Of all the strippers I’d ‘dated’ in the past every one subscribed to some form of non-mainstream spiritualism. This girl Angie I used to bang kept Tarot cards in her pink lady’s devotional Bible, another professed to be a psychic; in fact the only people I’ve ever known who self-seriously wanted me to believe they were in fact psychic were all women.
These types look for that connection in a guy. For instance I bought a little silver yin-yang ring that I’ve worn for almost 18 years now when I was in college. I don’t really have any eastern mystic beliefs, I just bought it from a street vendor when I felt I needed a reminder to keep balance in my life. But damned if I didn’t have (and still do) more women point it out and ask me about it, and have it be some karmic conversation starter since I got it. The thing is tiny, but that’s what they gravitate to.
For the stripper set this seems to be par for the course, but I wish I could say this chick-crack phenomenon was limited to just women who had some vacuous spiritual/emotional hole in their lives to fill. No, all women (yes I said all) are predisposed to the intrigue that metaphysical imaginings sparks in them. If it smacks of secret, covert knowledge, privy only to a chosen few, then you’ve got an attentive listener in a woman. UFOs, palm reading (always a classic), psychic premonition, ‘gifts of prophecy’, really anything that hints at knowledge beyond the ordinary is fair game. Chick Crack is not just limited to off-brand spiritualisms either, you’ll find that far more women than men will develop (conveniently) an affinity for, and are more invested in, religion than men.
Women’s natural pull towards the mysterious and metaphysical has its roots in the sex’s historical characterizations. In keeping with the very useful associations of women’s unknowability and feminine mystique, it’s perhaps unsurprising that we find most mythologized representations of women and femininity cast as brooding, fickle, rapacious and often as a temptress, possessing secret knowledge that foolish men (the mere mortals) are neither capable of, nor encouraged to understand. Sometimes childlike, often conveniently eroticized, women are literally cast as forces of nature – whether sexualized nymphs or tempestuous witches, each characterization relies on women possessing some form of secret or forbidden connection to the metaphysical. Even the commanding presence of Joan of Arc, while leading the armies of France, had a connection to something otherworldly. By their very nature, feminine mythology, by default, presumes women are more in tune with the nature of reality, while surpassing the ignorance of brutish men.
Women revel in their mythology. Since covert forms of communication are the preferred language of women, their affinity for secret information is a natural fit. Ever wonder why gossip seems to be uniquely endemic to women? Look no further than women’s innate impulse to acquire secret knowledge. Take away the Vampires and Werewolves – the metaphysical component – from the Twilight series and what you’re left with is a relatively bland romance novel. Add the otherworldly and you have a runaway hit popular with every female age demographic, from tweens to octogenarians.
In women’s evolutionary past, concealment meant everything. Confusing a man as to the true genetic heritage of his children was often a matter of life or death. Pursuing pluralistic sexual strategies depends upon creating a characterization of women as legitimately unknowable, thus the feminine mystique is instituted. Ergo, the sociological PR campaign over the course of millennia has been to perpetuate the mystery of woman.
If it weren’t so predictable, it would almost be ironic that one of the first useful Game observations PUAs made about feminine nature was their tendency to entertain magical thinking to varying degrees. It wasn’t too hard to figure out that women could be engaged more easily if you started an approach topic, at least playfully, regarding some metaphysical belief. The association is one where (albeit disingenuously) a Man would seem ‘in the know’ about something a woman has a private belief about, thus establishing a point of identification that both would otherwise want to keep secret. Currently the most popular (at least in the circle of women I know) metaphysical concept is actually called The Secret. On the surface of it it’s sheer idiocy, but you’d be surprised how thoroughly the feminine has embraced this new age Jabez Prayer.
“Every time a man is being nice to you, he’s offering dick. That’s all it is. ‘Uh, can I get that for ya? How ’bout some dick? Can I help you with that? Can I help you with some dick? Do you need some dick?’ ” – Chris Rock
The Savior Schema – the beta male expectation of reciprocation of intimacy (usually sexual) for problems solved.
This is a learned/developed behavior that results from men’s natural push to deductively search for the most rational solution to a problem. It’s really a linear logic; I need sex + women have sex + I must discover what is required for me to get sex from women + I will perform/embody/identify with said requirements = woman will reciprocate with her intimacy. Needless to say this is simplistic at best, but men have a tendency to believe that women will respond as rationally as they themselves would in qualifying for her stated desires. The manosphere is full of men who can tell you this simply isn’t the case for any number of reasons, but sadly they still think that women ought to live up to their implied “agreement.”
The fundamental flaw of the Savior Schema (also, Captain Save a Ho) is that it is essentially negotiated intimacy, and negotiated intimacy is never genuine. You can fix a woman’s flat tire, help her out of a financial jam, fix her a nice lasagne, give her the perfect shoulder to cry on, take care of her kids and listen to her drone on for hours on the phone, and she’ll still go fuck her outlaw biker boyfriend because her intimacy with him is genuine, unnegotiated, unobligated desire. She wants to have sex with him, she doesn’t owe him sex.
What AFCs fail to understand is that all the financial, emotional, dependable support you could possibly offer a woman is no substitute for raw, unmitigated, chemical desire. Some of the most irresponsible, unreliable, poverty level washouts often get more sex than any dutiful AFC suffering from a Savior Schema, because there is no obligation.
