Sexual Market Value

Deep Conversion

conversion

About four years ago Nick Krauser dropped a quick-hit post on his blog called Deep Conversion. I made a mental note in my head about this concept back then because, in spite of the brevity of it, I really thought Nick was on to something much more significant. The direction of my recent discussions both on this blog and a few other forums I read got me thinking about Nick’s observations.

I had an old reader (who want’s me to believe he’s a new reader) dig back through my archives and reheat an old debate about conflating my post about women’s concept of love with, “women are incapable of love – at all.” Over the five years that this blog’s been online I’ve gone to great lengths to define my position on the differing concepts of love either gender holds, and what influences the origins of love for either gender. I wont do a remedial post to reassert my points on this here. If you’re new reader and unfamiliar with that expansive series of posts I’ll refer you the Love category on my side bar links. However, to restate the premise for today’s post so everything is clear:

Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.

In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.

Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

In the same respect that women cannot appreciate the sacrifices men are expected to make in order to facilitate their imperatives, women can’t actualize how a man would have himself loved by her. It is not the natural state of women, and the moment he attempts to explain his ideal love, that’s the point at which his idealization becomes her obligation. Our girlfriends, our wives, daughters and even our mothers are all incapable of this idealized love. As nice as it would be to relax, trust and be vulnerable, upfront, rational and open, the great abyss is still the lack of an ability for women to love Men as Men would like them to.

That bolded part there was always emphasized for a very important reason – to avoid the misperception in men that women are entirely incapable of love, and to make a distinction about men’s Blue Pill hope that a woman could love him according to his idealistic concept of love. As I said, there is an expansive series on my ideas about this, and it requires an (I believe rewarding) investment of time and comprehension in understanding them. Sorry, but there is no TL;DR version here.

When I wrote this, and during my deliberating it, I fully expected to get this most common response I get from men still stinging from a more cynical Red Pill awakening. And that is the want to believe that women’s Hypergamy prevents them from ever feeling a “genuine” love or a genuine desire for men beyond what their most immediate opportunistic need may be according to their sexual strategy – short term breeding or long term security. Generally, it’s newly unplugged guys who want to accuse me of not thinking it all the way through because I need some hopeful rationale to justify my 20-year marriage, or they think I’ve never considered Briffault’s Law.

Concepts & Expectations

I expected all of this when I wrote my early essays on men and women’s differing concepts of love. And while I’ve covered the idea of love being a complementary arrangement between men and women each holding differing concepts in prior essays, one thing I haven’t explored is what Nick calls the “Deep Conversion” a woman goes through and what she feels for a man with whom she genuinely falls in love with.

Nick refers to this process as a kind of ‘soul surrender’ in which a woman recognizes a Man’s inherent value to both her short term sexual, and long term security needs. From her perception, this guy represents her Hypergamous ideal. Such is his sexual market value in relation to her own that it puts all but the most deeply rooted doubts of his quality to rest for her and opens her to associating him with an emotional state.

I should also point out that this emotional state needn’t always be a positive association; just that the association he represents is an ideal situation her hindbrain interprets as Hypergamously optimal. If that dynamic seems like a recipe for potential abuse you’re not too far from the mark. This conversion comes as a result of a woman’s perception of her Hypergamous need and her own SMV in comparison to what she believes that man’s  SMV is in relation. Shaking a woman out of the devotion she has with an abusive husband/boyfriend is really shaking her out of the perception that he represents her Hypergamous ideal.

That optimal state is also qualified by her own self-perception of her sexual market value, and again prioritized by her most necessitous needs for her phase of maturity. However, given all these variables, that man’s perceived value to her Hypergamy is always valued as higher than her own. Hypergamy never seeks its own level, but always looks for a better-than deserved SMV comparison. In terms of SMV ratios-to-attachment Deep Conversion takes place somewhere between a 2:1 to 3:1 variance.

Most guys are simply incapable of inspiring this kind of total soul surrender and devotion in a women. Most women never get to feel it and instead must get off on Deep Conversion Lite through sugar-rush books like 50 Shades of Grey. It’s the difference between spinning plates with fuck buddies and having a genuine harem where all your girls are exclusive to you. The women aren’t aligning with you out of cold calculation or temporary strung-out groupie lust, the connection runs far far deeper and feels wholesome to both of you.

This was an excellent observation on Nick’s part, however, I think it’s important to consider this bit in terms of why most men are incapable of instilling a Deep Conversion state in women. The first reason is that most men (being Beta) already presume that any woman who would find them suitable for a monogamous commitment must already feel this sense of Deep Conversion otherwise they’d never agree to that commitment. This is part of the Blue Pill conditioning for Beta men – any girl who says “yes” to him must necessarily see him as her Hypergamous ideal. Most men lack the Red Pill awareness that women regularly make long term relationship decisions based on security needs, not because that guy represents her Hypergamous ideal.

Women would rather cry over an asshole than be saddled with a guy who bores them to tears. That doesn’t sell very well with Blue Pill men raised on Disney dreams, but women readily get into LTRs where the Beta they pair with is no comparison to the Alpha she’s widowed from; for whom she had a Deep Conversion with. And as Nick says, this is when they look to manufacture their own indignation and the excitement they lack in cheap (but safe) substitutes.

Another reason most men never experience this is because, due their Blue Pill conditioning, never give themselves permission to become the conventionally masculine men with a dominance that women need in order to feel this conversion for him. Most Blue Pill men have been taught a default deference to women. Theirs is one of a ‘Nice’, passive sensitivity to a woman’s perceived wants, rather than a dominant knowing of her need which is born from a lifetime of learning to place his mental point of origin on the whims of women.

