Operative Social Conventions

All In

I can remember reading with great interest the particulars of Tiger Woods’ affairs when they went public. Considering his talent and drive I had always thought he’d cashed in far too early by marrying his Swedish model, but this woman represented the feminine archetype most men idealize for most of their lives. When the unattainable becomes attainable for a man so deprived, he tends to look past anything but his most immediate gratification.

However, Tiger was following a common script for beta men, and just this weekend a new example of this script has been illustrated for us in the resignation of General David Petraeus. Petraeus’ story is a classic tale of when youthful beta idealism, an almost self-affirming obliviousness of the SMP, and a Contextual Alpha status run headlong into the realities of our contemporary sexual marketplace and the brave new world of a fem-centric society.

Understandably most of the media concern about Petraeus revolves around the political implications of his resignation as CIA director, but there’s much more ‘under the hood’ here with respect to how he came to resign. For the breakdown have a read here for the timeline of events.

First and foremost, Petraeus is a beta. I realize that’s going to come off as presumptuous on my part, and possibly offensive, but I’m making this assessment based on history and behaviors here.

Disgraced former CIA Director David Petraeus exchanged a sexually explicit email about having sex under a desk with his mistress and continued to pursue her by bombarding her with thousands of messages even after she had broken off the affair it has been revealed.

I have no doubt that manosphere readers subscribing to the “Leaders of Men” definition of Alpha will have their rationales about how Petraeus was never really Alpha, or his actions prove his betaness, but his story follows a common pattern for betas in a feminized social structure. He married his idyllic ‘high school sweetheart’ and launched his military career. Only later in life does he become aware of his true SMV as his wife’s nose-dives after hitting the wall. After his contextual Alpha status has been established he begins to come to awareness of his now matured SMV, and a flirty, subjectively attractive, late 30s PhD looks a whole lot better than clinging to the idealism that’s kept him unaware of how the SMP really works.

For young idealistic betas, the fairytale scenario of marrying the ‘girl of your dreams’ out of high school (college?) seems perfect. If you need a musical example of this, listen to any Taylor Swift song or ‘Hey there Delilah’ by the Plain White T’s. The idea of only ever having sex with that one special girl, that “genetic celebrity”, only reinforces the fantasy for a young beta who’s never gotten laid before. At 17-19 this seems like conviction, but 37 years later, and after realizing his true SMV it’s a liability; it’s a sacrifice that cannot be appreciated.

The cruel hoax is then revealed once a man becomes established in his personality, his career, his maturation and mastery of his particular elements. His achievements are commonplace to the wife he’s been with for decades, but they’re a wellspring of attraction and arousal for women unfamiliar with how he achieved them. As I outlined in Navigating the SMP, there comes a point (usually by his early 30s) that a man, at least should, become aware of his higher sexual market value while realizing the SMV declination of the woman he’s committed himself to. He starts to see the code in the Matrix, and the long term wisdom, or lack of wisdom, his youthful idealism led him to.

The Status-to-Marriage Failsafe

As I stated though, a man should become more aware of his higher SMV as he matures. For some, this is an internalized, subconscious acknowledgement –it’s something a man knows, but either hasn’t the reason or the opportunity to act upon it. For other men it may be a more overt acknowledgement, one useful in prompting dread or reigniting competition anxiety in women. Still for others, such as Petraeus, the acknowledgement doesn’t really come until the right opportunity to address it comes along. In this case in the form of Paula Broadwell.

One societal fail-safe against this inevitable male SMV awareness the feminine imperative has established for women comes in tying a man’s status to his degree of commitment to his wife. For as accomplished and determined a man is, for as lofty as his achievements may be, in girl-world none of that matters unless it directly benefits a woman he’s committed to in an enduring security. Beyond the obvious financial imbalances written into our contemporary divorce laws, there is the societal aspect that accompanies a man’s ‘downfall’ when he cheats on his wife. Tiger Woods could weather the cash & prizes settlement of his divorce, but what he couldn’t weather was the hit to his reputation. His status, his personal perception, was damaged as a result of his breach of contract. Similarly Petraeus, a General with the distinction of a storied military career and directorship of the CIA had his status diminished as a result of this status-to-marriage association.

To further complicate matters Petraeus himself ‘believes’ in this status association so strongly that he was willing to resign his position – relinquishing the source of status that made him attractive to the likes of Broadwell – in order to comply with it.

Back to Beta

Petraeus’ story of beta doesn’t end here. As his relationship with Broadwell decayed we can see further evidence of reverting to beta in his ‘thousands of emails’ to her. As with most people reinserted into the SMP after having married in their youth, Petraeus reverts back to the only social skill set he knew when he was dating his wife – an adolescent social skill set. So the beta desperation comes back strong. For all of his post-revelation posturing about how “We all will make mistakes. The key is to recognize them and admit them, to learn from them, and to take off the rear view mirrors – drive on and avoid making them again.” Petraeus literally made thousands of them. Like any desperate beta I’ve consulted with, he ‘wants his girlfriend baaaaack’ and so, like a teenage boy, inundates her with a barrage of emails over the course of months – not unlike the battery of texts Tiger Woods sent to his mistresses.

I often get criticism for suggesting men ‘explore their options’ in their 20’s. Spin Plates, learn Game, understand the intricacies of how a feminized acculturation has crafted men to be what the imperative would have them be. The idealistic zeal of young men is admirable, (it’s what makes us men) but it’s important to take a long-view of how that idealism is useful to a feminized society. Have a look at the context and reporters uncovering this story. There is no male perspective, there is no male insight, only the reactions of a female perspective in accordance with the feminine specific understanding of the SMV and the social failsafes instituted by fem-centrism.

The set of convictions idealistic young men cling to today aren’t what they believe they are. Your ideal of a “quality woman”, you’re grandfather’s high school sweetheart who was your grandmother are useful archetypes that the imperative is more than happy to have you delude yourself with. There may have been a time when that idealism meant something, but it’s important to understand that it is now a tool of a feminine-primary acculturation.

The Fade Away

God do I love these girls.

I’ll just let the song do the work for me here, but I should point out that in girl-world, only women are allowed to be critical of other women when it comes to gender issues relating specifically to women. Whether it’s Garfunkle & Oats or Girl Writes What? only women are permitted to analyze and criticize the behaviors of the sisterhood.

