Sexy

Sexy isn’t always slutty, but slutty is always sexy.

As a relative rookie to blogging I’m starting to develop a better sensitivity to what people find important enough to share with a global audience. One annoying phenomenon I’ve encountered is that I find myself deeply concentrating on some topic and crafting a well thought (at least I think) analysis around it only to be shaken out of my brooding by something that I think needs to be more immediately addressed. Such was the case with Emma Watson’s above diatribe regarding the quandary of sexiness. This bit of her inane post-pubescent aphorisms is being shared around Face Book (generally by older and less attractive women) as some confirmation of what I can only presume is men’s inability to fully comprehend sexiness, beauty and the feminine mystique. Fat acceptance and body image issues aside, it’s ironic that the same women nodding along in agreement are reposting Emma’s wisdom on their wall right next to their most recent GNO (girls night out) party photos in mini skirts themselves.

Any cursory browsing of 4Chan will probably turn up a Rule 34 thread with Emma’s face clone-tooled over some random porn star’s face while getting double penetrated. She’s easily one of the most available celebrity porn fakes. That may have a bit to do with her Harry Potter role and various fetishes, but the short version is guys want to bang Emma, and barring the actual experience, they reaaally want to see her naked. It’s a pity that Emma doesn’t understand how to be sexy, but she’s in the majority; precious few women know what turns men on, and still fewer have any capacity to effectively be so.

Sexy isn’t always slutty, but slutty is always sexy.

In the same sense that women lack the capacity to truly appreciate the sacrifices a man must make to ensure her reality, most women also lack a fundamental understanding of the male sexual impulse. As I’ve stated in prior threads, until women are steeped in 17 times their normal testosterone levels, they will never understand the male experience with regards to sex. When a woman utters the words “I don’t understand why sex is such a big deal for guys”, she’s speaking the truth. She can’t know, but along with that comes a disconnect between her lack of understanding the male sexual impulse and her fem-centric social conditioning of what sex should be like for him.

“I find the whole concept of being ‘sexy’ embarrassing and confusing.”

Considering Emma’s boyish pixie cut (eerily similar to a younger Sinead O’ Conner’s) this should come as no surprise to anyone. What Emma doesn’t get is that sexy isn’t always slutty. She doesn’t understand how to be sexy, but few women do because it is Men who’ve classically defined what is sexy and feminine in women. What has historically worked as sexy, and what has been historically confirmed as feminine is defined by the response and effect that particular behavior set evokes from Men. What we consider today as sexy behaviors and appearance were characteristics ‘selected-for’ that endured to become gender indicative aspects of being feminine. The inverse of this is true for women; women define what is sexy in men.

The problem women have with being sexy in the last 50+ years is illustrated in Emma’s next point:

“I know everyone wants a picture of me in a mini-skirt. But that’s not me. I feel uncomfortable. I’d never go out in a mini-skirt. Personally, I don’t even think it’s that sexy.”

On a rudimentary biological level, Emma actually does know what is sexy (i.e. what turns Men on about women), but she is “uncomfortable” in being so. People want to change her into someone who is comfortable with being sexy because they see such potential – ergo the popularity of Emma’s Rule 34 popularity. Her refusal or discomfort in being so is where the feminine imperative picks up the banner and runs with it. Here is an arguably beautiful young woman (by men’s standards) who wont conform to what men’s appetites want to make of her. Like all contemporary women, she wants to define what sexy should be for men using metrics that she is comfortable with. The problem, as with all things fem-centric, is that this social push to redefine for men what they should find sexy slams headlong into Men’s biological imperatives. Despite feminizations incessant efforts to the contrary, we still want to fuck the girl who most closely resembles the Playboy centerfold and our erections are the litmus test.

Show Up Naked, Bring Beer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three Strikes

From European DJ on the SoSuave:

How many dates max, before you fuck her?
Let mé know your thought and an explanation.

Regards

The problem inherent with coming up with hard and fast Game rules of engagement is that there’s always going to be a caveat or special conditions for a guy’s particular girl of focus at the time. Even when there’s not, guys are prone to think “there’s something special about this one.” Part of the reason that Plate Theory is integral to Game is that it encourages Men to disabuse themselves of their previous beta impressions of each woman they accidentally drew interest from as some unique little snowflake. It’s hard for your average chump to think of a woman showing base-line rudimentary IOIs (indicators of interest) and NOT think she’s predestined for him by virtue of his self-acknowledged scarcity mentality. When you’re starving in the desert, Saltine crackers seem like mana from heaven.

Risk & Reward

In Game, there is a subtle balance that needs to be recognized between risks of over-investing in a particular woman with regards to practicality and not throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water and losing on a potentially rewarding opportunity. Women, as is particular to their own Game, will naturally come down on the side of casting doubt on a man’s valid assessment of a woman’s potential value, both in long term perspectives and potential sexual satisfaction. This presumption of doubt is a built in failsafe social convention for women; if only you’d been more patient, if only you invested a little bit more, you’d be rewarded with a great mother for your children and the best pussy of your life – don’t blow it now!

The short version is that it’s not in women’s best sexual-strategy interests for a man to have sexual options. Women’s sexual strategy is very schizophrenic – ideally women want a Man that other women want to fuck, but in order to assess his sexual market value to other women he’s got to have exercisable options for her to compete against, or at least display indirect social proof to that effect. So, she needs to limit his options while simultaneously determining he has those options. Now add to this the hypergamous necessity of maintaining  a reasonable pool of suitors suspended in doubt of her own SMV in order to determine the best one among them for short term sexual provisioning and long term security provisioning.

Pragmatism

In light of understanding women’s sexual strategy, it’s important for Men to adopt an mental schema of pragmatism – in the SMP you’re really another commodity in hypergamy’s estimation. I realize the difficulty most guys (particularly younger guys) have with mentally training themselves for thinking this way, so let me state from the outset that I’m not suggesting you kill your romantic, artistic souls in favor of cold calculations. In fact it’s vital you do keep that side of yourself intact for the survival of any future relationship and a more balanced human experience. Plate Theory and, really, efficient Game can seem dehumanizing, but what Game denialists fail to grasp is that they’re already operating in a dehumanized environment – it’s the social conditioning of the feminine imperative that makes men believe that Game is inhumane, because the feminine imperative has made itself synonymous with humanity.

