Category Archives: Operative Social Conventions

Trust Issues

I was driving with a friend of mine and his wife to a promo last month. The parking at this particular gig was packed so it made sense to take one car and as I sat in the back seat I observed the behaviors and connected them to the conversation his wife and he were having while we drove. He was driving as well as any other guy I know; observant, careful, efficient, casual, basically a good driver, I didn’t even give his driving much mind. However, judging from the nervousness and fidgety behavioral tics of his wife you’d think he was drunk and reckless.

She clung tightly to the “oh shit” handle you see above the passenger-side window in most SUVs today. Her body language was one of fear trying to maintain polite composure, but every time we’d slow for traffic or a stop she would gesture with her hands as if she were bracing herself for impact. She simply did not trust her husband in the driver’s seat. She’d insist he switch lanes miles ahead of a turn so as to be ready to make the turn, or she’d coyly ask him to slow down when we were on the highway.

I see this a lot in couples where the power dynamic is one where the woman is the tacit authority of the relationship. These two were a textbook example. The buzz word term for it is ‘passive aggressive’ behavior, but that behavior is prompted by a root-level influence of women’s security need. My friend, being the Beta he is, made every attempt to calm his wife’s fears by accommodating her passive (and some not so passive) posturing and requests. It still wasn’t enough. She simply doesn’t trust the man she’s been married to for 10 years with her safety – regardless of his actions.

Now, from a Red Pill perspective, it’s important to bear in mind that women are always looking for an emotional rush whether positive or negative. I detail this in Indignation but in the absence of indignation, women will actively create it for themselves. Any PUA worth his salt knows that leaving an emotional impression on a woman is a key to seduction. Some men can do this effortlessly and often unaware depending on the social context and circumstances he surrounds himself with. These are guys we think are ‘naturals’ even though the learning process and the trial, error, reward mechanisms of it for him are just an internalized part of his personality. However, making this emotional impression can be learned, expressed ‘naturally’ and it can be internalized.

When we look at the dual nature of Hypergamy we tend to focus primarily on the Alpha Fucks side of women’s sexual strategy. For obvious reasons, it’s the part guys tend to have the most interest in, and since seduction is the key to STRs and LTRs, it’s also the part guys need to develop most. It’s tough for most Blue Pill men to behave counter to what their conditioning has taught them. Just like my friend’s driving here, most guys believe that comfort, trust, rapport, friendship, appeasement, and generally self-sacrificing are what’s at the heart of a good relationship. All of course based on the mystical “open communication” trope.

Selfish vs Self-Interest

Vox Day had an interesting back and forth with Kitten Holiday about this dynamic this weekend:

For men who’ve been conditioned to believe that the key to success with women is to play nice and solve women’s problems for them with patient understanding, suggesting selfishness is attractive to women is counterintuitive. However, agreeableness and humility in men have been associated with a negative predictor of sex partners. So is it selfishness that makes a guy attractive or arousing?

I’ve suggested in the past that it is actually men who dare to place themselves at the center of their lives who make the most significant emotional impact upon women. This emotional impression is a byproduct of men who make themselves their first priority and when this prioritization becomes an internalized second nature to a man we say that he’s made himself his Mental Point of Origin.

I’m clarifying this here because it’s easy to conflate ‘enlightened self-interest’ with “selfishness”. A common criticism among the MGTOW set is that a man investing himself into anything with the express purpose of attracting women is vanity or wasted effort. However, it’s defining the point where this personal investment in oneself crosses over into having the effect of being an attractive trait to women that needs some more clarification. I covered this in Crisis of Motive, and unfortunately, it’s a line that’s subjective to the man who’s invested himself in virtually anything that uniquely benefits him and is attractive/arousing for women.

So we have two countermanding imperatives here. Men are conditioned, personally and publicly, to believe that niceness, comfort, and trust are the keys to success with women (whom we are told will have an affinity and appreciation for it). All of these Blue Pill qualities are pro-social attributes, yet in practice, in the real world, we observe men with anti-social, ‘selfish’ interest are rewarded with women’s attention. Self-interested men make a more significant emotional impression.

When we contrast this with the two aspects of women’s sexual strategy we see that the Blue Pill (pro-social) traits align with the Beta Bucks side of Hypergamy, while the ‘selfish’ (anti-social) aspects align with the arousing Alpha Fucks desires of women. For the Blue Pill invested man, it’s baffling to see how ‘selfish’ men are rewarded with intimacy, genuine desire, and sex. What they lack is a complete understanding of women’s dual sexual natures.

“So I gotta be an asshole to get women to notice me? Chicks really dig jerks?”

I’ve been reading this response from newly unplugged nice guys for as long as I’ve been writing. It’s the binary response I’ve come to expect from guys still on the fence with regard to Red Pill awareness, but it goes back to the negative associations they have with making themselves their own mental point of origin. It’s ‘selfishness’ not self-interest and this is exactly the opposite of what they’ve been taught will resolve problems for them.

This then comes back to my first point about women’s need for security. I’ve been married for over 20 years now, and for as good a marriage as I have, I still have my doubts that Mrs. T trusts me implicitly with her life.

It’s ironic because I actually saved her life when we were first married. There was a very swift moving river we used to walk our dogs along when we lived in Tahoe. It was spring and the river was high from snowmelt runoff, and it was cold – as in take your breath away before you’re paralyzed cold. One of our dogs had spied a few ducks on the opposite side of the river and bolted into it to go after them. About half way across he realizes it was a stupid idea and turns back. He couldn’t make it and the river swept him downstream. We both ran down the river after him to a point where he’d pass and Mrs. T jumped in to catch him. She goes numb in seconds, but she caught the dog by the collar. I know I’m going to have to go in to get them now so I prep in my head what to do. I get in now and grab the dog and bodily throw him up on the steep bank. Then I do the same with Mrs. T right before the water is so cold I can barely move. I managed to grab a large tree root in the bank I’d seen earlier to haul myself out.

In spite of that very memorable event, I’m not sure I have my wife’s implicit trust in this respect. I know that sounds bad, but even after all of that, there was no acknowledged appreciation for it. I was just doing what a man is expected to do. In many other aspects, I have my wife’s trust, but I wonder if the want for an emotional impression isn’t buffered by a need for security.

In my friend’s case, this lack of trust is manifested in his wife’s demeanor and interactions with him. The more Beta the man a woman’s paired herself with the more evident her need for security becomes a part of their relationship. Remember that security comes in many different forms. It’s entirely possible for a dutiful Beta to be a great provider, but still not be trusted with his decision making or his capacity to protect his woman from harm.

Women today are already raised to never put their trust in men as it is. Men are at best lovable buffoons, at worst untrustworthy incorrigible players. Popular culture directs women to only rely on themselves, to only trust in their own, implicitly correct decisions and directions – and then absolve them of any negative consequence of those decisions. Thus, we have several generations of women who claim the authority role in their LTRs and relegate their men to only marginally trusted companions.