Imagine the girl-world social repercussions of a man writing and singing this song from the male perspective.

We’ve been on a bunch of dates
I weigh debates that this creates
And hate that state of forced introspection
We traded wit, we swapped some spit,
You fingered me a little bit
But we never really had a connection

You did nothing wrong, I have no excuse
Just my intuition telling me we shouldn’t reproduce

I know I have to end it
But pretend to just suspend it
By contending that I’m busy all week
I let the foregone linger on
Text back with an emoticon
Withdraw from you by being oblique

Inside I know my tactics just delay it
But I’d do anything so I don’t have to say it

I’ll draw this out forever like it’s Vietnam
Then one day I’ll be gone like Bambi’s mom Awww

Cause there’s the right thing to do
Then there’s what I’m gonna do
There’s so much I should say
But instead… I do the fade away

Now I’m fading like chalk on a sidewalk
Or the polio virus after Jonas Salk
Like a Jewish guy at Arby’s on Yom Kippur
The Whig party post Millard Fillmore

The erection of a man on antidepressants
The cast of Diff’rent Strokes after adolescence
Reproductive rights below the Mason Dixon
Native Americans after the barter systems
Your thyroid gland after Hashimoto
The family in the Back to the Future photo
Yeah I fade away

We say that men are asshole who don’t communicate
We revel in our victimhood and amplify our hate
We find ways to be indignant like it’s a sport
Then dissect their malignance with the views we distort

The way men break up may be sloppy and terse
What they do is bad, but what we do is worse

We pretend to ourselves it’s the nice thing to do
To let you down gently by just not fucking telling you
And deep down we know it’s the worst way to play it
But we are what we have… huge pussies

And women are hypocrites
Especially ones in comedy bands
We see your faults but not our own
Then we wonder why we’re all alone

We fill you up with maybe’s, excuses and stalls
But like a baby in China… it’s better to have balls

Not the Good Wife type like Christine Baranski
So I’ll pull out and leave like I’m Roman Polanski

Cause there’s the right thing to do
Then there’s what I’m gonna do
There’s so much I should say
But instead… I do the fade away

Like Verbal Kint fading into Kaiser Soze
The rights in Arizona for a guy named Jose
Opportunities for a college grad
The love between your mom and dad
Gonna Peter out like a gay Cetera
Iranian relations since the Regan era
Black Nike sales after Heaven’s Gate
Summer Camp attendance at Penn State
The name Adolph after World War Two
Like Debbie Gibson’s pop career, Out of the Blue
Yeah I fade away

Cause I don’t wanna get to know you
I just want to blow you… off

Time’s Up

I got some ‘fresh’ insight from a female Rational Reader:

It’s sometimes annoying, sometimes painful to read this blog, but it gives me clarity.

As a 35 year old rapidly approaching 36 year old unmarried female, it’s makes me cringe to see how snarky guys view the average chick in my demographic.

I hope I don’t have the arrogance attributed to my age group. Perhaps I do about my youthful looks, but then again I have lived cleaned and never been a sun worshipping, druggy slut. I’m different than the average modern day American/Western female.

I genuinely like most men and feel sympathy for them that women CAN be so difficult. I enjoy being feminine and girly and only go thru random periods of wanting to achieve a lot. Pretty happy just being alive. lol

I don’t give it up and am closer to being a virgin based on my limited picky dating habits.

Sure, I would have loved to be married since my 20s, but feel happy I wasn’t like a huge majority of women who rush to get married. If anything, I believe in romantic love too strongly and held on at times when I should’ve let go.

So not every woman in her 30s is a shrill she-devil harpy who wants be your own personal succubus and suck your life force and rape your wallet.

I have 3 very nice guy friends just got engaged over last few months. (Aged 30-39). They didn’t hold these dogmatic views towards women. They moved things ahead in a linear manner and were open to love and hopeful about marriage and kids.

They all met healthy, nice cool chicks in the same age range and got engaged within 1-3 years.

Again, this blog has been an entertaining read, but I take it as seriously as any other entertainment rag out there.
With a grain of salt.

It will excite R. to know that he has many devout acolytes at this point. Ironically, this site is encouraging blind following by unhappy betas instead of grooming strong well adjusted true Alphas.

I’m sure Kate Bolick is crying bitter tears for you as she counts all the licensing and advertising money she’s earning from pandering to your demographic on TV and in The Atlantic.

The difference between contemporary men’s gender doctrines and those of women’s is that women’s tends toward the ultimate end of marriage or at least an LTR commitment. This is the idealized hypergamic goal state; single monogamous union with the best available mating option in terms of breeding and long term provisioning (i.e. pluralistic sexual strategy). Men on the other hand are biologically predisposed to mating with the best available short term option(s) based on physicality and sexual availability. It’s not that men don’t want an idealized monogamy, but our sexual imperative has to be sublimated in order to achieve it.

Between the sexes, these are conflicting breeding methodologies. For one sex to fulfill it’s methodology the other must rescind their own. Thus, in order for one gender to maintain a social dominance in terms of breeding methodologies, the other must be characterized in the negative. This is why men’s polygyny is socially vilified while women’s hypergamy is the accepted norm. Men are then socially predisposed to accept women not only as the sexual filters of society, but the rules makers and the arbiters of that same social and moral acceptability.

Your indignation at this blog or the community on whole is due in large part to this social framework. You see the summation of dating, Game, romance, etc. resulting in the finality of an idealized, hypergamously perfected marriage (the female imperative). The inner conflict you and most women in your demographic have is that the same hypergamy you hope to perfect has become the source of your worst frustrations. The constant, feminine primary entitlements women have been conditioned to expect from idealized Men becomes the means of their worst disillusionments.

The hope was to assert the dominance of the feminine breeding strategy by conditioning and shaming Men into the internalized belief that it was their moral / social responsibility to accommodate the female methodology at the sacrifice of his own. Marriage is the RIGHT thing to do, so sayeth the gate keepers of sexuality, but only on women’s terms and when it conveniently fits into their life’s schedule. Only now that social convention based on feminine hypergamy is running headlong into the realities of biomechanics.

