Ghosts in the Machine


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sex Sells What?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slut Shaming

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

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

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

Ghosts in the Machine

Hollenhund continues for us:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Always Default to Game


In the last comment section a very old Game conundrum got reheated. It’s the old confusion on when to “run” Game on a woman and when not to. This concern used to be debated quite a bit in my early days at SoSuave. Occasionally it comes up now and then with guys who’re new to the Red Pill and, still in the process of disconnecting their Blue Pill ideals, want to know when it’s appropriate to use their new Game superpowers for good.

It’s kind of good to revisit the fundamentals; it gives you a better perspective on how you came to a more advanced idea so I’ll get a little remedial here. Essentially the idea guys were talking about then was how Game was something they were turning on or off as situations dictated. Guys would come up with various hypothetical or actual situations where they were unsure if using Game was appropriate. Sometimes these were ethical dilemmas, other times it was just a want for avoiding bad consequences.

  • Should I use Game on the woman at the office?
  • Should I use Game on the fat chick I honestly have no interest in?
  • I find myself using Game on my overbearing Mother and it works, should I feel bad?
  • When I apply Game / Red Pill aware practices in other areas of my life I find I’m better able to enjoy the results I want, is this manipulative?

These are a few of the more common ones, but there are many others. However, the base assumption in all of these is that Game is an act and separate from that individual’s personality or “who he really is”. While I might advise against actively, overtly “gaming” women in your workplace, the Frame you establish by applying Red Pill awareness practices (i.e. Game) will be invaluable to you.

Every time I’ve dealt with this question/presumption it’s usually the case that the guy asking about the situation is still thinking in the same Blue Pill mindset he’s been conditioned to, but has more or less accepted the realities of Red Pill awareness. He may have even killed the Beta for the better part, but the process of changing one’s Blue Pill programming, to say nothing about placing himself as his own mental point of origin is a time consuming one.

The answer is a very simple one: Always default to Game.

Law 14
Pose as a Friend, Work as a Spy

Knowing about your rival is critical. Use spies to gather valuable information that will keep you a step ahead. Better still: Play the spy yourself. In polite social encounters, learn to probe. Ask indirect questions to get people to reveal their weaknesses and intentions. There is no occasion that is not an opportunity for artful spying.

Although this Law is really directed towards one’s power rivals it is also an apt illustration of how Game is applicable in situations that you may have no real intimate interests in. In this instance that artful spying takes the form of learning to read a particular woman even when you have (or wisely shouldn’t have) no real intimate interest in her.

There was (is?) a school of Game thought that a guy new to it should apply it with “less than optimal” women in order to perfect the practice. Furthermore, for the newly Red Pill aware, it’s a relatively low investment way to evaluate proof of concept and build upon it. For as much as I’d like newly aware guys to be able to go from zero to sixty with Game, I can see the logic in this.

I say that with a caveat though; you’ve still got to consider the complications and attachments that will result from your Game actions. Not just this, you even need to be at least peripherally conscious of how your Frame control, Command PresenceAmused Mastery, etc. will impact non-intimate women’s disposition and attachment to you. Bear in mind that most men, Beta men, don’t leave the mental imprint on women that a Red Pill aware, self-MPO man does, to say nothing of a more Alpha man.

Case in point: In my line of work (liquor and gaming) there are many times when I’m working a promo with my girls, or I’m meeting random women I’ve never met before, where I have to make a mental effort to be self-conscious of how I interact with them. It’s sort of the reverse situation to constantly making an effort to stay in Frame to effect Game; it’s become such a part of my nature and personality now that I default to Game.

In fact it’s not even Game to me anymore, it’s just who I am, and particularly when I’m ‘on’ and I need to interact in a social context. It flows so naturally for me I sometimes have to make an effort to dial it back when I see IOIs or I get kino from the women working for me. When women are hitting me up to come party with them after my setup time is through, that’s a reminder that I’m making an impression on them I don’t really want to follow up on.

From Mental Point of Origin:

Your mental point of origin is really your own internalized understanding about how you yourself fit into your own understanding of Frame.

If Frame is the dominant narrative of a relationship (not limited to just romantic relations), your mental point of origin is the import and priority to which you give to the people and/or ideas involved in that relationship. It is the first thought you have when considering any particular of a relationship, and it’s often so ingrained in us that it becomes an autonomous mental process.

From Recursive Game:

While it is of course vital for a man to internalize the various fundamental truths about the nature of women (hypergamy, solipsism, Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks, love based on opportunism, etc.), these fundaments need to become an ambient condition for you in your dealings. This understanding needs to become an internal – under the surface – part of your interactions with women.

Too many guys think that all of this requires some endless capacity to psychologically micromanage every aspect of their interactions, not just with the women they become (or potentially become) intimate with, but also women they work with (or for), their mothers, sisters or daughters. A common reason men initially reject the practice (not necessarily the concept) of Game is due to some imagined expectation that they’ll need to cognitively account for every variable a woman may or may not be subjecting him or herself to.

When you think of Game as some act you put on or some cognitive fencing match between you and a woman it’s easy to believe it’s just too exhausting. That’s when one of two things usually happen; Game-awareness either sinks in and becomes part of his personality, or he relaxes and/or abandons what he’s learned of Game.

And from Artificial Joy:

Once this awareness is internalized and becomes a part of a Man’s personality there is no vigilance, just awareness. There is a subconscious understanding of the order of things from a red pill perspective, but that doesn’t mean I suspect the female bank teller I’m making a deposit with is ready to rob me blind the moment I turn to walk out the door.

Neil Strauss hinted at ‘social robots’ in The Game; guys who were nothing but Game all the time and were unable to make real emotional connections. I would argue just the opposite. The real danger inherent in Game and Red Pill awareness is a man using it to fulfill his former blue pill idealisms – that does require a constant effort.

A healthy red pill awareness requires not only a Man’s reassessment and recreation of himself, but also that he abandon his former blue pill paradigm and learn to live in a new, positive, red pill paradigm. It seems like a daunting task when you first come to terms with it, but ultimately your awareness becomes an internalized part of who you are. You can allow that to consume you with a paranoia  rooted in your former blue pill frame, or you can learn to create hope in a new system – one that you not only have more control over, but one that requires you to assume that control.

I’ve quoted these here to give you a better feel for what I mean when I say always default to Game. With that comes a practiced learning and internalization process of Red Pill awareness and a confirmation of its fundamentals. Once your personality becomes one that defaults to Game you’ll discover that Game is not just for picking up women. I’ve personally used Red Pill awareness and Game practices to close business deals, convince people with money to go with my creative ideas and even get out of a traffic ticket.

So that said, the discussion questions for the weekend (yes, I’m bringing them back) are:

Do you hesitate to use Game in different situations, and if so why?
Do you think Game is only applicable to your intimate interactions?
Are you hesitant to use Game because of ethical or Blue Pill considerations?
Have you ever applied Game and/or Red Pill aware ideas to women below your own SMV?
Do you think it’s advisable to “practice” Game with such women?

Hypergamy Knows Best


One of the most basic Red Pill principles I’ve stressed since I began writing is the importance of Frame. The dynamic of Frame stretches into many aspects of a man’s life, but in a strictly intergender sense this applies to men establishing a positive dominance in their relationships with women. In a dating context of non-exclusivity (plate spinning) this means, as a man, you have a solid reality into which that woman wants to be included in. Holding Frame is not about force, or coercion, it’s about attraction and desire and a genuine want on the part of a woman to be considered for inclusion into that man’s reality.

Being allowed into a man’s dominant, confident Frame should be a compliment to that woman’s self-perception. It should be a prize she seeks.

This is a pretty basic principle when you think about it. The main reason women overwhelmingly prefer men older than themselves (statistically 5-7 years difference) is because of the psychological impression that men older than a woman’s age should be more established in his understanding of the world, his career, his direction in life and his mastery over himself and his conditions. From an Alpha Fucks perspective, the ambience of mastery makes an older man preferable, while a Beta Bucks older man represents the prospect of dependable provisioning.

In our contemporary sexual marketplace I think this perception – which used to hold true in a social climate based on the old set of books – is an increasing source of disappointment for women as they move from their post-college party years into the more stressful Epiphany Phase.

And once again we also see evidence of yet another conflict between egalitarianism vs. complementarity. Because all things should be equalized, equalism espouses that this age preference should make no difference in attraction, yet the influence of this natural complementary attraction becomes a source of internal conflict.

Women’s self-perception of personal worth becomes wrapped up in a tight egotistical package that’s tells her men – the men she’s convinced she deserves – should be attracted to and aroused by her based on whatever nebulous personal conviction she has, fat-acceptance approved ideas of what men should be hot for, and he ought to be ready to settle into a coequal parental ‘partnership’ when she’s finally ready to do the right thing.

It’s an interesting paradox. On one hand she’s expects a Hypergamously better than equitable pairing with a self-made man who will magically appreciate her for her self-perceptions of her own personal worth, but also to be, as Sheryl Sandberg puts it, “someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home.” In other words, an exceptional, high SMV man, with a self-earned world and Frame she wants to partake of; but also one who will be so smitten by her intrinsic qualities (the qualities she hopes will compensate for her physical and personal deficits) that he will compromise the very Frame that made him worthy of her intimacy, and then reduce himself to an equality that lessens him to her.

The Red Pill Father – Frame

The reason I’m going into this is because of a basic tenet of Frame: The Frame you set in the beginning of your relationship will set the tone for the future of that relationship. That isn’t to say men don’t devolve from a strong Alpha frame to a passive Beta one, but the Frame you enter into a relationship with will be the mental impression that woman retains as it develops. Your establishment and maintenance of a strong control of Frame is not just imperative to a healthy relationship and interaction with a woman, but it’s also vital to the health of any family environment and the upbringing of any children that result from it.

