will require a traumatic social event to reset or redefine the terms of our present social contract to ever make monogamy a worthwhile compromise for men again. We can also contrast this ‘raw deal’ compromise against the Cardinal Rule of Relationships: In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. It’s easy to think women simply have no need of men when their long-term security is virtually assured today, but fem-centrism goes beyond just separating the sexes by need. It wasn’t enough to just separate male and female cooperation, fem-centrism has made men’s compromise so bad that they must be made to despise their sex altogether. Men had to be made not only to accept their downside compromise but to feel ashamed for even thinking not to.

The Princess Experience

‘Fallen Princesses’ –  photographer Dina Goldstein


About three years ago I published a post called Remove the Man. That essay was prompted by Washington state Governor Jay Inslee signing on the final installment of a six-year effort to make language in the state’s copious laws gender-neutral.

“It brings us to modern times, to contemporary times, why should we have in statute anything that could be viewed as biased or stereotypical or reflecting any discrimination?”

That was 2013. I’d encourage readers to go over this article again as a frame of reference, but the gist of the idea then was revealing the efforts being made by the Feminine Imperative to remove men (literally and figuratively) not only from the common language but to remove men from defining masculinity altogether. I touched on this as well in VulnerabilityIn seizing a monopoly on our very language women are free to redefine not just words but the ideas that those words connote.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” – George Orwell, 1984

It’s an easy jump to associate this word-thought monopolization with political and social justice agendas, and I’m sure there are many examples of it in practice. And while I’ll leave that discussion to other blogs, I do think it’s important in the scope of this blog’s mandate to address how maleness is (and has been) decoupled from masculinity – certainly conventional masculinity – and the redefinition of the concept of masculinity has been surrendered to the feminine in a similar fashion that Hypergamy has been given free reign in society.

In other words, in a feminine-centric social order, men, by and large, have willingly acquiesced the defining power of how they will communicate to the sensibilities of women.

From Remove the Man:

Volumes have been written in the manopshere about how feminine-primary government assumes the masculine providership role in modern relationships, thus freeing an already unhindered hypergamy even more so, but the effort to remove the Man goes far beyond this obvious institution. The fundamental restructuring of gender reference in our very language – as illustrated by the Washington state legislature – attempts to, literally, remove the Man from the equation.

[…]the same social tool has been used by the Feminine Imperative for the past 60 years; inspire self-doubt in male-specific masculinity. By making compliance with the Feminine Imperative a qualification of masculinity, men assign the power to define masculinity to the Feminine Imperative.

[…]For the Feminine Imperative to sustain itself men can never be trusted with masculinity, solution: remove men from being the definers of masculinity and apportion them only enough authority of it that would benefit the Feminine Imperative as necessary.

Control the language and you control the concept. Control the concept, and what is acceptable and what is not about it, and you control the thought before it forms. As I’ve argued in the past, the end state of the Feminine Imperative’s consolidation of social control isn’t the complete elimination of masculinity, but rather that it conveniently conforms to the needs of the imperative as best suits it.

‘Masculinity’ when shame for a lack of performance in desired acts, protection and provisioning are necessary, ‘Misogyny’ when the threat of feminine-primary control is implied in men’s self-esteem, affirmation or reward are attributed to maleness.

From Vulnerability:

For the greater part of men’s upbringing and socialization they are taught that a conventional masculine identity is in fact a fundamentally male weakness that only women have a unique ‘cure’ for. It’s a widely accepted manosphere fact that over the past 60 or so years, conventional masculinity has become a point of ridicule, an anachronism, and every media form from then to now has made a concerted effort to parody and disqualify that masculinity. Men are portrayed as buffoons for attempting to accomplish female-specific roles, but also as “ridiculous men” for playing the conventional ‘macho’ role of masculinity. In both instances, the problems their inadequate maleness creates are only solved by the application of uniquely female talents and intuition.

Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing.

Women who lack any living experience of the male condition have the calculated temerity to define for men what they should consider manhood – from a feminine-primary context. This is why men’s preconception of vulnerability being a sign of strength is fundamentally flawed. Their concept of vulnerability stems from a feminine pretext.