In the wild, the law of reciprocity and fair exchange is a fairly obvious one. Most high-order social animals have some innate understanding of exchanging resources. In fact you could argue that pair bonding, family structure and social collectives are for the most part based on this shared exchange arrangement. So it stands to reason that in the course of human evolution we too developed this innate psychological wiring, thus making men prone to seeing it as the shortest distance between what we have and what we want.
The difficulties arise when (perhaps cleverly) women learned to covertly use this innate psychology of exchange within the context of a social framework that gives them a resource advantage for little or no exchange of their own. Thus women modeled a social norm, that mirrors men’s natural default position of disposability, and put their attentions and intimacies as unassailable resources so valuable that no effort on a man’s part can merit it. When a woman is appalled by the notion that she should be obligated to have sex with a man in exchange for a dinner and a movie (even over multiple occasions), this social convention is the root of that insult.
The Protector Dynamic
Of course the flip side to this argument is the Protector Dynamic which is the natural propensity for a man to want to provide protection for his mate. Over the course of our evolutionary history certain psycho-biological behaviors proved to be beneficial to the survival of our species. Specific hormonal releases prompt different emotions and behavioral reactions as a response to our environments. Women, for instance, produce higher volumes of oxytocin and estrogen thus prompting a natural instinctual feeling of wellbeing and nurturing her children (which also, interestingly enough, is released after female orgasm). The same is true for men. Being generally physically stronger and posessing 17 times the testosterone, men have evolved chemical cocktails of their own and thus feel a natural protection instinct when prompted.
The conflict comes when the AFC confuses this Protector Dynamic with a Savior Schema. The natural feelings derived from his biochemistry only serve to reinforce his Savior mentality and solidify it as part of his personality. Even when a woman’s repeated behavior directly contradicts this notion of reciprocating intimacy for help (or his idea of ‘protection’) the Savior Schema only rationalizes it as being inconsistent with a single, individual woman.
This then is the root of the White Knight schema; exchange protection for intimacy (i.e. sex). And, once again, women cleverly, almost subconsciously so, use this dynamic to arrange a beneficial, but unequal, exchange of resources.
One requirement I have of most of the men (and women) I do consults with is that they read The 48 Laws of Power (The Art of Seduction is in the class syllabus as well). In the introduction author Robert Greene runs down the ethical implications of understanding and employing the various laws. If you look at the synopsis of the laws I linked you can get an idea of how uncomfortable some of these laws will naturally make people feel. Many of these laws understandably rub the uneducated the wrong way because for the better part of our lives we’ve been taught to emulate socially acceptable mannerisms and adopt a mindset of cooperation above self interest.
Most people are conditioned to think that deliberate use of power is inherently manipulative, self-serving and sometimes evil. In context this may or may not be true, but in so demonizing even the desire to understand power, not only do we inhibit a better critical understanding of power, but we also make the uneducated more vulnerable to the use of power against them. The 49th Law being: Never educate others of the principles of power, which is itself a form of using power. Never talk about Fight Club.
I bring this up because, just as with the Laws of Power, there will be articles of Game, or foundations of intergender communication – complete with all of the underlying motivators – that Men (and women) will be uncomfortable accepting or employing to the point that it challenges some deep rooted emotional or ego investments. Let me be the first to establish that discomfort is part of understanding; truth is supposed to make you uncomfortable in order to inspire you to action.
I should also add here that even though you may not be comfortable in exercising a particular tactic or don’t feel confident in approaching an interpersonal situation in some way, it is still vital that you do understand the concepts and methodologies behind why those laws, principles, techniques, attitudes, etc. do work. You may have personal reasons for not wanting to involve yourself in some particular aspect of Game, but it’s imperative that you fully acknowledge the mechanics behind that aspect before you decide it’s not something you can employ. Declining to use a particular Law or aspect of Game doesn’t make you immune to the consequences of it, nor does it invalidate that aspect when others use it for their own benefit, and potentially to your own detriment.
Half the Battle
The primary (though not exclusive) focus of this blog has been devoted to the critical analysis of the mechanics behind intergender dynamics, Game-practice, Game-theory, social and evolutionary psychology just to name a few. I can understand the want for practical applications of this field of study, and while in my line of work I have done my own ‘field testing’ with the majority of what I explore here, I have neither the time, opportunity or resources to develop practices beyond what I offer here. At least not to the degree of which the majority of my readers are able – and that’s the good news.
“This is brilliant stuff Rollo, but how do I use this to make my life better with the next girl I sarge, etc.?” This is a common desire from my readership, and the best I can offer is Knowing is Half the Battle. One size doesn’t fit all for everyone in Game or intergender relations. Anyone hawking a book giving you an instruction manual on how to have a great marriage or how to pick up chicks is still limited by their own individual experience. In other words, they’re not you.
It’s for exactly this reason I spend more time and critical thought on the foundations and functions of gender dynamism than pick up artistry. When I get associated with the “manipulative machiavellian Game gurus” it only serves to highlight an ignorance and lack of any depth of understanding what I focus on here. Game is psychology, sociology, economics, biomechanics, evolution and politics. Game is far broader than simple tricks and techniques. And it’s exactly the latent purpose of these applications (PUArtistry) and the mechanics behind their workings that threatens the ego-investments of those who’s feminized interests would rather see them marginalized and passed off as folly, or usefully ridiculed to shame the curious for fear that the underpinnings might be exposed.
