Operative Social Conventions

V-Day

Time again for the annual re-post of this Classic:

_____________________________________________

Nothing says “I love you” like saturated fat and slutty lingerie.

In the U.S. businesses expect men to spend on average $186 for Valentine’s day – over three times the average a woman spends on a man. Explain to me why women own V-Day? If it’s a “celebration of romantic love” why should it be an annual shit test?

Lets clarify a few things about Vagintines Day since it’s become probably the most irksome manifestation of westernized/commercialized romanticism. V-Day is far and away the most vulgar display of female entitlement. On no occasion – even a woman’s birhtday or her wedding anniversary – is this sense of entitlement more pronounced and our refined commercialization of this entitlement/expectation simply twists the knife in further for men to live up to this with ZERO expectation or entitlment to any reciprocation. He gets ‘lucky‘ if his romantic offerings are sufficient to appease her (social) media fueled expectations of ‘good enough’ to reward him with sex.

And exploit the media does. I can’t get away from it; Every radio station, every TV show, every newspaper and magazine article. Go to askmen.com right now, I guarantee there’s a “how not to fuck up this year’s V-Day for her” article there.

I listened to a talk radio show that I regularly tune into on my commute home on Friday; it was about what not buy this year. “Don’t buy lingerie, she knows it’s really a gift for you” or “Don’t pick up flowers at the gas station, women know they’re cheap”, and “God forbid you pick up some cheap jewlery or stop at one of those roadside urchins selling prepared flower baskets or arrangements – women know you didn’t think about it until you were on the way home.” On my way to work this morning, different show, same list. [Side Note: Never buy a woman lingerie, she will never be happy with it. A woman has to do this on her own to “feel sexy”, make sure it fits her right, and it’s HER IDEA. When you buy it for her it’s contrived and it is overt and overt is often the kiss of death for a try-hard guy.]

Why wouldn’t women have these expectiations? They’re relentlessly marketed to as the primary consumers in western culture. V-Day isn’t a celebration of romantic love, it’s a machine that drives a wedge of expectation and entitlement in between otherwise happy, relatively contented couples.

I’m not down on the idea of a special occasion to celebrate love (I actually proposed to Mrs. Tomassi on V-Day 18 years ago), I am down on the twisted expectations that have been perverted into it that puts a woman on some pedestal of entitlement by commercialized popularization of this feminized ideal. Why isn’t there an official “fuck your boyfriend like a wild animal” holiday or a list of criteria to meet that’ll make his day special? “Show him how appreciative you are of all his dependability and hard work this year – buy some lingerie ON YOUR OWN and pretend that you like him cuming in your mouth on his special day!” If women are so liberated and interested in equality, one would think this would be the first thing to occur to them. We need a special day to make us apprecitae each other?

Gentlemen, beware of falling into the trap of negotiating desire for Valentine’s Day performance. Don’t be lulled into thinking Game is any less necessary on V-Day. In fact, I can’t think of a more direct illustration of how the feminine encourages the transaction of men’s goods and services in exchange for a woman’s sexuality than reserving a ‘special day’ just for it. Remember, you cannot negotiate genuine desire; and with the right art, a bag of Skittles can be a more romantic gesture than all the sonnets, flowers and jewelry your inner romantic soul will ever be appreciated for by her.

Note to PUAs

Valentine’s Day is ripe with opportunity for an enterprising Man with the ability to see it. Go hit the clubs tomorrow night, particularly the ones that cater to a 25-40 y.o. affluent crowd. There’s a million different venues you can hit, all with promotions to help single ladies feel better about not having a date – usually with genderist drink specials to help your approach too. You’ll notice impromptu GNOs (girl’s night out) set up just for this occasion to prove to themselves “they don’t need men to have a good time.” A good PUA couldn’t arrange a better opportunity to hook up in multiple sets.

Don’t go play ‘pity friend’ with any girl on V-Day, don’t be the “you’re such a great friend” consolation date.. Call up your best wing man and sarge on the best night of the year to sarge. Wedding receptions aren’t even as good as V-Day for this.

V-Day in the Matrix

Just in case you weren’t already convinced of the complete totality of media control that the Matrix has, let me offer yet one more Valentine’s Day example:

I was in a grocery store this weekend picking up something to grill and thought it would be a convenient time to pick up a Valentine’s Card for my wife since it’s coming this week. So I meander over to the greeting cards section to sift this years crop of mushy sentiment.  Much to my disgust the only cards available in the “For My Wife” section of the Valentines Cards (and I mean ONLY cards available) come in two types:

A.) The sentimental, “My life was nothing before you and would be nothing without you”, tripe that reduces a man to a simpering, codependent who owes his very existence to the woman who deigned to marry the poor soul.

B.)The “humorous” Valentine that is essentially the greeting card equivalent of Everybody Loves Raymond or Family Guy. These are basically intended to beg for a wife’s forgiveness for all of his uniquely male faults and foibles, that only she can solve by virtue of her infallible feminine wiles. Judging from the ‘humorous’ intent of these cards, no man is capable of feeding himself much less ask for direction or leave a toilet seat down, but on “her special day” this card is meant to prompt an appologetic laugh.

Needless to say I’ll be making my own card this year, but for fuck’s sake, how can we ever get a break from this shit when we’re ankle-bitten at every opportunity? You simply cannot buy a card that doesn’t force a man to be self-depricating.

Secret of the Sperm Bank

Sperm Sample

Over on Dalrock’s blog Anonymous Reader had an interesting insight about the Alpha Fucks – Beta Bucks dichotomy:

Turning to the Missouri sperm donor case, I got to thinking about the whole notion of a sperm bank. Without bothering to search, they seem to be an invention of the 1960′s. I recall reading about the concept in high school biology, and the original justification was to provide infertile married couples with the chance for the wife to bear a child into the marriage. A couple of the matriarchs of my family were absolutely shocked when sperm banks started serving, or perhaps servicing, unmarried women. That was immoral, in their eyes. Looking backwards it should be no surprise that in some progressive, coastal venues men began providing turkey-baster filling for lesbian couples in the 1990′s – it’s not that big a step from “woman goes to specialized OB/GYN for syringe of semen” to “woman and her partner get together with male friend and turkey baster”. Bonus points in some quarters if the man is gay…but I digress.

Let’s look at this abstractly. Man and woman marry, find that she isn’t getting pregnant, determine from medical testing that his swimmers aren’t winning the race. So they pay for another man to impregnate her, although via a medical go-between. The original sperm banks screened donors and pretty much limited them to med students and other college men.

This is “Alpha Sperm, Beta Provisioning”, and nothing less. Putting a tech or a doctor in the middle wearing gloves and a lab coat, and injecting semen with a syringe rather than the usual method doesn’t change that. Sperm banks are therefore a clinical version of AF-BB, and as such clearly serve the Female Imperative in the same manner as a married woman having an affair while she’s ovulating – except that the latter is still sorta frowned upon, while the former has been a part of US culture for 40-50 or more years. I wonder what the time line is – did sperm banks show up about the same time as hormonal contraception, for example?

Now turning back to the sucker in Missouri: what’s his real crime? Sperm donor without a license, I guess, his lesbian friends failed to use the medical go-between, and his ignorance left him liable. But in terms of the Female Imperative, perhaps he wasn’t alpha enough – they could find him – or perhaps he was alpha enough for breeding purposes (paging Mary Daly…) but beta enough for provisioning as well? I have to ponder this one more.

But the sperm bank? That’s obvious now that I wear the glasses, but it’s still kind of startling to realize that it just hit me last night that the whole idea of a sperm bank is a clear, medicalized, fully legal example of the Female Imperative of AF-BB and it’s been right out in the open for at least two generations. And it is totally normal. In fact it was apparently not all that controversial even at the start. Certainly today we all accept it because teh wimmenz deserve their own bay-bee if they want one (or more), no matter the cost to anyone else.