Hypergamy doesn’t care if you’re a great, poetic soul. Hypergamy doesn’t care about your most sincere religious devotions. Hypergamy doesn’t care if you’re a great Father to your kids. Hypergamy seeks better than its own level, it wants the best commodity it’s capable of attracting and maintaining. Hypergamy is above all, practical, and thus Men, the True Romantics must be pragmatists to enact their own sexual strategy.

Three Strikes

I had a lot of shit slung at me when I offered up Wait For It? As I stated above, I had the predictable feminine doubt doctrine lobbed at me in response from the beginning. I expected that, but to answer European DJ’s question more definitively, be pragmatic.

Put it this way, with just average Game, in 3 dates you should be able to determine if her desire level is high enough to want to fuck you.

In 3 dates you’ll know if her desire is genuine or if it’s mitigated by something else – another guy in rotation, sexual hangups, filibustering, etc.

In 3 dates you’ll have had sex or you’ll have had the “I wanna wait / I need to be comfortable talk.”

If you have sex on the 1st date or a same-night-lay, in all likelihood she’s really hot for, and into, fucking you based on physical criteria alone.

If you have sex on the 2nd or 3rd date, she’s into fucking you and probably wants a relationship because she wanted to give you a token impression of her not being ‘easy’.

If she fucks you after the 4th date, you’ll do as her first alternate.

If you’re sexless after 5-6 dates you’ve probably been at it for over 6 weeks and The Medium is the Message. NEXT.

The Disposables

Martyrdom is the ultimate expression of social proof.

After I finished my Chivalry vs. Altruism post, I had to kind of pause for a moment to consider the impact of ‘women & children first’ as an operative social convention. Even before the overt rise of the feminine imperative, this female protectionism was in effect, and I’m fairly certain that this was a result of our primal hind-brain wiring to protect our families. Most higher order animals have evolved this instinct so I don’t see that as much of a stretch. However, human’s being a much more complex species, I think that the social convention of WaCF goes a bit deeper than a simplistic protectionism. In fact, I’d argue that ‘familial protectionism’ is more of a convenient foil for women (and sympathetic men) who’d rather see men’s mortal sacrifice in honorific terms than the much uglier truth.

Tits for Tat

In its rawest form, the sexual marketplace of our early ancestors would’ve been one where feminine hypergamy and Alpha dominance would’ve been more or less in balance. Obviously men being the stronger sex would’ve forcibly put women into a weaker position in the earliest incarnations of the SMP, but also consider that men fought and killed each other for access to those breeding rights – short version; men were disposable. As our species began to socialize, collectivize and cooperate, our earliest social conventions would’ve revolved around the environmental prompts and biological stimuli that were essential to the survival of their more feral ancestors.

The earliest form of proto-Game would’ve been a sexual quid pro quo. Can’t figure out how to seduce that hot, hunter-gatherer woman in the tribe? Save her ass from being torn limb from limb by a sabre tooth tiger and she’ll reciprocate her gratitude with open legs. In other words, risk your life and women will reward you with sex in gratitude. Today that may not be a reality in practice, but it’s the A+B=C  logic that’s led to the psychological internalization and the social doctrines that follow it. It’s such a primal, male-deductive-logic principle that’s worked so successfully, for so long, that social contingencies were evolved to both mitigate it and exploit it. Don’t believe me? Promise a young middle eastern girl 70 virgins in heaven and see if she’ll strap explosives to herself. The downside to this is that men often do “die trying.”

All of this kind of brought me around to thinking about the psychological ‘software’ that’s been evolved into our species as a result of environmental adaptations of the past. In War Brides I went into detail about the Stockholm Syndrome women seem to have an inborn propensity for, which logically makes them predisposed to abandoning emotional investments more readily than men. Considering the brutality of our feral past, evolving a capacity for quick emotional abandonment and reinvestment would’ve been a valuable survival trait for women (thus insuring a perpetuation of the species), however, in the present it serves to complicate newly developed social dynamics in terms of parental and ethical considerations.

Likewise, men have evolved into the disposable sex as a result of that same feral past. In today’s environment it’s very easy for men to draw upon ethical indignation about our disposable status, but it’s not primarily due to social influences. To be sure, social influence has definitely exploited men’s disposability, but the root of that devaluation (in contrast to women’s) really lies in our evolutionary past and our biological make up. Men have always been disposable – so much so that women evolved psychological contingencies (War Brides) to cope with that disposability.

As socialization and acculturation progressed, so too did the social rationales for men’s disposability. It became honorable to sacrifice oneself, ostensibly for a greater cause, but subversively as a means to recognition.

Martyrdom is the ultimate expression of social proof.

Appreciating the Sacrifice

Unfortunately, as is women’s biological imperative, once a man’s martyred himself women seek a suitable substitute within the week. I’m still getting a lot of response on my Appreciation post, and predictably most of the criticism is rooted in assuming my intent was to illustrate women being inferior to men in terms of sincerely appreciating the sacrifices he must make to facilitate her reality. The inability of women appreciating men’s sacrifices isn’t an issue of who’s better than who, it’s merely an observation of facts and corollaries. What I think critics fail to recognize is that I’m simply relating the observed mechanics; any conditionality they choose to apply to those mechanics are their own opinions and biases.

“Yeah Rollo, it’s pretty fucked up that women have some inborn ability to ‘switch off’ their emotions for you in favor of a higher SMV male…”

You’re right it’s pretty messed up. It’s also unethical, insincere and duplicitous when you also consider the planning involved in dissociating her emotional investment in favor of a new investment; but all of these are social conditions we apply to the underlying mechanic. It’s also pretty fucked up that men’s lives intrinsically have less value than women’s – but we can apply esoteric principles of honor, duty and courage to men killing themselves and engaging in the dynamic of their own disposability. We can also apply principles of cowardice and betrayal to men who refuse that sacrifice in favor of self-preservation, but these are qualification of social conventions that we establish as a culture.