Head in the Sand
Sweetening the poison doesn’t make it any less deadly.
I can remember a time in my mid-20s working as a stage tech for a casino cabaret show. The magic act I set up and struck every night involved a Bengal tiger and a black panther. Both of them were professionally handled by trainers, but even though they seemed the most docile of animals I knew they had the potential to seriously fuck me up under the wrong set of circumstances. The trainers would keep them at distance from the rest of the cast and crew, only myself and one other tech were able to get close since we were the ones wheeling them out in special cages at their particular point in the show. One trainer told me, “the moment you think of them as pets is the moment they’ll go feral on you.” They would play with these wild animals, and they seemed to have a special connection (almost like a pet), but when you watched them eat, you knew what they were capable of.
I learned a valuable lesson from this when one night I was wheeling the panther out to the curtain. She was in what was basically a reinforced acrylic aquarium on casters with a velvet cloth draped over it. A few minutes before my cue I’d thought the drape was falling to one side and lifted it to even it out. It was then that I was face to face with this “pet” in nothing but faint stage lights and about 4 inches of transparent acrylic between us. She looked at me with those yellow-green eyes and gave me a very low, almost muted growl and flashed just enough of her teeth to let me know this was not a “pet”.
It’s a mistake (and sometimes a fatal one) to ignore what you know is just under the surface. It’s comforting to believe that you’ve got a special connection, and while the conditions are right, you’ll preserve a relationship based on mutual trust and shared affinity. The flaw is in believing that trust, and kinship is unconditional; that the underlying feral motivators are subdued to the point of being inconsequential. It may be that you do have a special bond that goes beyond just the physical, but that relationship is still founded on physical rules that constantly test and influence that individual.
You know better, but the desire for that connection is so strong that you marginalize the natural impulses into feel-good rationalizations. Every divorced man I know has uttered some variation of “I never thought she was capable of this.” In their comfort they wondered how they dropped the ball, especially after having played by the rules for so long. Some knew about Hypergamy, others made it their “pet”, only their beautiful panther went feral.
Play My Game
It is a far healthier approach to accept the laws of power, the laws of Game, Hypergamy, etc. and fashion a life around an understanding of them than to convince oneself that they are an exception to them.
There are those who seek power by changing the game – by lowering the basketball hoops in order to better shoot a basket – but in ‘leveling the playing field’ they only succeed in changing the nature of the competition to better suit their individual abilities, neither improving the game nor themselves. The temporary change of rules only serves their inadequacies in that game.
Then there are those who accept the game for what it is, they understand it and they master it (or at least attempt to do so). They understand the need for adversity and the benefits it gives them when they reach the next level of mastering the game – not only in technique, but from the confidence this genuinely and verifiably confers.
Don’t wish things were easier, wish you were better.
It’s the aberration who seeks to legitimize her cheating at the game as the new way the game should be played. Shoot the arrow, paint the target around it, and you’ll always get a bullseye.
“Is it just me, or does anyone else get seriously annoyed with women and their dogs?
It’s NAUSEATING how they treat these annoying fucking overgrown rats.
Spend the night at a chicks house and even if she’s kind enough to close the bedroom door behind her leaving little Dolce in the living room inevitably every hour on the hour some leaves rustle outside the front door or the compressor on the fridge makes a noise and “killer” has to start yapping his little head off.
I was out with some friends tonite, one of them was a girl I dated a couple of times awhile back. Not like we didn’t have anything INTERESTING to talk about, but the conversation veers toward her new sh!tzu puppy. She’s SOOOO proud of her baby! He learned how to climb up AND down the stairs, and he’s now potty trained! YAY!
As if that weren’t enough, the blackberry comes out and we have to look at pictures of her adorable little “child”. Isn’t he cute with the little bow in his hair? AWWWWWW!!!!!
Christ…..these chicks wonder why they can’t find a man who will stick around? It isn’t bad enough that they want to be a MAN themselves in everyday life, but then they want to come home and play mommy to a 10 pound mop that has to be walked every few hours and leaves “surprises” on the floor every couple of weeks.
I was recently talking with a friend about the absoulte psychotic mess the girl I used to date in my 20’s, and I got to recalling some of the more annoying aspects of that miserable relationship. One of the most aggravating things I found myself wrapped up in was her obsession over this little Westhighland Terrier she had. I hated that fucking animal; and I don’t mean your garden variety hate, but the how Satan-hates-God kind of hate.
Even after 17 years of having put this mess well behind me, I still get a violent twitch in my eye whenever I see someone walking a dog like this.
Now you’re probably wondering why I have such contempt for this otherwise innocent and cute little breed of dog. It’s not that I dislike Westies per se, but it was her insane, psychotic devotion to this pet that she would lavish on it in preference to paying attention to me or even her friends at times.