Another case of the Female Imperative hiding in plain sight. Someone alert Rollo.

On virtually any post I’ve made about feminism directly or where the topic of the Feminine Imperative gets redirected to one of how feminism (and previously chivalry) are social structure arms of the Feminine Imperative, one or more commenters invariably post the youtube video about how feminism was conceived to destabilize western society (by the Rockefellers?). I’m not going to speculate about some conspiracy to use the “Women’s Movement” as a premeditated social influence (there are better resources than RM for this if you’re really interested), however the fact that sperm banks were an unheard of development prior to the sexual revolution does give me pause to think that they were a need anticipated to better facilitate and perpetuate a future feminine-primary society.

It’s interesting to note that at the time of their institution, a sperm bank was a shocking development for the culture of that era. Now, a repository of men’s (presumably the best of men) genetic material can be had by any woman seeking to have a child is just part of our social scenery. The inherent hypergamic influence in this long since normalized institution can’t be ignored – just from a pragmatic standpoint hypergamy is going to dictate that women will seek out the best genetic potential for their offspring, whether artificially inseminated or by the ‘traditional’ means.

Institutionalized “Alpha” Fucks

The fact that sperm banks’ existence have been practically ubiquitous for well over 60 years now brings up some interesting social and biological dynamics.

The first of course being what Anonymous Reader observes; the fact that a repository of ‘Elite’ men’s genetic material would exist at all is the final indictment of the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks dynamic (case closed). Presumably the bank, uniquely instituted to fulfill only women genetic imperatives, would be interested in superior male specimens. What constitutes ‘superior’ or at least good quality stock is determined by a particular bank’s standards, but one might assume they would filter for overall health and viability of a man’s sperm.

I’m no expert, but I would think screening for a family history of genetic diseases, cancer, mental stability and of course HIV are on the list. I may be mistaken, but I’d also guess that a bank would screen for relatively younger men with more fertilization-viable sperm, since there is evidence that a man’s quality of sperm does in fact decay into his later years.

Beyond the biological aspects I suspect women would want a child with at least an imagined potential for future success in life so a personal background would most likely be a part of that screening process. Granted, that may be subjective depending on the demographic of women seeking (and can afford) fertilization, but I think it’s safe to assume that ethnicity, socio-economic, educational and personal success all factor into this assessment. Long story short, hypergamy, at least in the breeding aspect of it, dictates the selection process for women. As Anonymous points out, the original intent of a sperm bank / fertility clinic was to provide a woman (presumably wife) with the sperm of a viable man when her husband’s sperm was inviable – in essence, in vitro cuckolding.

If all this reads as an institutionalization of the Alpha Fucks side of women sexual pluralism (hypergamy) you’re not too far from the mark. It’s really an institutionalized form of selective breeding, entirely beholden to feminine hypergamous interests. But before I go off the deep end here, let me state that I fully realize that there’s never been some mass influx of women making ‘runs on the sperm bank’ to wantonly get themselves pregnant. Given the option, I’m sure most women would rather go with the holistic approach to impregnation (and long term private support), but the operative here is that the concept and institution of a sperm bank available to facilitate women’s biological imperative (at as optimized hypergamy as reasonable) is a normalized, almost ubiquitous social concept for modern culture.

There is really no parallel to this degree of institutionalized sexual selection for men. While there are fertility clinics for couples who may purchase donor eggs, there are no commercial ‘egg banks’, nor are there commercially available volunteer women eager to gestate and birth children to exclusively facilitate men’s biological imperatives. That isn’t to discount surrogate mothers gestating the fetuses of a sponsor couple (another extension of fulfilling the feminine biological imperative), but a man uniquely looking for a donor egg to inseminate and/or a surrogate mother to birth the child for him is all but unheard of.

And really, even if he was so predisposed to it, why would a man go to the trouble and expense? Suspending disbelief, even if he did father the child, the mother could still have exclusive rights to custody with the child if it were pressing enough for her.

From a social perspective it’s interesting to note the era in which sperm banks became normalized in society; immediately after the sexual revolution. Almost as if in anticipation for the unfettering of women’s hypergamy, the facility of insuring a woman’s best optimized hypergamy was institutionalized and normalized. This may sound like conjecture (since the socially proposed purpose was to facilitate pregnancy for an infertile man), but the utility of sperm banks quickly shifted to facilitating the pregnancy of women who wouldn’t be married or had no intention of marrying to start a family.

This was the first institution, legalized and normalized that laid bare feminism latent purpose – strong independent women® could remove the man from the equation of effecting an optimal hypergamy, while at the same time effecting future legislation and social engineering to enlist men (either publicly or privately) in the provisioning of this new breed of motherhood. And with every guy dutifully jerking off into a petrie dish, they effectually contribute one more element to institutionalized Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.

Suck It Up

suck-it-up

Recently Marellus from Just Four Guys brought this to my attention:

Did you see how the womyn tore apart a commenter, by the name of Redlum, on Jezebel ?

Just because he said this :

Why does feminism have to antagonize and mock men all the time? Men are expected to have no vulnerabilities, this is an oppressive gender role. When men’s vulnerabilities are exposed, such as feeling emasculated or being insecure about women making them “obsolete”, that is a human emotion and gloating over it and mocking it is not only terrible, but also one of the big things giving feminism a bad name.

The top reply was this :

If being in a relationship with a woman who makes more money than you and/or has a higher position than you makes you feel that you are becoming obsolete, maybe you should be mocked for being silly, immature, and sexist. So now, on top of everything else that women have to deal with, we have to comfort men for freaking out whenever a woman surpasses them at something? I’m sorry – if you are in a group that has been privileged over/oppressive of other groups, you don’t get an apology and a reassuring hug every time we get a millimeter closer to some semblance of fairness and equality. Men need to suck it up and deal with life on more equitable terms like adults, without those who do just that expecting a medal for it.

Write a post on what this guy did wrong, if possible.

Redlum’s mistake was twofold. His first error was to ever overtly look for sympathy from a woman (women). We already know women lack the capacity for empathizing with the male experience, but sympathy is another side of the equation. One grave error most blue pill plug-ins make in this respect is a presumption that women owe them sympathy or that women are predisposed to sympathizing with them.

This is usually due to having been conditioned by the feminine for so long to believe that “Open Communication®”, sharing his feelings and being vulnerable will make him the ideal man. This is an unfortunate outcome of the ‘get in touch with your feminine side’ curse of Jung: in a similar respect to the myth of Relational Equity where a man expects his sacrifices and investment in a relationship will be a buffer against women’s Hypergamy, the expectation is that women will appreciate his openness and vulnerabilities. He believes the feminine identity lie that “vulnerability is strength.”

It’s a very seductive fallacy for a dyed-in-the-wool plug-in to make. I’ve read Redlum’s comments before and he doesn’t impress me as a chump, so I believe his comment on Jezebel was really more of a symbolic appeal to feminine reason. What he illustrates here is a common misgiving most Beta blue pill men subscribe to – that they will be perceived as unique, “not like other guys” in his embracing feminine vulnerability. And as you can see from the top Jezebel reply he was met with the same hostility women have for “vulnerable” men.

Hypergamy psychologically predisposes women to hold either contempt or pity for male vulnerability on a limbic level. Even in the most ’emotionally evolved’ women, by order of degree, Hypergamy is always testing for male fitness in order to assess whom she will pair with either in short term breeding availability or long term provisioning availability. When a man overtly expresses an openness to vulnerability, on a subconscious level it telegraphs his insecurity to her Hypergamous nature. Thus, she filters him out, or if she’s paired with him prior to this expression she initiates the mental protocol to leave him for a better match.

The contempt expressed by the Jezebel authoress is a good example of this.