At the Man In Demand conference I was asked about my thoughts on the influence family plays in conditioning boys/men to accept a Beta role in life. Mainly the question was about a mother’s dominant influence on her children’s upbringing and how an unconventional shift in intersexual hierarchies predisposes her to imprinting her Hypergamous insecurities onto her children. It gave me a lot to think about.

A common thread I’ve occasionally found with newly Red Pill aware men is the debilitating influence their domineering mothers and Beta supplicating fathers played in forming their distorted perception of masculinity. I made an attempt to address this influence in the Intersexual Hierarchies posts, however, I intended those essays to provide an outline of particular hierarchical models, not really to cover the individual health or malaise of any of them.

From Frame:

The default pedestalization of women that men are prone to is a direct result of accepting that a woman’s frame is the only frame. It’s kind of hard for most ‘plugged in’ men to grasp that they can and should exert frame control in order to establish a healthy future relationship. This is hardly a surprise considering that every facet of their social understanding about gender frame has always defaulted to the feminine for the better part of their lifetimes. Whether that was conditioned into them by popular media or seeing it played out by their beta fathers, for most men in western culture, the feminine reality IS the normalized frame work. In order to establish a healthy male-frame, the first step is to rid themselves of the preconception that women control frame by default. They don’t, and honestly, they don’t want to.

Post LTR Frame
In most contemporary marriages and LTR arrangements, women tend to be the de facto authority. Men seek their wive’s “permission” to attempt even the most mundane activities they’d do without an afterthought while single. I have married friends tell me how ‘fortunate’ they are to be married to such an understanding wife that she’d “allow” him to watch hockey on their guest bedroom TV,…occasionally.

These are just a couple of gratuitous examples of men who entered into marriage with the frame firmly in control of their wives. They live in her reality, because anything can become normal. What these men failed to realize is that frame, like power, abhors a vacuum.  In the absence of the frame security a woman naturally seeks from a masculine male, this security need forces her to provide that security for herself. Thus we have the commonality of cuckold and submissive men in westernized culture, while women do the bills, earn the money, make the decisions, authorize their husband’s actions and deliver punishments. The woman is seeking the security that the man she pair-bonded with cannot or will not provide.

It is vital to the health of any LTR that a man establish his frame as the basis of their living together before any formal commitment is recognized.

The primary problem men encounter with regard to their marriages is that the dominant, positively masculine Frame they should have established while single (and benefitting from competition anxiety) decays to a Beta mindset and the man abdicates authority and deference to his wife’s feminine primary Frame. This is presuming that dominant Frame ever existed while he was dating his wife. Most men experience this decay in three ways:

  • A decline to his wife’s Frame via his relinquishing an authority he isn’t comfortable embracing.
  • An initial belief in a misguided egalitarian ideal that redefines masculinity has him surrender Frame
  • He was so pre-whipped by a lifetime of Blue Pill Beta conditioning he already expects to live within a woman’s Frame

Of these, the last is the most direct result of an upbringing within a feminine-primary Frame. I think one of the most vital realizations a Red Pill man has to consider is how Red Pill truths and his awareness of them influences the meta-dynamic of raising and instructing subsequent generations.

As I’ve intoned in many a post, Hypergamy is both pragmatic and rooted in a survival-level doubt about its optimization. When a woman’s insecurity about her life-determining Hypergamous decisions are concretely answered by the positively, conventionally, masculine Man who is both her pair-bonded husband and the father of her children, that doubt is allayed and a gender-complementary environment for raising children proceeds from that security.

In a positively masculine dominant Frame, where that woman’s desire is primarily focused on her man, (and where that man’s SMV exceeds his wife’s by at least a factor of 1) this establishes at least a tenable condition of quieting a woman’s Hypergamous doubt about the man she’s consolidated monogamy and parental investment with.

In a condition where that husband is unable or unwilling (thanks to egalitarian beliefs) to establish his dominant Frame this leaves a woman’s Hypergamous doubt as the determinant of the health of the overall family. That doubt and the insecurities that extend from Hypergamous selection set the tone for educating any children that result from it.

In the last post I made the case that deliberately single, primarily female, parents arrogantly assume they can teach a child both masculine and feminine aspects equally well. In the case where a wife/mother assumes the headship of family authority, both she and the Frame abdicating father/husband reverse this conventional gender modeling for their children.

That woman’s dominant Frame becomes the reality not just her husband must enter, but also their children, and also their family relatives. That feminine dominant Frame is one that is predicated on the insecurities inherent in women’s Hypergamous doubts.

Is he really the best she can do?”

Play Don’t Pay had an observation from the last post:

I think this “putting the kids first” phenomenon is very simple to explain. She DOESN’T WANT TO FUCK YOU!
She is using the kids as a shield, a barrier to deflect your UNWANTED BETA SEXUAL ADVANCES.
It is generally accepted that women are only interested in the top 20% of men, and if you are talking about as marriage partners I would agree with this.

However if you are talking about as SEX partners that they are genuinely hot for I would estimate this percentage to be north of 5% add in the frame required to maintain her SEXUAL interest in a marriage / LTR and your probably closer to 1-2%.
It’s really that simple! the women that are with these top tier men, the top 1-2% don’t need to be told to put them before the kids, they do it because he IS more important to her than her kids, because if he leaves she will never be able to replace him with another top tier man now she has his kids in tow.

Top tier men don’t raise other mens children and she knows this instinctively.
If you think you can mitigate this by being top 20% and reading a few articles on frame and dread game then I think you will be disappointed.

Sure you can improve your relationship but your probably not going to be able to command the visceral raw desire that women have for the top tier men that makes the do this shit naturally under their own violation.

“Is he really the best she can do?”

In a feminine-primary Frame, that question defines every aspect of that family’s life and development together. It’s important for Red Pill aware men to really meditate on that huge truth. If you do not set, and maintain, a dominant masculine Frame, if you do not accept you role in a conventional complementary relationship, that woman will feel the need to assume the responsibility for her own, and her children’s, security. Women’s psychological firmware predispose them to this on a visceral, limbic, species-survival level.

I’ve met with countless men making a Red Pill transition in life who’ve related stories about the burdening influence of their domineering mothers and Beta supplicating fathers leading to them being brought up to repeat that Blue Pill cycle. I’ve also counseled guys who were raised by their single mothers who had nothing but spite and resentment for the Alpha Asshole father who left her. They too took it upon themselves to be men who sacrifice their masculinity for equalism in order to never be like Dad the asshole. I’ve met with the guys whose mothers had divorced their dutiful fathers to bang their bad boy tingle generating boyfriends (whom they equally despised) and they too were molded by their mother’s Hypergamous decisions.

And this is what I’m trying to emphasize here; in all of these upbringing conditions it is the mother’s Hypergamous doubt that is the key motivating influence on her children. That lack of a father with a positive, strong, dominant Frame puts his children at risk of an upbringing based on that mother’s Hypergamous self-questioning doubt. Add to this the modern feminine-primary social order that encourages women’s utter blamelessness in acting upon this Hypergamous doubt and you can see how the cycle of creating weak, gender confused men and vapid entitled women perpetuates itself.

Finally, to the guys who are psychologically stuck on the shitty conditions they had to endure because of this cycle, to the men who are still dealing with how mommy fucked them up or daddy was a Beta; the best thing you can do is recognize the cycle I’ve illustrated for you here. That’s the first step. The Red Pill is great at getting you laid, but it’s much more powerful than that; it gives you the insight to see the influences that led to where you find yourself today.

Once you’ve recognized the Red Pill truths behind your Blue Pill conditioning, then it’s time to realign yourself, and recreate yourself in defiance to them. The longer you wallow in the self-pitiful condition that your mother’s Hypergamy and your father’s passive Beta-ness embedded in you, the longer you allow that Blue Pill  schema to define who you are.

Solipsism I


“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.” – Hillary Clinton

I had planned on using Hillary’s now infamous quote for an upcoming post outlining the distinction between women’s innate solipsism and an acculturated narcissism, but fate delivered me a much more profound use for this quote last week (we’ll get to that in part II).

Before I dig in here I feel it’s kind of incumbent upon me to point out that I in no way align with, nor endorse Hillary’s political or ideological perspectives, and I think it should go without saying that I diametrically disagree with her feminine-primary social agendas.

That said, if you ever need a better quote to explain the realities of feminine solipsism I think I’d be at a loss to give you one. A lot of men, even Red Pill aware men, have a hard time understanding how solipsism fits concretely into the feminine psyche. The social conditioning and upbringing that predisposes us towards an egalitarian equalist mindset rebels against thinking women and men would have different psychological firmware. Equalism teaches us to expect that men and women’s needs share mutual origins and our impulses are so similar that any difference is insignificant.

That egalitarian frame predisposes us to consider that ‘not all women are like that‘ or to disassociate the idea that men and women could be anything but functionally equal agents. As a result we get convenient distractions to confuse our looking for comparatives to should anyone (or thing) challenge an equalist answer.

Simply put, we get rationales like “Oh well, men do it too”, or worse, or any opposite comparison that leads us away from considering the truth that men and women are psychologically, biologically and sociologically different; with different motives and different strategies which they employ to meet their different imperatives. And often these imperatives are at odds with the best interests of the other sex.

Separating Differences

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

It is the fundamental differences in either sex’s imperatives, acculturation and biology that creates this conflict. Of course, men and women have come together for each other’s mutual benefit (and love, and enjoyment) to create families and sustain our race for millennia, however, this mutually beneficial union does not originate from mutual imperatives or sexual strategies.

When I explain how women hold an opportunistic concept of love, while men hold an idealistic one, the resistance to accept that observable, behavioral, reality is rooted in a blank-slate belief that men and women are fundamentally the same. So, when we read a statement from a woman (to say nothing of a high status one) such as Hillary’s, we either scoff at the oblivious audacity of it because it is so counter to our (male) imperative’s interests, or we nod in ascension in the feminized belief that what best serves the female imperative necessarily is the best interest of the male imperative.