You see, while you may in fact still be sexually attractive at 35, the simple truth is that you are not as attractive as the next generation of 22 year olds arriving on the sexual market every year. Today’s hotties are tomorrow’s clearance rack items. With each passing year you become progressively less able to compete with the newer younger and hotter women becoming available. So, in order to counter this, women are forced to create new social conventions, new gender definitions, etc. in an attempt to level the playing field. Thus we get social dictums celebrating cougars, and myths of women’s new sexual prime (38 to 40? shocking).

Feminization’s worst failings aren’t due to Men awakening (and reacting) to this fresh understanding of feminine primary social dynamics – feminization’s worse fear is women finally acknowledging that hypergamy is painting them into corner within their own social constructs. The hope is to cash out their hypergamous chips before an individual male becomes aware enough to see the Matrix for what it is. Your 3 just-married friends may have managed to pull that off, but not you. And it’s not blogs like this that are hindering that, it’s the inherent flaws built into a feminine primary social structure long ago.

Time’s up.

Sex Debt

While the manosphere and the femosphere endlessly debate the personal merits or collective atrocities of ‘casual sex’, the so called hook-up culture (newsflash, people were hooking-up long before the last decade), and/or the sex-positive feminist definition of it, I’m starting to think that neither are really seeing the overall context within which both sides have agreed to debate – the context of the feminine primary, feminine imperative social norm.

The declared feminists, their uncommitted proxies and their sympathizers can all understandably be acquitted of this blame since they thrive in discussions that ignore the dominant feminine social context they help to create. You can hardly fault pigs in shit for their love of discussing the finer points of shit with non-pigs in the same shit. However, an integral part of a Man’s red pill maturation should include a broader understanding of the feminine primary social normative we live in today. And with that understanding it should also follow that, given time and red pill enlightened observation, a Man will begin to see the code in the Matrix and know that, win or lose, such arguments only serve the feminine imperative.

Soaking In the Matrix

I wish I could credit the quote, but I once read that “Feminism is the mistaken idea that a society can create gender equalism by focusing exclusively on the benefit of only one sex.”

As Mark Minter’s now sphere-famous comment illustrates, any debate Men have, without considering the social context of the feminine imperative, ultimately, only serves to reinforce the ends of that imperative. For example, if we engage in discussions about how best to personally or socially conduct our sexual lives (exploits or noble pursuits) and all we consider of this proposition is how best to ensure a feminine-optimal reality, it doesn’t account for a true male-primary perspective. For over 60 years, men have been so conditioned to believe that there is no context other than that which benefits the feminine that they internalize the correctness of the feminine imperative as their own.

This is the scope of the feminine Matrix; you’re literally born into it, and as Mark Minter discovered, usually only experience and/or trauma can jar a man into an awareness of this social condition. So as you can see, debating whether casual sex or ‘meaningful sex’ is more significant in the Matrix is akin to discussing which style of clothing best accentuated a particular woman. The feminine end is the same and men are never a consideration under such auspices.

Letting Go

Letting go of his prior contexts is often the most difficult thing for newly Game-aware Men to release. Letting go of the Fallacy of the ONE, letting go of an expectation of a mutually idealized love with women, letting go of prior concepts of how women are in most respects, are all very difficult transitions for men whose best understandings about women and how society operates have been conditioned for him from a feminine-primary origin.

A good example of becoming aware of this is illustrated in how men’s attitude towards sex has shifted from pleasing himself towards pleasing a woman. There is a silly, but ironic internet meme that states “Nice Guy’s finish last, because their women finish first.” implying of course that Nice Guy’s are more concerned with their women’s sexual pleasures than their own, and it’s just this ‘niceness’ that makes them better and preferred lovers. It’s only after she gets off that he’s allowed to indulge himself in a simple orgasm. Nothing epitomizes the feminine primary social normative than this base consideration. This is the root of feminisms ‘sex-positive’ referendum – she cums first.

Everyone’s Special

It hardly seems fathomable that there could’ve been a time when a woman’s sexual experience wasn’t considered the end-goal of the sex act. The carefully feminine designed Beta-Game idea being (as always) that the more a man identifies with the feminine the more attractive and acceptable he will be to a potential mate. Be sensitive to her needs, find out what she likes, do what she asks, cater yourself to her sexual pleasures and you’ll be the unique man who really understands women and therefore will be a high value man to all women.

“Do what she says and you’ll be a high value man”, became the common sense Beta wisdom. Essentially this was the bedroom doctrine of a larger social whole, only ‘do what she says’ wasn’t enough. Legions of men were all too eager to please their women first, so much so that the woman-pleasers became the norm – When everyone’s special, no one is. I should pause for a moment here, because not only does this axiom destroy the heart of most Beta chump’s concept of how their own Game should operate, but it also illustrates a larger point in that the ‘special’ guys of today are the ones who stand out by not ‘doing what she says’ and placing themselves, and the male imperative above her wants. In a world full of women-pleasers, women will sing “where have all the cowboys gone?”

However, as I stated, it wasn’t enough. As every man became special, the request of “please me” became the expectation of “please me”. The sensitivity to her needs transitioned from making him unique amongst men, to being his liability and a prerequisite of her fidelity to him – get her off or else she’ll find a ‘normal guy’ who can! The courtesy became the expectation which became the demand. This progression can be applied to every social dynamic within the feminine imperative’s purview.

Full Stop

There’s an interesting conflict that arises for men when presented with thinking about sex from a more selfish perspective. Most men begin their sexual maturation with this ‘her first’ mentality preprogrammed for them. I was fortunate enough to have a very sexually experimentative girlfriend (see; slut) when I first got laid at age 17. I learned a lot about women’s pleasure by doing rather than explaining, and while that relationship had its own liabilities, this situation set me up for a very selfish approach to sex that would follow with the consecutive women I banged. I honestly didn’t think about whether a girl got off with me or not, and in fact I discovered it was really immaterial for the women who kept coming back to me.