When I was finishing my degree I did a bit of research to see if this phenomenon had a psychological parallel and interestingly enough it does. I got to thinking about all of the people I knew who gratuitiously and excessively spent inordinate amounts of time and money on the wellbeing of their pets. These were universally women – I can’t think of one unattached, single man I know who even has a dog, much less gets up early to drop it off at ‘doggie daycare’ on his way to work and picks it up on his way home. Neither do I know a man who would spend the kind of money ‘gourmet dog biscuits’ command from a store dedicated to nothing else, nor a guy who would buy ‘Frosty Paws’ dog ice cream treats, but I do know women who will. I know women who will spend $1,500 for their “little precious'” to spend a day at the doggie spa. I know women who will pamper and coddle thier pet even after it shits diarrea on the living room carpet and in the same breath berate their husbands for leaving the toilet seat up.
However it’s not just the degree to which some women will go in their devotion to their pets, it’s the indifference they display toward the human beings of importance in their lives, in preference to their pets, that crosses the line. There is a current field of study in this psychological transference of emotion to pets. Nothing terribly conclusive has been set in stone of course, but the theory goes something like this; People (mainly female) having a tendency to dote exhorbitantly over their pets also tend to eschew meaningful interactions with significant people in their lives. It goes on to say that the pet becomes a ‘self-proving’ device that enables the individual to internalize that they are capable of loving while minimizing their own reciprocation of affection to another human being.
In otherwords when she sits there with little Pookie and dotes over him rather than engaging you in even limited communication or affection it may be indicative of a more complex problem – a definite red flag to be sure. Of the examples of women’s behavior I used in this essay, all of them were in some unsatisfying relationship that they were uncomfortable discussing yet would do nothing about. However, when prompted with conversation about thier pets they were always very talkative.
So what does this mean to the Game-aware then? Beware. Part of an accomodating AFC nature is a disingenuous desire to identify with a woman in order to barter his identity for her intimacy. Nothing will bring a guy down faster than allowing this pet devotion dynamic to become a part of this identification.
Disclaimer: I love dogs, I do not hate them. I own three purebred racing greyhounds and I foster and recondition retired and active track dogs. I do not dress them in stupid costumes, nor do they sleep on canopy beds. I have more respect for them than to subject them to that and they are expensive enough to keep healthy under normal circumstances. That is all.
“Never believe what a woman says, believe what she does.”
This phrase is almost a proverb in the manosphere. I wish I could say I coined it, but I think I remember it being used as early as 2003. Back then I was studying behavioral psychology and I remember it being significant then because it’s essentially the primary foundation of behaviorism: behavior is the only measurable, reliable evidence of psychological motivation. Most people, particularly those of a more conservative mindset, have a tendency to lump all psychology into the touchy-feely psychotherapist stereotype. What they don’t really grasp is that there are many more schools of thought in psychology than just the $75/hour couch-sitting cognitive therapists relying primarily on self-reported feelings.
I understand the dislike, but behavioral psychology is much more focused on what is empirically observable and drawing correlations about motivation from the manifested behavior of animals and people. For the behaviorist, the Medium is the Message. Cognitive psychologists are uncomfortable with the implications of a purely behavioral perspective, not just because it threatens their livelihoods, but it offends their sensibilities about humanism and placing root level, ‘hard-wired’ biological motivators above a blank-slate freewill ideology. It’s just this behavioral bent that rubs Cogs the wrong way about evo-psych as well; the behavioral foundations of evo-psych are uncomfortably close to biological determinism for their liking.
In the area of personality studies, nowhere is this dichotomy more apparent, and when you add in the complexities of gender differences and social psychology it becomes directly confrontational. Whether you’re aware of it or not, everyone you know subscribes to some combination of these two psychological camps – rational behaviorism and humanistic cognitivism. When it comes to the complexities of personality and social psych, it’s a bit too simplistic to characterize these ideologies in terms of nature vs. nurture. Only rarely do the two absolutes really exist in people’s personal psychologies, but in social psychology, the predominance of one psychological ideal will substantially set a precedent for the culture it’s recognized in.
As we might expect, women tend to opt for a more cognitive, emotive psychological perspective. As the sex with an innate predilection for communication (both verbal and nonverbal) it’s not surprising that a psychology founded on self-reporting and getting in touch with emotions would be appealing. An easy illustration of this psychology is found in women’s preference for associating anecdotal experiences with evidence of fact. Female solipsism aside, cognitivism complements women’s need for personal validation.
Cognitivism also fits well into women’s pluralistic sexual strategies in that it offers them much broader opportunities for sexual selection (i.e. hypergamy). A fem-centric society rooted in the importance of emotions and placing ephemeral personal choice as its highest motivator makes for an ideal environment in which to practice hypergamy. The unknowability of the feminine mystique, a woman’s prerogative to change her mind and the default status of victimhood, all find their beginnings in a “it’s-just-how-I-feel” cognitive psychology.
All of this isn’t to say that women are incapable of understanding a rational perspective, it’s just that this isn’t their perspective of origin. When forced to make a rational decision women can and do make choices based on empirical evidence, but it’s always tempered with the feeling that the decision is associated with. There is a necessary repression of this emotive base needed to come to a point of rationality.
Conversely, men tend to opt for a more rational, behavioral approach to their psychological motivations. I’m not covering any new ground in this respect, but it’s important to note that what men believe is their own predisposition for rational thinking is also a psychological perspective.