This may be my own interpretation, but I would also argue that both a woman’s evolved psychological filtering (testing) of a man’s Hypergamous qualifications and her socialized sense of self (ego) contribute to a woman resisting this Deep Conversion for a man. As a lot of men in the Married Red Pill and DeadBedroom subredd forums will attest, it’s entirely possible to spend your life with a woman who will never feel this conversion with a man.

Deep Conversion

Done correctly deep conversion is the most satisfying experience possible between a man and a woman. So long as you keep the elements in place, it has no natural time limit. I had my ex-wife in this state for eight of the nine years we were together (losing it only when I lost my mojo) and I’ve had four girlfriends in the past two years in the same position. I’ve got a few more on the boil now. It’s really not very hard to do if you have the following core competencies in place:

  1. An unshakeably strong frame. You are special, you know you’re special, and your masculinity is stratospheric compared to the chumps around you.
  2. Cheerful misogyny. You love women but don’t take them seriously. This is more than just the attraction phase teasing. You genuinely believe women are more like dogs or children, meaning they are a delight when well-lead and a nightmare when left ill-disciplined without a pack leader. It’s empathetic but not weak or equalist.
  3. Direction. Your life must be a straight line in a Deida-esque manner. Whether it’s your music, philosophy, career, fitness your life contains several arrows pointing the same direction… towards building the archetype of a fully developed man. If you are one-dimensional the girl will hold back.
  4. Sexual mastery. Understand that women crave dominance above all else in the bedroom. Give her the kind of sex that penetrates her soul. This isn’t high-fitness sport sex and G-spot finding. Those men will keep a woman around as her sexual provider, the guy she goes to when she wants a good fucking, the bedroom equivalent of a qualifying beta chump. A sexual master rocks a girl psychologically so even a half-assed knee trembler in a public toilet has her dreaming for weeks afterwards. The girl dreams of pleasing him, not him pleasing her.

All four elements increase with age if you live your life correctly. I don’t want to write too much about it and certainly the book will never be released. Just be aware that it has it’s own ego traps, its own risks…. but it is possible. When you’re tired of the notch-carousel you might want to look into it.

Much of what Nick is outlining here is Red Pill 101 and I’d also add that Roissy’s original 16 Commandments of Poon would fill out this list more completely. What I’m exploring here, however, is the concept of how this Deep Conversion fits into the framework of men and women’s individualized concepts of love. On the one hand I have men who are critics tell me I’m in error because women’s opportunistic concept of love doesn’t meet their criteria for what love ought to be between a man and a woman – a mutually shared, unconsciously agreed upon, concept that aligns with men’s idealistic (love for love’s sake) concept.

Yet still, they don’t disagree with my assessment that women’s concept of love is rooted in optimizing their innate Hypergamy and manifests as an beneficent opportunism (beneficent in terms of quality control for the human race, not necessarily for men). This is where the conflict starts. If a male-idealistic concept of love is the correct one, and women lack a capacity to understand, appreciate or engage in that concept in a genuine, organic fashion then women entirely lack the capacity for love as men would define it. This is the deductive logic that tears men up when I explain men and women’s differing concepts of love. Their definition has to be the correct one, and if it is then women cannot love men. For guys reeling from the initial hopelessness that their Blue Pill world was always an exploitative fantasy, it’s hard for them to accept that their concept of love is only subjectively correct for them.

Blue Pill Idealism

Much of this hopelessness stems from the all-is-equal mentality that the Blue Pill sells us when we’re being raised by the ‘Village’ of pop-culture. Equalism is the religion of the Feminine Imperative, so Blue Pill men are conditioned to believe that men and women, being co-equal, co-rational agents, would necessarily share a common concept of love. As with everything egalitarian, that equalism outright denies any innate differences physically or psychologically that would separate men and women or make them adversarial in sexual strategy or purpose in life. This premise, of course, is deftly twisted by the Feminine Imperative to make feminine-primary sexual strategies and women’s concept of love, the socially correct expressions of ‘equalism’.

But therein lies men’s conflict. The same influences that convince men their idealistic concept of love is the mutually shared one are also the influences that convince men that satisfying women’s socio-sexual imperatives ought to be their life’s priority and their mental point of origin if they ever hope to achieve that idealized love state. Take this Blue Pill path to that idealistic state away from men, and you get very despondent guys who don’t believe women have a capacity to feel actual love for them. It all becomes jumping through hoops to create a feeling of love in women whose criteria for a love that originates in their opportunistic concept they must constantly qualify for.

Women critics of this differing love concepts dynamic, unsurprisingly, personalize every experience they have, their friends have or their family ever had by referring to examples of their own selfless acts of devotion to a certain man. It’s always a story about how they gave everything to a (often unappreciative, unreciprocating) man they felt some undying idealistic love for themselves, and how dare I impugn their sincerity in it?

And again, I’ll add that the only way they came to this idealistic love was through a Deep Conversion they had with a man who satisfied their Hypergamous opportunism long before they were ever inspired to those selfless acts of devotion and sacrifice. For every Alpha Widow woman who ever gave herself over to that conversion and surrendered her soul to a guy who never reciprocated it, there are a hundred Beta men who will never inspire that degree of devotion in the wives who settled on marrying them. Statistically, 80% of men (Betas) will never inspire the Deep Conversion that 10-20% of men women feel it for did.