All of that said, I would suggest that men opt to not concern themselves with so-called “trust issues” with women. Women’s feral nature is founded in Hypergamy and part of that nature will always be to doubt the quality of the man she’s paired herself with. It may seem ‘selfish’, but placing yourself as your first priority will be far more appreciated and accepted than a man attempting to endlessly earn the trust from a woman that can only be temporal at best. Your lack of concern over her status of trusting you will have much more impact than trying to appease her for it.

Beta men are endlessly told that a woman’s trust and rapport, her comfort level with a guy, is essential to her being intimate or sexual, or having a good relationship. Those are the guys who feel the sting the most when they see a woman at her feral best fuck the hot guy she met the same night who made a significant emotional impression on her. The guy who invested his interests in himself and she happened to be along for his ride.

Trust is just a convenient term used by women to vet for Beta men. ‘Trust’ only amounts to a list of prerequisites and rules for a Beta who believes it’s his duty to fulfill them, which are never an afterthought for women with more Alpha men.


The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies

monogamy

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


Late Life Hypergamy

Commenter YaReally dropped an interesting set of videos in last week’s comment thread and I thought I’d riff on them for a bit today. I’m not familiar with Loose Women (the TV show anyway), but from what I gather, it’s on par with The View or any similar mid-day women’s talk show. I don’t make a habit of watching shows dedicated to entertaining women’s need for indignation, but I regularly have readers email or tweet me segments asking for my take on certain aspects of them or how they relate to Red Pill awareness.

It should come as no shock to my readers that shows of this formula are a social manifestation of women’s base natures. Every conversation takes on a sense of seriousness and gravity, but the tone and the presumptuousness that drives these conversations are rooted in women’s solipsism. All iterations of this show are presented from a perspective that assumes a pre-understood feminine primacy. It’s also no coincidence that the rise in popularity of women’s talk shows has paralleled the comfort women have in embracing Hypergamy openly.

Whenever I get a link to something the women on The View discuss it’s almost always a confirmation of some Red Pill principle I’ve covered previously, and in this instance Loose Women doesn’t disappoint. Saira Khan (I apologize for my lack of knowing who she is or why I should care to) related to the panel of women – and the expectedly disproportionate female audience – that at 46 years of age and two children (only one by her husband) she has entered some commonly acknowledged phase where she finds herself lacking all libido for her husband.

I decided to write a full post on these clips because Saira amply demonstrates every facet of the latter phases of maturity I outlined in Preventive Medicine. She begins her self-serving apologetics by prequalifying her previously “fantastic sex life in her younger years” and moves on to her bewilderment over her lack of arousal for her glaringly Beta husband. We’ll get to him later, but she’s a textbook example of a woman in what I termed the Alpha Reinterest phase from Preventive Medicine. Granted, at 46 Saira is experiencing this “stage” a bit later than most women, but we have to consider the difficulty she had in having and adjusting to children later in life – all undoubtedly postponed by her obvious fempowerment mentality and careerism.

I love you, but I’m not in love with you

It’s likely most men in the Red Pill sphere have experienced and discussed this very common trope. Saira is quick to apply a version of this standard self-excusing social convention. She “loves her husband” and “he’s a great man”, but lately(?) she simply has no desire to fuck him. I’m highlighting this because it’s an important part of the psychology and the self-excusing rationales that revolve around the less-than-optimal outcome of women’s dualistic (AF/BB) sexual strategy.

It may serve readers better to review the Preventive Medicine series of posts, but the short version is this: Once a woman has settled on a man for her post-SMV peak life plans, and the routine and regimen of a life less exciting than her Party Years begins to reveal the nature of a (usually Beta) man she settled on, that’s when the subconscious sexual revulsion of him begins. The feral nature of

Hypergamy begins to inform her subconscious understanding of her situation – the man she settled for will never compare to the idealized sexuality of the men she’s been with prior to him. Alpha-qualifying shit tests (fitness tests) naturally follow, but Saira herself describes her sexual revulsion for Steve as a sense of “panic” at the thought of him expecting her to be genuinely sexual with him.

As such, there becomes a psycho-social imperative need to blunt and/or forgive these feelings for the “lack of libido” women experience for their Beta husbands. Thus, we get the now clichéd tropes about how “it’s not you, it’s me” or “I love you, but I’m not in love with you.” Both of which amount to the same message – I love you, but I have no desire to fuck you. You’re a great guy and a swell husband, but my pussy only gets wet for Alpha.

Saira exemplifies this in her assessment of her husband (Steve), but more so, she illustrates the disconnection she knows is necessary to insulate her ego from knowing exactly what’s “wrong” with her. The problem with her lack of libido becomes separated from the source, Steve. So she says it’s not him, she just doesn’t want to do it.

She qualifies herself as someone loveable (she still cuddles and gets comfort from Steve), but this lovable ‘good person’ doesn’t want her lack of arousal to be something to disqualify her from feeling good about herself.

Solution: make sex separate and ancillary to her relationship with her husband.

For women in this phase, sex is equated with a chore. It’s a chore because it’s not something she has a desire to do, but still feels obligated to do. Steve walks through the door at 6 and her subconscious understands that the expectation of her is that she should be aroused by this Beta man she’s trapped into living with for the rest of her life. Hypergamy informs her subconscious and the manifestation is to find ways to avoid sex with a man her Hypergamous sense acknowledges is a suboptimal sexual pairing. Her conscious, emotive, female mind understands that she should want to fuck him, but it wars with her hindbrain that is repulsed by just the imagining of it.

In order to contend with the internal conflict created by Hypergamy, and a woman’s settling on a poor consolidation of it, social conventions had to be created to make separating sexual arousal (Alpha Fucks) from women’s personal worth (Beta Bucks investment) and the attending bad feelings it causes for them.

Ironically, this show’s original premise was based on the question of whether sex was even a “must” on a couple’s wedding night. This is a prime example of separating desireless sex from women’s sense of personal worth. I wrote about this in Separating Values. If sex is ancillary or only an occasional bonus, it ceases to be a deal-breaking factor in marriage for women when they don’t have a desire to fuck their Beta husbands.

Conflating Values

One of the major problems women have, and more than even some red pill men have, is the conflation of sexual market value with their intrinsic personal value as a human being.

It needs to be emphasized that while personal value is influential in sexual market value, SMV is distinct from your value as a human being. I’m stressing this because, in the age Disney Princess empowerment, this conflation of the two has become a go-to social convention; and not just for women.

What Korth suffers from is presuming her personal value is her sexual market value.

It’s disruptive to her self-perceptions and ego-investments when that presumption is challenged by a man who doesn’t want to fuck her for reasons based on the intrinsic value she believes she’s entitled to by virtue of maturity and imaginings of self-sufficiency. Just as women aren’t aroused by men’s own self-concepts of virtuousness and aspirations of higher purpose, men aren’t aroused by whatever ephemeral self-perceptions a woman may have.