I’m beginning with this today because it’s necessary to underline the latent purposes behind the cutesy jingoisms the Feminine Imperative likes to use when it finds it necessary to reign in the ‘word-thought’ of men. One of these is the term “Mansplaining.”

I led off with the video of Senator Gallagher being called to the carpet for using ‘Mansplaining’ as her go-to rationale because it illustrates how the jingoism of the imperative is expected to work with men already cowed by a Blue Pill conditioning. She literally expects everyone present to understand what Mansplaining is.

Side note: I also find it ironic that the word “Mansplaining” is not flagged with a red underline by autocorrect as I type this. Womansplaining however, is. It’s kind of spooky how readily the language monopoly of the Feminine Imperative is integrated into our popular consciousness via communications technologies and social media. How quick? Have a look at how ‘Mansplaining’ trends on Google.

Even more ironic is the fact that the common definition of what constitutes ‘mansplaining’ is still up for grabs. According to Wikipedia:

Mansplaining covers a heterogeneous mix of mannerisms in which a speaker’s reduced respect for the stance of a listener, or a person being discussed, appears to have little reason behind it other than the speaker’s assumption that the listener or subject, being female, does not have the same capacity to understand as a man. It also covers situations in which it appears a person is using a conversation primarily for the purpose of self-aggrandizement — holding forth to a female listener, presumed to be less capable, in order to appear knowledgeable by comparison.

Solnit’s original essay went further, discussing the consequences of this gendered behavior and drawing attention to its effect in creating a conspiracy of silence and disempowerment. Solnit later published Men Explain Things To Me, a collection of seven essays on similar themes. Women, including professionals and experts, are routinely seen or treated as less credible than men, she wrote in the title essay, and their insights or even legal testimony are dismissed unless validated by a man. She argued that this was one symptom of a widespread phenomenon that “keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare; that crushes young women into silence by indicating, the way harassment on the street does, that this is not their world. It trains us in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men’s unsupported overconfidence.”

Mansplaining differs somewhat from other forms of condescension in that it is specifically gender-related, rooted in a sexist assumption that a man will normally be more knowledgeable, or more capable of understanding, than a woman.

Google cuts to the meat of it for simplicity:


Others argue that any information a man relates in a male way of explaining it (i.e. a longwinded description of informational content). Julia Baird’s offering is particularly egregious, citing the amount of lines women get in proportion to those of men in the movies:

The problem is global and endemic across all media. Female characters speak lessin Disney films today than they used to — even princesses get a minority of the speaking lines in films in which they’re the principal: In the 2013 animated movie “Frozen,” for example, male characters get 59 percent of the lines. A quick search for best monologues in film or movies reveals that they are almost all male. If you took Princess Leia out of “Star Wars,” the total speaking time for female characters is 63 seconds out of the original trilogy’s 386 minutes.

This, of course, is in stark contrast to the studies that show women spend more time on their cell phones and text more often than men. Women also use emoticons more often than men, yet men have more variety in emoticon usage. That may seem trivial, but it’s an important aspect to consider in comparing men and women’s preferred intents of communication. Then there are the studies that show women actually do talk more than men – 13,000 words a day.

It’s also important to consider that women dominate the vast majority of social media, unless that social media happens to be something work related like LinkedIn. This is an important distinction to make when we consider how men and women prefer to communicate.

From The Medium is the Message:

We get frustrated because women communicate differently than we do. Women communicate covertly, men communicate overtly. Men convey information, women convey feeling. Men prioritize content, women prioritize context. One of the great obfuscations fostered by feminization in the last quarter-century is this expectation that women are every bit as rational and inclined to analytical problem solving as men. It’s result of an equalist mentality that misguides men into believing that women communicate no differently than men. That’s not to discount women as problem solvers in their own right, but it flies in the face how women set about a specifically feminine form of communication. Scientific study after study illustrating the natural capacity women have for exceptionally complex forms of communication (to the point of proving their neural pathways are wired differently) are proudly waved in by a feminized media as proof of women’s innate merits, yet as men, we’re expected to accept that she “means what she says, and she says what she means.” While more than a few women like to wear this as a badge of some kind of superiority, it doesn’t necessarily mean that what they communicate is more important, or how they communicate it is more efficient, just that they have a greater capacity to understand nuances of communication better than do men. One of the easiest illustrations of this generational gender switch is to observe the communication methods of the “strong” women the media portray in popular fiction today. How do we know she’s a strong woman? The first cue is she communicates in an overt, information centered, masculine manner.