Uninfluenced by social forces, men will tend towards deductive reasoning in their psychology, but that’s not to say this isn’t tempered by an underlying emotionalism. As I’ve stated in many prior threads, it’s men who are the true romantics. We want to believe the fantasy in spite of our deductive natures telling us the opposite – and this is generally where the trouble begins for men.
Just as society is influenced by political, religious and economic beliefs, so too does our predominant social psychology color our world view. For the past 50 + years this has been a consistent push towards a feminine defined cognitive humanism. If you have any difficulty believing that men are the default rational behavioral sex, it’s because this psychology conflicts with what feminine cognitivism has been attempting to instill in society as a whole for going on five decades now; that a fem-centric cognitive social perspective should be the standard for society. The clarion call of cognitive humanistic psych has always been “get in touch with your feelings” , which by definition is easier for women than it should be for men. Women start at a point of normalcy where they presume to be more in touch, and men have the changing to do. Men’s default rational behavioral origin makes them flawed from the outset when cognitivism is the dominante social psychology.
Ignorance and Bliss
One of the primary reasons men, and particularly the newly Game-aware red pill Men, see women’s actions as duplicitous and/or immoral is because they believe that women are on some level aware of their own hypocrisy. It frustrates men’s rational behavioristic psychology that in spite of being shown irrefutable evidence of women’s contrary behaviors they will still insist that they “just don’t know what comes over them.” It’s a uniquely female cognitive dissonance that women have the ability to separate their instinctive behaviors from their latent motivators. That’s the $10 way of saying most women are blissfully unaware of, or unacknowledging of, the source of their behaviors.
Consequently a psychological coping mechanism was needed to resolve women’s incongruent behaviors with their uncomfortable motivators. Enter the mental Hamster of women’s rationalization engine. Because of the psychological priority cognitivism has in women, rationalizing needs to be on autopilot. So when women relate that they don’t know why they preach one thing, but do the opposite, I’m inclined to believe them. Hypergamy is a raw, animalistic, unethical element of the feminine psyche, so it comes as no surprise that women’s psychologies would push this discomfort into an unconscious mental subroutine for them.
“I don’t know why I felt compelled to fuck the hot guy in the foam cannon party in Cancun, it’s just not like me.”
“I’m appalled by rape and BDSM, but I can’t help but get off on reading 50 Shades of Grey.”
Men hear statements like these and our rational behavioral psychology screams “BULLSHIT! Everything has a reason, you throw an object into the air and gravity brings it back down!” However, women (for the most part) literally don’t know why they don’t know their instincts make them hypocrites. They retreat to the rationalization Hamster, but even this isn’t sufficient in the face of very stark realities. So an entire social psychology, one favoring women’s humanistic cognitivism, was needed to maintain that cognitive dissonance. Thus women caught in the act of infidelity (acting contrary to professed behavior) are still protect and insulated from their own ignorance of motivation.
One of the most common lamentations I read in the manosphere usually goes something like this,…
“Where the hell was all this info and wisdom when I was single? I so wish I’d discovered the manosphere / red pill before I proposed / had kids / got divorced / got burned by listening to what my girlfriend said / was younger,..etc. etc.”
It’s even more of a shame because so often it’s guys in what should be the prime of their SMV who relate this. I wish I had a better response than “better late than never.”
Blunt Force Trauma
Unplugging is difficult enough in and of itself, but realizing and accepting that your previous mindset might not be entirely accurate is a hard conversation to have with yourself. It’s unfortunate that experience teaches harsh, but teaches best. However, I’ve found it much healthier to accept that, like the majority of men, we don’t want to come to terms with our faults and inaccuracies in mindset until we’re shaken awake by a trauma sufficient enough to break us down.
Religion has long realized that the best opportunity for conversion is when a person is at a low point in their life. Depending upon the intentions of the person doing the converting this can be a good or a bad thing, but what they’re seizing upon is a point at which we’re the most receptive to influence because we’re earnestly reconsidering our beliefs in light of some failure or tragedy. Perhaps unfortunately, it’s a state of the human condition that we learn better from our failures than our successes.
This is due to painful experiences making a more profound impact on our psyche’s and memories than pleasurable ones. While the birth of my child and my wedding day were pleasurable, benchmark memories, I learned less from them than when I finally tore myself away from the neurotic BPD woman I’d been a voluntary prisoner of for years. It’s been written into our brains to learn from pain. It was a selected-for survival trait that corrected us when we were repeatedly making the same fatal errors. The things that are important to us as evolving beings are associated with what we most vividly remember.
So, it’s with this in mind that I came to learn to have patience with men who were diametrically opposed to what I offer as positively masculine enlightenment here. Over the years on the SoSuave forum I gradually made friends of formerly hostile opponents for no other reason than patiently awaiting their having an experience that validated some principle or behavior I was trying to relate to them. Former critics (JOPHIL, R.I.P.) became fantastic friends once they’d experienced first hand the dynamic I was describing. All it took was a bit of patience, and a consistent, cogent explanation of idea.