In Khan’s case, she (and the many women in the audience who nod in agreement with her) must devalue sex as an article or an object rather than accept that it’s something she wants to engage in, just not with Steve.

There are many other social conventions that aid women in avoiding sex with Beta husbands. An even more common convention is the popularly accepted idioms that “sex just naturally declines after marriage” or “men and women often have mismatched libidos.” Both of these have filtered into our popular consciousness, but they serve the same latent purpose – excusing a lack of desire caused by women interpreting their husband’s lack of Alpha sub-communications. Wives don’t get tingles from Beta husbands, thus, they need to find ways to offset the bad feelings for themselves first, and their husbands secondarily.

The trick in this is women not personalizing their lack of arousal with a husband’s self-worth – “it’s not you, it’s me” – and deferring to some naturally occurring biological or psychological event that can be conveniently attached to the mystique of women.

It’s not you, but it is you

Thus, the rationale morphs from “it’s not you, it’s me” into “it’s not you, it’s the time/circumstance/effort/need for help with the chores/phase of my mysterious woman-ness” that’s causing her lack of sexual desire.” She’s got a busy life, she’s got kids, and in her pursuit of perfection in these arenas, sex somehow falls by the wayside – or at least the kind of non-obligatory, hot, urgent sex she used to enjoy in her fantastic youth. It’s not you, it’s just life.

It’s not you, it’s wives ‘naturally’ lose interest in sex. It’s not you, it’s that she panics at the thought of you expecting her to be aroused by you.

If sex can be delimited to being all about the person then a lack of women’s arousal can’t be blamed on the mechanics of sex. So when men complain about a lack of sex from their wives or a lack of enthusiastic genuine desire, we get the response we hear from the panel of women on the show; a sarcastic shaming of men who raise the issue that their wives are frigid with them.

“Oh, how can men survive without sex?” or a sarcastic “No bloke can be in a relationship without sex” is a deemphasizing of the importance that the role of sex plays in a marriage and any intersexual relationship. Once again this is due to the separating of personal worth of a woman from the sexual mechanics of Hypergamy that prompt her to genuine arousal. The easiest solution is to cast men into the same sexual expectations as women; if women can forego sex then men ought to be able to “survive” without it too.

This normalized idea stems from the equalist perspective that men and women being equal should also share equal attitudes, prompts, and appetites for sex. This is a biological impossibility of course, but the conversation serves as a stark illustration of women expecting feminized men to identify with the feminine and prioritize that identification above any and all considerations about their experiences of being male.

Ultimately this is self-defeating for women because the nature of the Alpha guy that women crave pushes him to have sex, not to deny himself of it.

In fact, that sexual insistence is a prime indicator that a woman is dealing with an Alpha. The man agreeing to the patience and effort needed to “wait out” his wife’s frigidity is indicating that he’s not accustomed to insisting on, and getting what he wants. If he can sublimate his most powerful biological imperative – to get sex – what else is he willing to sublimate?

Sex is the glue that holds relationships together.

The ladies on the panel mock this idea for exactly the same reason Saira is tying herself in knots about not being hot for Steve. He needs sex, but he shouldn’t really need sex because it’s all about the person and not the mechanics. But it is exactly the mechanics of Hypergamy that are at the root of Saira’s need to solipsistically feel better about herself to the extent that she’ll publicly emasculate her husband on national TV.

As the show grinds on, all of the predictable rationales for wive’s self-consolations for a lack of sex get run down like a check list. Kids? Check. Career? Check. Never do they address that she’s a

Kids? Check. Career? Check. Never do they address that she’s a

Never do they address that she’s a 46-year-old woman raising small children or that her so overstressed condition is only one consequence of delaying what passes for motherhood to her for so long. I understand Saira and Steve struggled with infertility, but my guess is that this too was a physical result of the life choices she made and the difficulty of conceiving and carrying a child to term well after her fantastic sexual prime. I’m 48 and my daughter graduated high school this year so I can’t imagine facing parenthood in my mid/late 40s. This isn’t even an afterthought for the panel because it exposes the costs of the feminist-inspired careerism the show is triumphantly based upon.

Shit Tests and Marriage

As I mentioned earlier in this post, wives in this state will still shit test their husbands just as readily as any single woman. We are meant to believe, no we are expressly told, that Saira’s sexual revulsion is “normal” and it’s not Steve or his dedication that’s at issue. Yet during all of Saira’s journey of self-discovery about her lack of libido, she suggests that Steve go out and find a woman who will fuck him. At some stage in their great open communication, Saira gives Steve express permission to go out and bang another woman because she just can’t.

Naturally she couches this in the idea that she’s so devoted to him “as a person” that she just wants him to be happy, however, she is so repulsed by him, sex is a happiness she can’t find within herself to even feign for him. For all the shocked gasps from the women in the audience, what this amounts to is a very visceral shit test for Steve.

The purpose of the ‘dare’ for Saira is meant to determine whether Steve can still (if he ever) generate genuine sexual desire in other women. I’ve covered this dynamic in at least a dozen different posts – women want a man who other men want to be, and other women want to fuck. Steve’s steadfast devotion to his wife is anti-seductive and Saira, on some level of consciousness, knows this. If another woman found Steve attractive enough to bang it would generate Dread, social proof and confirm his preselection among other women. And as I’ve mentioned countless times, breakup sex (or near breakup sex) always trumps contrived, preplanned special occasion “date night” sex, which predictably is the suggestion that ends the second video.

And as I’ve mentioned countless times, breakup sex (or near breakup sex) always trumps contrived, preplanned special occasion “date night” sex, which predictably is the suggestion that ends the second video.

Steve, the dutiful Beta, is also predictably dumbfounded by her “suggestion”. He’s heartbroken from a feminized emotional perspective, but also because, like most Beta men, he’s heavily invested in the fallacy of Relational Equity. He’s observably sexually optionless so it’s a moot point, but if he were to muster up the balls and the Game to take her up on her oh so caring suggestion to fuck another woman, he risks losing the relationship equity he believes his rational, empowered wife should appreciate and factor into her attraction for him.

Thus, Steve comes up with rationalizations for why he didn’t take her up on her offer of permissive infidelity. He makes his necessity (really his optionlessness) a virtue and sticks to the standard Beta wait-it-out supportiveness he’s been conditioned for but is actually the source of his sexless marriage. He defaults to the “open communication” solves everything meme while ignoring the message that the medium of his wife’s sub-communication is telling him. Steve attributes everything (accurately) to his conditioning that most men, “typical blokes”, are Betas whose responsibility ought to be unconditional supportiveness when in fact they really have no other choice but to be so.