The Red Pill Conversion

When I wrote The Love Experience I was asked to elaborate on a quote I’d made about men and women both having the capacity to love each other deeply and passionately:

“Men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures.”

For men who innately cling to an idealistic concept of love, their own kind of Deep Conversion can come in the form of ONEitis and develop into some very unhealthy dependencies. One of the reasons ONEitis is so common among men is because their Blue Pill conditioning predisposes them to putting women’s needs above his own and they see that as the path to sustaining this True Love state – a state defined by their idealism.

For women, this Deep Conversion can only result from a man who so thoroughly satisfies her Hypergamous nature she’s willing to abandon her own sexual strategy. And, like the guy with ONEitis, she dedicates herself to the one guy she was able to (she thinks) lock down who was a better-than-deserved Hypergamous prospect. Women get very upset when this dedication is questioned (not unlike the ONEitis guy) because they’ve generally abandoned furthering their sexual strategy by investing their egos into a guy who satisfied their Hypergamous natures. To doubt that devotion is to doubt the wisdom of her investment – and that goes down to her evolved biology and psychology in that choice. I should note here that Alpha Widows are born from this conversion.

However, for all of that inherent risk, and despite men and women’s differing concepts of love, men and women can and do come together in individual states of love (that they often believe the other shares) that are ‘genuine’ to them and also last a lifetime. I would argue that this state cannot exist without a woman’s Deep Conversion occurring after, and as a process of, her testing and evaluating the quality of the man she feels it for. And I would also argue that a man who commits himself to this woman must also feel some sense of his idealistic concept of love being validated by that woman who has devoted herself to him.

Under the old social contracts, and under the old set of books, this conversion in men and women was likely something much easier than it is today. Women are distracted by social and cultural influences that distorts their ever truly understanding their greatly diminishing value to men, and at the same time places so many men so far below women in general that this conversion and devotion will always seem demeaning to them – even for men who exceed them in SMV.

However, this Deep Conversion state is not an impossibility and it is not impossible to sustain it in a Red Pill aware paradigm. In fact, I’ll say that Red Pill awareness and internalized Game is really the only way to sustain it in an era of Open Hypergamy where Blue Pill conditioning of men is the norm, and women’s expectations of men are ridiculously low, but standards are ridiculously exaggerated.

For the Red Pill / Game aware guy, understanding this conversion and how to inspire it is something he ought to contemplate since so much of a woman’s ego becomes invested in her devotion to him once that conversion takes place. Conversely, Red Pill men should also understand, as Nick explained about his ex-wife, that this conversion is always tentative upon his own capacity to perpetuate it.

Blue Pill Alphas

beta-white-knight-101_o_5320043

A comment from Softek gets us started today:

My friend was telling me the other night how seeing multiple women “isn’t worth it.”

I’ve heard that more than once from more than one of my friends.

And how “living with the guilt and shame” and “hating themselves” was destroying their lives….

Very hard schema to break out of when it’s been imprinted on you. My own father self-proclaims to be “in favor of the damsels in distress,” including his recent, unquestionable defense of my friend’s mom, who divorced his dad after 35 years of marriage.

My dad didn’t even question her motives for a second and after she spent the evening hanging out with my mom and him, and told them the supposed “real” reasons she got a divorce, my dad automatically cut contact with the guy and again proclaimed his belief that men should protect all “damsels in distress.”

He’s even taken shots at me when my girlfriend’s been over, clearly siding with her and telling her things like “Keep him in line” and “Straighten him out” and calling me an idiot and scolding me if I don’t pull her chair out for her or put her coat on for her when she stands up.

No doubt, my self sabotaging of a clear opening for a hookup with an HB8 23 year old has been influenced by all of this. I didn’t realize how Beta I was until I actually got into a relationship.

I didn’t even know I HAD these programs because I was incel before, and had a couple one night stands that never developed into anything more. I also didn’t even know my DAD had these programs until he started doing shit like actually scolding me in front of my girlfriend and instructing her to “train me” and things like that.

To be honest I was kind of in shock that my own father would think like that. It felt like he was turning on me and it pissed me off. Even in a small way, to let his Blue Pill conditioning get in the way of his relationship with his own son — that really got to me, and not in a good way. I felt like my dad is supposed to be on my side, and to see him treating her better than he treats me and having conversations with her and helping her work out her finances and giving her career advice and all that while he won’t even give me the time of day….

….simply, it’s eye-opening. It’s tough to truly go Red Pill when everyone around you, including your own father/family members/friends are Blue Pill, and especially when they’re an active, regular part of your life, not just a figment of your imagination.

But there is no other way.

Alpha is a mindset, not a demographic. Softek’s father’s reflexive responses are endemic of men who are Alpha White Knights. Their reactions are behaviorally Alpha, but their reasoning is founded in their investments in Blue Pill conditioning. The usual schema revolve around an attempt to display higher value by identifying with and qualifying for women whom they presuppose have default authority and correctness above men in general.

This then manifests as an exaggerated AMOGing of any guy who would not affirm his investments in that Blue Pill ego-investment. So you get a guy who blusters like Softek’s Dad at Red Pill awareness – it’s both an opportunity to prove value as a White Knight and a resistance against any truths that would challenge his Blue Pill ego.

In my own life I’ve known several men who anyone in the ‘sphere would objectively call Alpha. Their default is to action, dominance, authority and control of whatever life puts in front of them. They handle their shit, they own their business ventures, they have all the Dark Triad traits you might expect from a guy like this – but put them in a social setting with a girl and they go as Beta as any Blue Pill guy you’ll ever know. Their Blue Pill conditioning predisposes them to compartmentalize this aspect of their personality to effectively put their dominant personality to the use of the Feminine Imperative.