This is an illustration of the fundamental difference in the interpretation of experience between the sexes.

From a solipsistically oblivious female perspective what Hillary is expounding on here is entirely true. From a perspective that prioritizes feminine Hypergamy above all else, these three sentences make perfect, pragmatic sense. The idea that men losing their lives in warfare would make them victims at all (much less the primary victims) isn’t even an afterthought; all that matters is the long term security and continued provisioning of women and their imperatives.

Solipsism, not Narcissism

A lot of newly Red Pill aware men get confused at my using the term ‘solipsism‘ when I refer to this female-specific obliviousness to any concern – or lesser prioritized concern – of anything outside their immediate existential needs. The confusion comes from men who want for a similar justice to the one I outlined in Our Sister’s Keeper. Self-importance or narcissism would seem to be a more appropriate term for this dynamic, but I disagree.

Female solipsism in and of itself is not necessarily a net negative in the larger scope of human survival and evolution. On the surface that may seem a bit outrageous, but it’s only outrageous insofar as women’s solipsistic natures come into conflict with the biological and social imperatives of men. This solipsism is the necessary result of a feminine survival instinct that’s helped preserve women and their offspring in a violent, chaotic and uncertain evolution.

Recognizing the importance of feminine solipsism is not an endorsement of the anti-social, and often cruel, byproducts of it.

No doubt, men who’ve been on the sharp end of this will grind their teeth at the inevitable narcissism that becomes an extension of women’s solipsism. I’ll agree. Socially we’re living in an era of unprecedented (western) narcissism manifested in a vast majority of women.

At no other time in history have women become more accustomed to perceived entitlements of personal security, ubiquitous social control and relative assurances of optimizing Hypergamous imperatives. At no other time have women’s sexual strategies been of such primary importance to society. However, this narcissism is the result of an acculturation and learned social priorities that predispose women to expectations that border on arrogance. Over recent generations that narcissism has become learned and fostered in women to the point that narcissism is openly embraced as a feminine strength – women believe it’s their due after a long suffrage.

Women’s solipsistic nature however is an integral part of their evolved psychological firmware. Solipsism is the evolved, selected-for result of self-preservation necessities that ensured the survival of our species. As men we get frustrated by this intrinsic nature; a nature that puts women’s imperatives as their primary mental point of origin. As any newly aware Red Pill man will attest, coming to this realization is a very hard truth to accept. It’s cruel and contrary to what the First Set of Books have taught him he should expect and build his life around.

Furthermore, it’s cruel in the respect that this solipsism neither aligns with the romantic, Blue Pill hopes he’s been raised to accept, but also the egalitarian, equal and level playing field ideology he’s been conditioned to believe he should alter his priorities to accommodate for women; and in turn he can expect from women. As I stated earlier, coming to terms with men and women’s differing concepts of love is a tough disillusionment, but this difference in concept is simply one of many a man must come to terms with.

When I wrote Empathy I got taken to task about women’s capacity to feel empathy to a greater degree than do men. It’s not that women cannot feel empathically (a shared experience), my argument was that the idea that women feel a ‘greater’ empathy than men was a social convention with the latent purpose of masking women’s innate solipsism.

That wasn’t a very popular idea. The notion that women are the mothers and nurturers was predictably spelled out, but with regards to empathizing and caring for men the primary concern of women was worry over their own and their children’s well being before that of their men should they become incapacitated. Again, this is a cruel truth, but also a pragmatic and survival based one.

Mental Point of Origin

Women’s mental point of origin begins with their own self-importance, and the overriding importance of their own and their offspring’s survival. I’ve had women readers lambast me that they couldn’t possibly be so influenced by solipsism because they put their children’s wellbeing before their own. However it is just this solipsism that predisposes women to seeing their children as extensions of themselves and their own identities. And the good news is that this dynamic is one reason the human species has been so successful.

The following was a comment from Starve the Beast on the TRP subredd:

Women are bad at reasoning, but good at rationalization.

Let that sink in for a minute. One cannot rationalize without the faculty for reason. So are women really bad at reasoning? No, actually they’re great at it.

The difference is that women don’t place as much value on Truth as they do upon self-preservation, and therefore their reasoning processes do not abort when self-contradiction is reached. They’ll just rationalize their way out of that too, if exposed.

Ultimately, the so-called hamster reflects an underlying difference in value systems more than in reasoning ability.

Women can learn to sublimate their solipsism. In fact, cultures and progressive societies have been founded on sublimating female solipsism. Women can and do learn critical thinking quite regularly. Women can learn and function within a society that forces them to compromise their sexual strategies and mitigates the worst abuses that solipsism would visit on men (and themselves). Women can learn to be empathetic towards men as well as live within a social order that looks like mutual justice and fairness.

But the fact that these civil dynamics should need to be something a woman learns only reinforces the biological and evolved influences of female solipsism as women’s mental point of origin. The parallel to this is men’s learning to sublimate intrinsic parts of themselves – primarily their sexuality – to reinforce prosocial interaction in society. 

Women dislike the idea that their experience is colored by solipsism. It sounds bad, and it runs counter to what they believe are sacrifices on their own part to help others. That may be so, and I’m certainly not going to attempt to discount those investments, but they come from a learned compassion that must overcome an innate solipsism. That ‘me and my babies first’ mental point of origin isn’t necessarily a bad thing either – it’s only when that learned compassion and humility are superseded by it that anti-social behaviors and hubris arise.

I expect the predictable criticism will be that men are also self-important, and / or all humans are intrinsically selfish fucks. In part II I’ll elaborate more on this, but for now it’s important to grasp that female solipsistic nature is less about selfish individualism and more about pragmatic survival.

Many a male reader of my Hierarchies of Love series grated against the idea that a conventional model of love would progress from Men to women, women to children, children to puppies, etc. That model is a direct reflection of a uniquely female solipsism that seemingly discards men’s reciprocal emotional investment in women. However it is also the same dynamic that predisposes women to desire men who can decisively control their environment as well as dominate them sexually and emotionally.

In part II I’ll outline more examples of feminine solipsism, how it’s reflected on the individual and societal level and how a man might best use an understanding of it to his advantage.

Adaptations – Part II

Studio 54

When I first published the comparative SMV graph a few years ago one of the first criticisms was that the age comparisons between men and women seemed too concrete and too specific to contemporary times. I tried to make concessions for this then, but when I was writing that post it was at first meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Still, I try to write with the presupposition that critics will take things either too literally or too figuratively. I knew that the literati then and now would think, “…well, yes it’s a good outline, but you’re looking at the SMV from the perspective of 2012 and society was much different 50, 70, 100, 2,000 years ago so this graph is flawed…”

My SMV graph was never meant to be some canonical tablet handed to me from the almighty. I thought of it then, and still think of it now, as a very good workable outline for how men and women’s comparative SMV relates to the other. This has been borne out in many other statistics from individual studies sent to me by readers or just my coming across them since I created that graph.

That said, and in relation to where I’m going with this Adaptations series, those critics aren’t wrong to suggest that this outline would be subject to the social environments and simple physical realities of earlier times, and likely some times yet to come.

Take what I’m about to delve into here with a bit of salt; I’m not a historian. One of my favorite figures from the civil war ear was Colonel Robert Gould Shaw. If you’ve seen the movie Glory you know who I’m referencing here. This young man was 23 when he enlisted and 25 when he was promoted to Major and then Colonel. In that time Shaw saw some pretty grisly shit, including the battle of Antietam.

I’d seen the movie when it first came out in 1989, but after watching it again for a class assignment I had a new appreciation for the real man who was Robert Shaw. I saw the film using what was just becoming my Red Pill lens. It struck me that the realities of that era forced men to become Men much sooner than men do today. The realities of our times give us a leisure the men of Shaw’s age simple couldn’t imagine. The realities of that time necessitated a quick maturation to bear the burden of heavy responsibilities. Those burdens were much more imperative then, but a 23 year old is still a 23 year old.

I thought about how I’d spent my own years between the ages of 23-25 when I was at the peak of my semi-rock star tail chasing in the late 80’s Hollywood scene. I began to really think about the differences in the social and physical environments of the 1860s and the 1980s-90s. I’ve always joked that men don’t become Men until they’re 30. Even on the SMV graph the point at which I attribute men’s real ascendency to their peak SMV at around age 30, but this wasn’t always the case in the past.

Men (comparatively) live longer lives as a result of health and medical advances, but (at least in westernizing culture) it takes much more time and personal investment, as well as acculturation for men to realize their personal potential. Men’s burden of performance wasn’t much different in prior eras, but the timeframe necessary to reach a man’s peak potential was much more accelerated.

So to address the concerns of the temporal critics of the SMV graph, yes, this graph might look a bit different to the men and women of the 19th century. Considering lifespans of the era and the social conditions then, the ages during which a woman would reach her own peak might be around 17, and a man’s may be 25, however the same curves of the bell wouldn’t change drastically. Men adapted to the conditions their environment dictated to them then in much the same way they did before and after the sexual revolution. And this adaptation came as the result of what was expected of them as their burden of performance, as well as what their social leisures would permit them.

Love American Style

Into the 70’s the new social contract of the Free Love generation began to take a new shape. Bear in mind that this new equalitarian contract was based on the hopeful presumption that both sexes would mutually honor the “what’s on the inside is what counts” normalization of attraction. Under this contract women’s Hypergamous natures could flourish, while men’s unlimited access sexual strategy could ostensibly be realized.

Of course these lofty, higher-consciousness, presumptions  were meant to supersede human nature and an evolved sexual arousal function based on human biology. One thing that still thwarts ideological feminism today is that its perceived goal states contradict human beings’ natural states. This contradiction gets narratively blamed on men not wanting to cooperate with feminism, but even the most ardent feminist is still guilty of her own biology and arousal triggers contradicting herself.