I’d have guys (serving the feminine imperative) tell me “you gotta fuck her right or you’ll lose her” in my single-man-sex-life, but then, I often didn’t care whether I lost them thanks to my nascent plate spinning of that time. In fact, the only time it ever was a concern was when I became invested enough in one woman to actually be concerned with her pleasure, and even then it was because her pleasure enhanced the sex act for me, not due to some threat of infidelity if she didn’t get off. The girl’s genuine desire for me was present whether or not she got off – sometimes I’d make a point of making that happen, but most times it was simply a byproduct of her own desire. In either respect I didn’t view it as my responsibility, and I found that women still enjoyed coming back for sex with some regularity.

One of the few conflicts I’ve observed with Roissy/Heartiste is in this approach to ‘owing a woman an orgasm’ for her continued fidelity. The 9th commandment of poon states:

XIV. Fuck her good

Fuck her like it’s your last fuck. And hers. Fuck her so good, so hard, so wantonly, so profligately that she is left a quivering, sparking mass of shaking flesh and sex fluids. Drain her of everything, then drain her some more. Kiss her all over, make love to her all night, and hold her close in the morning. Own her body, own her gratitude, own her love. If you don’t know how, learn to give her squirting orgasms.

On the surface of it, Roissy is agreeing with the feminine imperative’s notion of the sex debt – “own her gratitude, own her love,..learn to give her squirting orgasms.” I wouldn’t insult Roissy by inferring for him what I think he means here, but there’s more to it than this. Love, gratitude, a strong emotional bond, are all byproducts of ‘fucking her good’, but it’s the point of origin of why you want to ‘fuck her good’ that is at issue.

Stop Worrying About Giving Women Orgasms

I think the operative word here is worrying. I wish I had the link available (I did search), but Roissy once had an excellent post and third party study outlining the proclivity of women to fake orgasms with high value, Alpha men, more so than lower value Beta Nice Guys. Naturally the “nice guys finish last, because their women finish first” chumps fired off their comments assuming this was some kind of validation of their Beta Game. Because they still subscribe to the ‘her first’ feminine primary doctrine as being the normative, their default presumption is that women would fake orgasms with Alpha Men because they were sexually unsatisfied with them. However, as the study indicated, the harsher truth was that women’s tendency to fake orgasm with high value men was the result of a desire to secure that man for commitment and breeding prospects – not as some feminine courtesy for a bad lover.

Naturally this is the socialized narrative women follow themselves – a bad lover gets a fake orgasm, nyah, nyah, try better next time – but when you look under the hood, why would a woman be bothered to fake an orgasm with a bad lover? You might argue that it’s to end the act, and you’d be right, but a faked orgasm is really an indictment of the Beta mindset, because he’s not worth the courtesy of faking one.

In the end hypergamy doesn’t even care if the woman is sexually satisfied or not – that’s up to her – all that matters is optimizing the best mating that her attractiveness can afford.

*Final Note: Since I know the comments will explode about the importance of a woman’s orgasm from a biological perspective, I’m not saying that a woman getting off isn’t important. I’m fully aware that a woman’s orgasm prompts her cervix to dip and ‘scoop up’ a man’s sperm to facilitate fertility. I’m also aware of the oxytocin and the chemical cocktail release post-orgasm. The point of this post is to outline the social aspect and primacy the feminine imperative has acculturated into men regarding the female orgasm.

Size Matters

I generally don’t go where I’m going with this post today, but one consistent theme of my writing has always been about exposing the latent functions of social conventions. Although I do try to be fair and spread out the analysis between men and women’s specific social conventions, living in the age of feminization usually brings the focus back to the feminine imperative where it originates.

To look under the hood of a social convention – to see how and why it works – often involves asking some uncomfortable questions. Social discomfort is actually an integral part of any effective social convention. Discouraging questions about the latent purpose of a social convention by means of fostering impropriety about it, or putting the questioner in the place of social awkwardness, is how social conventions perpetuate and normalize into a culture.

So when you pose the question “why is it considered rude to ask a woman about her age or her weight?” the ‘common sense’ answer is that it just is, because not knowing so makes the questioner look like look like a fool for not knowing it just is.The real answer of course is rooted in competition anxiety, because a majority of women can’t afford to have their sexual market value qualitatively compared in such overt measures. However, this is how a social convention becomes normalized and promoted to the realm of ‘common sense’.

So, if you will, please indulge me while I look under another hood that may not be the most comfortable place to go.

Mark Minter, a regular RM contributor dropped an excellent introduction for today’s topic in last week’s Amused Mastery post:

My niece has a cute friend, a 20 year old HB7 who thinks that she is an 8 and is grooming herself to be a “trophy wife”. I think she is gonna be disappointed. But she is very status and money motivated in her choice of men. But anyway, the last I had heard from this girl was that she had met this “Ideal boy” who had a winning smile (I had met the guy) and his family owned a restaurant.

A couple of months later, my niece mentions that some other guy was trying to hit on this girl last night. I asked “So what happened to whats-his-face”.

She answered, “He turned out to be a creep. He was very possessive and controlling. Constantly texting her at work, knowing she couldn’t get texts at work.”

SOOOO. The Rollo Tomassi voice in the back of my head says “BULLSHIT. There is more to this than that”.

I asked, “What was she doing to make this guy insecure and also when women have GENUINE DESIRE for a man, his texts don’t bother her, even if she is at work. It’s text and no one knows except for her. So why was she backing away. She was COVERTLY COMMUNICATING her disinterest through her actions.”

There were a couple of other “things” the guy had done with once again, things that if the woman had GENUINE DESIRE, they would not have been “firing offenses”. But I sensed she was looking for a reason to pull away from the guy. So I kept pressing. I had thought maybe he had failed some shit tests or something, had kissed ass a little too much on a 20 year old cute girl. It was far more basic than this and certainly warranted this girl creating a cover story for dumping the guy

So it turns out the guy has about a 3 or 4 inch dick but little Miss Trophy Wife couldn’t broadcast to the world that she would actually dump a guy because he had a little dick. She couldn’t admit that the size of a dick was important to her like it was to “those other sluts”. No, he had to be controlling or possessive or something from femcentrically acceptable than having a little dick.

So the rationalization hamster cooked up this other less slutty behavior from the guy to justify dumping him.

The funny thing is that even though all the girls in the circle knew the dude has the tiny dick, the publicly repeated excuse from all the hens in the coop was “controlling creep”.