Dangerous White Knights

Maybe I’m the only guy who watched both seasons of Daredevil on Netflix, but if you watch the first season where they go into the origin and character of Wilson Fisk (Kingpin) this is exactly the type of guy I’m talking about. Wildly Alpha, wildly unstable, but still in control of his empire. Put a woman in his life and he transitions all of that Alpha energy to essentially worshiping that woman. In fact, this prioritizing of women above his own interests is the motivation for his empire building. These are the Alpha White Knights who channel that Alpha energy to making his Blue Pill idealisms a reality for any woman who fits his ideal.

And when that Blue Pill ideal reveals itself to be a fantasy – or God forbid, a Red Pill aware guy should take this fantasy away from him intentionally or not – you will see him self destruct, and likely take either that woman, that Red Pill guy, or both along with him.

That’s one type of Blue Pill Alpha. Another is the guy who is Alpha in one context, but Beta in another. These are the guys I describe when I talk about my military friends who’ve faced live ammo being fired at them by people intent on killing them who hold up like nails and get their job done while commanding other men. Put them in a domestic situation or a position where they have to fall back on their Blue Pill conditioning in dealing with women and they’ll defer automatically to the Frame of their wives without a thought. When their wives up and leave them, these are some of the first men to swallow a bullet by their own hand.

Again, this is an Alpha who’s never been awakened to his Blue Pill conditioning. Say even one marginally critical word about women in general and they’re the first in line to kick your ass. But they’re also the most likely to self destruct when their Blue Pill idealism is challenged or crushed.

A lot gets made about the status of ‘Paper Alphas’, but I’m beginning to think term is a bit in error. I’m dropping this here today because I think there’s a misunderstanding about how Alpha energy is channeled with respect to a guy being Red Pill aware, and a guy who is still plugged into the feminine-primary Matrix and at the mercy of how women (and other men) will exploit his Blue Pill ego-investments. In the manosphere we tend to conflate Alpha with Red Pill, but as I always say, Alpha is a mindset and not representative of whether that man is in fact ‘woke’ to his conditions and manipulations.

When I watched how the Marvel writers handled the character of Wilson Fisk I got chills because I have personally counseled Blue Pill, but predominantly Alpha, guys who’ve stabbed the new boyfriends of their ex-girlfriends because he was perceived as the catalyst to the destruction of his Blue Pill ideal – union with his ONEitis girlfriend.

I’m emphasizing this because I think it’s important for Red Pill aware men to understand the dangers of being perceived as the antithesis of these men’s ego-investments in Blue Pill idealism. This may take the form of him just despising you for revealing uncomfortable truths to him with your own presence and lifestyle, or it may be him pinning his failures to consolidate his Blue Pill ideals to you and wanting to eliminate both you and the truth you represent.

I’m sorry if this is a bit sobering, but it needs to be said. As most readers know, I consider Alpha and Beta abstract terms; they are placeholders for concepts, thus, it is entirely possible for a largely Alpha man to be thoroughly invested in his Blue Pill conditioning. Likewise, it is also possible for more Beta men to be some of the most Red Pill aware men you’re likely to meet. It’s when a Beta man is ego-invested in the Blue Pill that he’s most to be pitied, while a Red Pill aware Alpha is likely to be the most celebrated. But that’s not to say the Red Pill and Alpha, or the Blue Pill and Beta are mutually exclusive concepts.

Is Provisioning Inherently a Characteristic of a Beta Mindset?

In this week’s post the proposition came up that any provisioning was inherently a Beta trait. I’ve read this before and not just on my blog, but also coming from both the MGTOW and the PUA sides of the fence. The idea is that any form of monogamy and/or provisioning for an LTR girlfriend (and I would count a live-in arrangement as provisioning), a wife and any kids (prospectively) is itself evidence of a Beta mindset.

I think the problem with this presumption rests in defining what the act of provisioning means both an Alpha and a Beta mindset. For both, this depends on their approach to their primary sexual strategies and reconciling it with the eventual necessity of his own parental investment in raising children, and/or maintaining relational Frame (or not) within a monogamy that at least promotes the wellbeing of any children.

As a reference here, I’m going to link Myth of the Good Guy to give a bit of perspective in this.

While it’s true that lower SMV men generally, necessarily, opt for a sexual strategy of primary investment in one mate (via provisioning) and higher SMV men can afford a sexual strategy of lower investment while seeking more sexual opportunities, those strategies are not necessarily reflective of each man’s mindset. As I mentioned in the beginning here, it is entirely possible for a subjectively Alpha man to subscribe to a Blue Pill conditioned mindset and vice versa for Beta men becoming Red Pill aware.

So yes, provisioning can be Beta if that provisioning (and what it took to achieve it) is the result of an effort to secure the sustained sexual interests of a single woman, as motivated by his perceived necessity to invest himself as I mentioned above for a low SMV man. However, if you have a high SMV guy who’s provisioning capacity is the byproduct of his Alpha mindset (or nature if you prefer) and not the result of his sexual strategy to build it to invest in any single woman, is that guy’s provisioning inherently a Beta characteristic?

We’ve had an interesting discussion about this in the last comment thread, and In the interests of full disclosure here, I’m still on the fence about this concept. I’ll have a forthcoming post about mindset soon.