So now, on top of everything else that women have to deal with, we have to comfort men for freaking out whenever a woman surpasses them at something?

You’re a man, suck it up, you shouldn’t be vulnerable by virtue of your maleness. It’s a conflicting message in light of the touchy-feely feminine conditioning men endure in their upbringing, but it is an honest reaction, and one that men need to understand when sorting out the reality of women and their need to unplug.

I’m not gonna write you a love song, cause you asked for one,..

The second (symbolic?) mistake Redlum makes is making an appeal for sympathy. In Empathy I outlined women’s gut-level, evolutionarily selected-for, lack of empathizing with the male experience. I defined the difference between empathy and sympathy, and while women might lack the means for that empathy, they have a very strong sense of sympathy. However that sympathy comes with conditions.

Women involved with high SMV Alpha Men can be some of the most genuinely, organically sympathetic women you’ll ever encounter. Granted, that sympathy may facilitate her own Hypergamous interests, but more so because that Alpha never petitions her for her sympathy.

Women give their sympathies of their own accord, never as the result of a man petitioning it from her. A woman must be inspired to sympathy for a man, asking for it is negotiating for her desire to be sympathetic.

A man who is intentionally vulnerable smacks of a guy who is so in an effort to qualify for her intimacy. It’s similar to the dynamic found in Play Nice, that niceness, that vulnerability that’s supposed to be strength, is perceived as a ruse to better identify with the feminine and thus be more acceptable to it. If feminine Hypergamy is fine tuned for anything it’s genuineness. That’s not to say women wont turn it to their social and biological advantages, but Hypergamy is always testing for certainty and authenticity. I’ve stated before that there is nothing more satisfying for a woman than to believe she’s figured a guy out using her mythical feminine intuition, this is a direct satisfaction of Hypergamy’s need for certainty, but I should also add that there is nothing more mortifying, rage inducing and produces more bitter tears than a woman who’s had her Hypergamy fooled by an imposter. Not only does this deception involve a loss of investment and resources to her, but it’s also an insult to her ego that her capacity to filter for authenticity isn’t as effective as she believes her ‘intuition’ actually is.

Suck It Up

The bigger picture in this Jezebel exchange is really about one of the most basic and useful social conventions ever devised by the Feminine Imperative – The Male Catch 22:

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

This dualistic, conveniently conflicting, social convention is what defines a condition of ‘equality’ for today’s New Woman:

 Men need to suck it up and deal with life on more equitable terms like adults, without those who do just that expecting a medal for it.

In other words suck it up when convenient and sack up when necessary. In a sense she’s not wrong– an intrinsic part of the male experience is not to complain about adversity, not to complain about pain and not to complain about suffering – in other words, Man Up, be strong and don’t let on to any vulnerability. If that sounds contradictory to a lifetime of feminine sensitivity training for men it should, but only because it’s half of the usefulness of the Male Catch 22. Where our Jezebeler drops the ball is the other half of the con – Man up and be useful, to women, to the Feminine Imperative. The problem is that equality only applies to what benefits the feminine, anything else that constitutes a man, constitutes masculinity, is a liability.

If being in a relationship with a woman who makes more money than you and/or has a higher position than you makes you feel that you are becoming obsolete, maybe you should be mocked for being silly, immature, and sexist.

There is also the option that Men may simply opt out of involving themselves in a relationship with said woman. In this case the Male Catch 22 is used to shame him for his insecurities not only by women for not participating in their potential provisioning, but also by a chorus of plugged in men ready to mock him for his lack of manhood (also in order to convince the feminine of their unique dedication to the imperative and hopefully get laid as a result of it). It’s at this point he’s derided for his ‘fragile ego’ and his ‘being threatened by strong independent women®.”

By virtue of his maleness, he literally cannot win, and any expression of this condition, even the questioning of this situation is then perceived as his complaining about it – and overt confession of vulnerability. What I’m describing here is the core issue blue pill, plugged in men have with Game and the red pill – just asking a question or making a critical observation about the feminine with regard to the male condition is always conflated with men complaining – something men aren’t allowed to do. It comes off as “poor men”, just as our Jezebeler recounts, but it distracts and discourages real discourse about those conditions.

That is how effective the Male Catch 22 is, it kills all critical inquiry before the questions can even be asked.

Nursing Power

matriarchy_rome

Needless to say, last week’s post sparked some interesting, not to mention predictable, conversations and response. After sifting through all of the ego-invested brinksmanship by the token feminist reader of RM, the takeaway was actually a better understanding of the latent purpose of feminism.Perhaps not the understanding she intended, but certainly a confirmation of premise.

A handful of my male readers often ask why I don’t moderate comments, or that the message of Rational Male would be better served if I banned certain commenters. I’ve mentioned on several posts and threads as to why I won’t ever do that (except for blatant spamming), but in a nutshell it’s my fundamental belief that the validity of any premise or idea should be able to withstand public debate. People who aren’t confident of the strength of their assertions or ideas, or are more concerned with profiting from the branding of those weak assertions than they are in truth, are the first to cry about the harshness of their critics and kill all dissent as well as all discourse about those assertions.

That’s the primary reason I’ve never moderated; if people think I’m full of shit I’m all ears – I’m not so arrogant as to think I’ve thought of every angle about any idea I express here or on any other forum. However, the second reason I don’t censor, ban users or delete comments is that I believe it’s useful to have critics (usually women or fem-men) provide the gallery with examples of exactly the mentality or dynamic I’m describing in an essay. With a fair amount of predictability, a blue pill male or an upset woman will just as often prove my point for me and serve as a model for what I’ve described.

I never intentionally try to make rubes out of the critics I know will chime in about something, but I will sometimes leave out certain considerations I may have already thought about something, knowing it will get picked up on by a critic. I do this on occasion because the I know that the “ah hah! I got him, he forgot about X,Y, Z” moment serves as a better teaching tool and confirms for me that a critic does in fact comprehend what I’m going on about.

Take the Power Back

So it was throughout last week’s commentary about the branding of the Strong Independent Woman® social template offered and reinforced by the feminist mindset, and endorsed wholesale by pop-culture and popular media. Considering the new outside awareness the manosphere is receiving courtesy of Return of Kings these days, I expect we’ll see more of the point-and-sputter, dismissive ignorance of offended egos, or we’ll see more cathartic overwritten mission statements repeated by feminists confronted with logical arguments that contradict their comfortably solipsistic world-view.

Doctor Jeremy actually started me back on considering gender power dynamics with his comments here:

As always, your article is insightful. I get concerned with the limit to the progress the manosphere can make, however, because I think the discussions are missing a central concept – power. The goal of this branding, social engineering, and gender-role change you identify is the redistribution of various forms of power and influence within our society. For some reason, however, much of the manosphere’s writing and discussion does not seem to include that level of analysis. This is unfortunate, as feminist and women’s discourse is often focused on redistribution of power – and quite successful as a result of that focus.

As support for my point, please review the quotes I have extracted from livingtree2013′s various comments [emphasis mine]:

“But it is not because women want to eliminate men from the equation. It is because women have historically been entirely dependent on men for their survival, which gave men far too much power over us, and we have worked tirelessly to extract ourselves from that position of inferiority.”

“So why would you expect anything different from us? Its simply not going to happen, at least not until the men in power actually force us to obey their will, which truly, I can see coming in the near future.”

“Unfortunately, you guys didn’t want us doing those things because it negatively affected you in the power balance, but that didn’t stop us from needing it.”

She is not talking about independence. She is not talking about self-esteem. She is talking about who has the power to control the interaction and call the shots…

As far as power is concerned I think anyone who’s read the Rational Male for more than a few posts knows I quote Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power more often than any other resource here, and regularly use those laws to illustrate how they apply to intergender relations. That said, I have dedicated posts to the influence power has in personal dynamics, and I certainly recognize, if sometimes indirectly, the power dynamic in Frame, Dread, and certainly in The Feminine Imperative.