I’ve stated in the past that unplugging chumps from the Matrix is dirty work, akin to triage; save the ones you can and read last rites to the terminal. However it’s equally important not to casually NEXT a guy that could be unplugged once he’s been made brutally aware of the system that’s keeping him trapped. Often enough it’s his lack of traumatic experience combined with an extensive conditioning that’s holding him back from really understanding a Game-aware perspective. He’s not an asshole, he simply hasn’t had the experience that would make him reconsider his perspective.
In the same respect that I feel relationships based on negotiated desire are disingenuous, I also believe that coercing someone else to see my perspective is not a valid expression of genuine desire. I cannot make a person believe what I do, I can only present my belief to them. A person, man or woman, has to come to that genuine change of their own volition. I’m not interested in a readership full of yes-men clones; there needs to be challenges in perspective for a marketplace of ideas to thrive. I encourage people to tell me I’m wrong, because if my ideas can’t weather open scrutiny then they aren’t strong enough ideas to profess.
I don’t want to unplug robots from the Matrix just to make them robots of my own perspective. I may be guilty of a tough-love approach by a well needed kick in the ass to understand the reality of what a guy may be going through in that moment, but I know that a real shift in understanding comes not from force, but from a person determining that shift for themselves. Jarring a person awake isn’t the same as attacking them personally.
So at the end of all this I want to encourage all of my Game-aware readers not to give up too readily on the guys they may think are hopeless. In fact I’d suggest that the guys you know who are the most hostile to your perspective are the ones who’ll more readily accept and understand your wanting to make them Game-aware. Their fervency in the Matrix is only a short trip to fervency in positive masculinity if you’re patient enough. All these guys are just one traumatic experience away from grasping the truth of Game.
The following is an instant message transcript detailing the soon-to-be break up of an 8 month live-in relationship. Our heroine in this classic tale of dutiful Beta vs. memorable Alpha had recently moved in with the Beta subject after a tumultuous two year Alpha relationship with “Chris” (names changed). From almost the moment she agreed to living with our Beta she began pining for her former Alpha lover. Chris was a musician who’d moved to a large metropolitan area to “make it big”. He was the perfect brooding, inflective, creative archetype, but suffered from the usual maladies, alcohol, drug abuse, overly self important – basically the perfect recipe for the artistic Alpha. Needless to say this was what led to the first breakup.
For the want of a more stable relationship, and a place to stay, she takes up with our Beta. They’d been ‘friends’ for so long, and he’d been so supportive in her time with Chris it seemed the natural fit for her. No more chaos, just the down-to-earth comfort of a relationship with a “familiar friend.” Needless to say thing don’t go as planned, and the secret phone calls to and trips to vist the former Alpha lover commence.
Before you read this analysis, I want to express that my focus in this is the Beta guy and to detail some of the more common misconceptions men have whilst plugged-in to the Matrix. Yes, our heroine’s behaviors are cruel, but only serve to illustrate the machinations of the Beta mind in this study. Is she blameless? Absolutely not. Is she following her hypergamic imperative? Absolutely so.
From the top, Beta’s commentary is in blue:
They say absence makes the heart grow fonder, you have proved that with getting back with chris. I never stopped loving you less or caring for you less when we were together. You say, I gave up, stopped trying, after I won you.
This statement here is a textbook illustration of what I call a “scarcity mentality.” As if the initial cliché weren’t bad enough, he refers to getting together with her as “winning you.” This puts her attention/desire into a reward status – classic AFC preconditioning. SHE is the PRIZE to be won rather than making himself the PRIZE who is to be sought after. This mentality is an instant confirmation of a lack of confidence. It’s she who should be appreciative of his own self-worth and identity, and desire to be associated with it, but from the outset he puts her on the pedestal and confirms for her that he is of lesser value. Off to a very bad start. Also, his hammy referencing of an old cliché is only one more glaring illustration of his lack of depth in experience; this just screams “I’m a beta.”
Thats not true in the least. I never stopped trying, it was the first time I had ever been in a relationship with you and the first time we had lived together, and over the first 4 months we were together we had only been in each other’s company like 12 days. I was trying to get comfortable with us. It was still kinda weird at first since I hadn’t talked to you in so long and we were together. So awesome and so sudden but that made it interesting. I never stopped doing for you, I never stopped being spontaneous with us.
Here, and in the previous comment, he interprets her telling him that “he gave up” as an accusation that he gave up on the relationship – not the real message, which is, he gave up on himself and his own identity to better identify with and accomodate her in order to secure and maintain her intimacy. As I’ve discussed before, he’ll “do anything” to make her happy and this is precisely why she has no respect for the guy. I think this is where the main point of conflict is rooted. He has a fundamental misunderstanding of what she meant by saying “he’d given up.” He thinks he didn’t identify enough or didn’t figure out the secret combination of sappy romantic gestures that would make her desire him because it’s been so mentally ingrained into him that a woman should always be considered a prize to be ‘won’. This is the root of his own frustration because her words and behaviors contradict his ego-invested expectations of himself and how relationships ought to be. So consequently he falls back on victimhood as a defense – according to his mental schema he’s done everything by the book and it’s she who’s been disingenuous.
“Yep, I won her heart finally, its time to sit back and relax.”
Again with the ‘Sleepless in Seattle’ romantic comedy banter; but also, again, he restates his position of supplication by making her ‘heart’ a PRIZE to be won.