Provisioning is certainly a value added aspect to a guy who a woman sees as an Alpha sex prospect already, and not a necessary a prerequisite for fucking him, but it’s not a disadvantage (being Beta) if that Alpha guy also has means, affluence, status, looks, etc. That said, and I’ve related this before, some of the most memorable sex experiences I’ve ever had were when I was an unemployed semi-pro musician in the late 80s-early 90s with almost zero means, but was somehow able to bang over 40 women then.

Provisioning is not a prerequisite for any man with Game, but is it inherently Beta? Possibly, when a guy has the Blue Pill mindset that makes him believe in the Relational Equity fallacy and he subscribes to the Blue Pill conditioned idea that he’s inherently lower SMV than ANY woman (like Softek’s Dad), thus he must improve his odds of successfully breeding by being a “good provider”. And as I, and anyone in the manosphere, will relate this old books providerhood is fast becoming an obsolete sexual strategy for Beta men.

This is, I think, the hesitation that most guys wanting to avoid the stink of ‘Beta Provider’ will argue for. But is a nominally Alpha guy, who has excess means and resources being “Beta” by providing for his wife & family? If that man’s dominant personality is ‘Alpha’ does this predispose women (or his wife) to rationalize his provisioning as an Alpha trait, or is it just an endearing (positive), comforting Beta trait / behavior that solidifies her attraction (if not arousal) to him?

I don’t think that the act of provisioning itself is inherently Beta or Alpha, rather it’s the mindset and status of that guy that makes it so. What do we call a an Alpha with ample means who refuses to adequately provide for his wife and/or kids? What do we call a Beta who’s based his life and marriage on his capacity to provide once he’s lost his job? Why do women statistically look down on men who don’t provide in equal or greater measure to their own contributions? Despite all the equalist boilerplate beliefs to the contrary, why do women feel little or no attraction to a non-provisioning house-husband? If provisioning were a net Beta trait why is its absence a source of decreased attraction for men?

I should also add that this perception of whether a man is Alpha or Beta in his provisioning is subjective to whatever phase of maturity a woman find herself in, and is modified by her own necessitousness – which, as has been argued in the ‘sphere ad infinitum, has become increasingly less dependent on men. It’s no coincidence that back in the early 90s for me, the women I was banging were largely girls in their SMV peak years (21-24) or they we’re the occasional cougars of the time who were already divorced and still reasonably attractive enough to pass the boner test for me. My capacity to provision for either of these demographic of women made little difference to my sex appeal, but for different reasons.

Roissy even covers this aspect of women’s sexual prioritization in The Difficulty of Gaming Women by Age Bracket:

31 to 34 year olds

In some ways, women in the 31-34 age range are the toughest broads to game. (By “toughest”, it is meant “most time consuming”.) It’s counterintuitive, yes, but there are factors at work besides her declining beauty which mitigate against the easy, quick lay. For one, it is obviously harder to meet single 31-34 year old women than it is to meet single younger women. Marriage is still a pussy-limiting force to contend with for the inveterate womanizer, but Chateau apprentices are hard at work battling the scourge of mating market disturbances caused by the grinding and churning of the marriage machine.

But the bigger reason 31-34 year olds are harder to game than any other age group of women has to do with the wicked nexus of entitlement and self-preservation that occurs at this age in women. When you combine a disproportionate sense of entitlement fueled by years of feminism, steady paychecks and promotions, and cheerleading gay boyfriends with suspicions of every man’s motives and a terrible anxiety of being used for a sexual fling sans marriage proposal, you get a venom-spitting malevolent demoness on guard against anything she might perceive as less than total subjugation to her craving for incessant flattery and princess pedestaling.

Note that Chateau guests aren’t necessarily complaining. A harder-to-game 33 year old is kind of like getting bumped down from a Honda Civic rental but driving off the lot with the consolation prize of a Ferrari.

Listen to any man who is good with women and they will tell you the same thing:

“I have an easier time bedding and dating 23 year olds than I do 33 year olds.”

While I do concur with the assessment about women’s exaggerated sense of entitlement, I would also argue that this difficulty is a result of women’s prioritizing long-term security (emotional and provisional) as part of their sexual strategy reprioritizations that come in the wake of their Epiphany Phase. Ergo, this would explain the ease in gaming women pre and post Epiphany Phase. Provisioning and long term security are low sexual priorities for these demographics of women.

But does that make a capacity for provisioning inherently a Beta trait? I think it’s easy to misconstrue that capacity as Beta, because provisioning is a high-value attribute that is expected from Beta men according to their own sexual strategy. Provisioning is associated with Betas because it is integral to their sexual strategy, and also part of the Blue Pill plan for which women are hoping to fulfill at a point in their maturity when they are subjectively at their most necessitous.

What do you think?

SMV and the Aging Process

aging_process

A comment from a woman on enotalone.com:

I am 31 years old, and not looking for anyone, but I have a lot of guy friends/acquaintances my age and the trend I see is a bit disheartening. There’s about 8 different ones that I know who are between 29-32 and EVERY SINGLE ONE IS DATING A 21-23 YEAR OLD.

I just don’t get it. There are plenty of women closer to their ages and single, but yet they all go for the young women. I feel kind of sad for women entering the dating market, at least where I’m from because it seems women my age have no hope in competing with these younger, perkier women.

Just a rant I suppose. I don’t have anything against younger women of course, but I can’t help but feel a bit unnerved by the trend I see here.

This is an overt observation of what women understand from a very early age – women’s sexual marketability declines with age, while men’s (should) increases as they age. This woman’s concerns should come as no shock to any Red Pill aware man. It’s the clarion call of a woman who’s aging out of the SMP and on the tail end of her Epiphany Phase.