She doesn’t want to be ‘fixed’

One last thing occurred to me while I picked these clips apart. At the end, the panel of women defaults to the “it’s not you Steve, you’re a great guy, Saira’s just experiencing a normal frigidity that comes along for women in marriage.” I thought this was interesting because there’s a push to accept this frigidity as a normal phase women experience, but it still relies on the idea that sex and personal worth are two separate aspects of this problem.

If the root of this ‘normal’ problem is one about mechanics (it’s not Steve, it’s Saira’s physical/psychological malfunction) then I would expect there could be a mechanical solution to the problem. Even the fat brunette panelist suggest that all it takes is a better ‘effort’ on Saira’s part to get herself into the mood, but she even rejects this. Her problem isn’t a pharmaceutical one or a behavioral one, it’s a holistic one rooted in hardwired Hypergamy. So repulsive is the thought of fucking a Beta that Saira cannot psych herself up to do so.

I wondered if she would even consider taking the new “pink pill”, the female form of viagra, but I’ve read enough counter argument articles from women about it to know that women’s hardwired psychology prevents them from even chemically altering themselves to want to have sex with a man her Hypergamy cannot  accept. My guess is that even a cheeky holiday in the Maldives won’t be enough to convince Saira to want to fuck Steve.

However, this simple fact, that women will refuse to take the Spanish Fly to work themselves up and bypass their Hypergamy for their Beta husband’s happiness, destroys the convention that her frigidity is the result of her biomechanics. She doesn’t want a pill to fix her because she knows it’s a holistic problem.

Saira knows how to please Steve sexually, she simply doesn’t want to, and it’s because Steve is Steve.

 


The Talk

the_talk

Softek has had the almost predictable move for The Talk from his current (I believe BPD) “girlfriend”. Just to clarify a few things here before I dig into Softek’s questions I think it’s necessary to define what “The Talk” is. Generally, there comes a point with a  particular plate you’re spinning when a woman believe it’s within her feminine entitlements to force the issue of exclusivity upon a man. I’ve written several foundational posts about non-exclusivity and the reasons men should opt for (Plate Theory) and I’ve also covered The Talk from practical considerations in Ultimatums, but feminized pop-culture has made what essentially amounts to a Frame shift into a life event.

The Talk is literally the defining of a relationship, and in a feminine-primary social order that defining power is presumed to always reside with a woman according to her “needs”. I should also add here that as men have become more feminized and uncomfortable in describing themselves as masculine, the feminine security need for a confirmed relationship status puts these men into the feminine role of initiating The Talk themselves. There are few grosser indications of a Beta / Blue Pill mental point of origin and a self-confirming lack of options than a man negotiating for exclusivity by formalizing it with a feminized relationship event.

What does Negotiated Desire mean for a relationship when a woman has resorted to it?

They’re powerless, yes, they feel helpless, yes.

But what does this mean for their perception of the man they’re trying to Negotiate for?

Ultimatums are declarations of powerlessness. Let me be clear before I get the standard, “you need to be a Man and set boundaries with her” retort – as with all things for men, it is better to demonstrate than to explicate.

However, in this instance, we have a woman issuing the ultimatum and the sense of powerlessness comes into contrast. The very act of having The Talk is a negotiation of desire. The medium is the message. We can separate a woman’s entitlement to an “official” relationship with it, but the fact that a formal talk would be necessary to legitimize it is the message she ignores or hopes you won’t recognize  – it’s a negotiated obligation, not a genuine desire.

Making a euphemism out of this ultimatum by calling The Talk and dancing around the want for a long term security is a form of Buffer for women. And as with all Buffers, the intent is to lessen the impact of rejection by preemptively buffering the seriousness of it should it come to that.

There are a few reasons women will move for something like The Talk. First and foremost is the Hypergamic need for certainty. When a woman presses for exclusivity with a man she tips her hand in the Hypergamic scheme of things. In this instance the root message is twofold – she perceives you as high enough value to seek some kind of exclusive permanency and / or she acknowledges (or is beginning to) that her capacity to attract other prospective men is depreciating. Women with greater sexual market options and a commensurate self-impression rarely push for this relationship formality.

Another reason for The Talk is that women, on some level of consciousness, seek to alleviate the competition anxiety that comes with making an emotional investment in a man she perceives is 1-2 steps above her own sexual market value. A passive form of Dread almost certainly plays a role in the prompt to formalize an LTR, however, what’s prompting that Dread can range from an emotional investment based on a genuine desire to the pragmatic necessity to settle on a guy who meets her security needs in contrast to her ability to attract a better prospect.

As women enter the Epiphany Phase the need for a Talk becomes more urgent. As a woman’s attractiveness wanes Hypergamy cannot afford uncertainty or the risk of a loss of emotional investment. This is yet one more reason women tend to opt for dutiful Betas during the Epiphany Phase. Unattached higher SMV men entering their peak SMV phase are less inclined to look for or agree to, exclusivity when they have more available sexual options. Blue Pill men, unused to a sudden interest from women, are usually eager to formalize on exclusivity irrespective of a woman’s sexual history or her necessitous reasonings for exclusivity.

Have they lost respect for him? What is Negotiated Desire, on the woman’s part, indicative of in the relationship?

Again, this is somewhat subjective and depends on the man and woman’s conditions. As I mentioned above, the push for exclusivity on her part is prompted from necessity or Hypergamous anxiety. Genuine desire cannot be negotiated and it’s important to consider that this is equally true when it’s women doing the negotiating. Blue Pill conditioning has acculturated generations of women to expect that a man formalizing monogamy with her is not just her right, but that men will understand and accept that it is “the right thing to do” if he want’s to be accounted as a man.

We have an entire fem-centric world of women and men reinforcing this male-shame narrative in every branch of society – from church to popular media, you’re not a “man” if you so much as question your role in an exclusivity founded on a woman’s correct need of it.

This presents an interesting conflict for women. Women want men who just get it, but the necessity of petitioning a man for The Talk in the first place conflicts with the organicness of his understanding of women. Pushy, loud-mouthed, outspoken women raised on the Fempowerment narrative are often the most insecure in respect to this conflict. On one hand the narrative has bred her to expect a man to be her-equal-who’s-better-than-her-equal and ‘man up’ and formalize on his own. On the other hand, when he doesn’t, the anxiety that comes with the countdown to her Wall pushes her to force his compliance or to provide her own security for herself.

Now imagine this scenario with an Empowered Woman® dealing with the Beta in Waiting who represents her only viable LTR option. Yes, she may have lost respect for him, but her situation frustratingly compels her to force the issue of exclusivity with a guy who doesn’t get it.

Is it a sign of a failed relationship?

I don’t have any other experience, so my base assumption is that ALL WOMEN will push for commitment eventually, and want to pressure you into it, and ‘make things official.’

What does this mean for the health of the relationship?

Should it just end?