I fully understand the redistribution of power in our gender landscape from a social perspective, but the fundamental question about any form of real power isn’t about who has it or not, but to what ends they apply it.

I felt so strongly about the Truth to Power essay that I included it in the Rational Male book. The salient point in that post was this:

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

I expect that would align with what our token, self-identifying feminist LivingTree was repeating, but the underlying question is what are women using that power to achieve?

As I stated prior, feminism as a social influence, has never been about its stated goal of egalitarian equality between the sexes, but rather it’s been about restitution and retribution from the masculine it perceives as its historical oppressors. This was the original intent of feminine independence (before it became the brand it is today), a separation from the dependency (perceived or actual) of women on men. However, the problem inherent in that separation is that in creating a new, autonomous sex role for women, the innate differences and deficits that the former complementary interdependence with men satisfied had to be compensated for.

All of the inherent weaknesses of the feminine that were balanced by the masculine’s inherent strengths had to be provided for in order to achieve this new independence from the masculine. I should also point out that in this feminist separation the masculine is also left in a deficit of having its own inherent weaknesses balanced by the compensating strengths of the feminine.

Power Slaves

I’ve quoted that feminism is the mistaken belief that a more equitable society can be achieved by focusing efforts solely on the interests of one sex.

Sarcasm aside, this is exactly the use to which women have applied the power that feminism and the feminization of society has afforded them since the sexual revolution. Feminism is not, and has never been about leveling a playing field or equality amongst the genders, it’s been about power and applying it to separating from, marginalization of, and eventual eradication of, the masculine influence that the feminine imperative wants restitution and retribution from. LivingTree illustrates this for us here:

Independence for women meant we didn’t have to tolerate abuse anymore because we had the option to leave. It meant that if you left us, we wouldn’t be completely desperate. It meant we didn’t have to cling to you guys for support. It meant we could make decisions about our own lives. It meant we didn’t have to be “seen and not heard”. It meant we didn’t have to be a slave to a stereotype anymore. It meant we could be self-actualizing if we wanted to. It meant we could pick and choose which man we wanted to mate with. And it meant we could admit we had sexual desires.

Tucked into LT’s recitation of feminist boilerplate is the true application and intent of use of the power women’s emancipation from the masculine wants to achieve – direct control of the conditions dictating their innate hypergamy.

The gist of LT’s reasoning for women wanting power, and “Independence” (as a brand or otherwise) from men is due to women’s innate need for security. This need for security and certainty is literally written into women’s DNA, their neural wiring and hormones. As the ‘nurturers’ of the next generation of humanity, evolution selected-for, and reinforced the biological and psychological mechanisms of women with the best capacity to filter for situations that would provide her and her offspring with the best possible security in a chaotic and insecure world. This drive for security is what’s at the root of hypergamy, and in all fairness has been a successful survival mechanism for the human species.

Hypergamy’s constant, limbic, survival-level question for women is “Is this the optimal condition I can secure to ensure my wellbeing and my (future) children?” Whether she’s been married for decades or is out on the town with her girlfriends, that question nags a woman in her hindbrain from childhood to death. Hypergamy’s question and doubt is at the heart of every unconscious shit-test a woman will ever deliver. Hypergamy’s unrealizable quest for optimization extends from the individual woman to women’s social influences. From the micro to the macro, Hypergamy’s constant want of an unachievable contented security defines the Feminine Imperative.

Rigging the Game

In terms of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy (Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks) that question extends to who she selects as a sex partner to breed with, as well as whom she selects to be the provider for her long term provisioning. At the heart of it, women’s desire for independence and the perceived power they believe it should give them is an effort in controlling the conditions that they believe will satisfy Hypergamy’s question. Every popular woman’s issue you can list will find its way back to the want for control of the circumstances that dictate how well a woman can satisfy her Hypergamy.

Fat acceptance, the right to vote, child custody and paternity laws, divorce laws, slut walks, accusations of rape culture, more women in the boardroom, feminization of men and culture on whole, hell, every item LivingTree mentions in her comment, just name the issue and underneath the social or personal veneer is the clutching after of some usable power to control the conditions that will satisfy her need for security and optimize women’s Hypergamy.

LT is correct, women don’t want to eliminate men, they simply want to control them, both directly and indirectly, socially and personally, subtly and subconsciously as well as overtly when necessary, to comply with satisfying their innate hypergamy. They want independence from men’s influence in the process of satisfying hypergamy – they want to rig the game by replacing his genuine desires by forcing him to comply with her control of his conditions. Women want the power to control men’s desires, their ideologies, their sexual response, their individualism and the decisions that result from them all in order to optimize hypergamy

The problem in all this effort for control is that nature stagnates in homogeny. Androgyny, homogeny, are the first order for inbreeding. For as much as women make efforts to emancipate themselves and change the rules of the game to better fit their deficiencies, they are always confounded by the innate drives and desires of men. They get frustrated with men who wont play their version of the game, or worse, the ones who play it more poorly than they themselves do. So they jail them, they shame them, they pathologize his sexual impulse, they condition feminization into them from their earliest development, they punish them for not playing the game that should  always end with them optimizing hypergamy’s nagging doubt – in spite of falling short of it under organic circumstances. For all the delusions of independence, autonomy and the fantasy of some form of control of the process, they find men will simply not cooperate. They wont give them the satisfaction of optimizing their solipsistic hypergamy, because the Men who have the capacity to do so, the ones women want to be satisfied with simply aren’t playing their version of the game.

Cashing Out

Photo on 2011-06-24 at 10.51

Well I didn’t think I had one more of these in me, but after having read Morpheus’ most recent debunking of Aunt Giggles’ third plea for manosphere site traffic help with her failed rebrand,..SMV analysis, I thought I’d propose a few other dynamics I’ve observed in all of Susan’s schoolyard rock throwing.

The main reason the Tomassi SMV Graph is in any way contentious with the zealots of the feminine imperative is that it points out the ugly truth that the age range women attempt to cash in their SMV chips (27-30) in marriage is conveniently the time at which most women begin to acknowledge their lessened capacity to compete with the next wave of women entering their SMV peak. They dislike this reminder for a couple of reasons.

The first, is simply the audacity of having a Man be aware of how the dynamic works and explain it to women in stark, unflattering terms that they have a real tough time accepting. Of course, they are aware of this on some level of consciousness, but to have any Man read this awareness back to them in no uncertain terms is a threat to women’s sexual strategy. One theme the manosphere has always pointed out, and the mainstream media is reluctantly beginning to address, is the predisposition of women to enjoy their ‘party years’ (18-26) and then, as Dalrock has noted so well, exit the cock-carousel at or around 30 years of age and ‘settle down’ with the “he’ll have to do” Beta provider who’s been patiently waiting his turn (after the Alpha cads are done with her) to get with her.

As I’ve stated in previous posts, even Susan Walsh concurs that women popularly express a desire to be married between the ages of 28 and 32. In essence, Aunt Sue is agreeing with my cashing out observation, but can’t seem to wrap her head around why this age bracket would predominantly be the time women would want to pair off in the long term security of marriage.

Actually she does know why, but her rebrand audience demands a fantasy she (and every other plugged-in HuffPo gender pundit) is required to deliver. According to her most recent posts, women’s prime sexual market value can, and mostly does, extend well into women’s 50’s (hell, why stop there, when apparently it can go into a gal’s 80’s). She simply picks up the girl-world / equalitarian narrative’s fantasy for female SMV and the Myth of Sexual Peak and feeds it back to the 7 or 8 commenters she approves to post comments on her blog. See Sue? You’ve just rebranded around reheating what other bloggers have already beat you to years ago.