The biomechanics are what they are, irrespective of the social paint we color them with. It’s not that women lack an intellectual capacity to appreciate men’s sacrifices, it’s that this isn’t their evolved psychological predisposition. The social constructs which tells her to expect a man’s sacrifice, which normalizes his martyrdom, have evolved to better dissociate her own investment in her biological imperatives (i.e. Hypergamy). In English this means evolution has prepared her socially and psychologically for his sacrifice, and readies her to move to a better provisioning should one present itself in her surroundings. Likewise, men putting themselves in harms way is rooted in our competing for resources – in this case breeding rights.

Ravenous wolves tearing apart a moose aren’t evil; they’re doing what nature has prepared them to do in order to survive. This isn’t to give anyone, male or female, some biologically determined free pass for bad behavior, it’s just to understand where this behavior originates and how it came to be what we make of it today.

Chivalry vs. Altruism

Lonely ships, upon the water / Better save the women and children first.
Sail away with someone’s daughter / Better save the women and children first.

A lot has been made about the recent Costa Concordia shipwreck, and predictably the White Knights and Femcentrists are all tied up in knots about the condition of a society where humans with penises are unwilling less willing* to sacrifice their lives for humans with vaginas. The gravity of  gender dynamics in a potentially life threatening scenario is a fantastic opportunity to illustrate the Male Catch 22;

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.

Gender issues in survival situations (greatly exaggerated) aside, I thought I’d take this opportunity to riff a bit on Chivalry.

Chivalry

Chivalry is simply one of many ideologies that was subsumed by westernized romanticism. Chivalry also applied toward things such as not hitting a man while he wasn’t looking or attacking a blatantly undefendable, inferior or even a respected foe. It was originally intended as a code of etheics determined by the Roman Catholic church to control the otherwise lawless and violent natures of soldiers and knights who, understandably, had a tendency for brigandism in the middle ages. What passes for most people’s understanding of chivalry is actually a classic interpretation and bastardization of western romanticisim and the ideologies of ‘courtly love’, which ironically enough was also an effort by the women of the period intended to better control the men of the early and high Renaissance. Essentially it amounted to a taming of the over-dominating masculine influence of the time by laying out a system of prescribed appropriate conditions necessary to satisfy a womans access to her intimacy.

Like today’s push for men to better identify with the feminine, the idea of courtly love was to ‘encourage’ men to explore their feminine sides with odes of divine expressions of love, offerings of fantastic (often life threatening) feats to prove one’s devotion or presenting gifts beyond compare to again prove ones worth and sincerity to the “object” of his desire – her’s being the only gauge for acceptance. The articles of courtly love are actually the inception of our tradition of buying an expensive wedding ring for a woman. And just like the women of today, their behaviors rarely matched their stated intents, but far be it from the objective eye to cast a doubt upon them for fear of social ostracization.

I’ll open doors for old women, my mother, my wife, my daughter and any other woman I happen to get to the door at the same time with, not because I have some intrinsic need to dominate the vaginas of the world, but because it’s my habit. Rituals don’t make a man what he is, but his character, confidence and bearing. We call something ‘courteous’ beacuse of this ‘courtly’ dynamic, but it’s the Man behind the courtesy that makes the difference. I don’t think twice about helping a man or a woman carry a heavy load, nor do I care what sex the person is I may help fix a flat tire.

One of the primary elements of charity is that if you expect any compensation for the act, it isn’t charity. I’ve stated in the past that women lack a fundamental capacity to appreciate the sacrifices Men must make in order to facilitate their feminine-centric reality. However, to take this one step further, Men need to be aware from the outset that any efforts they make will NOT be appreciated as being extraordinary. In the feminine centric reality, your sacrifices are a prescribed expectations and normalized – you’re supposed to ‘do the right thing’, and that right thing is always to promote the feminine imperative. So with this in mind, and within the social framework established by the feminine imperative, it serves a Man best to presume that any effort he makes will go entirely thankless.

Does that sound like a raw deal? It sure as hell does to me, but that’s the reward-center wiring my brain is prone to. It makes little sense to paint a masterpiece that no one but yourself will ever see, but yet here I am putting paint to canvas – why?  Feminism may have killed chivalry, but it still hasn’t touched the paradox of altruism.

Altruism

There are many examples in the natural world of what appears to be altruism, but the motivations behind the altruistic behavior are what gives it away. Meerkats live in a cooperative community and post guards to lookout for potential threats to that community. It’s common practice among these lookout Meerkats to sound a warning loud enough to alert the clan, but also specifically to draw attention to themselves. They often make no effort for self-preservation and allow themselves to be killed in order to forestall a predator and give time for the greater whole of the community members to reach safety.

This may appeal to our sense of morality as an altruistic act of self-sacrifice, but it’s really one example of species preservation among higher order animals. I read about a soldier falling on the grenade in Iraq and there are many other similar stories of exactly this same act in other conflicts throughout history. And while I can’t say for certain what a man’s personal reasons were for self-sacrifice, I do know the function for which the behavior occurs – sacrifice for the greater good. One dies so that a majority do not, makes for an efficient preservation of the whole. A bee stings, perhaps without knowing it will kill him, in order to preserve the collective. It’s written into it’s biology to react to threats in such a way. For the same reason I sincerely doubt that a soldier throwing himself on a grenade would have any premeditated concept of sacrifice for a whole. Nor would I say the guy gave any forethought, much less had the time to do so, to contemplate who in the group had kids to live for or assessing the individual value of their existence, or thinking he would live on in infamy – he just reacted.

Often what we call acts of courage, heroism, cowardice, or even greed are little more than necessary behaviors of what a particular condition demands of us. We can afford the luxury to call these behaviors what we’d like after the fact, but often we don’t have the time to contemplate the consequences of our reaction – we just do things autonomously sometimes. A soldier has 5-10 seconds to react to a live grenade, but we’ve got a lifetime to define what heroism is.