The necessity of a Talk in the first place puts this assessment into doubt. Women who don’t eventually push for commitment understand the nature of that relationship is temporary or there really is no potential, so there won’t be a Talk. The problem I see with making this formality something overtly public is that it has the opposite effect of qualifying what may be genuine desire without it. When The Talk enters into out popular consciousness it then becomes yet another ‘typical male’ fault.

Men become infantilized for not understanding women’s correctness in wanting a formalized declaration of monogamy. Once that infantilization becomes the accepted truism for women, what might’ve been a very good pairing of a man and a woman based on an organic genuine desire, turns into an obligation on his part to convince her that he’s not a child by living above that truism. The relationship becomes less about the genuine interest between the two and more about satisfying the “official” nature of it among men and women plugged into a Blue Pill social conditioning.

Should it just end at that point? If a man’s first act of a coerced monogamy is his capitulating to what amounts to a socially mandated ultimatum I think the woman he surrendered to will subconsciously lose the respect she had for him while they were “undocumented lovers.”

In a case like Rollo’s, or any other married guy here:

How did it happen? How do you get married without Negotiated Desire?

Is it IMPOSSIBLE, and it’s just a matter of minimizing the degree of Negotiation?

Same with having an official girlfriend. When you COMMIT even on the level of a ‘steady girlfriend,’ isn’t that Negotiating Desire by default?

I get this question a lot and for a lot of hard-line guys, even the best thing a married man (or LTR man) can say will always sound like he found a unicorn. You have to understand in my case the last woman I’d been in a formal LTR with before my wife was the BPD I described in the Two Guitars post. I had no intention of getting into an LTR at the time and for a long while, Mrs. Tomassi was one of four plates I was spinning at the time. All of this was above board and we dated non-exclusively for the first 3-4 months.

I began with a rock solid Frame at this time not because I was focused on establishing it, but because I had three other women in rotation and I was entirely indifferent to any idea of exclusivity with any of them. Of those four, Mrs. T was hottest and funnest in and out of bed so I gravitated to seeing her more regularly. I also appreciated her from the new perspective I had in contrast to the psychotic mess my BPD had been. She expected me to be conventionally masculine and I was already filling that role by default because I had a new outlook on women as a result of all that.

We never had a Talk when it came to exclusivity; she simply said that she didn’t like the thought of me banging other women and asked me if she could be my girlfriend. She literally asked to be part of my world during that brief conversation. I’ve had the Frame from the moment we started non-exclusively to where we are now 20 years later.

I’ll say it again, don’t use my example as some model for your own life, but there needs to be an organic flow to how you enter into any LTR.

It is vital to the health of any LTR that a man establish his frame as the basis of their living together before any formal commitment is recognized. As I stated in the beginning, frame will be fluid and conditions will influence the balance, but the overall theme of your relationship needs to be led and molded by you. Even very influential, professional, intellectualizing women still crave the right man to establish his frame in her life. They may fight it bitterly, but ultimately it’s what will make for the best healthy balance she can achieve. There’s a growing undercurrent of mid-life women questioning and regretting their past decisions to remain single into spinsterhood. And for all their late game rationalizations, the one thing they still simply refuse to accept is acknowledging that a man’s frame, the frame their “fierce independence” wouldn’t allow for, was exactly the salve their egos so desperately wants now later in life.

Gentlemen, you will establish frame in any monogamous relationship you have. You will enter her reality or she will enter yours.


Mansplaining

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:

mansplain

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.


Ghosts in the Machine

ghosts_inthe_machine

Hollenhund had an interesting response to a question posed in last week’s post that I thought I might come back to here:

1) Why is there “yourbrainonporn” for men, and not “yourbrainonyourdildocollection” for women? “yourbrainoneroticnovels” “yourbrainon50shadesofgray” “yourbrainonTwilight” “yourbrainonhavingtoomanyorbiters” “yourbrainongettingtoomanymessagesinyourinboxonokcupid”? MEN are the ones that it’s a “problem” if they want variety. MEN are the ones that have to change. MEN are the ones that have to fight their biology. hmmm…I wonder why THAT is. Maybe to help create more Softeks, where the girl can cheat on her boyfriend with him and then shame him for looking at another girl

I doubt their goal is that specific. This new narrative about porn addiction being a public health problem is obviously seen by its supporters as yet further ground for political consensus between feminists and social conservatives. It’s not that feminists want to turn the porn industry, or what remains of it, into a political target again, it’s that they need a narrative that is aligned with the Feminine Imperative and moves public discourse about the mating market away from subjects they, and women in general, are very uncomfortable with.

As long as the mainstream media pushes this narrative about young men getting addicted to online porn and thus opting out of the mating market, it will largely stifle any public discourse about the popularity of female emotional porn (romantic literature), and also the real potential causes of widespread porn use, like the drop in average female quality on the mating market and unrestrained hypergamy. Social conservatives, feminists, and the majority of common folk will, of course, be happy to put all blame on men for any social problem, real or not. And it’s very obvious that porn addiction isn’t a problem they want to actually do anything about, it’s more like an excuse for women to whine and moan. Frankly I’m very skeptical about the whole issue of porn addiction, because if something just happens to perfectly fit into the Feminine Imperative, it’s probably no accident. And one wonders how much scientific evidence there actually is for it.

I’ve addressed the physiological and social associations of male masturbation in the past in The Pheromonal Beta, as well as Pathologizing the Male Sexual Response. The “lively” discussion about male masturbation in this week’s comments notwithstanding, the topic du jour in the Twittershpere also seemed to coincide with this topic.

Personally, I think the ‘moral’ dictates about jerking off follows evolutionarily pragmatic reasons for male shame in masturbation while female masturbation is an arousal cue and seen as a positive. Female masturbation is a cue for sexual availability while male masturbation is essentially a Beta Tell.

That’s the nuts and bolts of it from the bio-evolutionary perspective, but as with all other inherently male thumbscrews, the Feminine Imperative has long exploited the sociological implications of men’s need for sex. One thing that slips by relatively unnoticed with social conventions that serve the Feminine Imperative is that the same presumptions that would serve a masculine (in this case sexual) imperative are always shamed or stereotyped – that is until they come into a context that is  useful to the feminine.

Sex Sells What?

“Sex sells” is a cliché that can be used in the positive for women, but it is always a negative for men. For women, sold sex in advertising, romantic literature, the meteoric popularity of ‘divorce porn’ for married  women, or really any media that stimulates women’s sexual interests is always seen as positive, empowering and exceptional. Even if what their being sold is seedy or can have a potentially negative consequence, in a feminine-primary social order women ‘own’ sex from today’s social perspective. In other words, society at large is expected to defer to women on issues of sex and, by association, romance, love, etc.

Women can still be sold  something or induced to buy a product or to adopt a mindset, but that article or the message that’s meant to be internalized is associated with the ‘positive’ of a sexual inference with women.