All women have conditions (prerequisites) for men in order for them to become intimate (sexual) with them; he’s got to be good looking, he’s got to be financially stable (surplus resources), he’s got to have some status, respectability, ambition, be confident, he has to be the initiator, he’s has to be decisive, he has to make an emotional connection with her, he’s got have ‘provider’ potential,..etc., etc. And the list goes on and on for any individual woman and according to her ability (i.e. looks) to demand each condition. Each of these personal conditions for intimacy is set in a priority order depending on her ability to demand them and this demand is mediated by her age relative to her attractiveness to men.

It’s no secret that a woman’s sexual marketability declines as she ages and men’s increases as he ages. As a woman ages she progressively loses her ability to physically attract a mate (his one condition for intimacy), thus her conditions and their priority order shift accordingly because she is forced to compete with younger, more attractive women for the same pool of eligible men.

These men tend to be the ones best able to provide for her long term security and any resulting offspring. Thus, well established men (with status, money, hopefully good looks, etc.) in their early 30’s are the prime targets and the more they exemplify her conditions for intimacy, in their existing priority order, the more suitable he becomes for that intimacy and the harder she will compete with other women to achieve his long term commitment.

Pop-psychology would have us believe that women in their late 30’s to early 40’s are in their sexual prime. This may serve to increase the self-esteem of women finding themselves unable to command the male attention they did in their youth, but nothing could be further from the truth. While pre-menopausal women do in fact experience a spike in their testosterone levels and a resulting sex drive increase prior to the last of their eggs dropping, it is women between the ages of 18 and 26 that are in fact in their prime fertility stages. Women’s bodies in this age range are far better prepared for the rigors of pregnancy. At no other phase in her life is she more sexually active and most capable of commanding the attentions of the best male meeting her conditional criteria and in their most strict order. However these conditions are still mediated by her physical attractiveness – thus, if she’s fat her conditions (and their priority) will be adjusted accordingly – but she is nonetheless at her personal prime in this phase.

Unsurprisingly we see in most cultures older males striving for the attentions of the younger and more attractive females, but in western culture he becomes vilified and shamed for this – or at least that’s what western feminized women would like to be the case. The most common complaint women in their mid-thirties bemoan is that “There’s no good men” or they can’t understand why men just can’t “grow up” and find them more attractive than the young women they used to be themselves.

Increasingly, ‘careerist women’ desiring to finally start a family at age 35 find that men – particularly the ones that meet their conditions – in their age range (33-38) are not interested in women (to say nothing of ‘careerist women’) of their own age range. They’re interested in the 22 year olds who wouldn’t give them the time of day when they didn’t have the status (or maturity) that they’ve just discovered they now have. And of course the 35 year old career woman was one of these 22 year old girls, only 13 years prior, who was doing precisely the same thing the 22 year old girls are doing today.

But that doesn’t stop 30 something women from complaining about how men their age are ‘infantile’ for wanting to breed with ‘little girls’, rather than mature, intelligent, respectable career women such as themselves. They are incapable of conceiving why men ‘wont live up to their responsibilities’ and commit to a lifetime with them. They write article after article about how men are in fact threatened by their ‘successfulness’ or their ‘status’, when the simple fact remains that his breeding choices are dictated by one single condition – she’s got to be hot. Unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. The mid-thirties woman is (with a few notable exceptions) simply not as attractive as younger women.

So as an unspoken reaction to this predicament we get to see the popularity of the idea that “You can be 40 and still ‘have it'” among women. “Those men and their fragile egos just don’t know what they’re missing. How dare they be aroused by, and date younger more attractive women, we’ll show them”, they’d have them believe and pander to this dynamic while encouraging the fallacy that ‘men ought to be ashamed of their sexual impulse.

And finally we encounter the 40+ woman looking for what she couldn’t get in her 30s. Her priorities and conditions for intimacy have been altered radically now. At 40, the career woman has abandoned the idea of long term commitment; she may make up some sort of internalized blame for men not accepting her, but the truth comes that time has or is running out.

Perhaps she’s divorced, perhaps she’s a single mother, but at 40+ the importance becomes sex as empowerment for her. She still wants to know she’s ‘still got it’ and since none of the men of the age she’d like to be in an LTR with are biting she’ll be more than happy to get with a 22 year old ‘hunk’. They’re easy pickin’s since none of the girls their own age are interested in them.

They’re virile, young, dumb and full of cum. That’ll show those immature older men who don’t know how to commit! She’ll beat ’em at their own game. “Look at what I’ve got! A hot guy (relative, actually) who knows how to pleasure an older woman”; again shaming and insinuating older men’s sexual performance isn’t up to ‘women’s standards’. All conditions for intimacy and the priority orders she had before are out the window with the exception of physical attractiveness now, which, interestingly enough, has been a man’s only condition since he hit puberty. She’s come full circle, only now she makes an effort to enhance her appearance in the gym, with plastic surgery, Botox, breast augmentation, anything that will increase the attraction for young guys.

And of course the young guys are all too happy to ‘fill that hole’ (pun intended) since the effort required to get after it with the 40+ is practically nil and the rejection ratio is far lower. In addition most 22 year old guys know an LTR is more or less out of the question; they may be a booty call for her, but that’s an ideal situation for him, sex on demand with no expectation of any form of security for her. They like to make up reasonings like “she’s more experienced in bed” or “we’re both in our sexual primes”, but this just serves to justify him being a booty call, as if he’d have a problem with that.