I wouldn’t so much care about this repackaging, but Aunt Giggles further compounds the lie with this assertion:

2. Fertility declines very gradually between the ages of 27 and 35.

In a study of 782 couples:

They found that women between the ages of 19 and 26 with partners of similar age had approximately a 50 percent chance of becoming pregnant during any one menstrual cycle if they had intercourse two days prior to ovulation. For women aged 27 to 34, the chance was 40 percent.

3. Fertility declines more dramatically after 35.

Even then, female fertility hardly goes to zero:

For women over the age of 35, the probability dropped to 30 percent.

Notice how the male sexual value begins its precipitous drop at around 36, after declining gradually for five years. Not much difference.

She knows this is flagrant, potentially damaging, bullshit, but posts it because it makes good copy for her rebrand and her ignorant girl-world readers will eat it up. I say it’s flagrant bullshit because she knows better and has posted about it in the past:

III. Tick Tock Biological Clock

Despite progressive sex ed curricula in most areas of the country, adult women today are seriously misinformed about the state of their ovaries.

During a recent story that aired on NPR one infertile woman in her early 40s couldn’t understand it. She insisted that she works out regularly, does yoga, even has a personal trainer. She eats well and is healthy. She never knew that her ovaries were becoming less productive in spite of those measures.

A recent survey found that women dramatically underestimate how much fertility declines with age. They estimated that a 30 year-old had an 80% chance of getting pregnant in one try. The real likelihood is 30%. They also thought a 40 year-old woman would have a 40% success rate, while those odds are less than 10%.

Women are surprised to learn this information and they’re angry about it.

And that was around the same time I wrote the Myth of the Biological Clock. So whom do you trust HUS readers? The 2011 Susan Walsh, warning against cashing out of the SMP too late (or more difficult) to conceive, or the 2013 rebranded, marketeer Susan Walsh who’s telling you your SMV never drops below that of men’s and you can settle down and easily have it all into your 50’s and 60’s?

The Warning

The Second reason the Tomassi SMV graph is so inflammatory is that it poses a direct threat to the feminine imperative (and all its adherents, male and female) in that it serves as a warning for young men to be well aware of this cashing out dynamic, while encouraging them to invest in themselves and become Game-aware so as to capitalize on it when their time comes. I wrote about this preparation in The Epiphany Phase:

For red pill, Game-aware Men, this is a supremely important stage in women’s maturation to consider. A woman in the Epiphany Phase is looking for a “fresh start” for a much more visceral reason than some newly inspired sense of self. This motivation prompts all kinds of behavioral and social conventions to facilitate a man’s commitment to forgiving her past indiscretions. As Roosh has pointed out more than once, it’s women in this phase of life (or the mothers of women in this phase) who most vocally complain about men’s lack of interest in committing to them. As Hephzibah is painfully aware of, women in their peak SMV years don’t complain about a dearth of marriageable men– “Man Up” is the anthem of women in the Epiphany Phase.

The Epiphany Phase, and all the accompanying psychological, social and conveniently religious self-rationalizing for it, is the signaling of a woman ready to cash out of the SMP casino. Women’s pluralistic sexual strategy hinges upon men’s ignorance of it up to, or far enough past it, to consolidate and optimize Hypergamy. Although I wrote Final Exam – Navigating the SMP as a bit tongue in cheek, the intent was to seriously address a common complaint and request:

“Rollo, I just wanted to say that your stuff has been truly groundbreaking for me. This material should be a graduation requirement for all high school seniors.”

“Where the hell was all this info and wisdom when I was single? I so wish I’d discovered the manosphere / red pill before I proposed / had kids / got divorced / got burned by listening to what my girlfriend said / was younger,..etc. etc.”

The primary reason I compiled the Rational Male into a book form (and made it affordable) was to serve exactly this purpose; to educate and warn the upcoming generations of young men of the complexities of women’s sexual strategies being played on them, while also, and regrettably, educating those men with the predisposition to accept the realities they’ve probably fallen prey to. Really this is the mission of the manosphere on whole, but as I stated in The Threat, for the feminine imperative to sustain itself, the FI can’t afford this awareness to become too widespread, otherwise the feminine loses its social primacy.

This maintaining of feminine social primacy is at the heart every social convention perpetuated by the feminine imperative. Every Jezebel gender pundit, every Aunt Giggles, every PZ Meyers or Hugo Schwyzer (until he comes clean) is only interested in perpetuating a feminine social control via a constant repetition and fluid repurposing of feminine social convention. I’ve posted before that on the surface this might seem conspiratorial, but the real truth of the matter is the underlying desire for this control is less about effecting social power and more about maintaining as indefinitely as possible women’s capacity to optimize hypergamy.

Perpetuating the myth that women’s SMV remains a viable constant (and exceeding that of men’s) over the course of a lifetime may seem like arrogance, but the latent purpose of that myth is to extend a woman’s prospects of optimizing hypergamy well past a realistic believability. As women advance socially, economically, educationally and professionally the necessity to extend SMP viability long past a women’s realistic peak SMV becomes increasingly more necessary as the difficulty and effort-investment of measurable success becomes more prolonged. The tl:dr takeaway is, the longer it takes for women to ‘have it all’ the longer it takes for a woman to optimize an acceptable hypergamy, the longer she needs to believe her SMV is still viable.

Thus for a woman to literally ‘have it all’ she, and every man invested in the feminine imperative, must be conditioned to believe that a woman’s SMV can remain competitively intact well into her 50’s. Susan Walsh is only one such profiteer cashing in on convincing women that they shouldn’t feel what they all instinctively feel – that they should be cashing out at or around 30.

For this extension to be realized it becomes increasingly important that men be kept ignorant of the feminine imperative and women’s long term sexual strategy. The outrage isn’t about 38 year old men thinking they can get with 22 year old women (which was never proposed) but rather the real outrage stems from enlightening young men that they will eventually possess more SMV potential than women after 30, to prepare for it, and not submit their lives to women’s imperatives for men. In other words, the Tomassi SMV Graph warns men that it will be within their power not to let women have their hypergamous cake and eat it too.

Not All Women Are(n’t) Like That

On many an occasion I’ve been confronted with what I’ve observed to be the most common retort / rebuttal / “oh no you di’ int!” response to anything I propose about the nature of women. Oh, what the hell I’ll just let female commenter LivingTree illustrate it for you. From my Shallow post:

RM, did you actually mean what you said, “The single most common shaming tactic that women use against men is “shallow””? And you are upset about that? Thank god for that! What I wouldn’t do to be in mens’ shoes if that is the case.

The list of shaming tactics men use against women is so incredibly hostile and hurtful that I can hardly even repeat them, and it embarrasses me you’re even complaining about being called shallow. What I wouldn’t do to be called shallow instead of an fat ugly angry bitch gold-digging selfish feminist whore whenever I speak my mind about something controversial.

You guys have no idea how good you have it, if being chastized for being shallow is the biggest of your problems.

I’ve illustrated examples of feminine solipsism in many a post, but to really understand it, you have to read the responsive comments of women when they are presented with an objective observation, critical of women in General, how they solipsistically interpret that “attack”, personally reinterpret it in their personal experience, and then re-offer their interpretation as a generalized (i.e. universal) truth. I’ll let LivingTree continue to spell this out a bit more succinctly for you:

Oh, and incidentally, as a woman, I make my selection of relationship companions not based on looks, or money, or ambition, or how much they want me.

All those things are nice, and sometimes its enough to get a first date, but I my decision to continue dating someone based on one factor alone: does he have class?

Sadly, this means I don’t find I date much. They get weeded out really quickly. I suggest you guys do the same. There really isn’t much out there to choose from, among men or women I’m afraid, but if we are all making our mating decisions based on…looks, or money, or ambition, or how much they want us… well, then we are fostering bad character in each other.