It should come as no surprise to most men in the manosphere that men and women have different means and different priorities in communications. I published that post almost five years ago, but even then I knew that a social order founded on feminine primacy was going to standardize its own way of communicating as the correct way. The ostensible reasoning is that, from a desire for gender parity in society, men must abandon their blunt, artless and simplistic, yet overbearing and egotistic way of communication and adopt women’s more meaningful, emotive and insightful covert way.

Of course, it’s men who see this ruse for what it is and either refuse to capitulate or simply don’t realize they’re supposed to talk like women who set themselves apart from the throngs of Blue Pill men conditioned to identify with the female experience (as a means to become intimate with them). I forget where I read it, but some one said a PUA is a man who pretends he has what a woman pretends she does not want. I may not agree with that in whole, but it certainly describes the social condition that’s been established by the Feminine Imperative over the course of four generations.

When we’re presented with easily digestible terms like Mansplaining, no matter how loosely defined, and it filters into the popular consciousness and lexicon so rapidly, what we’re witnessing is the ease with which the Feminine Imperative expects men to cede to it.

When a woman attempts to cow a man by saying he’s Mansplaining something to her she’s reached a point at which she prefers that man, any man, speak to her as a woman would. In base terms, she shames him for not opting to communicate as a woman would from the outset. He should know better.

The fem-splaining cover story is that men feel some ego-centric need to over-explain something to a woman. For a Blue Pill conditioned man this may even be accurate in that they hope so doing will endear himself to a “rational reasonable” woman by helping her understand a concept he’s educated on. What we’re really looking at is a struggle to control which gender-communication will take precedence. In a feminine primary social order, men’s means of communicating is offensive to women by default. The presumption is that men are being condescending to women by expecting them to communicate as men do, and especially within the political and working spheres.

As women push their way into male spaces, part of assimilating those spaces is to re-standardize how men will appropriately communicate within them. The conflict comes from the expectation on the part of men that women will respect the nature of station she’s been empowered to and be able to weather criticism and reproach as men have always done in those stations. The fallacy is the equalist belief that women will be equal agents while holding the same roles as men; the reality is what we see in the video above today.

So the solution, as always, is to remove the man, remove the masculine influence, change the language and the definitions, to remake the nature of the engagement if not the actual real-world factors that make the game or the politic or the business what it is – to silence the man by telling him to “just shut the hell up” or be tarred with the epithet of being a ‘typical man’.

The content of the communication is of less importance to women than how that communication makes them feel. We see this in no uncertain terms the more women become part of the socio-political/business spheres. When a man needs to explain the importance of content to a woman who is only qualified for her station by virtue of her being female that exchange necessarily is uncomfortable for women. Solution: complain about the delivery of the content and silence the men who would deliver it.

Children and Cornfields

Does anyone remember the episode of the Twilight Zone called “It’s a Good Life“? I rewatched this for this article and I’ve got to stay it still holds up and it’s just as creepy as when I watched it as a kid.

Six-year-old Anthony Fremont looks like any other little boy, but looks can be deceiving: he is a monster, a mutant with godlike mental powers, including mind-reading. Years before, he isolated his town of Peaksville, Ohio. Everybody is under his rule, even his parents. Since he’s begun isolating the town, supplies of common household items, such as bar soap, have been dwindling. He has blocked television signals, caused cars to not work, and, due to his controlling everything, he does not attend school.

The children and adults, including his own parents, tiptoe nervously around him, constantly telling him how everything he does is “good,” since displeasing him can get them wished away into a mystical “cornfield”, an unknown place, from which there is no return. At one point, a dog is heard barking angrily. Anthony thinks the dog is “bad” and doesn’t “like [him] at all,” and wishes it into the cornfield. His father and mother are horrified, but they dare not show it.