It’s in light of this reactionary altruism that I believe Men, more than women, have an innate capacity for self-sacrifice. In a life or death context this is an easy illustration, but in everyday life, the choices we make and the habits we take for granted stem from this hard-wired altruism. Let me make it clear that from a philosophical standpoint I don’t subscribe to the idea of selfless altruism: even if just on a subconscious level, we all do things with some expectation of reciprocity or reward. There’s a martyr in every Man that thinks his sacrifice will earn him accolades of pussy. When you can get a 16 year old boy to strap explosives to his body with the promise of 70 virgins in heaven, then you’ll begin to understand altruism from a male perspective.

Enter White Knight

Bear in mind that what we think of as chivalry today is a bastardization of the initial concept courtesy of Hollywood and romanicizations. Also consider that our popular concept of chivalry is a westernized idea that almost exclusively applied to the landed aristocracy of western Europe during the middle ages. The original, latent purpose of chivalry was to hold wealthy men accountable to the Holy Roman Empire and not kill each other or resort to banditry as was common at the time of it’s inception.

White Knghts and ‘liberated men’ who voluntarily serve the feminine imperative make a common mistake in associating ‘chivalrous’ behavior with westernized romanticism. The concept of Courtly Love, what would later be referred to as “Romance”, actually began with aristocratic women playing “romantic games” amongst themselves and a series of suitors – generally while their noblemen husbands were away on some military campaign. The contests would be tests of devotion, sometimes writing sonnets or poetry, other times it may’ve been slowly bleeding to death to prove their affections. Obviously taken to the extreme this had it’s downside, but the “games” took root in society and have evolved over the course of history.

I’m not saying being ‘chivalrous’ doesn’t have it’s uses, but like any gift or attention, the more a Man applies it the sooner it loses it’s appeal. See it for what it’s become, and what it began from.

Just Be Yourself

We are who we say we are.

Is the woman who applies make up everyday ‘being herself”? How about the woman with implants, is she ‘being herself’? What about the woman wearing high heels becasue it boosts her height 4 inches? Is the girl you see in nothing but party pics on FaceBook being herself? Lets turn it the other way, what of the woman wearing a business suit that emphasizes her shoulders with pads in the jacket is she ‘being herself’? If she colors her hair does this make her less genuine?

If being ourselves is an idealized state then I should reasonably be able to expect a like-minded fitness model to be attracted to me even if my greatest passion is to sit on my couch, eat a large pizza and wash it down with a 6 pack of Michelob while watching Monday Night Football, right? After all, I am just being myself – it’s who I am.

Believe and so you shall become

The hardest distinction the uninitiated have with the JBY (just be yourself) dynamic is that personality is malleable. Personality is always in flux. The person you are today isn’t who you were 2 years ago, nor the person you’ll be 2 years from now. There are traits and characteristics we may carry with us for a lifetime, but even these are subject to change depending upon circumstance. You define what being yourself is at any given moment and it’s relative to your personal conditions and environment. So where do you draw the line? When does a genuine change of character become legitimate rather than being ‘shallow’ or ‘superficial’? Those are just catch terms that women (and too many chumps) have used with success over the centuries and men have internalized as being states of perception that women think are undesirable, yet they never accurately define. Rather, they stay intentionally ambiguous and relative to an individual woman’s interpretation, while their behaviors indicate their own motivations.

You are who you believe you are, and you are who she perceives you to be.

One of the hardest things for anyone, male or female, to hear is that they need to change their lifestyle because it implies that their just ‘being themselves’ is in some way at fault for their present conditions. It’s analogous to telling someone they’re not living their lives ‘correctly’ or that they’re raising their kids wrong. If I have a friend that is shooting heroin and I actively encourage him to stop and make an effort to help him ‘clean up’, society calls me a hero or a savior. When I encourage my friend to quit smoking before she gets cancer, I’m a concerned good-friend helping my friend with a health risk behavior. But when I tell a friend he needs to change his approach to women and this is a reason for his unhappiness and he needs to change his outlook on, and approach with women, look better and feel better, then I’m a ‘shallow’ prick and insensitive to his ‘problem’. Worse still is even attempting to offer constructive criticism, in as positive a light possible, that a person can improve themselves by changing their outlook and modifying their behavior.

Personality is not only malleable, but it can change dramatically under specific conditions. An easy example of this is veterans with post traumatic stress disorder. These men were exposed to traumatic environments that fundamentally altered their personalities. While this is an extreme illustration it proves that becoming a ‘different person’ is a matter of conditions. If my conditions are such that I enjoy sitting at home eating a whole pizza, washing it down with a six pack of Budweiser and watching Anime on a Friday evening, can I realistically expect that hot fitness instructor at the gym to come on over and genuinely want to fuck my brains out? And why not? After all I’m only being myself and she should “love me for who I am”, right? If this were my case, the conditions that define my personality are incongruous with attracting and/or maintaining a relationship with someone whose conditions are not my own.

JBY is an operative social convention that aids hypergamy.

Women are only too happy to endorse and reinforce JBY for the conscious reasoning that it ‘sounds like the right thing to say’. It’s an unassailable position; who wouldn’t want you to be you? If what counts is all on the inside then anyone telling you to change MUST be manipulating you for their own selfish reasons. This dovetails nicely into the popularized fat-acceptance self-acceptance mantra most women will fall back on when the impact of the Wall begins to manifest itself in their physiques and they want to be loved for “who they are” rather than what they used to look like. However, on a subconscious level, the latent purpose of fostering the JBY social convention in men is yet another sexual selection filtering mechanism. Actually it’s more of a filtering failsafe in that by socially mandating a genuineness in the general populace of men, women are more secure in the accuracy of their sexual assessment of men. If all men are Just Being Themselves and are encouraged to be the person they ‘truly are’, this then aids a woman in determining which man will best satisfy her hypergamy.

As I’ve stated in many a prior post, women claim to want honesty from men, but no woman wants full disclosure. In a general sense I advise this because it serves to sustain a Man’s aura of mystery, only to be progressively discovered by women with the appropriate levels of interest and responsiveness to men. However, another reason to remain deliberately ambiguous is to defuse the JBY dynamic that women assume would be a man’s default psychology.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #8

Always let a woman figure out why she wont ƒuck you, never do it for her.