The real irony of the whole situation is that 40+ woman is now doing exactly what she mercilessly criticized these ‘immature’, problematic 30-40 something men for doing. However, we don’t see any articles telling women to grow up, or to do the right thing or how infantile they are for sexually desiring younger men. On the contrary, they’re applauded for ‘bucking the system’ and embracing their sexual natures (as if they were formerly repressed) and “You go girl!” using isolated celebrity examples like Demi Moore fucking Ashton Kutcher as a role model.

The SMP After Marriage

For a long while I’ve been content to let bloggers like Athol Kay address sexual dynamics post-marriage (or LTR). I don’t think it’s any real secret that Married Man Sex Life has been more than compromised by a feminine-correct influence and the discussion is now directed by women’s imperatives there. This has been the forum’s state for some time now. So as such, I feel it’s kind of incumbent upon me to open myself up to addressing Red Pill issues within marriage (or LTRs) for the foreseeable future. This is just an avenue I’ll be opening up here, not a particular focus, don’t worry.

The following was a comment from YaReally in last week’s thread. I thought this more or less summed up the disconnect he believes exists between Old Married Guys (OMGs) and Young Single Guys (YSGs) who both have enough Red Pill awareness to want to employ it in their marriages as well as the plates they’re spinning as a PUA:

Keeping your 70yo wife attracted to you simply doesn’t come with the same obstacles modern men trying to keep a <25yo 8+/10 in 2016 attracted face. This is just objective reality. Again we’re happy for you and your wives that you find them attractive still, that’s awesome, but no one over at the RVF is posting your wives’ pics in the “post your idea of a 10” threads…they OBJECTIVELY have low SMV, and lower SMV than you super badasses as they age, and it’s simple logic that a a man keeping a low SMV woman is a different situation than a man keeping a high SMV woman.

This is an interesting paradox for OMGs, but I think it’s also not accounting for how sexual priorities and Frame shifts as a couple matures. The most glaring shift is of course maturing men’s SMV comparative to their wives’ will almost always be an order of magnitude above that of their wives’. As I laid out in Preventive Medicine, at this stage of maturity the task for wives becomes one of keeping that husband in the dark about his real SMV status; the concern being his sexual disinterest in her and him coming to a realization of his SMV and he leaves her for ‘younger, hotter, tighter’. Whether this is an actual threat is often inconsequential – unless that guy is so thoroughly Beta and ridiculous he’ll overtly acknowledge it – what occurs at this phase of a woman’s maturity is either a passive form of Dread or a feeling of regret for not having better optimized Hypergamy for herself so late in life.

Most men (i.e. Blue Pill Betas) never make this connection and blunder through their peak SMV years with a wife whose late-life competition anxiety sounds like nagging most of the time, or else it’s a possessive Frame grab with the latent purpose of keeping him focused on “her needs” rather than coming to understand he’s in the best position to capitalize on his SMV in his lifetime. This is actually part of the Blue Pill, feminine-correct plan for maintaining an optimal Hypergamy (or at least the impression of it) for women.

I’ve mentioned countless times on this blog that men’s peak SMV years are generally around the age of 34-38 depending upon how well he’s established himself in a variety of ways that contribute to it. As Red Pill awareness grows I (hopefully) expect more men will be able to capitalize on their moment of clarity as well as use this peak moment to enjoy and choose what’s best for themselves and their futures with regards to women. When men reach this peak it is generally a point at which women are also at their most necessitous (i.e. the Epiphany Phase). This simple matter of logistics also contributes to that man’s peak SMV in the form of making his commitment a valued commodity – presuming he’s built himself into that peak in the years prior to it.

My hope would be that men simply forestall any and all monogamous commitment until this phase, but for the men who find themselves in this peak phase while married, it is the most opportune time in which you can push the envelope with your wife from a Red Pill perspective. One grave error I think Athol Kay has made is in his “mindful attraction plan” – a feminized, feminine-correct watering down of his previous version’s attraction plan – his emphasis is to not go too overt or exaggerate a husbands SMV or make a Red Pill Alpha impression so threatening that it causes dread in his wife. I would argue that this is precisely what he needs to inculcate in his wife, and particularly if, up until this phase, she’s firmly dictated the Frame of their relationship since marriage.

I should add that this advice isn’t meant as some form of punishment or a big ‘get even’ with a man’s wife, but rather, a man pressing his SMV advantage at this point, to the point of instilling dread, will form a more solid attachment with his dominant Frame being the primary one – which is something his wife has likely craved for their marriage since the outset.

What YaReally (probably inadvertently) is revealing here is that women of lower SMV are far easier to attract and keep attracted than high (peak) SMV women. As women age that SMV advantage decreases, but the majority of men – and particularly married Beta men – still believe that their older wives and lower SMV women require the same or more attention to maintain that attraction.

Feminine-primary social conventions build this into a man’s Blue Pill conditioning so he believes that a marriage “always requires a lot of work” before and after he’s been married. This is why Athol’s Blue Pill advice of not overdoing the Alpha is so in error; it proceeds from the same sentiment that women need security during the part of a man’s life where he’s at his SMV peak and she’s at her most necessitous. A man’s “Burden of Performance” is then distorted by the Feminine Imperative to be defined as how well he will can quell his wife’s insecurities about him being in the best SMV status of his life.