Never would I think that. Nothing was set in stone, you could leave me at any point and for any reason. I knew you were still an independent person.
I was just trying to get on a comfortable grounds with us. God, we only lived together 5 months, in that 5 months, from June to Oct, is when you formed your opinion, cause it was all over in November when you decided you loved Chris more than me.
More melodrama, but rather than find fault in his own actions for even considering the fallout from living with a woman he’s involved with (much less, one in need of a home and fresh out of an intense relationship) he’d rather apply for victimhood again and make a plea for circumstance. In all likelihood her opinion of both he and Chris were already set, but he finds fault with her because it more easily fits his romanticized (and feminized) ideals. I swear, the guy should get into daytime dramas when he gets out of college, he’d be brilliant at it. But I can’t let her off the hook entirely here – she knew your own set of conditions and this guy WAS a convenient out for her. It’s just now she’s paying for that misjudgment.
Before you decided that everything you had done was a mistake and that you regretted coming here, and dating me.
You even said that. You did say that to me, so whats that say about you and our whole relationship. You think I quit trying and just wished you’d never have come here and/or dated me.
See my other comments, I think I addressed this fairly well. He misunderstands that ‘trying’ has nothing to do with the relationship, but rather establishing himself as his own person. He then finds it easier to accommodate his own idealized fantasy relationships against her indiscretions. She’s the flawed one now (and rightfully), whereas before she was his ideal, because it conflicts with his romantic mental narrative.
So which one is more fucked up, I think yours was much worse. Regretting me, having feelings in your heart for Chris that started pushing me out 5 months after getting here and for good 7 months later. So yeah, when you think and say to yourself I wasnt a good boyfriend, cause his faults were just too great. He cared too much, would do too much for me and quit trying after I gave him a couple of months before I totally pushed him out of my heart and decided that Chris wass my main objective.
Our hapless Beta is in the right, but for the wrong reasons.
Restating the obvious here, but it does show that he enjoys the time he spends concocting ways to confront her on the righteousness of his efforts in order to change her mind. He falls into the same binary thinking trap that most AFCs do – “If I can just plead my case well enough and logically enough while applying a good amount of indignation, guilt and conviction she’ll see I’m the perfect boyfriend and desire me again.” This logic is great when you’re an attorney or arguing on a debate team, but he hasn’t come to the realization yet that desire and attraction cannot be negotiated. He only consolidates her estimate of his Beta status by lamely employing shame in an effort to engender the guilt he thinks will make her come to her sense and love him.
This is a very important lesson that beta chumps MUST transition past; shame will NEVER make a woman hot for you. You can be 100% justified in your judging of a woman’s behaviors and character, but in jarring her into self-awareness you will only generate her resentment of you – and especially when you’re unquestionably correct in your estimations.
You were much worse in the relationship than I was. Your total basis is pretty much irrelevant. Cause givin just a bit of time and you voicing any concerns it would have been different. Relationships are about change for both parties involved. You never came to me with the problems you had. You didnt care enough about me to do that, like you were looking for an excuse.
It’s important to remember here that this was the first “real relationship” this guy had ever engaged in. Would he know that “Relationships are about change” due to his many past, successful relationships? No, but his life long Matrix conditioning has taught him that this is ‘what’s expected of people in a relationship’. Here, he is qualifying her against his own preconceptions and trying to make himself the martyr rather than realizing that he’s just as culpable as her for even allowing the ‘relationship’ (such as it was) to happen. When women’s real-world behaviors conflict with beta men’s fem-centric life conditioning, worlds collide.
You came to Chris, you told him what needed to be changed, gave him an ultimatum basicly. You gave him lots of chances over the 2 years. For the last 8 months when you were getting any dick from him you told him.
You loved him enough to do that, you wanted him in your life enough to do that.
2nd, 3rd and 4th (and more) chances are for Alphas. Betas must be bulletproof from the start until they attain, perceptively, Alpha status in a woman’s estimation. Alpha can fail far more shit tests than any Beta would ever be given leniency for.
Our Beta can’t see past his own drama to ask why she allowed Chris more leeway and how this applies to himself. Even when she left, Chris was still his own person, he was the PRIZE, not her. In standard Beta fashion, he will interpret Chris as indifferent or uncaring towards her and try to play this as a card in his favor, but the subtext of it is she had respect and tingles for the Chris well after she broke it off (5 Minutes of Alpha) and his sense of identity is what planted the seed of doubt in her head. Betas will never come to accept this until they re-evaluate their own preconditioning. In the meantime he’ll conveniently use her returning to Chris to reinforce his own estimation of her, use Chris’ indifference as leverage in pleading his case (shame) for being a logically better boyfriend choice, and affirm his own Beta-Game beliefs. It might be interesting to compare how she feels about leaving the Beta to how she felt when she left Chris.
You didnt do that for me, not at all. You made your decision within 6 months of being down here together. Chris was in your heart the entire time. I never had you.
I was in love with you and you only thought you were in love with me. So dont ever think that you had it bad and that I was the one at fault. My faults were nothing, and you know that in your heart, they were nothing that couldnt have been easily changed with a little time. They werent deal breakers.
Im not saying I feel this way, im saying this is what I think and i believe it is absolutely true. at least most of it.