An integral part of maintaining the feminine imperative as the societal imperative involves keeping women as the primary sexual selectors. As I’ve detailed in many prior comments and posts, this means that a woman’s sexual strategy necessitates that she be in as optimized a condition as her capacity (attractiveness) allows for her to choose from the best males available to satisfy that strategy.

JBY is a tool in maintaining the feminine imperative as the social imperative. Furthermore JBY serves in optimizing hypergamy in aiding a woman’s sense of security about assessing which man will best suit her hypergamy. Ironically, the JBY dynamic gets upended once a monogamous relationship is established by a woman’s anxiety for ‘fixing’ her partner once in that relationship. What was once the pseudo-genuineness of just him being himself is replace by “I’m working on him” in order for him to become the ideal man to meet with her hypergamic approval – thus exposing the calculated nonsense JBY really is to begin with.

We are who we say we are

We can alter our own personalities and have them altered by our conditions or any combination of the two, but to suggest that personality is static is a falsehood. The trap is to think that altering personality is in anyway disingenuous – there are certainly teriffic ‘actors’ or ‘poseurs’, and the like, that when we are confronted with them we sense (or even know) that they are pushing an envelope that they may not be entirely comfortable with, but there is merit to a ‘fake it till you make it’ doctrine. We only percieve it as being ‘false’, ‘superficial’ or as “trying to be something your not” when we have a concept or knowledge of a previous set of personality behaviors. If you met a likable cocky-funny guy at a club this weekend, how are you to know whether he’s the real deal or stretching the limits of his personality if you’ve never met him before?

Law 25: Re-Create Yourself 
Do not accept the roles that society foists on you. Re-create yourself by forging a new identity, one that commands attention and never bores the audience. Be the master of your own image rather than letting others define it for you. Incorporate dramatic devices into your public gestures and actions— your power will be enhanced and your character will seem larger than life.

A League of Your Own

“Rollo, I’m newly Game-aware, red pill guy and I’ve been meeting girls with more and more success since my conversion, but I can’t help the feeling that the really hot girls I want to get with a so out of my league. 

Any suggestions?”

Iron Rule of Tomassi #8

Always let a woman figure out why she wont ƒuck you, never do it for her.

An integral part of maintaining the feminine imperative as the societal imperative involves keeping women as the primary sexual selectors. As I’ve detailed in many prior comments and posts, this means that a woman’s sexual strategy necessitates that she be in as optimized a condition as her capacity (attractiveness) allows for her to choose from the best males available to satisfy that strategy.

This is really the definition of hypergamy, and on an individual level, I believe only the most plugged in of men don’t realize this to some degree of consciousness. However, what I think escapes a lot of men is the complex nature of hypergamy on a social scale. For hypergamy to sustain it’s dominant position as the default sexual strategy for our society, it’s necessary for the feminine imperative to maintain existing, foster new, and normalize complex social conventions that serve it. The scope of these conventions range from the individualized psychological conditioning early in life to the grand scale of social engineering (e.g. Feminism, Religion, Government, etc.)

One of these social conventions that operates in the spectrum of the personal to the societal is the idea of ‘leagues’. The fundamental idea that Social Matching Theory details is that “All things being equal, an individual will tend to be attracted to, and are more likely to pair off with, another individual who is of the same or like degree of physical attractiveness as themselves.” In a vacuum, this is the germ of the idea behind the ‘leagues’. The social convention of ‘leagues’ mentality is where ‘all things are not equal’ and used to support the feminine imperative, while conveniently still supporting the principle of social matching theory.

The latent function of ‘leagues’ is to encourage men to filter themselves out for women’s intimate approval.

As social conditions progress and become more complex, so too do men’s ability to mimic the personal attributes of providership and security. In other words, lesser men become intelligent enough to circumvent women’s existing sexual filters and thus thwart their sexual strategy. These ever increasing complexities made it hard to identify optimally suitable men from the pretenders, and women, being the primary sexual selector, needed various social constructs to sort the wheat from the chaff. With each subsequent generation they couldn’t be expected to do all of this detective work on their own so the feminine imperative enlisted the aid of the men themselves and created self-perpetuated, self-internalized social doctrines for men to comply with in order to exist in a feminine defined society.

The concept of leagues is just one of these doctrines. Your self-doubt about your worthiness of a woman’s intimacy stems from a preconditioned idea that ‘you’re out of her league’. The booster club optimist idea that “if you think you can’t, you’re right” is true, and boundless enthusiasm may overcome some obstacles, but to address the source of the disease it’s more important to ask yourself why you’ve been taught to think you can’t. A lot of approach anxiety comes from your own self-impression – Am I smooth, hot, affluent, funny, confident, interesting, decisive, well-dressed enough to earn an HB 9’s attention? How about an HB 6? Our great danger is not that we aim too high and fail, but that we aim too low and succeed.

I’m not debating the legitimacy of the evaluative standards of the sexual market place – it’s a harsh, often cruel reality – what I’m really trying to do is open your eyes as to why you believe you’re only meritorious of an HB 7. Looks count for a lot, as does Game, affluence, personality, talent, etc. but is your self-estimation accurate, or are you a voluntary participant in your own self-devaluation in the SMP courtesy of the leagues mentality the feminine imperative would have you believe?

The Economy of the League

As I stated above the purpose of fomenting a stratified League mentality in men serves to autonomously filter the lesser from the greater men for women to chose from, however, it also functions to increase the valuation of the feminine as a commodity. Like any great economic entity, the feminine imperative lives and dies by its ability to inflate its value in the marketplace. Essentially the feminine imperative is a marketeer. One of the sad ironies of this, and the last, century is that the feminine imperative has attempted to base women’s SMP valuation on a collective importance to the detriment of the individual woman’s SMV. For men this is inverted; a man’s sexual valuation is primarily individualized, while men as a collective gender are devaluated in the SMP.