Tools

I can remember reading a section of the book A Billion Wicked Thoughts where the authors cited studies about the relative importance the size of a man’s penis had for women. The long and short of it (uh,.heh) was that the women surveyed reported a “general satisfaction with the size of their partners penises”, and then went on to make the case that it is in fact men who are more concerned with the size of their cocks than women are.

Something just didn’t sit right with me after I’d read through this. From a porn-search specific statistical analysis it would follow that since men are the primary consumers of pornography that men would have more interest in the various details of the sex act, thus a preoccupation with the size of their own tool, but this doesn’t exclude the ‘interest’ women have in penis size. I could go into the Red Queen / Selfish Gene details about how women would evolutionarily prefer a larger cock to a smaller one (virility, sexual prowess, sexy son theory, etc.), but that wouldn’t cover the social convention aspect of women’s handling of this issue (sorry, you can’t write about this topic without a bad pun every other line).

I can remember a discussion in a mixed gender group of friends I had when I was in my early 20’s. Whenever the topic of sex came up (which was often) there was always a careful, almost tacit acknowledgement among the women to hold back a bit when it came to revealing their wants when it came to the particulars about sex. I’m using this as an illustration because it’s been my experience that  the woman you talk to about sex in the company of men and women is not the same woman who talks about sex amongst only women. When questions about the size of a guy’s cock came up (sorry), the timeless classic trope is almost always sure to follow “oh it’s not that important, size doesn’t matter, it’s not size of the ship, it’s the motion of the ocean” or “it’s not the length of the wand, it’s the skill of the magician” or some other cutesy aphorism with the latent purpose of moving beyond that particular detail in the conversation. Even sufficiently feminized men will parrot this same fem-speak unprompted to reassure themselves (does AskMen even employ male writers anymore?).

Discreet Requisites

You see, publicly, as Mark’s story illustrates, it is counter productive for a woman’s long term provisional interests to be compromised by qualifying a potential provider (see Beta chump) by his sexual prowess. Based on sight and imagination (pre-sex conditions) there’s no more graphic an indicator of this prowess than a guy’s length. Certainly height, muscularity and all of the feral, instinctual level physical cues play a part of the total package, but women know that not only do they measure a man’s virility in this regard, but they also know men do as well.

I had wanted to illustrate this dynamic further by making the presumption that women, generally, would either be offended by the very topic, or at the very least be coy about their denying that ‘size matters’, but I can’t go there. As the sex-positive aggressiveness of feminization has taken hold of western culture for the past 60+ years, there has been a gradual decay of this sense of prudence, replaced by the new utility of using men’s insecurities about size as leverage in optimizing feminine hypergamy.

Just in recent memory I’ve had ‘pour girls’ mention to me privately and to other girls that they wanted to leave a boyfriend, or they wouldn’t consider a second sexual encounter with a guy who ‘wasn’t packing’. Furthermore, as women have less and less to lose in their post-Wall SMP reality, mature women (the Cougar generation) place more emphasis on their partner’s equipment. It has coincided with the socio-economic End of Men and the Rise of Women that feminine hypergamy become less and less secretive. Gone are the days when women needed to use subterfuge to keep a less than adequate man enthralled in order to secure his provisioning. So it follows that the truth about the details of that visceral hypergamy be relaxed to the point that women no longer feel the need to cover it up. There may be a token effort in a public context to misdirect the importance of size (Mark’s example), but privately, women know size is important.

Consider the ‘thesis’ power point presentation of Karen Owen’s retrospective sexual safari at Duke University. We can debate the relative criteria upon which she rates each sexual encounter in her thesis, but I would draw your attention to the importance she places upon the penis size of each of her ‘study subjects’ as an indicator of quality (or lack thereof). As most Game-aware men (and women) ought to know already, the Medium is the Message and it’s women’s behavior, not their words that should be used as the only reliable basis for determining inent or motivation. According to the research of the authors of A Billion Wicked Thoughts and the respondents in their cited studies, penis size should be irrelevant to women, if it’s considered at all. Yet here we have a woman quantifying and qualifying sexual merit using length as a factor in sexual satisfaction.

You could make the argument that this is an isolated case, and only sluts worry about your girth, or you might think ‘women say one thing and mean another, well duh Rollo’, but you have to understand the utility, and the latent purpose behind those presumptions. Whenever a guy is slapped with the default ‘bitter misogynist’ label, the follow up line is almost universally “yeah, and I bet he’s got a little dick too.” Even guys will use the “he’s compensating for something” line as a sexual disqualifier when presented with an overt demonstration of higher sexual value from another guy. He’s got a $75K car? Must have a little dick then. If penis size wasn’t a consideration for women in their optimal hypergamy it wouldn’t be the go-to, schoolyard taunt it’s become. Ridicule a man’s penis and you disqualify him as sexual competitor. It’s interesting that men will acknowledged height as a physical prerequisite for most women, but will readily reject the size of his tool as being one as well.

Play Nice

Overheard this past weekend:

“Nice guys are the real jerks if you ask me. They put up a front, acting differently when talking to women, deceiving them into getting them into bed.

And if they fail to get them in bed with them, they go on the internet and rant about their misogynist views on women.

Real men act the same with everyone. They’re not there to put up a front nor do they bitch about their failures with women.”

I’m reading this a lot lately. The Nice-Guy-as-ruse rationalization would be laughable if not for so many women using the trope to explain their misgivings or lack of judgement with a guy that pumped and dumped them. Furthermore, the False-Flag Nice Guy is also a ready-made social convention used to excuse the worst behaviors of women when a man might (albeit immaturely) make a public example of that behavior. Not surprisingly this cad-in-sheep’s-clothing rationale really pisses off the genuine beta Nice Guys, and for exactly the reason less attractive women get upset when their more attractive sisters mistreat the Men they could never hope to pull themselves.

So with this in mind I thought I’d pick apart this meme in detail.

“Nice guys are the real jerks if you ask me.”

When truly nice guys (80-90% of the masculine sphere) read a line like “Nice Guys are the real jerks” something snaps in their heads. Black is white, up is down and Nice Guys are Jerks. Most Nice Guys have been playing the self-internalized Beta Game, identification scenario out for so long that to read something like this is akin to blaspheme. “Great now all these women I’ve been trying to be so nice too (like they all say they want) really think I’m a jerk?” One would think this would be a moment of clarity for the Nice Guy and he’d realize the truth of what his ‘misogynist’ Game-aware friends had been trying to enlighten him about for so long. You’d think, until,..