Here, he’s looking for absolution of his efforts at this point and using the only psychological skillset he’s ever developed – an adolescent one. He’s feeding his emotionality by concocting rhetorical scenarios about her that he’d like to be true in order to reaffirm his self-righteous, AFC idealisms, when in fact this whole experience is essentially a challenge to his ego-investment in moon-eyed romanticism. When something attacks this investment it also attacks his personality because he’s internalized it so fully. So in order to protect it (and because it’s easier than self-analysis) he transfers the blame to her for not playing the role of his fantasy girlfriend. She becomes the flawed one for not affirming his idealism. ‘Quality Woman’ becomes ‘Damaged Goods’.
It was not long after this that our heroine left our subject and temporarily got back with her former Alpha lover. It didn’t last long. For all his brooding and pensive Alpha-ness he was still the same loser she left. Not long after she eventually married another Alpha with the same self-confidence, but much better long term prospects. Her now-husband was, and still is, the prize for her, and that’s what she wanted, a prize.
Presently I have two new brands of liquor I’m launching concurrently. In an average year I may introduce one or possibly two, but these are progressive releases and really don’t hit the consumer market until Q3. So with that and my upcoming travel schedule I’m finding it a challenge to do daily updates on RationalMale. Forgive me, but I don’t blog for a living.
Even so, I’m still managing to put ideas to page, but every so often I get stopped in my tracks by something that interrupts my thought train so significantly it demands an immediate post. The lead ‘secret’ from PostSecret (today’s pic) this week was one such article.
In Bitter Misogynists I outline the facility with which our fem-centric socialization will label men as ‘burned’, or presume to ridicule the length of a man’s cock, if he should so much as offer a passing critical thought about women’s motives. I understand why plugged-in men (and women) read the ideas of the manosphere and think that it’s anti-women, misogynistic, cynical and plaintive. With critical thought comes the attendant risk of becoming iconoclastic, and iconoclasts don’t play very well with ego-investments in a system of belief.
Before I go any further, and for the benefit of those unfamiliar with my writing, I unequivocally do not hate women. Got that? I love women; and in fact I sincerely doubt that, but for a negligible few, you could find a Man in the community who genuinely ‘hates’ women. True misogynists are just as rare as true misandrists – the grey area in between the two extremes is where we have to live. However, that said, under the fem-centric social pretexts we live in today, and due to the innate, subconscious hypergamy that motivates it, women are generally unaware of their own misandrist social conventions. As I’ve stated in many a prior post, anything can become normal.
I realize that explaining the latent motivations and core concepts behind feminized social norms to women (and plugged-in men) doesn’t sink in when, on some level of consciousness, they understand that their functioning in society depends upon them NOT thinking too much about them – and discouraging you from doing so either.
There was a time I thought that the ultimate female-centric lie a woman could tell a man was, “It’s your baby” – I stand corrected, this is it:
“I killed our baby and it’s your fault I did.”
No verification necessary, just pure, wracking, potentially life enduring psychological and emotional distress based entirely on her ability to sell it convincingly. Why go the Carrie Underwood route and smash his car when you can do THIS kind of psyche-damage to him? This is the nuclear option of covert, psychological revenge. As I’ve stated in countless posts, men fight in the overt and physical, women fight in the covert and psychological; and here it is writ large and bold.
I mean really, what an absolutely brilliant tactic this is. She knows you’ll be amenable to her coming back to you a few months later, what better time to drop a bomb like this? In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if this “Your Fault Abortion” revenge isn’t covered on a few websites or forums devoted to getting back at him.
This psychological combat is what gave me pause to write this. I’m sure there’s a contingent of men who will think it’s no big deal, or that a guy would come up with his own rationalizations to cope with any guilt of having a woman purport to be pregnant and then, allegedly, abort the child. He dodged a bullet, right? I would think so too only that, in all the manosphere discussions about the overwhelming male risks associated with marriage, the single most common (only) upside was that marriage is the best environment in which to raise kids. Theoretically, marriage is worth the marriage risk for men who want children of their own. Furthermore this presupposes a motivation in men to want children at some point in life. My assertion is that on some level this registers for women and the opportunism it represents is something viewed as a bargaining token.
Not all women are like this, I know, and I’m not trying to conflate this particular instance to the whole. I love women, remember? What I am illustrating is women’s psychological gender combat skills and how the hypergamic imperative hones them – even when they’re unaware of it doing so. This is an extreme example of a greater dynamic. Irrespective of whether a woman actually is pregnant, or even if the paternity doesn’t belong to you, the fact is that in pregnancy women assume a much more powerful role. If women are socially respected by default, mothers are veritably deified. In a fem-centric world, the life-givers are absolved of any circumstantial indiscretions that led to their pregnancies.
There’s an assumption that men would prefer abortion; to further his wanton sexual strategy of scattershot sexuality, men necessarily would rather avoid the entangling responsibility of parental investment. Yet we have men contemplating entering into an institution that is knowingly stacked against his own best interests in order to “raise a child in the best environment”. That upside must really be important to men to involve themselves in such risk.
On this blog, in my analysis I always try to remain as objective as circumstances permit. By definition I make my best attempts to leave issues of morality out of the discourse (unless the topic IS morality), however in this case it’s unavoidable. This is deliberate evil.