Biology trumps conviction. People get fidgety when I apply this in a religious context, but it’s equally applicable to feminism and really any ideology that under-appreciates human nature and the realities of its conditions.

As the new sexual landscape began to solidify, men began to adapt their own sexual strategies to the conditions of this fast and loose environment. Just prior to the Disco Generation hardcore pornography began its path to the ubiquitous porn we know today. The sexual restraint necessitated by the realities of prior generations loosened in light of widespread hormonal birth control and safe(er) legal abortion.

While Hypergamy was effectively unleashed, the women of this era hadn’t fully grasped the scope of it being so or what it would become. Acceptable premarital sex, abortion and unilaterally feminine controlled birth control meant that women had an unprecedented degree of control over their Hypergamous decision making. I doubt many women of the time understood this, but the only real control men had (and still have now) over women’s breeding and birthing outcomes was now grounded in the psychological (Game) or the physical (arousal). Provisioning was still a consideration for women, but the division between short-term and long-term pairing became more stark.

As I mentioned here in the beginning, a slowing of the maturation process was the inevitable result of women’s freedom of Hypergamous choice. Short-term Alpha Fucks no longer posed the same societal and personal risks of a pre-birth control generation, thus long-term pairing choices (Beta bucks) began to be delayed. The ideological cover story was one of women expecting men to “love their insides” despite their age, psychological baggage or physical condition.

Women’s preoccupation with The Wall was ostensibly mitigated by the Free Love social contract that men would honor their end of the higher-consciousness equalitarian dream of a mutually agreed attraction based on intrinsic qualities. The biological realities for both sexes was much different.

Women trusted they could be sexually ‘free’ without social stigmatization, but the reality was that the long-term needs of Hypergamy could be postponed in what would eventually become a Sandbergian sexual strategy. The more Alpha men of the time – ones in touch with the visceral nature of women and themselves – understood the incredibly boon this represented to them.

It’s important to bear in mind that Hypergamy was not the openly embraced dynamic it’s come into today. Thus, the unspoken, secretive nature of Hypergamy was something a man who ‘just got it’ instinctively understood and women were aroused by it.


During the 70s ‘Macho’ men began to adapt to a new paradigm. They adapted to the reality that women were conflicted by the Free Love paradigm. These men embraced both the sexual openness expected of women, but they also understood that in spite of the social contract of love being based on intrinsic qualities, women still wanted to fuck (with abandon) the men with extrinsic arousal triggering qualities. The physical began to take priority above the emotional pretentiousness.

The macho quality could take different forms. Whether is was the good ole boy of the south or the Tony Manero at Studio 54, understanding the mindset is what’s important here.

Macho men in the discos and key parties of the 70s figured out they could ‘Game’ the old paradigm of non-exclusivity paired with birth control by re-embracing (with disco era gusto) a masculinity that had been abandoned just a decade earlier. Unlimited access to unlimited sexuality was for men who overtly challenged the Free Love preconditions. They enjoyed the rewards of its expectations of women while rebounding off the self-expectations of the Beta men who were still cooperating with the Free Love social contract.

This era is an interesting parallel to our own. I think much of the Red Pill resentment coming from men still plugged into a Blue Pill mindset is rooted in a similar perception that they’re playing by an acceptable set of rules that “men with Game” are exploiting for their own selfish ends. What they don’t realize is that their Blue Pill interpretations are a designed part of a social paradigm that supports feminine primacy. Game works because, like the macho men of the 70s, it’s primarily based on women’s inborn psychology and the visceral realities of women’s biological impulses.

Beta men in the 70s still believed that the Free Love mindset was equally and mutually beneficial for both sexes since it was supposedly based on a freedom from performance for themselves while freeing women from sexual repression and (covertly) from the reality of the Wall. In reality the Free Love paradigm put men at a disadvantage by giving women almost total control of Hypergamy and the time in which to realize short term mating and long term provisioning.

So these men’s resentment of the Alphas of the era is understandable when you consider that their visceral attractiveness was observably and behaviorally arousing to women who were supposed to idealistically love them for who they were not what they were. These men represented a return to that burden of performance they’d hoped to avoid in the Free Love contract.

These Alpha men understood women’s base impulses then, and that understanding became an integral part of their “just getting it” attraction. However, as we’ll see in the next part of this series, these men would eventually become the butt of their own joke as the Feminine Imperative fluidly transitioned into a new social paradigm of Fem-powerment developing in the 80s and reaching its apex in the 90s.

The arousing ‘macho’ men, the Alphas of the era, would systematically become the most ridiculed parodies and caricatures of masculinity as women came into a better understanding of the power they were only beginning to realize and the Beta men took their perceived revenge. And likewise men adapted to this new paradigm based on the same visceral reality women’s sexuality is fundamentally based on.

In Defense of Evo-Psych


You’ll have to forgive this exceptionally long post here, but for many critics of (and in) the manosphere of evolutionary psychology the following post articulates things better than I could. Some in the ‘sphere seem to think a reliance on evo-psych is some form of blind faith at worst; some sort of creative, purpose-built guesswork at best.

It is not.

When I apply anything regarding evolutionary psychology on Rational Male I approach it in the most deductive manner I can see fit insofar as connecting the behavioral dots with the social apparatus I observe. While Red Pill awareness isn’t reliant upon evo-psych it is founded upon a similar observationally deductive methodology.

Evo-psych is a very broad school of psychology that is not just limited to intersexual relations. While I do largely embrace the foundations of evo-psych, it’s important to remember that my particular education revolves around behaviorism.

The following re-blog here is a collection of ten answers to common criticisms of evolutionary psychology by Dr. David P. Schmitt. I’ve pared it down a bit for readability, but do see the link for all the sources cited.

Emphasis my own.

A few years ago, I was giving an invited presentation to an audience of mostly sociologists and family studies professors on the topic of evolution and human reproductive strategies. I mentioned that some social scientists hold false beliefs about “evolutionary psychology,” such as the mistaken assumption that evolutionary psychologists think all men are interested in bedding as many women as possible (often called short-term mating), whereas all women are only interested in marrying a single man and staying faithful to him for a lifetime (i.e., long-term mating).

When I tried to dispel this common misperception by noting, for instance, that evolutionary psychologists have hypothesized women are just as designed for short-term mating as men are—in some ways even more so such as women’s heightened desires for cues to genetic quality in short-term mates—an audible gasp swept through the conference hall. I kid you not, I could see rows of people who looked genuinely horrified. I was a little taken aback, so I asked an audience member near the front row who had her hand over her mouth if something was unclear, to which she proclaimed, “that’s not the evolutionary psychology I know.”

When I tried to explain that women’s evolved short-term mating desires have been studied by evolutionary psychologists since the early 1990s and the topic remains a very active area of inquiry today, heads swiveled in disbelief. My subsequent Power Point slides chock-full of studies confirming women’s specially designed short-term mating psychology were falling, I feared, on an auditorium of deaf ears (or blind eyes, I suppose). Alas, this stereotype about evolutionary psychology wasn’t going to change anytime soon.

It seems to me many critics of evolutionary psychology cling steadfastly to false stereotypes of the field, both theoretical and empirical. This is partly because so much evolutionary psychological research has been produced over the last 25 years it is hard for even evolutionary-informed scholars themselves to keep up (for an up-to-date review, I recommend Buss’ new edition of The Evolutionary Psychology Handbook[1]). Add to that the methodological breadth of different techniques used by evolutionary scholars to test hypotheses about the adaptive design of the human mind, and it is understandably difficult to know what all evolutionary researchers have been, and currently are, up to as active Darwinian scientists.

Perhaps more than other social scientists, evolutionary psychologists use an incredible variety of research methods, ranging from self-report surveys and behavioral field test experiments, to investigations involving genetics, hormones, and neuroscience, to cross-species and cross-cultural comparisons, to ethnographies of foraging societies and computer modeling of artificial intelligences[2] [3] [4]. To be aware of contemporary evolutionary psychology requires broad and deep knowledge of many scholarly disciplines, and a lot of evolutionary psychology’s critics simply do not know what they do not know about the field as it is practiced today.

Beyond simply not knowing about the empirical breadth and methodological richness of modern evolutionary science, many critics exhibit a certain kind of “empirical nihilism” toward any psychological findings even remotely portrayed as supporting evolutionary hypotheses. For instance, when one points to a set of studies that respond to a specific criticism, some critics reply with a “yes, but” attitude and set forth new criticisms requiring more evidence (sort of a serial “moving the goalposts” maneuver).

Now, in science extreme skepticism is generally a good thing. For scientists, there are no capital “T” Truths, and every claim about reality is tentatively true with a small “t” and is always adjustable as more evidence is accumulated over time. Sometimes, though, this attitude is more than healthy skepticism about a particular empirical finding and is, instead, clearly an attitude of irrefutable empirical nihilism toward evolutionary psychology studies in particular. As an example of this type of unshakeable attitude of disbelief, I list below 10 of the more common “yes, but” criticisms of evolutionary findings on women’s long-term mate preferences. It’s an illustrative (not exhaustive) list of just how impenetrable some scholar’s beliefs are when it comes to considering evidence that our evolved human mind might be something more than a domain-general learning mechanism writing on an asexual, ungendered blank slate. 

Women’s Long-Term Mate Preferences

Looking across the animal kingdom, one cannot help but notice that members of most species tend to mate non-randomly. Whether it is peahens preferring peacocks with more elaborate trains[5] or female common chimpanzees preferring males who possess higher social dominance[6], males and females of most species display adaptive forms of preferential mate choice.