“They put up a front, acting differently when talking to women, deceiving them into getting them into bed.”

Ah! Well there you have it! They’re really just Alpha cads playing at being nice in order to bed these women ,..how fiendish! Now, not only are women jaded by the players, but they’re also more wary of the ‘Nice’ men due to the players utilizing their own Beta Game. Dammit! The Jerks have poisoned the Nice well!

What they fail to realize is the inherent ridiculousness of the premise – niceties never got a man laid – and of all men, the Nice Guy knows the difficulty of actually consolidating sex upon ‘niceness’. While I have no doubt that many a Game savvy man has gotten laid by misrepresenting himself as being more interested and pleasant than he actually was, it’s understandable that no woman would ever want to admit to her active participation in that deception. Solution? Paint Nice Guys with the broad brush of the Bad Boy Jerk.

“And if they fail to get them in bed with them, they go on the internet and rant about their misogynist views on women.”

Well, we could debate the social implications of women defaulting to the easy epithet of ‘misogynist’, but that’s an old post for me. You know the more I pick this apart the more I have to empathize with the truly Nice Guy; his is a particularly cruel hell. The Nice Guy in this definition isn’t necessarily the Alpha in sheep’s clothing. This is the guy who, most likely, believed he was going about ‘courting’ his woman-to-be by the rules he knows were established as the sensible proper means to arriving at a woman’s intimacy. The fact that he plays by those rules is integral to his sense of not-like-typical-guys uniqueness.

He subscribed to the Sniper Mentality, played friends, and unfortunately after taking his big shot, got rejected by his (most likely ONEitis) target girl. If men of this stripe are one thing, it’s dedicated to their personal investments into a particular girl they know will one day appreciate their stand-out qualities,..some day. What they fail to grasp is that hypergamy doesn’t care about the equity he believes he’s building for a future relationship. That’s one thing to realize when you’re deep into an LTR, but it’s really a lesson that should be learned when you’re the chump trying to prove to your paramour how perfect a boyfriend you’ll be for her – once she’s done fucking the Jerks she can’t get enough of.

This is a tough lesson for a guy who’s ideology about women and dating is virtually a mirror of his ideology on a ‘strong work ethic’. Work hard, pay your dues and you’ll be rewarded compensatory with your efforts. So, again, it’s unsurprising that this guy would get upset (maybe vindictively so) when his ‘dream girl’ proves to him that hypergamy doesn’t care about compensating all his efforts.

“Real men act the same with everyone. They’re not there to put up a front nor do they bitch about their failures with women.”

In the meantime, back in solipsistic girl-world the narrative, as always, continues to revolve implicitly around how his ‘pseudo-niceness’ impacts her reputation and her, now damaged, self-impressions. Because, of course, no genuine Nice Guy would ever feel slighted enough by her rejecting him intimately so as to feel the need to broadcast his displeasure on FaceBook. ‘Real’ Nice Guys would just shut the fuck up and accept her rejection; which then completes the circular fem-logic of being attracted to guys with the wherewithal to stand up for themselves, speak their minds and not stand for the injustice of being sold one message and having another’s intent proved for him. Sometimes, we call those guys Jerks.

You see, behavioristically, what women mischaracterize as ‘nice‘ is usually the male-methodology they misinterpreted when they couldn’t find a way to reject a guy in an efficient fashion. So yeah, Nice Guys, you’re the real Jerks and Alpha Jerks, you’re the truly nice guy’s because you “act the same with everyone.”

Ladies, stop complaining about the sheep when you’re looking for a wolf.

Pathologizing the Male Sexual Response

Rollo, I just saw the movie ‘Shame’ starring Michael Fassbender and felt the need to recommend it on here.

The main character is addicted to sex, it’s basically the main focus in his life. He is constantly pursuing it one way or another, picking up women he meets in his daily life, getting behind his laptop to engage in internet porn, ordering an escort girl, or just jerking off on the toilet.

He’s good with women, runs pretty solid game. But it’s all superficial, he just knows how to push the right buttons and make their ginas tingle, then fvcks them. He’s unable to establish something like a “connection” with them, fvcking is a purely individual experience for him, just as masturbation. Only, instead of using his right hand, he uses a woman’s body.

It seems as if the guy is empty inside and is trying to fill his inner emptiness by engaging in sexual activities all the time. Of course, it doesn’t get him anywhere, but he can’t help himself. He just keeps repeating his cycle of sexual activities, he’s a slave to it. The moment he would stop doing it, he’d become very uneasy, like a drug addict going through withdrawal.

Fassbender’s portayal of the main character is quite brilliant. Nothing of what I wrote above is being told explicitly, you just deduct it from his actions and body language while the movie lets you be a spectator to the main character’s daily life (so, in fact, you might disagree with certain parts of my analysis of the main character and give a slightly different meaning to his behavior, although I’m sure you’ll agree with it for the most part).

Anyway, it’s a pretty raw and engaging movie, and upon viewing it, I realized I have more in common with the main character than I’d like to admit… I suspect many of you would feel the same upon watching it. It also reminded me of Squirrels and the problems he spoke of in many of his posts. Squirrels could be this guy, lol. So if you could relate to the things Squirrels was struggling with, you’ll probably find this movie interesting.

Love to hear your thoughts if you watched it!

One of the most common themes in human storytelling is the quest for meaning in what’s essentially meaninglessness. This story has been retold for centuries in different contexts, but it’s essentially the same plot; the person with the unfillable void inside that prompts them to great acts of creative passion or horrible deeds of self-destruction. It can be a tragedy or a comedy.

Sex addiction is just the meme du jour of this century. Feminization has taken this cliché for its own purposes. Every romantic comedy, every ‘love story’ in the past 50 years, all revolve around men’s inability to fill the hole in their heart that only a special woman can. Literally, everything else in the world is just a cheap, superficial substitute for the inexplicable magical element a woman completes a man with. He literally cannot live without her piece of his puzzle.