For men, male sexuality is always a negative association unless that sexuality is expressed in a way that complements women’s sexual strategy. Something being sold via sex to men is either seen as preying upon an inherent weakness (or dependency) for sex or it’s paired with ridicule for men being typical ‘pigs’ and they’re unable to dissociate sex from the objectification of women. So ingrained is this shame-association that men have adapted sexual competition strategies around it in order to identify better with women in the hopes they will be perceived as “not like other, typical, sex hungry men” and that their intimate interests are motivated by something more ephemeral that sex.

The social utility of this shame-association, of course, parallels the utility of Male Catch 22 for the Feminine Imperative, but there’s a useful  duplicity for women in this inescapable shame of male sexuality. For instance, when women seek to convince both themselves and men that fat-acceptance and “changing the standards of beauty” should be men’s metric for wanting to fuck and pair with less desirable women, we see the usefulness of that duplicity. Men are useful in the perception that they’re sexually uncontrollable pigs for being so gullible as to allow “society” and advertising agency to define what they think is arousing.  However, the Feminine Imperative will readily use (or attempt to use) that same weakness  to exploit men into acting against their own, evolved, sexual best interests by selling them the ideal of accepting fat women as a new standard of beauty.

There are no feminine parallels for the pathologizing of the female sex response because those would simply be hindrances to women optimizing their Hypergamous imperatives. Why are there no “yourbrainonporn” sites for women? Why are there no XXXChurch equivalents for the ladies? Why are there no support groups for women ‘addicted’ to romance novels or divorce porn movies? Because that exclusively male pathologizing is only beneficial to the female sexual strategy.

This is the depth of control that the female-primary imperative seeks over men – that our most base biological, existential need should be distorted and psychologically molded by shame to the point of instilling lifelong neurosis and conditioning fear-based gender self-loathing to effect women’s sexual strategy above all other considerations.

I’ll quote the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies once more here: for one sex’s strategy to succeed the other’s must either be compromised or abandoned. Whether subtly instilled or publicly shame-conditioned, associating men’s sexuality with sickness or perversion, weakness, and disability, the underlying purpose is an effort in convincing men to abandon any claim to their own sexual imperative in favor of that of women’s.

Slut Shaming

If this seems like a sea change from the old order days when women were shamed for even the hint of promiscuity while men were lauded for their own sexual exploits, what you’re seeing is the societal shift to feminine social primacy. There was a time when sexual indiscretion was something that shamed women. Today, it’s almost laughable that there should be a need for a social convention like “slut shaming”. There is no such social referencing, but if men on whole can be put to shame for the belief that other men might still cling to older order reservations about women’s sexual exploits it serves to place women’s sexual strategy above that of men’s.

There is always the old standby – the horrible “double standard” about men banging a lot of women being heroes while women who bang a lot of men are sluts (“it sooooo unfair!”). This is a laughable, antique social convention in an era of slut walks and female-centric birth control, but it’s still the reflexive go-to trope when the mechanics of pathologizing men’s sexuality comes to light.

Sex-positive feminism has always been a two-edged sword for women. That positivity ‘fempowers’ women so long as they cling to the old order missives about the Patriarchy repressing that sexuality while it simultaneously disqualifies their complaints of it as Hypergamy becomes more and more openly embraced.

Ghosts in the Machine

Hollenhund continues for us:

YaReally and hoellenhund, you’re talking about all this VR porn stuff but isn’t this basically the same dynamic as prostitution? Same kind of alternative sexual relief (that is not your wife) and same reason why the FI shames prostitutes and men who use prostitutes etc..because they lower the “price” of sexual release..?

YeReally has already answered your question well, I’d say. He brought VR porn up, I didn’t, because I was observing the current situation, not something that only exists today as a potential future development.

I’d add that the dynamic is somewhat different. Apparently the state is willing to penalize prostitution, at least to a degree that makes it sufficiently risky and expensive for many men to avoid it, and the majority of women and their male bootlickers are willing to support political efforts to suppress it. Neither of that applies to pornography of any sort. Women will complain about it, they will support a narrative that portrays it specifically as a problem caused by men, but it’s not like anyone actually wants to make an effort to do something about it. Do you think any woman wants to date, or have sex with, a reformed porn addict? Do you think women want porn addicts to get out of the basement, get their shit together, and hit on women in order to get real-life sex?

For the record, I’m not going to deny that excessive masturbation is unhealthy, or that excessive porn use can elicit unrealistic expectations of sex in a mind of an inexperienced man. Anything should be done in moderation, that goes without saying. But the current public discourse on porn and its effects is complete BS.

I’ve forgotten where I saw the quote posted, so I’ll paraphrase it a bit (I think it may have been Illimitable Man), but there’s a new concept I read about how human beings’ experience of consciousness is now assuming a new, third, aspect – the immediate, the internal and now, the virtual.

The immediate experience is one in which you directly relate with people in real time. It’s you physically and vocally interacting with others. The internal is the conversations you have with yourself and both your conscious and subconscious interpretation of what you’re experiencing, learning, behaving, etc. (i.e. what you’re thinking).

However, the virtual (or digital) aspect of consciousness is something humans have only recently developed and are now on the cutting edge of really understanding. The virtual experience is what I’m doing now as I type this post. I’m relating to you what’s going on in my thought process (to the degree of which I’m aware of it) in a virtual medium. Virtual porn, virtual games, virtual shopping, etc., really anything you do in a digital realm is part of this new form of ‘being’.

Humans in 2016 experience things in ways that our forebearers could scarcely dream of. Our immediate and internal experiences are now being informed by out virtual experiences – in accelerated ways that I don’t think most people really appreciate. The Feminine Imperative is now fighting to establish a foothold in this virtual experience. Thus, we see efforts like GamerGate meant to lock down a control over how men will be allowed to experience this virtual reality. We also see the preliminary efforts to both socially and legislatively institute feminine-primary controls over yet to be developed possibilities of virtual experiences.

Jerking off to ubiquitous, free, online porn is one such experience that the Feminine Imperative has had to play catch-up to with regard to restricting men’s access to it. And thus, we get contingent social controls from the imperative to counter this lack. It’s not enough that men be shamed for their sexual response to online porn. The accessibility makes this impractical, but there’s really no ‘sales’ transaction for which men would feel their sexual “weakness” being exploited.

However, the counter to this then becomes making men’s sexuality itself a disease. “Porn Addiction”, sex addiction, in a religious context even ‘impure thoughts’ become a disease not to be cured, but to be managed by women – women’s definitions, women’s approvals and disapprovals, women’s sexual strategy interests.

And porn is just the tip of the iceberg with regard to the Feminine Imperative’s controls of men’s virtual experiences with women.