Evolutionary psychologists were among the first to propose similar sex differences might exist in human mate preferences. For instance, evolutionary psychologists hypothesized that women may possess specially-designed long-term mate preferences for cues to a man’s ability and willingness to devote resources to her and their offspring[7] [8] [9]. Such cues include a man’s status and prestige which, depending on local culture, may involve hunting ability, physical strength, or other locally-relevant attributes, as well as his ambition, work ethic, intelligence, social dominance, maturity, and slightly older age[10] [11]. Not all women desire the highest value long-term mate at all times, of course, but it is expected that women’s long-term mate preferences should be marked by some degree of “special design” that is reliably observable using the methodological richness of modern evolutionary psychological science.

One way to evaluate whether women possess long-term mate preferences for cues to status-related traits is to directly ask people whether they prefer those attributes in long-term mates (via methods such as self-report surveys), and then compare the intensity of responses of women and men. When doing so, psychologists typically evaluate the degree of sexual differentiation using the dstatistic, with an observed d value of ±.20 being considered a “small” sex difference, ±.50 is a “moderate” sex difference, and ±.80 is a “large” sex difference[12]. Negative d values typically indicate women score more highly on a particular preference, whereas positive values indicate men score more highly.

Buss and Barnes[13] were among the first to evaluate whether women (more than men) prefer cues related to a man’s ability and willingness to devote resources. For instance, they found women more strongly prefer long-term mates who have a “good earning capacity” (a large sex difference, d = -0.82), “are a college graduate” (d = -0.60), and “possess intelligence” (d = -0.19). Obviously, these findings are not definitive proof that men and women differ in the evolved design of long-term mate preferences. The findings are merely tests of evolutionary-guided hypotheses, and the tests were supportive of specially-designed sex differences existing in human mate preferences. Still, some critics challenge these results, arguing yes, but…

1) Yes, but…that is just one study. One cannot trust the results of just one study. Evolutionary psychologists need to conduct many more studies before I am convinced these effects are legitimate, let alone evidence of evolved psychology. I’m sure many other studies wouldn’t find sex differences in mate preferences.

Actually, most investigations of sex differences in mate preferences have been supportive of these hypotheses (to be honest, virtually all studies have). In 1992, Feingold[14] meta-analytically reviewed the extant literature (including 32 independent samples) on self-reported mate preferences across college students and community samples and found women more greatly desired socioeconomic status (d = -0.69), ambition (d = -0.67), and intelligence (d = -0.30) in potential long-term mates. Numerous additional investigations have since replicated these basic sex differences in long-term mate preferences among college students[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. For instance, a recent study focused on women’s mate preferences for men with the ability to invest in them, revealing that college women desire a man who has earned his money (compared to other sources), ostensibly reflective of the aforementioned qualities (ambition, work ethic, intelligence), and that this effect is strongest in the long-term mating context[23].

2) Yes, but…those studies are mostly with college students. People in the real world (e.g., representative samples of adults) won’t display these stereotypical sex differences of youth.

Actually, yes they do[24] [25] [26]. For instance, Sprecher and her colleagues[27] examined sex differences in mate preferences across a nationally-representative sample of the United States and found women, more than men, valued a long-term mate who had a steady job (d = -0.73), earned more than they did (d = -0.49), was highly educated (d = -0.43), and was older by five years (d = -0.67). Young or old[28] [29] [30], gay or straight[31] [32], sex differences in long-term mate preferences for status-related attributes tend to reliably emerge.

3) Yes, but…many of those findings are from decades ago. Sex differences in mate preferences are probably not historically stable. They may have existed many decades ago (in the era of Mad Men), but sex differences in mate preferences are surely not present in more recent times.

Actually, yes they are. In a cross-generational analysis of the same mate preference questionnaire administered to Americans from 1939 to 1996, both men and women increased their valuing of good financial prospects and decreased valuing ambition/industriousness over time, but the degree of sex differences in these items largely persisted in strength across more than 50 years[33].

4) Yes, but…that is only when you have people self-report their ideal mate preferences from a pre-chosen list of traits given to them. If you ask them what they really want, say at a minimum, or maybe let them freely design their ideal potential partners, status-related traits aren’t emphasized by women more than men.

Actually, yes they are. Researchers have questioned people about their long-term mate preferences using a wide variety of self-report methodologies. Kenrick and his colleagues[34] asked people what the minimum threshold of possessing a particular attribute would need to be to agree to marry a person. Women, on average, required men’s earning capacity to be in the 70th percentile to be marriageable, whereas men required women to be in the 40th percentile (overall d = -1.41).

Using another nuanced form of self-report, Li[35] compelled men and women to engage in tradeoffs among various cues when intentionally designing a desirable long-term mate. Women devoted the most of their limited budget toward their mates’ social level (33%), whereas for men social level was of moderate budgetary importance (17%). Across a series of studies[36], researchers using this tradeoff paradigm concluded that women, but not men, consider a long-term mate’s social status a “necessity” and not a “luxury.” Indeed, when forced to make decisions with very limited budgets, sex differences in long-term mate preferences are stronger than with typical self-report surveys.

Self-report surveys also reveal men, more than women, appear effective at displaying status-related traits to the opposite sex[37]. Overall, self-report methods (via ratings, rankings, trade-offs, nominations, or open-ended questions[38]) consistently support the hypothesis that women possess long-term mate preferences for cues to a man’s ability and willingness to devote resources.

5) Yes, but…this is only because women are denied access to resources themselves. If women have higher status themselves, they would not prefer men with high status. It’s just basic rationality, not evolved psychology, causing these sex differences in mate preferences for status.

Actually, it is a compelling test of women’s long-term mate preferences for men’s status-related traits (including their ability and willingness to provide resources) to evaluate whether their expressed preferences disappear when women have ample resources of their own. It could be women only prefer cues to men’s ability and willingness to provide resources because women are structurally denied access to resources[39].

Addressing this alternative explanation, Townsend and his colleagues have found women in medical school[40] and law school[41] are more selective of a future mate’s financial status, not less. Similarly, Wiederman and Allgeier[42] found college women’s expected income was positively associated with their ratings of the importance of a potential long-term mate’s earning capacity. Regan[43] found as women’s mate value goes up, so does their insistence on men’s high status and resources (i.e., they “want it all”; see also[44]). Having higher personal status and resource-related traits appears not to attenuate women’s preferences for cues to men’s ability and willingness to provide resources. Instead, at least in the USA, women achieving high status themselves appears to make their long-term mate preferences for men’s high status even more intense!

6) Yes, but…that is only true in the United States. Americans happen to live in a culture with conspicuous gender stereotypes about mate preferences that the rest of the world does not share. If you look at more gender egalitarian cultures, in Scandinavia for instance, sex differences in preferences for status-related attributes “disappear” (as claimed by Marks[45]).

Actually, no, they do not. Numerous studies have found sex differences in mate preferences for status-related attributes are prevalent across cultures[46] [47] [48]. Lippa[49] conducted an internet sampling of 53 nations and Zentner and Mitura[50] conducted an internet sampling across 10 nations and both studies found 100% of cultures displayed expected sex differences, with women demonstrating especially heightened long-term mate preferences for good financial prospects, social status, ambition, and older age.

Some researchers have found the magnitude of sex differences in mate preferences for status-related attributes shifts from a large/medium effect size to a more moderate medium/small effect size in nations with higher gender egalitarianism. Zentner and Mitura found exactly this pattern of results after placing nations into three groups, low gender egalitarian cultures (within which women valued Ambition-Industriousness moderately more than men, d = -0.65), medium gender egalitarian cultures (women valued Ambition-Industriousness moderately more, d = -0.53), and high gender egalitarian cultures (women valued Ambition-Industriousness moderately more, d = -0.48). Hence, sex differences in the preference for Ambition-Industriousness in long-term mates were reduced (though not by much, and were still medium in terms of effect size) in nations with higher levels of gender egalitarianism.

Most other sex differences in status-related mate preferences also were attenuated from larger to more moderate levels in Zentner and Mitura’s sample of nations that were higher in gender egalitarianism (e.g., Good Financial Prospects went from d = -1.04, to d = -0.84, to d = -0.55; Favorable Social Status went from d = -0.67, to d = -0.42, to d = -0.31). In most cases, these reductions were caused by women preferring status-related traits less in high gender egalitarian nations, though in many cases men’s preferences for status-related attributes also were reduced in high gender egalitarian nations (which seems counter to the logic of men appreciating women’s status-related traits more as women enter the workforce in high gender egalitarian nations). One thing is clear, sex differences in long-term mate preferences for status-related traits do not “disappear” in gender egalitarian cultures. They may only be moderate in size, but we see them just fine.

Importantly, Zentner and Mitura also found in low gender egalitarian nations, men valued Good Looks only a little more than women, d = 0.24; in medium gender egalitarian nations, men’s valuation of Good Looks was higher still than women’s, d = 0.43; and in the highest gender egalitarian nations, men’s valuation of Good Looks was the most different from women’s, d = 0.51. Thus, contrary to the expectation that gender egalitarianism always reduces sex differences, Zentner and Mitura found sex differences in Good Looks are largest in nations with the highestgender egalitarianism. What!? Actually, these findings are not unusual, as high gender egalitarian nations also exhibit larger sex differences in Big Five personality traits and the Dark Triad traits of Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and psychopathy; in romantic attachment and love styles; in sociopolitical attitudes and personal values; in clinical depression rates and crying behavior; in tested cognitive and mental abilities; and in physical attributes such as height and blood pressure[51]. If the sociopolitical gender egalitarianism found in Scandinavian nations is supposed to produce smaller psychological sex differences, it’s not doing a very good job of it.

7) Yes, but…all these studies showing men and women want different things in potential partners are merely evidence of gendered narratives as measured by self-report surveys. If ever tested in the real world, women would not preferentially choose or be affected by a partner’s status-related attributes more than men.

Actually, there have been dozens of studies of real world mating and mating-related cognition, and almost all find that women do choose and are affected by a partner’s status-related traits more than men are.