Well, you get the picture. If you haven’t read Shallow yet, the real objective of that essay can be found in the first paragraph:

[ ]terms like “shallow” and “superficial” are contextually defined from a feminine perspective and, through shaming, serve to enforce feminine primacy.

Of course, nowhere in this article do I personalize my take on this particular shame; I’m only outlining a process and observing a feminine social convention. Obviously I don’t have to defend the observation, but LivingTree’s response highlights the typical female reaction to, an ego-invested, gender-specific offense. Process the objective in a personalized context, reinterpret the intent of that objectivity (imply bias), defend the feminine, defend the ego and then re-generalize the corrected universal interpretation in as feminine-positive a way as possible.

Oh, and if you can add a bit of masculine shame into that re-generalization (for daring to have been critically objective about the feminine in the first place), all the better.

NAWALT®

Anyone who’s spent more than a month reading comment threads on manosphere blogs understand the reason NAWALT has become a trope worthy of its own acronym. “Not all women are like that,..” is the most common, default, go-to response for feminine personal offenses. You’ll have to forgive the $10 words I used in the previous paragraph, but they were necessary to describe a process that leads to NAWALT. Obviously women’s minds (or humans in general) don’t run through a mental algorithm step by step like this until they repurpose objectivity into a subjective universal truth they find more palatable. They don’t need to when the work is already done for them with the NAWALT response.

Just as with other feminine social convention like JBY (“Just be yourself”) or the classic LJBF (“Let’s just be friends“), NAWALT is a mental process that’s already been socialized by the feminine imperative for ease-of-use for women. Even when women are forced by incontrovertible evidence to concede an objective observation that is damaging to the feminine, NAWALT is useful.

It’s usually at this point of concession that the “ooh, ooh, men do it too!” reaction is enacted. If at some point during the process of personal reinterpretation a woman has the spark of real introspection, or is forced to acknowledge a not-so-flattering aspect of female nature men make in the objective, the next natural default is to compare that aspect to another male aspect – much as LivingTree attempts in her Shallow responses.

The rationale is one of “well, we women are bad, but you men are worse”, and simply sidesteps the original, objective point being made. Distracting the issue is  just Bad Debate 101, but it’s interesting to see the natural fluidity (sans a real awareness of debate) with which feminized minds will resort to it. The issue isn’t the issue, the issue is that men do something similar so the offensive point is invalidated. Needless to say this does nothing to address the original point.

Not All Women Aren’t Like That

The usefulness of NAWALT really extends beyond just a defensive measure though. NAWALT is used and personalized in the hopes that women will generate sympathetic opinions of themselves (through personal anecdotes), and by extension women on whole, in defense of feminine perspectives. However, not all women are like that,..until all women are like that.

If I were to debate the uniquely feminine merits of feminine social conventions that cast women in a positive light (i.e. one that compliments the feminine imperative) then, all women are like that, and what’s better is that no man is ever like that. For example, if I were to bolster the myth of the feminine mystique on a forum or blog praising the aspects of women you would never read “yeah, but not all women are like that” nor would you read “yeah, but men do this too.” If I find something laudable about the feminine then no woman has an objective problem with “all women are like that” and there will never be a sympathetic counter-element that finds a corollary with anything men do. In other words, NAWALT (until they are), but men are always like that.

Sex, Lies and Statistics.

iamaten

Ok I’ll admit it, I had originally intended to go a bit off brand and write a take down piece about Aunt Giggles’ ludicrous post last week about how my infamous SMV graph wasn’t statistically viable, but the ABC 20/20 hit piece that never aired on Friday had the lion’s share of my attentions. To call that post flimsy would be an understatement, but when her site traffic starts heading south consistently enough she always resorts to taunting the manosphere to increase views and comments she’ll only delete. It must be a lot tougher a gig for her now that the HuffPo owns Hooking Up Betas and she’s expected to drive site traffic for revenue regularly. Gone are the days of the 1,000+ HUS comment threads when you’re only interested in hearing your own voice.

The abject stupidity of Susie quoting a single, unverifiable “PhD in statistics” comment on Dalrock’s site (from April of 2011 no less) to build a post refuting sexual market evaluation should be enough to tell the story about HUS’s commercial rebranding; not to mention Giggles’ desperation for viewership in an already saturated demographic. In other words, when your rebrand is essentially 17 Magazine for the 55+ female demo, you’ve got your work cut out for you. Advice for you Suz; go back to pretending to be red pill — there’s a hundred other bloggers on Jezebel, and a hundred HuffPo ‘psychologists’ who’ve been doing your schtick longer and better than you.

Print

All that said, I can’t help but recognize the nerve that my SMV chart has struck throughout the internet. I’m not just talking about the manosphere proper here; from recognized psychology sites (generally for comparison) to BodyBuilding.com, this chart is easily the most linked-to picture from Rational Male. Whether it’s about refuting its accuracy or comparing how my instinctual understanding of SMP valuations gel with more scientific studies, that graph has become a benchmark, or at least the starting point, for a better understanding of comparative SMV over the course of a subjective lifetime.

A lot of that original post’s intent gets misconstrued, usually as the result of bruised egos still invested in blue pill social conditioning, but also women who are understandably threatened by the prospect of having their long-term sexual strategy chronologically laid bare for men to prepare themselves for. I’ve restated this repeatedly, but this graph was never the result of some scientific analysis, rather it was the result of observation and correlation. And I daresay (even to my surprise) that my graph lines up scarily close to most ‘statistical’ studies.

Nonetheless, Aunt Sue’s plea for site traffic prostitution made me aware that I should address some of the most common criticisms of the Tomassi SMV graph. So lets start with ‘Doctor’ Kelly’s assertions:

Those graphs are wrong because, with a fixed number of people in the world, equal between the sexes, you have to scale the curves so that the area under each one is the same. E.g. the top valued man is not a “10,” ever. He’s some relatively lower value scaled by the fact that men’s sexual prime lasts longer. Why is this, for the non math geniuses out there? Because if there are 50 men who are 7.5′s, and there are only 30 women, then men’s actual score and actual value on the dating market is downgraded because he can’t just choose a 7.5 and take her. He is downgraded by competition in the market.

You can read Kelly’s entire comment at Dalrock’s, but her analysis is fundamentally flawed for the same reason the 3 year old OK Cupid graphs are flawed (or statistically limited). This flaw is the assumption is that SMV evaluation is in anyway relatable to whom a person is actually pairing off with in the short or long term. As I’ve stated many times before, “wants” got nothing to do with it. Desirability, and peak sexual market value (and capitalizing upon that peak) have nothing to do with monogamy – however this is exactly the context I would expect from solipsistic women relating any and every detail of the SMP to how it fits into a feminine narrative. Though it might be a tall order I’d love to see a study done of how women’s menstrual cycle influences their short term breeding with who they pair off with in long term monogamy.

This was from a couple of comments he made on the Curse of Potential:

…with regards to the SMV graph–are you saying a 40 year old guy is gonna have an easier time picking up a 22 year old girl (at her SMV peak) at a bar than, say, a 27 year old? I dunno if I’m reading it correctly, but it appears to show a man of 40 as having almost twice the SMV as a man of 27, which doesn’t sound right to me. Almost all the hot young chicks I know are with other, young (maybe couple years older) douchebags, not forty year olds (or even 38 or 35 year olds). I mean, unless you’re Leonardo DiCaprio or something…obviously there are exceptions, but–even outside my circle friends, when I go to the beach, the movies, bars, etc. I don’t see a lot of young girls with way older guys, as your graph would suggest. Advising us to wait till we’re in our late thirties to settle down, and promising we’ll land 22 year olds if we keep up our Game, seems like bad advice–not to mention, you’re giving a lot of single dudes in their 20s false hope–like, hey, can’t pick up a girl at 29? Just wait till you’re 40! They’re gonna be all over that. Girls definitely hit the wall harder, and sooner, than guys, but if men really peaked at the age you say, then–again–most, or at least a sizable minority, of the hottest, youngest chicks would be with them, and they’re not.