What I mean by this is that, as a collective entity women’s sexuality cannot afford to be perceived as anything less than the more valued prize. If all vaginas are considered the gold standard then men’s sexual default value will always be lower. By this definition men, on whole, are out of women’s league.

For further consideration lets assume that average men, most being varying degrees of beta, are blessed with the ‘miraculous gift’ of an average woman’s sexual attentions. The power dynamic is already pre-established to defer to a feminine frame, so it’s small wonder that men would be prone to ONEitis even with an objectively average woman. This is the intent of the League schema – to unobjectively predispose men to commitment with women who under objective condition couldn’t enjoy the same selectivity. Roissy once postulated that for a healthy relationship to exist the Man must be recognized by the woman to be 1-2 points above her own SMV. This is a pretty tall order considering the feminine imperative’s emphasis on women’s sexuality being the more valued as default. And this is  to say nothing of contemporary women’s overinflated self-evaluations due to the rise of social media.

Gaming the League

All of the above isn’t to say that there isn’t a kernel of truth to the notion of leagues; it’s just not the “truth” men have been led to believe. For as much as the feminine imperative would have men subscribe to Leagues, it equally seeks to exempt women from the same League hierarchy by evaluating women as a whole. Needless to say men have their own rating systems – most popularly the ubiquitously physical HB 10 scale. I should add that it’s a foregone conclusion that any rating system men would establish for women in the feminine reality would necessarily need to be ridiculed, shamed and demonized, but you knew that already.

Irrational self-confidence is a good start to circumventing and unlearning the concept of Leagues; unlearning this conditioning being the operative goal. The Game-aware Man can actually use the concept of Leagues to his advantage with enough guile. When you approach a woman without regard to a League mentality or even a Zen-like obliviousness to it, you send the message that there’s more to you than a feminine reality can control. It’s exactly this disregard for the influence of the feminine imperative that makes the Alpha attractive; he’s unaware of, or indifferent to the rules his conditioning should’ve taught him earlier. Just in the attempt of Gaming a woman obviously “out of your league” you flip the feminine script by planting a seed of doubt (and prompting imagination) about your perceived value. Doubt is a very powerful tool, in fact the very concept of Leagues is founded upon men’s self-doubt. Turn that tool to your advantage by disregarding women’s social convention of Leagues.

Fem-Centrism

My intent with yesterday’s (relax, they’re just tits) post was to illustrate how the reality in which we find things “normal” is rendered by fem-centristic influence. Across ethnicities, and encompassing all manner of social diversity, this influence is so insaturated into culture, laws, media, entertainment, from our collective social consciousness to our individual psyches that we simply take it for granted as the operative framework in which we live. I realize this is a tough pill to swallow, because the male imperative does in fact intersect with the female imperative depending on mutual goals. However, the point is that the operative framework, the reality we function in, is defined by the feminine.

I can remember first becoming aware of just the hints of this the first time I watched a popular sit-com on TV with a critical eye. There simply were no positively masculine actors or roles in ANY show, and rather every male was ridiculed for his masculinity. This then led into other aspects of society and media I was just starting to become aware of. Feminization was everywhere, but my inner guilt for even considering that possibility was hindering my unplugging from it.

I remember at first feeling guilty about feeling offended by just my noticing this. I felt ashamed of myself for thinking that maybe things weren’t as ‘normal’ as women would like me to think. What I didn’t understand was that this was part of my conditioning; to internalize a sense of shame for questioning that ‘normalcy’. A lot of men never get past this programming and never unplug. It’s just too embedded in “who they are”, and the resulting internal conflict will prompt them to deny the realities of their condition and sometimes actively fight others who challenge the normalcy they need in order to exist.

Once I’d gotten past the self-shame, I began to notice other patterns and interlocking social conventions that promoted this fem-centrism. From the macro dynamics of divorce laws and legal definitions of rape, to the gender bias in military conscription (drafting only men to die in war) and down to the smallest details of mundane water cooler talk in the work place, I began to realize just how overwhelming this influence is on our existences.

Observing the Framework

Recently I listend to an advice radio talk show where a woman called in in emotional distress with her husbands actions. Apparently she’d dated the man for a year or two before marriage and they talked about how neither wanted children from the outset. Prior to the marriage both agreed, no kids, that is until about a year into their marriage the wife had secretly gone off the pill and made deliberate efforts in her sexual activities with her husband in order to conceive. Trouble was she wasn’t getting pregnant. Only later did the man confess that he’d had a vasectomy so as not to risk having kids with any woman he paired up with.

The ensuing indignation wasn’t directed at the woman’s admitted duplicity and covert efforts to deceive her husband into thinking she’d had an accidental pregnancy, but rather all the fires of hell were concentrated on this man’s alleged deception of her. This serves as a prime example of how the feminine reality frames the directions of our lives. Publicly and privately, not even an afterthought was spared for the woman’s motivation and desperate measures to achieve her sexual imperative because the feminine imperative is normalized as the CORRECT goal of any conflict. A woman’s existential imperative, her happiness, her contentment, her protection, her provisioning, her empowerment, literally anything that benefits the feminine is not only encouraged socially, but in most cases mandated by law. Ironically, most doctors require a wife’s written consent to perform a vasectomy on a married man; not because of a legal mandate, but rather to avoid legal retaliations and damages from a wife. By hook or by crook, her imperative is the CORRECT one.

Some will argue that it hasn’t always been thus, and that in certain eras woman have been reduced to property like cattle. While that may have some merit I would argue that the perpetuation of this notion better serves the new feminine reality in promoting a need for recognition of victim status and thus a need for restitution. The truth is that even the most ardent supporters of reconciling a “patriarchal  past” are still operating in the feminine realty in the now. Other than sultans and emperors, very few men born prior to the dark ages have ever really ‘owned’ a woman.

Sexual Revolution

I got into a hypothetical debate with an online friend as to what it would mean to humanity (and masculinity in particular) if a new method of birth control was developed with the specific and unique ability to allow men to control conception to the same degree women were given with hormonal contraception in the mid-sixties. I thought it interesting that human effort could create reliable contraception for women in the 60’s, yet in 2011 we can map the human genome and yet not figure out how to afford men the same degree of birth control?