Feingold[52] meta-analytically examined what women ask for and what men advertise in public, real-world personal advertisements and found, as expected, women more than men ask for cues to willingness and ability to provide resources (e.g., 27% of women ask for high socioeconomic status compared to 7% of men). Men who advertise such status-related cues actually receive more responses from women, as well. For example, in a study that experimentally manipulated real-life personal ads, ads placed by men noting they were financially successful elicited the most interest, whereas for women physical attractiveness was the key[53]. In a study of Polish personal ads, the top four cues displayed by men that received responses from women were good education, older age, high resource levels, and tall height[54]. In a study of mail order brides from Colombia, Russia, and the Philippines, women universally listed ambition, status, and wealth as among their most desired attributes in a future husband[55].

Numerous studies of marital patterns also have found women tend to desire (and actually marry) men who are slightly older than they are, regardless of women’s own age[57] [58]. As men get older, in contrast, they tend to desire and marry younger and younger women[59]. Women have been found to preferentially marry higher status men across such diverse cultures as the Kipsigis of Kenya, the Hausa of West Africa, Trinidadians, and Micronesian islanders, among many others[60]. It is true that some speed-dating studies in urban settings find women do not choose higher status men more often as dates, but these studies are limited by having only high status men in their samples (no homeless men allowed) and potentially including those who are interested in short-term mating (women’s short-term mate preferences focus more on gene quality, not status). In speed-dating studies with low status men included, and when the context is explicitly long-term mating only, women do pick higher status men more often for dates[61].

There also are a wide range of cognitive studies that test for women’s desires for status-related traits without explicitly asking them what they want. For instance, as part of a study ostensibly helping a university develop a dating service, Kenrick and his colleagues[62] experimentally manipulated whether already-mated men and women were exposed to a target date either very high in dominance or very low in dominance. They found women, but not men, were less committed to their current long-term mating partner after being exposed to a high dominance member of the opposite sex. Merely being experimentally exposed to a man with very high dominance lowered women’s commitment to their current mate, and did so without consciously asking women about their preferences for dominance.

Similarly, exposure to physically attractive women appears to evoke in men desires to fulfill women’s evolved preferences, such as increasing men’s attention toward and desires to possess resources and to display ambition, creativity, independence, and risk-taking[63] [64] [65]. And when exposed to men who are high in dominance, men tend to rate themselves as lower in mate value[66] and men’s feelings of jealousy are more strongly evoked[67]. All of these cognitive processes occur differently in women and men without explicit, conscious awareness of why they are doing so. Surely, to an open-minded scientist these types of non-survey findings should buttress the view that women possess mate preferences for men’s status-related attributes…

8) Yes, but…even though evolutionary psychologists may study real life cognition, emotion, and behavior, they fail to study the most important Darwinian outcome…fertility. If women evolved mate preferences for status-related traits, then women who marry men of high status men should have more children. Evolutionary psychologists haven’t even bothered to look at these outcomes, lazy-headed daisies…

Actually, several studies by evolutionary psychologists have found women who marry higher status men tend to have more children, and to have children survive to an older age. In a study of pre-industrial Finland (from the 1700s), women married to wealthier men had more children and decreased child mortality[68]. In another study, marrying a man four years older was associated with maximum levels of fertility among women[69]. Bereczkei and Csanaky[70] conducted a study of 1,800 Hungarians over 34 years of age and found women who married older and better educated men tended to have more children. These are important findings, as it is critical that women’s mate preferences for status-related attributes lead to reproductive success, or at least likely did so in our evolutionary past[71] [72].

One may also look at the effects of high personal status on men’s versus women’s reproductive success. Nettle and Pollett[73] and many other scholars have found men’s higher level of personal status is related to higher fertility, but the same is much less true (or not at all true) for women’s higher level of personal status. In fact, modern women who have higher personal incomes themselves tend to have fewer children[74]. Jumping Jehoshaphat…yes, but…

9) Yes, but…ancestral men were foragers and could not accumulate wealth, so these mate preferences for “good earning potential” are largely irrelevant to evolved mating psychology. Evolutionary psychology findings are extremely limited because they only apply to modern materialistic cultures.

Actually, it is correct that large masses of “material wealth” were not present in our ancestral past when we lived as foragers, but it is likely ancestral men did accumulate social capital or “status” (from among other things, hunting ability). Several studies have documented this form of male status as being the subject of selective pressures (i.e., high status men—whether that status comes in the form of land, livestock, money, physical prowess, or hunting ability—have more offspring[75][76]). Evidence of selection for men’s status has been found in many types of cultures, including studies of men’s hunting ability among the Aché, Hadza, and Tsimane[77]. Apicella[78], for instance, found men’s hunting reputation and upper-body strength both predicted reproductive success among Hadza hunter–gatherers.

Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that women’s preferences in modern nations do not seem to be calibrated on money, per se. Instead, women may view money as a proximal cue to the underlying qualities that they have evolved to care about, such as status, prestige, social dominance, ambition, work ethic, and intelligence[79]. So it is certainly true that ancestral men did not accumulate financial wealth, but focusing too much on the importance (or not) of money or wealth across all cultures is missing the adaptive forest for the trees.

10) Yes, but…I know so many people who strongly believe that sex differences in mate preferences simply cannot exist. The idea of evolved sexual desires of any kind are a theoretical impossibility from my point of view! Evolved sex differences in mate preferences have to be just a figment of the imagination of evolutionary psychologists bent on maintaining patriarchy. If the evidence is, on balance, supportive of women possessing long-term mate preferences for men with high status, why do so many post-modernists and social constructionists insist evolved sex differences are not, indeed cannot, be real[80]?

That’s a big question requiring several responses. First, the evidence of evolved sex differences in mate preferences is accumulating, but it is certainly not definitive. Evolutionary psychologists evaluate evidence of psychological adaptation in many ways[81], including cross-species, neurological, hormonal, genetic, and epigenetic evidence that has not been reviewed here (some examples of such evidence, see[82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]). Nothing in science is ever set in stone, and more evidence could emerge that would cast serious doubt about evolved sex differences in mate preferences (though it would take quite a lot to tip the scales against the existence of this particular set of mate preferences). Scientists are skeptical and open-minded, so anything is possible.

Second, it is a mistake to pit post-modernism and social constructivism against evolutionary psychology as though they are in an intellectual death match that only one side can win. This tribalistic, us-versus-them thinking isn’t helpful to science. Much like partitioning the causes of human behavior into nurture versus nature or culture versus biology or learned versus innate, social constructivism versus evolutionary psychology is a false dichotomy that may feel intuitively correct but should not be utilized very often by serious scientists (exceptions include behavioral genetics studies). As insightfully noted by Tooby and Cosmides[88],

“To say a behavior is learned in no way undermines the claim that the behavior was organized by evolution because the behavior was learned through the agency of evolved mechanisms. If natural selection had built a different set of learning mechanisms into an organism, that organism would learn a different set of behaviors in response to the very same environment. It is these evolved mechanisms that organize the relationship between the environmental input and behavioral output, and thereby pattern the behavior. For this reason, learning is not an alternative explanation to the claim that natural selection shaped the behavior, although many researchers assume that it is. The same goes for culture. Given that cultural ideas are absorbed via learning and inference—which is caused by evolved programs of some kind—a behavior can be, at one and the same time, ‘cultural’, ‘learned’ and ‘evolved’.”

Mate preferences in humans are certainly to some degree cultural, learned, and evolved. Ultimately, the adaptations of the human mind unearthed by evolutionary psychologists will likely play key roles in explaining precisely how and why human social constructionists have the mate preferences they do[89].

Third, some scholars believe, based on strict ideological commitments, that evolved psychological sex differences must not exist[90] or even if they do exist, studies of sex differences should be evaluated in ways that favor certain political ideologies over others, such as raising the evidentiary bar for evolutionary psychology hypotheses[91]. As a consequence of these political beliefs, many scholars chauvinistically dismiss or ignore much of the extant evidence accumulated by evolutionary psychologists.

This is a mistake on several levels, not the least of which is that even if evolved sex differences in mate preferences do exist, that does not make them “desirable” or “good” or “inevitable” in any way. Thinking like that is fallacious, it is wrong. Even though humans have likely evolved to be omnivorous, that doesn’t mean we should eat meat. What is natural is not inherently connected to what is desirable and thinking that way is committing the so-called naturalistic fallacy (actually more related to the is-ought problem and appeal to nature fallacy).

Instead of this false point of view, evolutionary psychologists take the position that by knowing what our evolved psychological adaptations are, and precisely how they are expressed (e.g., how they are specially-designed and which environments especially accentuate or attenuate their expression), we will be more capable of creating effective tools for altering human behavior in ways we do find desirable. This includes utilizing the socially-constructive psychological adaptations in our mental toolkit to do so. Evolved sex differences are not to be ideologically feared, they are to be scientifically evaluated and, if they exist, knowledge about their special design can be used to more efficiently create the healthy society within which we wish to live[92] [93].

Lastly, there are some scholars who are actively deceiving people about empirical findings in evolutionary psychology (e.g., claiming that sex differences “disappear” in egalitarian cultures[94]). Many of these thinkers spread doubt about evolved mate preferences by alluding to a highly popular study by Eagly and Wood[95]. People’s memories of Eagly and Wood’s study, however, are often quite at odds with what they actually found, and with the hundreds of empirical findings since.

Eagly and Wood related the size of sex differences in mate preferences for “good financial prospects” to sociopolitical gender equality measures across nations (actual mate preference data came from a large cross-cultural study by Buss[96]). Eagly and Wood examined four indicators of sociopolitical gender equality and found only one indicator (that’s right, only one of four tests) was significantly linked to smaller sex differences in long-term mate preferences for good financial prospects. Based on that rather meager empirical finding, a generation of scholars seems to have fallen for a “Jedi mind trick” (these aren’t the sex differences you are looking for) and have been convinced that sex differences in mate preferences completely disappear in more gender egalitarian nations. Indeed, Eagly and Wood’s study has been cited over 1,000 times and has led to many to believe all psychological sex differences disappear in gender egalitarian cultures. Not true then, not true now.