Sex addiction is simply the new pathology of the male condition so we make the leap from Pretty Woman and the Hooker with the Heart of Gold in the 80’s to the more sinister sex addict of the new millennium who’s so hopelessly flawed he’ll burn away to hell before he sees the healing light of submitting to the feminine imperative’s medicine.

Women like it because they feel superior in their capacity to control themselves sexually (dubious, yes) in comparison to men, but also because it provides them with a self-righteous sense of pity; “If only men would just see us for our beautiful insides and be less obsessed with our bodies they’d find peace.”

Men like this narrative because it gives them a feeling that as bad as they are, they’re not THAT bad. There’s a self-righteous sense of qualifying to women based on how much better they are in controlling themselves, and again this contributes to their “not-like-other-guys” sense of uniqueness they hope women will recognize, appreciate and want to ƒuck them for. That sex addict in the story can’t make a human ‘connection’ with women, but I can, so fuck me instead.

The fact that a thought about a movie about a ‘sex addicted’ man occurred to someone and was created is proof enough of its cultural relevance for our time. The zeitgeist of this period is evidenced in what we think others will find relevancy in, regardless of any intended purpose. The story wouldn’t exist if the cultural interpretations weren’t already pre-established to make it relevant.

The Cure

One of the more insidious social narratives that the feminine imperative has convinced us of is that the inherent flaw(s) of maleness can only be ‘cured’ by uniquely female means. This is an easy narrative to follow since most modern storytelling (TV, movies, books) revolves around women’s influence being the only solution to men’s moronic, uniquely male, self-inflicted problems.

As with most other social narratives embedded into our collective consciousness, even Beta men pick up this ideology and attempt to use it to their Beta-Game-feminine-identification advantage. Convince men of an innate incompleteness, and sell women’s mystical element, women’s home-spun wisdom, women’s presumptive intuition as the completing factor he’s unable to comprehend he needs due to being a male and therefore ignorant of his deficit. Every romantic story, comedy or tragedy, has revolved around this narrative for centuries. Only recently has it been used as a social tool of feminization, as well as a commercialization of men’s presumptive inherent lack.

Women, on the other hand, are portrayed as self-contained, self-sufficient entities, and even when the story develops upon a woman’s flaws it’s never due to her ‘femaleness’, and the solution to her conflict is usually resolved through the influence of other women. There is rarely, if ever, any contrition that a man might solve a woman’s problems – and when he does, it’s usually through employing feminine means to do so (i.e. he “gets in touch with his feminine side” to resolve the conflict). Feminine primacy needs this narrative to ensure its lasting predominance as a social influence.

The first thing Tiger Woods did after his sexual appetites came to public attention was to commit himself to therapy for his ‘problem’. To the feminine imperative, the male sexual response is a ‘problem’ requiring therapy, medicalization, a cure. There has been no better means to maintaining feminine primacy than to collectively convince society that the effects of testosterone and male sexual response is aberrant social behavior. Men being men is vulgar, lewd and often violent – this is the meme. When men such as Tiger’s first response is to agree with that meme and institutionalize himself, he adds one more affirmation to the feminine social narrative of men’s ‘problem’.

Case Study – Wanted: New Daddy

I love Post Secret. Anytime I have humanitarian doubt about hypergamy or the twinges of sentimental wishes for a kinder, gentler, fem-centrism all I have to do is read the current week’s offerings of anonymous ‘secrets’ and, without fail, all doubt fades away to callous certainties. Ahhh, le sigh...

I’ve delved into the single mother cottage industry topic before, but in light of a recent PM and last week’s Wall discussion I thought I’d entertain this comment:

Wow. I have read some very interesting posts. I need some help and since most of you seem to be honest and not out to hurt anyone, here goes…

The Facts: 29, Female, Divorced mom of two toddlers, works full time, working on building self-esteem, being happier. Not seeking permanent relationship; however, not interested in whoring out.

I have met several men I am interested in and we talk and possibly hang out. What I am scared of is them thinking I am daddy shopping. I also don’t want to be left and laid. I am willing to “buddy up” but I do expect a friendship beyond the sex. How do I approach or have a discussion with a man telling him my time is rare, but still communicate my expectations of casual hangouts and fooling around? I am a woman and yes there are nights where he would need to engage with me in mind blowing sex. There may be a bad day at work where I just need a beer buddy. It is difficult for a woman with self respect to blow and go so thats not my intent.

I tried the honest approach, but never heard from him again. I gave it one more shot (different guy) and time will tell. Ive never been in this type of relationship before. I respect myself too much to engage in a one night stand only. Any ideas?

From what I read ut sounds like I am pretty much screwed. Im not single resulting from some kind of feminist movement crap. I like a guy to challenge me etc. I am a single mom because I am divorced from a bad person (cheater, abusive). I don’t seek a relationship because I know the majority of men don’t want the “baggage” of my babies. Additionally, I don’t want to risk hurting my kids. They are first. I am all they have and in a way they are all I have. All I want is an adult. If it progresses to more so be it. If not then that’s cool too. I don’t want to be viewed as just a piece, that is where the honesty comes in.

A lot of what gets offered for women in her position is usually the standard fare about single mommies and how guys perceive them. Baby-daddy issues, scheduling, substitute father interviewing and how single guys are “supposed” to react to them. All of this is valid of course, but after reading her own take of her own situation, I’m not so sure she’s really aware of (or is in denial of) her own conditions.

This woman is a textbook example of what I call Proactive Infidelity. According to her longer account she’d knocked it out with the Bad Boy (abusive, cheater) who was a “challenge” and got her excited. I’m going to do her the favor of assuming both her children were by him and if one is now 4 y.o. this would mean she was at oldest 24 y.o. when she became pregnant. Now that the Bad Boy has proven himself unreliable in sharing parental investment responsibilities, the guy she does end up in an LTR or marriage with necessarily MUST assume the Bad Boy’s responsibilities and liabilities.

New Daddies and Independent Women®

It’s essential to the single-mother rationale that they convince themselves they aren’t shopping for a “new daddy”. The fem-centrism of today’s social structure already has a long and well established framework ready to enable the most predictable of hamster spins. She’s an “Independent Woman®”, she “makes her own damn money” and ‘walks like da boss, talks like da boss,…” etc. The Independent Woman® brand is one of the most versatile social conventions because it covers so many situations. Blanket rationales like epithets of ‘Misogynist’ or ‘Homophobe’ pale in comparison to the usefulness of the Independent Woman®.