Put simply, the feminine imperative will not allow this.

Imagine the social and economic damage to the feminine infrastructure if Prometheus gave such fire to Men? Imagine that balance of control veering back into the masculine; for men to literally have the exclusive choice to fulfill a woman’s sexual strategy or not.

The conversation got heated. Men could never be trusted with such a power! Surely humanity would come to a grinding, apocalyptic end if the feminine sexual strategy was thwarted by reliable male contraception. Societies would be sundered, populations would nosedive, and the nuclear family would be replaced with a neo-tribalism dictated by men’s sexual strategies. Honestly, you’d think the discovery of atomic weapons was on par with such an invention.

The ridiculous, pathetic endemically juvenile and perverse masculinity that 50 years of feminization created could never be trusted to further humanity in pursuing their sex’s inborn imperatives.

Yet, this is precisely the power that was put into the hands of women in the 1960’s and remains today. The threat that male contraception represents to the feminine imperative is one of controlling the framework of which gender’s sexual strategy will be the normative. Prior to the advent of female-exclusive hormonal birth control and the sexual revolution that resulted from it, the gender playing field was level, if not tipped in favor of masculinity due to men’s provisioning being a motivating factor in women achieving their own gender imperative. Latex prophylactics were available in the 40’s, and this may have afforded men a slight advantage, but both parties knew and agreed to the terms of their sexual activity at the time of copulation.

Once feminine-exclusive birth control was convenient and available the locus of control switched to feminine primacy. Her imperative became the normalized imperative. His sexual imperative was only a means to achieving her own, and now the control was firmly placed in favor of feminine hypergamy. Whether in the developing world or in first world nations, the onus of directing the course of humanity fell upon women, and thus the feminine reality evolved into what it is today.

Qualities of the Prince

You know, I’m not quite sure if my readership is aware of this, but I’m a Prince. No really, I’m a Prince (stop laughing), or at least that’s the expectation I’ve come to have others recognize in me after sifting through women’s online profiles on such fantastical dating resources such as Plenty of Whales Fish and OK U-Bid Cupid. But don’t think I’m such a rare bird, because amazingly enough, if you’re reading this blog, you’re probably a Prince too! And you didn’t even realize it did you?

You see, virtually all the women you encounter on these Buffers online dating resources are simply undiscovered, under-appreciated jewels in the rough. They’re Princesses, and goddammit they deserve to be treated as such. Just reading through each profile is like going on safari and encountering a virtual cornucopia of rare and exotic animals (kind of like a zoo), each meticulously described in encyclopedic detail of their uniqueness and rarity of finding. What mere mortal man could possibly deserve to touch such feminine refinery?

A few years ago the denizens of the SoSuave forum accidentally conducted one of the most humorous social experiments ever performed. A member by the handle of Bonhomme was a frequenter of Plenty of Fish and noticed an interesting trend in women’s profiles. Though most of the women using online dating run the gamut from hopelessly fat to 2-drink fuckability, the one thing most had in common was an entirely overblown sense of self-worth to compliment their grossly overrated self-impression of their sexual market value (SMV for those of you playing the home game). This is nothing shocking for unplugged Men; the ‘community’ has long held that social media and online Buffers work in tandem to convince a woman she’s 1 to 2 degrees higher on her SMV scale. What hadn’t been studied up to then was the descriptors and qualifications that online women used in both their “list of demands” and their own self-evaluations, or “the brochure of value added features” any man with common sense (see fem-centric conditioning) would ever be considered a ‘Man’ for appreciating in a woman.

The following is an example pulled from a typical profile:

Here is a well thought out idea of what kind of guy I am interested in… 5’10” or taller, lives near by, compassionate, intelligent, giving, VERY Attractive (someone other than your mother or sister has said so, lol) and in shape, prefer self employed, FAMILY orientated, open to new spontaneous things, likes to camp, likes to golf, wants children, would be a good father and faithful husband, a gentleman, gives me my space when I need it, not a nerd or too sarcastic, can take a hint, social, calls for no reason, remembers sending a note or a nominal gift IS romantic and necessary, respectful, sense of humor, and thinks the world of me. I am not interested in anyone older than 41 and anyone who makes less money than me since I do not plan on changing the lifestyle I have grown accustom to and hope to one day be a stay at home mom and furthermore… my children will never want for ANYTHING (but of course will not be spoiled brats either lol). You should also love animals  I am not attracted to red heads at all lol sorry.

Wow! A rare find indeed. Thank heaven for the internet in providing men such a valuable resource that we might encounter such rational and strong women as this. This is one common example, but by far the most common self-references women made involved the word “Princess” – “I’m a Princess waiting for my Prince” or “I’ll admit it, I’m a Princess, I just need to find a man who can appreciate that and treat me right.”

Well, far be it from Rollo J. Tomassi to deny these undiscovered royals their due! Quickly I began to craft a cunning profile of my own; one which these pouting Princesses would surely recognize as that of none other than the Crown Prince of Man-dom. Using their own profile’s jingoisms and idioms as a template, I established an idealized persona, one that any woman worth her equalist “common sense” salt would instantly be irresistible to,…

Here is a well thought out idea of what kind of gal I am interested in…5′ 5″ or taller, but not over 6 feet (because while I don’t mind being eye to eye with you, I won’t ever be looking up to you), lives close enough to be at my house within 10 minutes after I make the call, genuinely passionate, intelligent enough to be good company, sexually available (preferably insatiable) and VERY attractive – we’re talking Jessica Alba, Keyra Augustina attractive – women with a body-fat percentage higher than 8% need not apply. Must be employed but not so well as you’ll interfere with our sexual activities, FAMILY oriented, but only after you’ve hit 30-33, open to spontaneous sex (you know, like outdoor stuff or a surprise 3 way with one of your hot girlfriends after our 2nd martini), likes to camp (in the nude), knows not to complain when I go play golf with the clients from work.