To the contrary, most cross-cultural studies find nations with the highest sociopolitical gender equality (e.g., Scandinavian nations) exhibit the largest psychological sex differences in the world. You read that correctly. Higher gender egalitarian nations tend to have larger sex differences in mate preferences for Good Looks, in Big Five personality traits and the Dark Triad traits of Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and psychopathy; in romantic attachment and love styles; in sociopolitical attitudes and personal values; in clinical depression rates and crying behavior; in tested cognitive and mental abilities; and in physical attributes such as height and blood pressure[97]. If sociopolitical gender egalitarianism is supposed to reduce sex differences to the point where they “disappear,” it’s doing a terrible job. In fact, it’s most often doing the exact opposite. Without the constraints of patriarchal sex role socialization, it appears men and women are freer to follow their evolved desires in ways that lead to even greater psychological difference[98].

Dancing Monkeys

Dance Monkey

From the Unbearable Triteness of Hating:

16. Dancing Monkey Hate

Hater: Men who run game are just doing the bidding of women. Alphas don’t entertain women.

If you want success with women, you are going to have to entertain them… one way or the other. The same is true of women. Once a woman stops entertaining men with her body, her femininity, and her commitment worthiness by getting fat, old, ugly, bitchy, or single mom-y, she stops having success with men. We are all doing the bidding of our biomechanical overlord, and on our knees to his will we surrender, by force or by choice. You fool yourself if you believe you have some plenary indulgence from this stark reality.

Or: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

After this week’s post the expected debate of who are you really being you for came up. In managing your expectations in accord with the reality of women’s nature there’s always going to be some indignation for needing to do so. The perception of having to cater to the whims needs of women in order to broker some reward that’s never going to be an equitable trade is not only senseless, but it pisses off men who spend an inordinate amount of time and effort to better themselves for themselves and not be appreciated for it.

I’m cursed with a broad spectrum of interests, passions and hobbies. At the risk of glossing myself, I’ve been blessed with a lot of natural gifts and talents, and I developed the skills to better enjoy them, to profit from them and to explore things I simply find fascinating. For the greater part I don’t do these things for me, but rather because I’m genuinely curious and interested in them. I didn’t get into competitive fencing in college because I thought chicks would dig it. Nor did I pick up the sport as some “doing it for me” personal validation – it just looked like a hell of a lot of fun and even when I have my ass handed to me I still enjoy it to this day.

The outcome of having developed those competitive skills combined with the physical prowess I also developed, provided some side benefits to my enjoying fencing, lifting, martial arts and all of the other sports I’ve engaged in over the years. The good peripheral rewards are fairly obvious when it comes to physical interests, but I have hobbies and artistic pursuits that would probably surprise even my readers here.

I use those to my benefit in my personal and professional life, but some are most definitely not the things women would be drawn to in a guy. Of course, I don’t really care, but that doesn’t erase the preconceptions women (or anyone really) have of those interests. It’s easy to say, “well, that’s just me, take it or leave it”, but the fact remains that there are always going to be things you like that will never be an attraction for women – in fact, they’re likely to be an obstacle to attraction.

The Intelligence Paradox

There’s a subset of Blue Pill men who’ve bought into the social advertising that women find intelligent men more attractive. Attractive for long-term security and dependability as a provider? Yes. Arousing as a Hypergamous sexual prospect? Doesn’t matter. The Feminine Imperative likes to promote the ‘intelligence is sexy’ meme so as to have better prepared providers dutifully waiting for women once they’ve had their bad boys and are ready to cash out of the SMP.

That’s kind of bitter medicine for men who’ve invested themselves in intellectual interests they were at one time genuinely fascinated by. Once the imperative takes what it can benefit most from those interests and labels it ‘sexy’ they cease to be genuine fascinations and places them into the realm of sexual attractions. The question then becomes “Who are you really doing this thing for? To be a better prospect for women, or do you do it for you?”

Most intelligent men eventually come to realize that their interests simply aren’t sexy to women; if anything those pursuits usually become an insufferable bore to women. While the idea of a ‘hawt’ intelligent lover is appealing to the female hindbrain, the application of that intelligence is another thing entirely. Hypergamy doesn’t care about your grasp of philosophy, your love of mathematics, your Master’s degree in political science or that you can recognize impressionist painters from cubists. Hypergamy does care about your capacity to apply that intelligence in the service and fleeting contentment of women.

The opportunistic side of Hypergamy might enjoy the benefits that intelligence generates for a woman’s security, but your intelligence itself is not ‘sexy’. If intelligence by itself were a sexual predictor guys like Stephen Hawking wouldn’t find women to be “such mysteries.”

Unfortunately for most men this realization only comes after they’ve played to the script the Feminine Imperative had set for them and they’ve committed themselves to a woman he believed found his beautiful mind so attractive.

I detailed a bit of this dynamic in Compatibility:

However, I do think the desire of finding a common interest prior to, or in order to hook up with women is an interesting one. The MGTOW crowd will of course use this as a prime illustration of how men autonomously shape themselves to the ideals of women. And in the terms of living in the feminine reality they’d be right. You see, whenever a Man engages in any leisure activity, passion, hobby, etc. that doesn’t directly benefit his wife or girlfriend it’s always perceived as a waste of time. If she cannot realize a tangible result that benefits her – or by way of her, the potential “family” or the “relationship” – your effort is pointless and frivolous in contrast to engaging her, entertaining her or relating with her. Again we see the hypergamous feminine imperative of girl-world. If it’s not directly benefiting women, it’s not benefiting humanity in general.

It’s easy to apply this dynamic to something that’s directly relatable to women’s arousal/sexual interests. I covered this in Crisis of Motive; men ostensibly lift weights for their own personal validation – they do it for them – but when it’s obvious that a man can leverage that motivation and good physique to arouse women that’s when his motives become suspect:

I can’t recall how many times I’ve heard guys at Gold’s tell me the same thing as to why they workout.

“I do it for me! Yeah, of course, chicks check me out more now that I’ve dropped the fat and bulked up, but this is all for me man.”

I’ll admit, I was that guy at one time. For a guy it makes sense to cop the story of singularity of purpose since it implies that he’s his ‘own man’ and not improving himself to become more acceptable to the women he observably and admittedly wants to get with. This is the paradox of self-improvement – are you doing it for yourself or because you want to others to respond more positively to you? It doesn’t have to be one or the other, it can be both.

When your personal interests can be directly relatable to attracting women that is when your motives will come under scrutiny. Saying I enjoy reading books on astrophysics in my leisure time wouldn’t draw the same suspicions of my motives as my saying I’ve been a bodybuilder for most of my life because I just enjoy it and like to maintain my health.

Thoroughbred had a good comment about this:

JCL – “If I didn’t know any better I’d think the Red Pill is feminism for men, even though women are shit you still have to perform under the new agenda.”

This is the subtle distinction where I think most of us get it drastically wrong. There is a huge chasm between performing for a woman and performing for yourself. Hell, I’m still guilty of the former at times still, but I at least recognize it now and am doing a better job of putting myself at the center of the frame rather than a woman. A woman’s love, attention, loyalty (such as it exists), empathy, sympathy, etc. are all *byproducts* of a man who unapologetically takes care of himself, his needs, his desires first. Here’s what I’m getting at… Flip the script on each of these:

“Women want alphas – become a top tier man.” — Become a top tier man for YOURSELF and only for YOURSELF. Women’s attention, loyalty, etc. will be the byproduct of you putting yourself at the center of the frame.

“Women want promiscuous sex – plate them.” — I’m married and was as blue pill as they come before discovering these hallowed halls two years ago. So, this one is modified for the married set.

Bottom line: Sex with wife sucked for years. Rollo’s concept of dread game has literally saved my marriage, but again there’s a subtle and very important distinction. When I initially conceptualized dread game it was with my wife in the center of the frame (in other words “If I use dread on the wife, she’ll want to fuck me more”). The results were meh. However, when I put MYSELF in the center of the frame as in “If I were suddenly single tomorrow how quickly could I get laid?”, the results were dramatic. The difference is this: In the first scenario I was counting on my actions causing a change in someone else (the wife). In the second scenario, my actions caused a radical change in MYSELF and in my conceptualization of myself.

Thoroughbred speaks to two issues here. A Man must place himself as his own Mental Point of Origin. In doing so he prioritizes himself as his primary importance which women find attractive, but you see the dual nature of this prioritization. Thoroughbred making himself his first priority has the effect of improving his life from an overall personal perspective and has the effect of attracting / arousing female interest in him. Does it matter what’s motivated that change in his performance?

Men must perform; and even when they’re performing as the result of genuine curiosity and interest they will make an impression on women. You cannot remove yourself from the Game. There’s a misnomer that Red Pill advocates believe all men need do is be good looking, aloof and let women come to them, but the truth is that even if you’re not approaching you’re still performing, you’re still presenting a presence that women (and other men) will evaluate.

The genuineness of your motive is only realized by you. One thing I addressed in Just Be Yourself is the you others would like to make of you:

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?

If you have a look at the picture I used for my post Idealism you can get an idea of how men and women experience their existence. This masterfully encapsulates the mental directions of the genders. For men’s part, it’s their outward looking interests and curiosity that not only make them better Men, but also makes them attractive. Their attractiveness is a byproduct of a curiosity that is indifferent to the inward, self-importance of women.

As I’ve repeated many times, women should only ever be a complement to a man’s life never the focus of it. This is because women’s focus is primarily on themselves and once your primary focus becomes women they quickly lose interest. Men’s attractiveness lies in the results of that outward facing fascination that excludes women from its attention.