SaladDays misunderstands the premise of men’s potential here. One of the most common criticisms I get, especially from disgruntled women, is Salad’s observation; “as a mid-20’s girl, there’s no way I’d ever be attracted to some older guy.” Once again, pairing and mutual attraction has nothing to do with SMV, and especially so when a woman is experiencing her peak sexual market value. The feminized-thinking presumption here is that like should attract like. The 22 year old SMV peaked hottie should be attracted to and interested in settling down with the 37 year old, in-shape, potential maximized, Game-aware man.

SaladDays continues:

If SMV is indicative of one’s ability to attract the most desirable members of the opposite sex, then presumably those in the upper echelons of SMV would want to pair with other, equally sexy mates–and, according to the graph, we infer that the hottest 23-year old girls will generally hook up with 38-year old men.

And, as much as I would like that to be true, 27 years of experience tells me otherwise. Girls that age don’t tend to date men that old (there are exceptions– they have father issues, or the guy is really wealthy & some girls dig that, though they’re certainly not my type).

I believe it was Aristotle who said the best years to marry were 18 for women and 38 for men. In a vacuum, this might be an idealized situation, but the mistake is comparing female peak SMV with male peak SMV. A woman of 22-23 has nothing like the benefit of life experience a potential-optimized man of 38 will have. The comparison shouldn’t be made between peaks, but rather within the peak SMV span between the sexes. Even Aunt Giggles concedes that when polled, most women will say they want to marry between 27 and 30 years of age. Conveniently this is exactly the point at which men’s SMV is (should be) on its ascendancy and women’s SMV drops to an equitable level.

What’s ironic is that for all the handwringing about how a female 23 year olds should or shouldn’t be attracted to older men, no one has anything to say about 28 year old women being attracted to or wanting to settle down with men of 36-38 years old. They titter and giggle about the Half Plus Seven rule while it’s advantageous to their sexual strategy in their phase of life, but only insofar as it benefits women’s sexual pluralism:

When the age ratios of the ½+7 formula are strategically favorable to the feminine sexual strategy, the response by the feminine is one of enthusiastic embracement. Once that ratio progresses to the point it becomes a sexually strategic liability, or even the source of anxiety, the response is one of scorn and shame for men.

When a 28 year old woman declares she’d like to marry an older man, her intellectual and financial status equal, we applaud her for her prudence, but when a 38 year old man declares he’d like to marry even a 27 year old woman to have children with he’s accused of ‘trophy-bride’ hunting and is scared of the Strong Independent Woman® of his own age.

The point is that SMV, in as rough a form as I illustrate with the graph, is that monogamy or even desire has little to do with actualized SMV. Hot, 22 year old coeds with big boobs will always sell more beer than comparably hot 32 or 42 year old women. What gets lost in the translation is that SMV for each sex is determined by the opposite sex, not what that sex would like it to be for themselves. An SMV peaked 22 year old has so much opportunity to capitalize on that peak it becomes distraction. She’s not (as) interested in monogamy with a 37 year old SMV peaked Man, because she has very little motivation to pair off with anyone during this phase of life, much less having the life experience to know a great long term catch when she sees one.

However, when a woman is properly motivated by a more pronounced need for long-term provisioning (be it emotional, financial, etc.) and begins to acknowledge her decaying SMV and lessened capacity to compete in the SMP (i.e. the impending Wall) we conveniently see 27-30 year old women preferring and pairing with men who are, or are just, experiencing their SMV beginning to appreciate. This is a pretty remedial lesson when you consider women of this age’s popular frustration in finding and pairing off with men they deem “their equal”. This is really just a euphemism for ‘man who can provide long term security’, but I’m focusing on the mechanics of the SMP here.

While it might be a popular concept to think of cougars as women looking for idealized, younger, lovers, the reality is one of women seeking men of equitable maturity, and certainly the same, or preferably more, means and status than herself to support her idealized lifestyle. At 27 and older women are motivated to seek the Man who’s realized his potential most fully, while men of 37 who’ve become Game-aware and have in some way capitalized on their slower burning SMV are still attracted to the youth and physicality that they were in their 20’s. The question isn’t about who’s SMV is making them more acceptable for pair-bonding, it’s about which sex’s motivation takes priority when their SMV is peaked and the phase of life the other sex finds themselves in.

SMV Ratios & Attachment

Print

Since I produced the SMP graph last year I have had more than a few earnest readers and irritated critics call me to the carpet about the variables involved in estimating even a rough sketch of the modern, western, SMP landscape. Before I get into today’s post let me reiterate that my SMV chart is an imperfect tool; sexual market evaluation doesn’t happen in a vacuum, I know that, but it is a necessary starting point and framework against which we can better understand social, behavioral and psychological dynamics between the genders.

One of the larger messages this SMV life-overview brings to light is the rise and fall of an individual’s sexual market value according to their age and the personal implications that phase of their life has on affecting that valuation. I originally published the SMV chart with the intent of enlightening men as to what their future SMV (should) will be in relation to women’s faster burning SMV, and the social conventions women, and the feminine imperative, have established in order to derail that awareness to better service women’s sexual priorities and hypergamy. However, since then I’ve seen this chart passed around the manosphere and into outside forums as an example of other related gender dynamics. The chart has other uses than my original idea.

The Ennobled Beta

With this in mind I was debating the idea of secure attachments in relationships with a friend over my summer hiatus. He’s what I’ll call an ‘ennobled Beta’, not necessarily guilty of outright white knighting, but is steeped in his Matrix conditioning enough to conflate a prescribed male role in egalitarian equalism with masculinity. In other words, to him, to be a ‘supportive husband’ ® is to presume a position of absolute equalism in his relationship. Since he subscribes to the feminized notion of an historic condition of ‘male privilege’, generally this means he believes that limiting his inborn masculine nature allows his wife to be “more equal”. To him, real manhood is repressing his innate masculinity (such as it is) so that his wife will feel less inhibited in becoming something more than what a ‘masculine’ society will permit.

Yes, it’s classic Beta Identification Game; nothing I haven’t engaged already in the past decade. And yes, it’s also the classic feminist boilerplate that feminism has bred into contemporary males for over 50 years now. What hit me during this conversation is the presumption of an idealized equalism that can in some way be realized between a man and a woman in an LTR. The reason the topic came up with us was due to his wanting for his wife to be more aggressive with him sexually. He simply couldn’t grasp that his wife didn’t want to take the initiative with him in the bedroom. Here he was explaining the virtues of being a ‘better male’ in his playing fair and even with his wife, yet for all his giving her space to grow, she wouldn’t be the sexual instigator with him despite his equalist expectations that she would feel comfortable being that instigator. In a way he subscribes to the Relational Equity fallacy – he believes she ought to appreciate him sexually because he’s invested so much of himself in ensuring she  feels like his equal.

True Neutral

The problem he’s dealing with is the result of his belief in true gender neutrality. Learn this now, taken to its logical extreme, the end result of true gender neutrality is androgyny. No sexual dimorphism, just simple homogenous androgyny. Fortunately for us, nature abhors homogeny and has always found dynamic ways around the dead ends that the inbreeding of androgyny produces.

My friend’s wife’s sexual passivity (and general disinterest) is one such dynamic. Try as he may, no amount of social equalization will prompt his wife’s biological sexual impulse – in essence he’s attempting  to negotiate her desire with himself.

For all his frustration and inability to accept red pill truths I have to thank him because it was from this conflict that I had a starting point in estimating relationship attachment theory and its relation to SMV.

Roissy once proposed that the strength and security of any relationship rests in the disparity between each person’s sexual market value. While I endorse this principle entirely, I’m going to take it a bit further. As a general principle it works well for the guy wanting to maintain his frame in an LTR, however there’s more wrapped up in that SMV disparity than I think has been explored thus far.