One night, due to the townsfolk having always done what he wants, he treats them to one hour of TV. Although they do not like what he shows, they tell Anthony that it was far better than what used to be on TV.

Finally, at Dan Hollins’ birthday party, he gets two presents from his wife: a bottle of brandy and a Perry Como record. As Dan is eager to listen to the record, he is reminded by everyone that Anthony does not like singing. Getting slightly drunk from the brandy, complaining about not listening to the record, and no one singing “Happy Birthday” to him, Dan cannot take the strain anymore and confronts Anthony, calling him a monster and a murderer. While Anthony’s anger grows, Dan yells for someone to attack Anthony from behind and end his reign of terror. Aunt Amy (who isn’t able to sing anymore because of Anthony) tentatively reaches for a fireplace poker, but no one has the courage to act. Anthony cries out to Dan, “You’re a bad man! You’re a very bad man! And you keep thinking bad thoughts about me!” Dan is transformed into a jack-in-the-box (ending his life), causing his wife to break down. The adults are horrified at what Anthony had done, and his father begs him to wish it into the cornfield, which he does.

Because of Amy’s earlier complaints about the heat, Anthony causes snow to begin falling outside. His father observes that the snow will kill off at least half the crops, and he is about to confront Anthony about this, but his wife and the other adults look on with worried smiles on their faces. The father then smiles and tells Anthony in a horror-tinged voice, “…But it’s good you’re making it snow. A real good thing. And tomorrow… tomorrow’s gonna be a… real ‘good’ day!”

I didn’t really understand the significance of this episode until recently. In a sense I guess I can attribute it to a more defined Red Pill Lens but the femosphere events and a few articles brought to my attention this last week reminded me of this Twilight Zone story. I’ll get to why in a bit.

The first event was the highly publicized not guilty verdict in the Jian Gomeshi rape (hoax) trial. Mike Cernovich had a quick hit post about the details here. I’ve written about the particulars of why women’s insecurity about optimizing Hypergamy drives them to insane lengths to control for it before, but my focus this time with Gomeshi wasn’t so much about the women’s lying, or the ambiguity of what constitutes rape or sexual harassment. When the Rolling Stone/UVA fraternity rape hoax was finally revealed for what it was I wrote Hysteria :

Transferring information about a man’s preselected approval amongst a collective of women is one such override. However, it’s very important for men living in a feminine-primary social order to understand that social proof is not just limited to preselection of men as potential partners.

This social proof dynamic extends to the perceptions of women in a collective peer group, as well as men for whom they have no sexual interest in, but serve their material interests nonetheless.

The current cultural atmosphere of male suspicion and autonomous rape-threat assessment of men is another variation of this perceptual, hysterical, collective belief dynamic. Women want to believe in the presumption that every man outside of their preselected, collective approved, hypergamous ideal  is a potential rape threat. In other words, a man who might, by force or coercion, assume control of her hypergamous sexual selection.

The narrative, the perception, is all that matters.

[…]women become so ego-invested in the certainty of their collective perceptions that, even in light of contrary evidence, the only acknowledged verification of that perception is how it makes them feel.

This contradiction of a collective feminine hysteria is what many luminaries of the Feminine Imperative are now being forced to confront. It’s important to remember during this UVa / Rolling Stone rape debacle that women, and more than a few enabling male sympathizers, wanted to believe this travesty was true in spite of the vaudevillian outlandishments and still refuse to accept that it isn’t.


The overwhelming zeitgeist consensus in this case was that the women concerned in Gomeshi’s rape trial were to be believed irrespective of facts that exonerated him. And so strong was this sentiment that suggesting the suspension of the most fundamental aspects of law was the first recourse to be considered – that consideration is to change the presumption of guilt where it affects the accusations of men by women.

Once again, just as in the UVA rape hoax, we see a feminine-primary collective social consciousness moved by a need to believe in order to maintain a collective ego-investment in that social order’s correctness. And all of that in spite of all controverting, unignorable evidence. However, the feminine conditioned reflex for feminine defined ‘justice’ in this regard has been taken a step further – an accusation of rape or sexual assault is as good as a conviction.