She must want children after 33 years of age if at all, and only after she’s proven to be a good mother and faithful wife, must be a lady with class and know when the right time is to speak and not to speak, not a prude or bitch, can take the first hint, sociable, unexpectedly texts me pictures of her wearing something new from Fredericks of Hollywood, understands that the best gift she can give me is expressing her desire to fuck me like a wild animal, and also understands that gifts for her are treats or rewards for desired behavior.

Must be respectful of my decisions being final, can’t take herself too seriously and thinks the world of me. I’m not interested in anyone over 31 (since this is most women’s expiration date anyway), she cannot have exorbitant spending habits or a credit debtload in excess of $1,000 since I do not plan on changing the lifestyle I have grown accustom to and hope to one day be able to send my own children to college (rather than pay for your student debt), and furthermore… my children will be taught to reasonably earn their achievements on their own and respect the decisions of their Father and mother (and absolutely will not be spoiled brats either). I’m very attracted to redheads, blondes, brunettes, Latinas, Asians, African-Americans, Pacific Islanders, etc., pretty much any woman that meets my physical requirements. I am not attracted at all to even slightly fat women no matter how much “inner beauty” you think you may possess. Hope to meet you soon, your Prince.

There! What woman could possible fail to appreciate all of the qualities of a Prince based on their very own template? Insidious, clever and witty. All I had to do was await what could only be a landslide of returned affection and positive responses. I contemplated how I would have to let down the poor cast off Princesses who failed to meet my humble criteria as the first response came in,…

“I read your profile, and is any of it serious?????”

A bit perturbed I reply,

Why do you think it’s not serious? Am I not allowed to be a bit specific?

“Sorry not about to put up with your kind of shit.”

Strange and yet strange again. Here I’d learned that self-confidence and assertiveness were traits women admired in the land of gender-equalism. Ah, perhaps this Princess was a bit jaded by such a dearth of qualified Princes at her disposal. I waited a bit more and was rewarded by a Princess called ‘Lil Sweet Heart’ who’d randomly read my glowing self-description,..

“what a profile
see iam a strong willed person!!
i speak when i want to say what i want and when i want and the way ur profile sounds i dont we;d be a match and the part about raising a spoiled brat thats a hard one to over come depends what u see as spoiled sure my boys r a bit spoiled well a lot but thats the way i was raised and it did me no wrong my kids know that they have to work to earn their spending and treats but no reason why a parent cant buy something just because so maybe ur profile can off wrong but my feeling is not some one id wanna meet hmmmmm”

Egads! I respond,

“Honestly, I really tried to read your message to me, but all of the bastardized English and the run-on sentences made it virtually impossible to understand what you were trying to say.”

I do say. Whomever this royal child’s au pair was is deserving of a public scourging! The thought of so ill-preparing a Princess for courtly discourse with the Man who will one day be her King is inexcusable. Bah, the blazes with this one, I’ll be patient on another,..

“uh, yeah, i don’t think so. maybe your profile’s a joke (which would make it less sad), but i don’t find it amusing, not my sense of humour at all.and the fact that i’m even bothering to reply to say no, rather than just ignore you, should tell you how distasteful it is.happy hunting. (though you’d have better luck if you went back in time 100 years or so, have fun finding chics like that today)

After checking out your profile, you are one of the rudest people i’ve even encountered. In your dreams…”

Hmm, I was beginning to see a flaw in my profile design. You see I had simply reworded the profile of my original Princess’ profile and changed the gender specific terms to the masculine, while adding a bit of my own desires to the outline of the ideal Princess I’d like to meet. After all, they all want to be treated like Princesses, I’m just asking to be treated like a Prince. But,..perhaps I’d been remiss in my waiting for the Princesses to respond. How unmanning of me – I would seek out my prize and pursue her. This profile caught my eye,…

“I am friendly, outgoing, generous, loyal, honest and adventurous. I work in a hospital. I also drive and have my own car.
I love to get my nails done every two weeks. I love fashion and style. I care about pop culture and social issues.
I have an IQ of 146. I am extremely intelligent and educated.

First Date: I dont want to meet Cheaters, users, players, haters, crumb bumbs, guys who want booty calls or fuk buddies… ya’ll dont let the door hit cha on the way out… I guess Im looking to meet someone around my own age, who is taller than me preferably caucasian, attractive, who likes to work out, has a unique, ghetto and sarcastic sense of humor like me.”

Well, not the ideal prize I’d been seeking, but perhaps this was another jewel in the rough that just needed a bit of spit and polish. I respond in the affirmative to her brassy, assertive equalist nature. After reading my profile, she responds,..

“i mak emy own moneya nd pay for own 5hit.. and for someone with such high standards take a good look in the mirror becuz these girls aka jessica alba are way out of ur league… if u want someone who is hot at least BE hot urself!”

I found this confusing since I had no picture on my profile at this point. I’d have to address that, but strange that the assumption was that my physical stature would necessarily be inadequate for her. I respond,..

“Dear woman, for someone with such a high opinion of her intelligence your grammar, punctuation and syntax are far from reflecting this. You type like shite.”

What I’d found most entertaining of this whole affair is that these women somehow feel compelled to respond to the profile. As if it were some personal affront to their sensibilities that it should need their attention to correct, rather than simply move on to the next profile. Judging from the frequency and intensity of the responses, how many men do you suppose responded to the original woman’s profile with the same fervor?

One of the best ways to illustrate how insaturated feminization has become in society is to flip the gender script on certain gender-specific dynamics. As funny as all this was, it serves to show that women live and operate in gender assumptions that they simply take as normalized conditions. Were a Man to publicly expect the terms and demands for his own provisioning and intimate access that women demand without an afterthought, he’s instantly accused of misogyny at worst, comedy at best. There are many more dynamics that illustrate this fem-centric normalization. My critics get fits of hysteria when I describe the acculturated, feminine-centric undercurrent operating in society. Girl-world is the only world for them, so pulling back the iron-veil of the feminine reality like this is usually a hard revelation. Ironically it’s the vitriol engendered in the responses to my reworded profile that prove the point.