The Independent Woman® is unassailable and any contrary deviation from it leads back to the circular argument of patriarchal men’s selfish oppressions – feminism’s favorite trope. She “don’t need a man”, but she needs a Man. The real tragedy is the desperation apparent in the false pride. The truth is she needs a Man, her children need a Man, in spite of the pretentiousness fem-centrism has conditioned into her. But her decisions have left that Daddy position open to the lowest bidder.

The undeniable, unavoidable truth is that whether or not this is a conscious effort on her part, this is what the next guy, usually the Nice Guy, MUST deal with. Mr. Dependable, Mr. Loyal supporter/provider has no other choice but to assume parental investments that were never his. She bred with the Bad Boy and the Nice Guy raises her children. Any woman who can pull this off hits a bio-evolutionary jackpot.

The good news for her is that there are countlessly reinforced social conventions specifically designed with the latent purpose of making such a Nice Guy (essentially a proactive cuckold) think he’s a martyr and held to be in the highest regard of manhood for “looking past” her situation and “loving her for who she is.” Rest assured she’ll eventually attract a beta so conditioned to forgive her past indiscretions (essentially justifying and rewarding them) in exchange for the sexuality he’s been deprived of for so long. Her marginal intimate acceptance will only affirm his AFC beliefs and his “stepping up” to parent her kids will make him tolerable when he’s not as exciting as the Bad Boy was.

Now all that may sound harsh, but it’s important to understand just how tough a road single mothers have to hoe. If laid out in harsh realistic terms, most women don’t willingly want to be saddled with an AFC marriage of convenience, and neither do they want to be locked in with an abusive Bad Boy, so what do they do?

First, they need to understand where they’re at and how they got to be who they are now. They’ve hit the Wall by default.

Own your indiscretions ladies, own your mistakes. Being a single mother, despite the feminized social conventions, doesn’t make you a hero; it makes you a statistic. As I stated originally, any guy that accepts you intimately MUST deal with you as a single mother. This means he MUST accept your schedule, your children’s schedule, their father’s schedule, both family’s schedules, and the emotional fallout from all this. The feminine imperative has taught you to believe you’re entitled to expecting him to want to be with you (even if this is just as a fuck buddy) in preference to a single, childless, generally younger and more sexually available woman. She’s your competition. And in spite of all this he’s expected to still be the Man, by denying his sexual predilections in favor of your circumstances.

Your fundamental acknowledgment and showing a constant genuine appreciation for the sacrifice he makes to accommodate your past is essential to any LTR you have in the future. I’m not saying that your kids shouldn’t be your first priority – they absolutely should – but it is imperative that you know and demonstrably appreciate ANY guy who’d make the concession to still entertain you intimately after knowing this.

A lot of women love to gnash and wail about how they’ve become undateable after they’ve acquired single-mom status. Actually, no. There’s a whole modern world that’s teeming with AFC providers, with Cap’n Save-a-ho Martyr Mentalities just itching to get at the reverent pussy they missed out on for most of their 20’s and are more than willing to follow the feminine meme and convince themselves that single mommies are just victims of the Jerks they knocked out their kids with.

Daddies & Buffers

Understand, single mommies are another form of Buffers. The deductive logic is that they’re ‘easier’ due the their conditions and the risk of rejection lower (particularly when rejection-phobic or in a dry spell), but the potential long term ramifications are never worth the effort incomparisson to childless women. Rejection is better than regret.

The problem with actualizing your fantasy encounter with a MILF is in the ‘M’ part of the acronym – ‘Mother’ – ergo, a single mommie with all of the very “real world” baggage that goes along with that. I’ve tapped my share of older women when I was in my 20s and I can tell you that the sex was no more or less extrordinary than the younger women (at least in terms of performance) I’ve been with. The only major difference? I never had to worry about 22 year old single girls finding a babysitter for a night or had to be concerned with her making too much noise during sex so as not to wake up her son in the next room. Nor was I concerned about it being “her weekend” to have the kids.

It’s very easy to assume single mothers are victims by default – some are, most aren’t. Trust me, a majority of single mothers are single for a reason – and it’s not always because of their Jerk BFs or deadbeat husbands. The common belief is that MILFs encourage an idea that they are more sexually available; you’ve got to ask yourself, why would they be motivted to be more sexual while single than when they we’re married or in an LTR? They become motivated to be sexual and hit the gym when single, but wouldn’t make the same effort when married, why? Because the guy wasn’t worth it OR because she became comfortable, he lost interest, became fed up, and she’s prompted to be more concerned with all that in order to achieve a long term security with another man that necessitates she do so?

Don’t get me wrong, there are attractive women in their 30s & 40s but these are uncommon exceptions to the rule. The social reinforcement of the MILF fantasy is just a modern extension and evolution of the “she’s still got it” social convention with the latent purpose of leveling the playing field for 30-40 something single mothers unable to sexually compete for the same calibre men with 18-28 y.o. women. The harsh truth is that a beautiful, sexually available, single woman in her mid 20’s is at a decided advantage for sexual selection than a single mother entering her 30’s who’s encumbered with all the responsibilities of being a parent. Schedules of Mating issues aside, even when both women are equally attractive and equally sexually available, the childless woman is still at an advantage because she comes with less liabilities and represents a “fresh start” in comparison.

Women’s sexual value naturally declines as they ages – it serves an older woman’s purpose if she can redefine sexuality as her conditions change through life, and convince herself and society that she’s correct and genuine. Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore may epitomize this fantasy, but in reality, there are thousands of women filling gyms across the country for every Demi Moore convinced that they “still got it” while every year a new crop of 22-24 y.o. hotties commands the attention of the same men they’re competing for. This is just the natural extension of the ‘Have It All” lie that women have been sold for the last 50 years. Men only too eagerly buy this convention as well because it facilitates a Buffer for them and (presumedly) presents an easier route to getting laid. Therefore it is also in their interest that the myth and the Buffer be reinforced.