I can’t be too sympathetic for Gomeshi. He built his reputation on being a social justice warrior and a self-evincing ‘male feminist, but just like another notable male feminist, Hugo Schwyzer, he’s had to learn the hard way that feminist Game comes with a substantial risk.

However the salient point I took away from his trial wasn’t that women are duplicitous or a feminized society being too ready to unquestioningly presume the veracity of another woman’s rape claims. Neither was it unexpected that a need to believe that presumed guilt would come up. What struck me was the push for control, for absolute unilateral arbitrative power to condemn a man for the accusation of sexual misconduct.

What struck me was that the Feminine Imperative should seek to nakedly place itself above a rule of law that is otherwise founded on a logical, rational process of checks and balances (or at least intends to do so).

As the protests and debate swirled around Gomeshi I was also made aware of a review of a new book Girls & Sex: Navigating the Complicated New Landscape

An economics major taking a gender studies class is getting dressed in her college dorm room for a night out, cheerfully discussing sexual stereotyping in advertising with Orenstein — while at the same time grabbing a miniskirt and a bottle of vodka, the better to achieve her evening goal: to “get really drunk and make out with someone.” “You look hot,” her friend tells her — and the student, apparently registering the oddness of the scene, turns to Orenstein. “In my gender class I’m all, ‘That damned patriarchy,’ ” she says. “But . . . what’s the point of a night if you aren’t getting attention from guys?” Her ambition, she explains, “is to be just slutty enough, where you’re not a prude but you’re not a whore. . . . Finding that balance is every college girl’s dream, you know what I mean?”

Author Peggy Orenstien serves up the same reheated feminist alarmism for her young daughter that Hannah Rosin did 8 years ago. However, Orenstien escalates the narrative much in the same vein that the feminist reaction to Gomeshi has. She defines it for us:

For guys, she says, there is fun and pleasure; for girls (at least the straight ones), too little physical joy, too much regret and a general sense that the boys are in charge. Fully half the girls in Orenstein’s book say they’ve been coerced into sex, and many had been raped — among them, by the way, that econ major, who was so confused that when her assailant dropped her off the next morning, she told him, “Thanks, I had fun.” The sexual playing field Orenstein describes is so tilted no girl could win.

Orenstein presumes the control of a girl with a handle of vodka and dressed ‘just slutty enough’ rest entirely with the boys she’s making out with and more. They are ‘assailants’ by definition – a definition that depends on the Hypergamous whims of the woman involved.

I drew parallels between these stories because they are indicative of a trend I predicted a couple years ago – in a social order that prioritizes Hypergamy as the intersexual priority, men who wont cooperate with it must be legislated into complying with it. But as it develops now this doesn’t go far enough; men must be preemptively convicted of the crime of sexual misconduct before the they are ever judged worthy of a woman’s sexual interests. In other words, men are ‘assailants’ for the very attempt of presenting themselves for the intimate approval of women.

Monday’s Price of Nice post and the femosphere response to men’s want to be Nice in order to ingratiate themselves in the hopes that they might endear a woman to him highlights this even further. Men being ‘nice’ are by definition ‘assailants’.

But it’s not enough to discourage men’s niceties, they must be taught to fear the attempt of initiating anything looking like intimacy. They must fear being whisked away to the cornfield for not thinking the right way about the women they would hope to find favor with.

Commenter SJF had a poignant comment this week:

Infantile as they are, women are ill-equipped to handle power, and that which is born out of the insecurity that a man may do her wrong, turns into an exploitative, predatory misuse of power that fuels grandiose narcissism, and thus masculinizes her. The aforementioned relationships between the different aspects of the female psyche do not explain in it in its entirety, but nonetheless, should accurately depict its root and core.

Which brings us back to our six year old Anthony Fremont in the Twilight Zone episode. On a social scale we are rapidly approaching a time where coddling the childish impulsivity of women will dictate not just the rule of law for men, but will define the nature of men’s dealing with women on a fear based level. In fact we’re already beginning to see this in the workplace.

Taken to its intended and illogical extreme, given unilateral God-like arbitration of men in every aspect of society, politics, religion, academia, etc., women and their imperatives would define intersexual relations much in the same way as Anthony does with the ‘adults’ he controls.