Fempowerment

fempowerment

I’m often asked by ‘fempowered’ women critics whether I ‘believe‘ in some of the more socially acceptable tenets of feminism in some sort defense to the affront of my Red Pill lens being cast their way. It’s usually something to do with, “Do you or do you not think women ought to have the right to vote?” or the ever-reliable “Shouldn’t women have the right to do with their bodies what they choose?” These questions are always binary (“yes or no will do”) and usually couched in a context that implies that if you even slightly disagree or have a marginal caveat to answering ‘appropriately’ you’ll be dismissed with a name tag that has “misogynist” printed on it. Say no and you’re a despicable misogynist. Say yes and you’re tar-pitted in “yes, but” caveats – mansplaining – that are disqualified because you’re a man.

Say no and you’re a despicable misogynist. Say yes and you’re tar-pitted in “yes, but” caveats – mansplaining – that are disqualified because you’re a man. Up until recently, it’s been a very effective means of silencing uncomfortable truths about the Feminine Imperative.

I’ve always found it ironic that a movement (feminism) that predicates itself on the ostensibly egalitarian notion that rational, reasonable considerations of issues should lead us to ideals of equality is the first to reduce itself to unquestioned, blind faith binaries at the first sign of rational reasonable truth being unflattering to women. If you want to know who holds power over you, look at whom you aren’t allowed to criticise – or even hint at criticism.

My position on these and many other questions of the sort is usually met with simple observational analysis (as you’d probably expect). I don’t necessarily have a problem with women voting or even having access to legal (relatively safe) abortions. What I have a problem with is the latent purpose behind the reasons that led to women’s decisions to vote a particular way or the latent purposes that brought them to having that abortion. For the greater part, any dubious ‘right’ women feel they were somehow denied in the past usually comes at the expense of men being liable for decisions they had nothing to do with.

What I have a problem with is an expectation of lowering the standards of the game, thus fundamentally altering the game, to better accommodate the variable strengths and weaknesses of women – up to, and including, changing the very nature of women’s environmental realities that would endanger the wellbeing of both sexes. What I take issue with is the expectation of making men liable for the decisions and consequences of the rights and freedom of choices we’ve reserved for only women to make (almost unilaterally Hypergamic choices) that are not in men’s best interests.

I mentioned in Our Sister’s Keeper that men today find themselves in a very precarious position with regard to entertaining women’s perceived wrongs of the past. Men are expected,by default, to be held accountable, for no other reason than they were born men, for past injuries to the ever-changing Feminine Imperative. Your existence as a man today, your failed understanding to accommodate women’s social primacy, your lack of catering to the ambiguous nature of what conveniently passes for masculinity, is a constant stinking affront and obstacle to the “advancement” of women. The Feminine Imperative has known how to manipulate men’s Burden of Performance for millennia, and at not other time in history has it had the unfettered leisure to do so than now.

So, we get socially acceptable default presumptions of ‘male privilege’ without qualifying what it even means, or we get catchy jingoisms like ‘mansplaining’ to give a name to women’s need for silencing men’s inconvenient observations of women’s ‘correct’ perceptions, decisions and the reasons they came to them. We get default presumptions of male guilt for sexual assault and sexual consent as fluidly defined in as convenient a way that serves women’s imperatives. As I’ve mentioned before, the true intent of feminism has never been about establishing a mutually agreed ‘equality’, rather it’s always been about retribution and restitution for perceived past wrongs to the sisterhood.

There has always been a subtext, a cover story, of equality mentioned in the same breath as feminism. Only the most antagonistic asshole, only the most anti-social prick, would be against “equality between the sexes”. Thus, to be against feminism is to be against a simplistic concept of baseline equality. However, taken out of the propagandizing efforts to shame and ‘correct’ men’s imperatives, it’s easy to demonstrate that the true intent of feminism is female ‘fempowerment’ in the dressing of an equality that no man (or woman) wants to appear to be against.

Yellowed Pearls

I found an interesting example of this  Catch 22 in the Economist recently. Pick and choose: Why women’s rights in China are regressing.

In 2007 China’s official Xinhua news agency published a commentary about women who were still unmarried at the age of 27 under the title, “Eight Simple Moves to Escape the Leftover Woman Trap”. The Communist Party had concluded that young Chinese women were becoming too picky and were over-focused on attaining the “three highs”: high education, professional status and income. Newspapers have since reprinted similar editorials. In 2011 one said: “The tragedy is they don’t realise that as women age they are worth less and less, so by the time they get their MA or PhD, they are already old, like yellowed pearls.”

In the last Red Pill Monthly discussion, I mentioned the expansion that the Feminine Imperative has taken on a global scale. One of the old missives of the manosphere has always been about how American women are too far gone to be worth ever entertaining beyond a pump-and-dump consideration. They are too damaged and self-absorbed beyond all redemption, and men ought to expatriate to another country where women are more feminine or at least necessitous enough to appreciate a conventionally masculine man.

I get that. I understand the want for a Poosy Paradise or some promised land where women are still raised to respect and love men by being conventionally feminine. I also get that there exist certain cultures where this is still true, but for all of that, I think it’s important to recognize the social undercurrent that the Feminine Imperative exercises in these cultures. A popular meme on Twitter is ‘Feminism is Cancer’, but there’s a kernel of truth to the humor of this. The spread of the westernizing social primacy of the Feminine Imperative is spreading, not unlike cancer, into what we would otherwise believe were societies and cultures still oppressed by the mythical Patriarchy – a belief necessary to perpetuate the narrative of default female victimhood.

It may not be now, but at some stage, the Feminine Imperative will exercise its presumptive control over even the societies we think ought to be immune from that cancer. As I mention on The Red Pill Monthly, even in underdeveloped countries where we would expect to find the horrible oppression of girls and women, we make a triumphant example of the incidents of where girls (not boys) are taught to read and “think for themselves”. Westernized culture, founded on the Feminine Imperative, celebrates every time a woman in Saudi Arabia is allowed to drive a car, much less run a business on her own as if it were some blow against the tyranny of men.

Little by little, or in leaps and bounds, your second or third world Poosy Paradise will eventually be assimilated by the Feminine Imperative.

I bring this up because, as you’ll read in the linked article, China is also experiencing the long-term results of having adopted feminine social primacy in its own culture. From women’s popular consciousness, we’re still, to this day, told of how horrible “communist” China has been in mandating its one-child policy and how its draconian ‘sons live, daughters die’ social structure has been the result. However, once we reasonably investigate it, we find that China now has a problem with “Yellowed Pearls” as a result of a cultural shift that placed women’s interests as preeminent in that culture. And it should be noted that this shift came about as the direct result of the men who adopted and accommodated the Feminine Imperative as their own.

Now the problem for women in China is not unlike the plight of American women bemoaning the lack of men with “equal” marriageability as themselves. And likewise, the self-same social authorities responsible for institutionalizing the fempowerment of women are now the horrible misogynist villains for suggesting that women ought to lower their unrealistic standards.