Focus on the things you genuinely find interesting, not the personal validation you think they represent. Saying you do things for you only echoes the self-importance of women’s self-focus. It alludes to a desire to be perceived as more attractive for a self-conscious awareness.

Managing Expectations


One question I was asked during the Christian McQueen interview was what my perspective on a “healthy” kind of love would look like. Anyone familiar with my writing understands that, to the best of my objectivity, I try to be as descriptive as I can when it comes to the dynamics I analyze. The Rational Male will always be an endeavor in descriptiveness, not prescribing what I think anyone ought to be doing. I’ve run down my reasons for this in the past, but the solutions to your problems begin with your understanding the nature of those problems. I’ll give you tools, observations and suggestions, but my hope is you’ll use them in your life according to your need.

As I said in the interview, my interest isn’t in making Rollo Tomassi clones, and anyone telling you they have a customized plan to lead you to the relationship of your dreams is selling you something (likely a $1200/month ‘counseling’ retainer). That said, I’m going to break protocol here for a moment and see if I can provide you with some general observation about what I believe are the foundations of a heathy love relationship.

From a Red Pill perspective I’d say the first and most important thing for a man to grasp is coming to terms with realistic expectations with women based in Red Pill awareness.

In a Blue Pill paradigm men are conditioned to believe that Blue Pill goals are both attainable and worthwhile in the effort needed to achieve them. Deferring to feminine primacy, deffering to feminine correctness and essentially enabling and facilitating the ends of women’s sexual strategy are all the hallmarks of that conditioned thinking.

In Mental Point of Origin I explain how a man’s origin of thought is conditioned to default to a feminine purpose; he puts his first thought to the benefit of the feminine rather than himself and it takes either a very traumatic personal episode or a Red Pill awakening for a man to realize how thorough his conditioning has been.

I’m reviewing this Blue Pill mindset because the expectations a man has of a woman while he’s trapped in that mindset is radically different when he moves into (and accepts) a Red Pill awareness. That may seem a bit remedial for Red Pill men now, but it’s important to be reminded of how much your expectations of women have shifted since you came into that new awareness.

There was a time when you were Blue Pill and not taking a woman seriously at her word – as opposed to understanding the primary importance of her actions – was probably offensive to you. Any White Knight you encounter in life is still basing his expectations of women in that same egalitarian equalist premise that women are rational agents with an equal interest in men’s goals and purpose. The mistake being that they put faith in the idea that men and women have intellectually risen above the influences of their evolved psychology and can be relied upon to behave reasonably and in each other’s best interests.

Ironically a Beta /White Knight’s methodology for qualifying for women’s intimate attentions are still rooted in performing to the standards of what he believes is a pre-understood social contract between men and women. However, his expectations of women and how they’ll reciprocate his feminine-identifying efforts is where he’s gravely in error.

It’s my belief that Red Pill men need to come to realistic expectations of women based on their Red Pill awareness in order to come to a loving relationship with women. Accepting that reality also means accepting the differing concepts men and women have with regard to love. That’s a very tall order for men still coming to terms with the fact that their Blue Pill conditioning made them hopeful they could sustain a love based on Blue Pill expectations of women. Their idealistic concept of love has an end-goal of that concept being mutually reciprocated by a woman; this is the Blue Pill hope for love.

Love in the Age of Equalism

Egalitarian equalism between the sexes is nominally based on an acceptance of agreed terms, but love, like desire, is not the result of a process of negotiation.

What’s more ironic is that the more pronounced the efforts in gender parity are in society the more pronounced the men and women in that society cling to traditional sex differences:

To the contrary, most cross-cultural studies find nations with the highest sociopolitical gender equality (e.g., Scandinavian nations) exhibit the largest psychological sex differences in the world. You read that correctly. Higher gender egalitarian nations tend to have larger sex differences in mate preferences for Good Looks, in Big Five personality traits and the Dark Triad traits of Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and psychopathy; in romantic attachment and love styles; in sociopolitical attitudes and personal values; in clinical depression rates and crying behavior; in tested cognitive and mental abilities; and in physical attributes such as height and blood pressure[97]. If sociopolitical gender egalitarianism is supposed to reduce sex differences to the point where they “disappear,” it’s doing a terrible job. In fact, it’s most often doing the exact opposite. Without the constraints of patriarchal sex role socialization, it appears men and women are freer to follow their evolved desires in ways that lead to even greater psychological difference

It’s important to recognize truths like this because our acculturation in an equalist doctrine of gender parity is often never considered with regard to how the sexes interpret a loving relationship. How a society perceives love on a meta level is greatly influenced by the degree to which that society considers and acknowledges sex differences. I’ve stated in the past that androgyny is not a goal-state for any species – it leads to stagnation and an inability to adapt. Androgyny becomes homogeny; an evolutionary dead end, and the statistics seem to back this up. When a society idealizes a state of homogeny between the sexes that society presumes love is also homogenous.

Play with her, and play with her

I’ve mentioned in the past that revealing Red Pill truths to women you want to become intimate with is ultimately a self-defeating effort. The same can be said for women you may be involved with at the moment and are attempting to convince of your new Red Pill identity. Once you let a woman in on the Game it changes the game. Observing a process will change that process. This is known as the observer-expectancy effect, or the Hawthorne effect which is a “form of reactivity in which subjects modify an aspect of their behavior, in response to their knowing that they are being studied.”

In my perspective this is the main reason couples’ therapy, marriage counseling and Purple Pill couples’ coaching is ineffective. Those negotiations that are supposed to lead to a better relationship and a “healthy” love are founded on Blue Pill goals and Blue Pill expectations of an equalist understanding that men and women are fundamental equals with an equal interest in rational problem solving.

Why am I inserting this here? Because your Red Pill expectations of women must remain stoically within yourself.

Once your expectations of women are out in the open the process has changed. Women love Men who Just Get It, but explaining how you Get It disqualifies you from being the Man who does. Demonstrate, never explicate.

In a way I pity the women who identify themselves as Red Pill women. Not because I think their efforts are misplaced, but because they become privy to Red Pill truths and now have a different awareness of that observer-expectancy effect. The process is changed with regard to how they deal with men, maybe their husbands, and now they can no longer play the Game without some peripheral awareness that they are playing a game. The machinations of it are revealed so the context becomes one of identifying aspects of those truths and being self-conscious of men’s and their own behaviors being influenced by them.

In coming to terms with Red Pill expectations of women a man must embrace some ugly realities. Those realities that used to be denied or sugar coated with the pretty lies of the Blue Pill can rub you raw. Among others, Hypergamy, women’s sexual and love opportunism and the potential of damning a man to a life of indentured servitude are tough expectations to have to weigh against the idealistic want of a healthy loving relationship with a woman.

There will be a contingent of men who’ll insist women be held accountable for the worst of these behaviors. While I don’t necessarily disagree with that sentiment, there will always be a want for personal accountability and justice for women’s actions from men, however, this belief is still rooted in the idea that women are coequal and rational actors. That personal accountability desire is based in an equalist mindset. That’s not to say women shouldn’t be held accountable for the results of their impulses, or given license to them – Hypergamy is not itself an excuse for the worst of its consequences. Moreover, it is to say that a Red Pill aware man needs to base his expectations of women on the Red Pill foreknowledge of what her instincts and impulses will lead her to.

Conventional Love Model

I posted the following comment in response to Girl With a Dragonfly Tattoo’s recent plea for women to embrace empathy and / or sympathy:

Sympathy / Empathy flow downward from men to women and then to children. Men who understand and accept this never expect empathy from women to begin with. For that man, either a woman meets his criteria for his investment or he drops her for a better prospect.

Only in a feminized equalist society do men expect in-kind reciprocation from women. As a man, your “needs” are only important to you. Men’s disappointment comes from expecting a balanced return on his emotional investment and relational equity; this is the result of his egalitarian equalist conditioning. It sucks and it’s offensive to men because they’ve believed for most of their lives that there should be an equitable exchange of emotional and personal investments – his woman should have his needs and his best interests in mind in a like fashion that he has for her; this is not and has never been the case.

In fact it’s a recipe for failure, since it puts men into a position of neediness, and thus forces him to negotiate for his woman’s desire.

I’ve made an attempt in today’s post to address this last part. A great deal of men’s frustrations with women finds its root in an equalist expectation of a like-for-like exchange of intimacy. In A New Hope I explained how a man might cast off his former hope for a Blue Pill solution to the problems inherently created by an egalitarian mindset. I think it’s vitally important for men to keep that in mind – the source of those problems offers the false hope of a solution to those problems.

As a man it is important to understand that love will always, necessarily, be an unequal exchange of sacrifice for a woman. You simply don’t share the same concept of love with a woman. There are complementary benefits, but never assume your investment with a woman will be an equitable tradeoff. Men weren’t designed for that, this is why notions of relational equity is a real tough ego-investment for a man to abandon when he comes to Red Pill awareness.

In closing, what I find interesting in all of this was recalling how my Vulnerability post was received. That was an important post because it described the expectation of submissiveness and surrender that the Feminine Imperative and egalitarian equalism inculcate in men. Even the definition of the word was recreated to fit the doctrine – weakness is strength – and more than a few critics still clinging to that Blue Pill boilerplate wanted to re-redefine it in some way to be palatable to both the manosphere and that old Blue Pill hope. That’s the essence of the Purple Pill.

What they fail to realize is the inherent vulnerability men face in loving a woman at all. All risk, with no realistic expectation of reciprocation of his emotional investment and even greater risk of rejection for expressing that expectation – now that’s vulnerability. Egalitarian equalism always stresses the importance of men and women meeting each other’s needs to achieve a balanced loving relationship. This is a fundamentally flawed premise in the context of feminine social primacy. In a Blue Pill paradigm a man’s needs are always subordinate to a woman’s. That is vulnerability – a man putting faith in the presumption that a woman’s sustained long-term interests will ultimately serve his own.

Men will always be the risk takers in all aspects of life.