As I began here, SMV doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Men may have an Alpha dominance established only to have it knocked back down after failing a particularly bad shit test. He may rate lower or higher depending on a social status that’s in flux. A woman must find ways to cope with an ever decaying SMV once she reaches her SMV peak and begins her decline towards the Wall. Childbirth and rearing, weight gain, satisfying a security need, and many other factors may also accelerate this process.

What I’m going to do here is propose a general outline for SMV disparity based on the ratio between both sexes. Before you read my outlines, keep in mind the Cardinal Rule of Relationships: In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. The overarching concept here is that the person in the relationship with the superior sexual market value will at least be perceived by the person of lesser value to need them less than the other. If it is established by concrete social proof that one person is of higher SMV than the other, it’s usually an accepted reality of that relationship, but bear in mind that it is the fluctuating perception of SMV that has more influence on the attachment and strength of that relationship.

Finally, from a feminine perspective it’s important to remember that Hypergamy is a game of perceptions, testing, confirmations and retesting new perceptions. This process has a pronounced effect on SMV evaluation, which is then influenced by a woman’s own self-perceptions.

1:1

This is the position of Tue Neutral I illustrated with my friend’s situation above. I’m starting here because this ratio is the mythological ideal every equalist will tell you they’re striving for. Be they male or female, what adherents of equal balance fail to consider is that real, sustainable equilibrium in SMV is an impossibility. What every modern woman and gelded male in an LTR will tell you is that they believe they are common examples of that SMV equilibrium. The truth is that their ego investment in that equalist idealism wont allow for the real introspect necessary to accurately evaluate what their true individual SMV really is –both in relation to themselves and the greater whole of society in their demographic.

A 1:1 SMV doesn’t exist. I’m sure there will be naysayers who feel they “play it fair” with their wives or girlfriends, but the fact remains that SMV is always in flux and doesn’t allow for a true, sustainable equilibrium. Hypergamy is an easy example; fail one too many shit tests and your equitable 1:1 ratio slips to 2:1 in a woman’s favor. A man getting to the gym more frequently or getting a promotion in status may be enough to upset that 1:1 balance. There are simply too many variables in a contemporary relationship to take the notion of SMV equilibrium seriously. Furthermore, we must consider the effect that social media plays in women self-evaluations of their own SMV. And this is only one (albeit significant) social distortion that can upset the idealistic equitable balance.

Even in the most stable and SMV balanced pairings, the simple fact that both sexes’ SMV peaks occur at differing phases of life makes the notion of a contented balance laughable. However it is important for a Man to bear in mind that his SMV will eventually exceed that of any woman if he continues to improve himself and grows personally, physically and financially into his SMV peak years. There will eventually come a time when a woman’s SMV will decay to the point that her necessitousness will exceed her value. In other words, due to her fast burn-fast decay SMV, and recognized or not, she will eventually need a Man more than he needs her when he enters his peak SMV phase and she’s declined to the Wall of her own.

It’s during this critical phase that a woman must rely on her man’s socially expected love, charity, obligation and parental investment to maintain his secure attachment to her in the face of an obvious SMV imbalance. As I’ve covered before, women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices men make to facilitate women’s reality – and once those facial wrinkles and cellulite can no longer be disguised by makeup or collagen, women will still persist in the expectation of monogamous obligation, in preference to the genuine desire, love, devotion, etc. a man may legitimately feel about her regardless of her wrinkles.

2:1

Roissy has defined this ratio in the past as the golden mean of SMV between the genders – so long as the man is on the beneficial side of it. The most successful, stable and loving relationships don’t result from being equally yoked – they result from a mutually acknowledged SMV superiority of a positively masculine male and his adoring, yet subconsciously anxious, woman who’s up to a point below him in SMV evaluation.

Some guys get to this position by default. Either by genetics, prior hard work or simply being single at the phase of life when his SMV is peaking while hers is in decline, a man can prolong this ratio far longer and far more realistically than the 1:1 idealization. This isn’t to say his SMV can’t be reduced by failing a shit test or by unfortunate personal circumstances, but the durability and resiliencey of his higher SMV affords him more leeway in recovering from these missteps or calamities.

A man need not necessarily be an Alpha cad to establish this ratio, all that’s required is an acknowledged recognition of this SMV imbalance and the appropriate appreciation and adoration from the woman involved. There are plenty of Betas who enjoy (or eventually will enjoy) the benefits of a 2:1 ratio even when they don’t (or refuse to) recognize an SMV imbalance that weighs in their favor.

From a female side a 2:1 ratio is generally what most modern women find themselves dealing with; through realized fact or by self-deluded overestimation of their own SMV, most women already presume they are the party with the higher SMV. These are the naggers, the brow beaters, the women who wistfully to aggravatedly wish their men were more than they are. They crave the SMV imbalance that a dominant Alpha would satisfy, yet through their own ego investments, or due to their inability to lock that Alpha down, must relegate themselves to being the less necessitous person in their LTR.

3:1

While this is a tenable situation for a Man it borders on the unhealthy. Marginal fame, notoriety or an actualized condition of widely acknowledged social proof can make for a 3:1 SMV ratio. These are the Men who other women can’t help but be attracted and aroused by, and other men aspire to be in one way or another. The women they do pair off with are faced with two options: either maturely accept this inequity and rely on feminine wiles (and sexual performance) to create a situation of ‘value added’ emotional investment and secure his monogamy, or accept that she will only be a short term breeding option for him before a woman who’s a better SMV option presents herself to him.

Only the most secure of women in this ratio pairing don’t suffer from an state of passive dread. While a 2:1 pairing may force a women to deal with marginal self-doubt and underlying competition anxiety, a woman in a 3:1 pairing will have to confront the dread of loss that accompanies a less stable pairing. From a Hypergamic perspective, she’s hit the evolutionary jackpot – sexual pairing with a mate she wouldn’t normally have access to. Fat women who garner the drunken attentions of an out-of-options man of higher SMV make for the most common occurrences of a 3:1 pairing. Irrational jealousy and ‘accidental pregnancies’ are not uncommon in this pairing.

I should point out that a 3:1 pairing may also be the result of a 2:1 pairing that lasted into a man’s peak years and bumped him up a point, or more likely, the woman depreciated down a point or more as she hit the Wall.

From the female side, a 3:1 ratio is generally only a temporary condition. Leaving a man who is recognizably a full 2 points beneath her in SMV is really only a formality. Generally this female-side pairing is the result of an extreme circumstance, a particularly materialistic woman or a man who convinced a woman he was more Alpha than he seemed only to backslide into abject Betaness once he mistakenly thought he could get comfortable with her and expected her to love him for just being himself.

It should also be considered that a 3:1 female-side pairing may also be the result of a post Wall professional woman pairing off with the only Beta so intently conditioned in feminine-primary psychology that she would consider him preferable to celibacy.

4+:1

We’re pushing into the improbable here, but these pairing do exist. Your first thought may be the famous celebrity or musician who marries a ‘commoner’, but the more likely scenario is one where a previously more equitable pairing was solidified and one partner decayed so dramatically that this extreme imbalance resulted. It’s easy to find online before and after examples of women progressively fattening  from a trim sexy girl of 19 to a 200lbs+ landmonster of 26. I wish I could say these were outliers, but as all too many bloggers in the manosphere will attest, it’s increasingly common.

Women in the ‘before-and-after’ demographic who find themselves in a 4+:1 are often the most dependent upon the feminine social convention established to delimit men’s sexual selectivity. The Body Fat embracers and the ‘shallow’ men shamers are the most obvious examples.

Other than for the most egregious of gold diggers a sustainable 4:1 balance from the feminine side is a virtual impossibility.