The tone of these articles is surprising, given the Communist Party’s past support for women’s advancement. Mao Zedong destroyed China, but he succeeded in raising the status of women. Almost the first legislation enacted by the Communist Party in 1950 was the Marriage Law under which women were given many new rights, including the right to divorce and the right to own property.

Sounds a far cry different from the pictures women, even women in this century, have painted of China’s institutionalized, one-child sexism doesn’t it? Remember, this advancement in women’s rights took place before the Cultural Revolution in China.

Though collectivisation made the latter largely irrelevant, women played an active role in Mao’s China, and still do today. By 2010 26% of urban women had university degrees, double the proportion ten years earlier. Women now regularly outperform men at Chinese universities, which has led to gender-based quotas favouring men in some entrance exams. However, many of the earlier advances have been eroded in recent years by the gradual re-emergence of traditional patriarchal attitudes.

Consider this part in contrast to other industrialized nations and how women have increased their socio-political standing as the result of having the Feminine Imperative adopted as the primary social order of those cultures. Even in cultures that are still popularly deemed “repressive” to women we see educational and socioeconomic parallels to western(ized) cultures. We also see the same resulting consequences and the shifting of blame for them to men. The downside of Yellowed Pearls is placed at the feet of men for not living up to the convenient, feminine-primary definition of what their Burden of Performance ought to mean in promoting and forgiving women’s decisions.

The party has joined an alliance of property companies and dating websites to confront the issue. Government surveys on marriage and property are often sponsored by matchmaking agencies, and perpetuate the perception that being “leftover” is the worst thing that can happen to a woman. They also promote other myths, such as the idea that a man must have a house before he can marry.

As you may expect, the tone of the article is written to emphasize an egalitarian perspective that conflicts with a reality that the Feminine Imperative would have men change or be responsible for not having changed. It’s men’s fault that women might feel bad for not having married by a post-wall age. It’s men’s fault for promoting myths that women would expect that a man must be successfully established in his life and career before any considerations of marriage occur to him. It’s also a man’s fault for clinging to the “myth” that women don’t want him to be established.

The law is reflecting the shift away from women’s empowerment too. An interpretation by the Supreme Court in 2011 of the 1950 Marriage Law stated that, when a couple divorces, property should not be shared equally, but each side should keep what is in his or her own name. This ruling, says Ms Fincher, has serious implications. In the big cities a third of marriages now end in divorce but, based on hundreds of interviews, she finds that only about 30% of married women have their name on the deeds of the marital flat. Women believe the party hype about becoming a “leftover” woman so strongly, she says, that many rush into unhappy marriages with unsuitable men, made on condition that the brides agree not to put their name on the property deeds.

Feminism Would be a Success if Men Would Only Cooperate More

Several years ago Dalrock had a post detailing the sentiment of feminists that feminism would be a success if only men would cooperate with the ideology by abandoning their own interests and sublimating their own biological impulses. The fact remains that feminism and egalitarianism are failed ideologies because at the root level those ideologies ask men to participate in their own extinction. Not only this, but they ask men to raise successive generations to accommodate and participate in their own degradation.

The narrative expects Yellowed Pearls to be prized by men, or respected as Spinsters, or pandered to as ‘Cougars’ while still maintaining men sublimate their own imperatives by willfully ignoring the fact that their own sexual strategy is what is being asked of them to abandon. As I stated in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies, for one sex’s strategy to succeed the other must either be compromised or abandoned – what better way is there to assure this for women than to socially mandate through shame, persecution or financial liabilities that men abandon their own strategy in favor of women?

For some time now, I’ve detailed how for the past 4 or 5 generations, there has been a popular social re-engineering effort to raise and condition boys to become the ‘better betas‘ – boys designed to become the supportive male-reinforcers of empowering women’s interests and imperatives.

For a greater part this effort has been primarily focused on boys and men in western society, and while it’s still open for debate, I’d say that westernizing cultures are really the only cultural environments that can afford to entertain this ‘fempowerment’. This is changing radically now if it was ever really the case to begin with.

In the manosphere we like to highlight the ‘pussification’ of modern men through various efforts on the part of a nebulous ‘socitey’ aligned against masculinity. However, the flip side to this is the fempowerment agenda; an feminine-primary social structure that disallows any criticism of inherently female nature while promoting the empowerment of women on every level of social strata.

We coddle and cater to the feminine in every aspect of social interaction, every aspect of academic achievement, every socioeconomic advantage inventable, every story we tell in every form of media and we do so under the threat of not being supportive or misogynistic for suggesting anything marginally pro-masculine. This is the other side of the demasculinization imperative of boys & men – the total consolidation of handicaping men and empowering women into unrealistic effigies of feminine triumphalism.

How do you counter this?

I’m always lauded for describing these social dynamics, but I’m run up the flagpole for not offering concrete ways of dealing with and pushing back on these imperatives. Many a MGTOW will simply suggest men no longer play the Game, that isolationism is the way to go, but this only serves to eventually concede power to the Feminine Imperative. You don’t get to check out of the Game even if you refuse to play it. For all the guys who left for parts unknown to find their demi-utopia of feminine women in a foreign country, even they will explain that the tide of feminism is changing those seemingly idlyic places. And for every guy to voluntarilly go celebate and “refuse to deal with women” I’ll show you a man whose tax dollars go to fund the consequences of women’s legislated rights to Hypergamous choice.

Sooner or later Men will have to confront and push back against both men and women who are convinced of their purpose in idealizing the dictates of the Feminine Imperative. A lot of men in the ‘sphere believe their being clever when they refer to people with this worldview as ‘SJWs’, but for every hair dyed, gender-confused man-woman you see on Twitter there are hundreds of ‘normal’ people who all share similar perspectives – some simply subconscious generalization they’re oblivious to – sitting next to you at church, or working in the cubicle next to you.

As I’ve mentioned countless times, the change needs to take place by appealing to the hearts and minds of Men by making them Red Pill aware from the bottom up, but moreover, we need to live out that awareness in our own lives and lead by Red Pill example. Our decisions in life, our aspiration in parenting, family and career, in our business dealings, in the women we Game and the people we hire, all of these aspects need to take on the perspective of how they fit into pushing back against a feminine-primary world that demands we surrender any thought of individuated male power.

As Men, we need to unapologetically exercise what little power we’re left with to inform this and successive generation of Red Pill truths tactfully, but with strength of conviction in the face of a feminine-primary society bent on our surrender. Life finds a way. Feminism and the consolidation of the Feminine Imperative have failed because Men were not evolved to acquiesce their dominant spirit. On the same evolutionary level women also evolved into requiring that convnetionally masculine dominance. This is why feminism and egalitarianism will ultimately fail – nature simply will not cooperate with it’s own stagnation. As men, we can use this truth to our Red Pill aware advantage.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,782 other followers