Pop culture likes to call this effect “wife goggles”, but that’s a euphemism for how feminine-primary social conventions have conditioned men to feel a need to pander to their wife’s insecurity. In doing so they self-defeat any positive effect that this natural dread would benefit him and his relationship with his wife. If a man makes a conscious choice to limit himself in the phase of his life where he can best capitalize on his peak SMV this lifts the burden of a woman being the focus of him having to do so to make her feel secure.

And all of this has been about married men; feminine-primary social conventions have a whole set of social dictates intended to get a single man in this phase of life to willfully limit his own options. This is why we get shaming tactics and presumptions of ego-centrism for men in this demographic. This is why they’re called commit-o-phobes; because the hope is that these men will feel some measure of inappropriateness about their natural sexual impulses and choose an older women as a choice of mate. A woman who, again, is at her most necessitous and insecure about her future in the SMP or her long term prospectives.

The Something Else

workaholic

New commenter batfish55 had a stroke of genius in this weeks post.

 I do blow hours on my XBox, but even if modern graphics weren’t amazing and there was no XBox, I’d find something else.

This is exactly what male-feminist concern troll bloggers and ‘Man Up and Marry those Sluts’ Pastors refuse to understand because it completely fucks up their feminine-centric rationales and ham-fisted Beta AMOGing attempts to shame men for the disincentives that their ‘perfect women’ represent to men. The constant drone is how video games are to blame for paralyzing men’s maturation – a maturation that is always merited by how well he serves the Feminine Imperative.

What they refuse to acknowledge is: If it wasn’t X-Box it would be something else.

Countless guys do this already, because on some level of consciousness they get that the cost-to-benefit equation isn’t rewarding with women. As I wind my way through the third book, I’ve read through countless articles written by thoroughly feminized men, all shaking their heads over the reasons for the generation of “Lost Boys” who are so inured by the instant gratification of hi-res graphic video games and free online porn they have no incentive to ‘grow up’ and fulfill some nebulous form of manhood idealized by whatever shifting definition of masculinity their feminized minds think is relevant in that moment.

These hacks are so fundamentally locked into their ego-investment in blank-slate, gender-neutral equalism that it never registers for them that if it weren’t X-Box or widely available online porn it would be something else.

Thus, we have generations of Men in the Garage who feel some desperate need to claw out a tiny space where they’re free to be men in a home they own. These men need something else that’s just marginally rewarding set apart from their unrewarding spouse. And even in this attempt at Male Space, women feel entitled to insert themselves into it or do something compensatory.

Thus, we have married men who’d rather become “workaholics” and pour themselves into their careers rather than rush home to the minimal reward that his wife represents, the negligible appreciation for him as a man or, at best, his answering to the male indenturement that he was taught he should find intrinsically rewarding. Instead, work becomes his something else that he occupies himself with.

And thus, we have men who’ve bought into the feminine-primary conditioning that their highest sense of reward ought to be found in fulfilling the ideals of Fempowerment who instead find that women’s solipsism and their own, life-long approach to appeasing it has instead driven them to find that something else more intrinsically and/or extrinsically rewarding.

It’s not just “lost boys” staring at X-Box, smoking weed and snapping their radish to free porn, those are just young guys being pragmatic in solving the cost-to-reward equation women give them. But married men, men of all walks of life, are solving that equation for themselves now. They’re forced to solve an equation presented to them by women who feel entitled to having their Hypergamous natures optimized and appeased, with no insight as to how disposable men might adapt to their conditions.

These aren’t lost ‘boys’, they are mature, relatively accomplished men responding to their condition.

Men are deductive problem solvers. Our mental firmware will consciously or unconsciously make attempts to solve problems within the context of what we consciously or unconsciously have presented for us. Blue Pill conditioned bloggers, distraught over the ‘lost boys’, aren’t concerned with these guys’ making something of themselves. What they White Knight over is the lack of suitable husbands to join them in their own indenturement. That, or they fret over the possibility that their empowered daughters might not have a suitable Beta ready to marry her once she’s “found herself” at the end of the Epiphany Phase. They argue from the feminine-correct perspective they’ve only ever known. Complacency, like misery, loves company, especially when it confirms the rationales men use in their own denial.

These pearl-clutching Vichy men can’t see the disincentives of forming long-term monogamous bonds with women that their ‘drop out’ generation boys are just pragmatically avoiding. It is indeed a form of Soft MGTOW, but what’s harder for these manginas to acknowledge is the Soft MGTOW that’s been a part of modern marriage for four decades now.

As an aside here I should mention that a foundational tenet of the Red Pill is that a man must always put himself and his passions at the forefront of his life, or as Roissy put it, you shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority. The something else I’m detailing here may in fact be a man’s genuine passion, but his impetus to engage (or over-engage) in it comes as a result of a need for escapism rather than genuine fervor for it. This is an important distinction because what formerly was a dynamic passion for a man can turn into an unrewarding refuge if his perception of it becomes one of escaping his reality.

Market Reset?

Reader Kaminsky had a question in that same comment thread:

How do we incentivize them? (honest question, not loaded snark)

—Do we incentivize by withdrawing?

—Or by becoming yet better men?

I sought to answer this question in Spare the Rod, but I neglected to use the examples from my post Bachelor Nation in that one. This was the video I based the Bachelor Nation essay on.

I’d like to think of this as an example of the sexual market correcting itself, but when you listen to the self-important, solipsistic reasonings as to why these women believe the most desirable men ought to alter their own sexual strategies, change their minds, and rewire their arousal cues to accommodate sub-optimal women such as themselves, you begin to see why MGTOW, even soft MGTOW is a pragmatic response.

The logic of today goes something like this: Alphas change behavior, women respond and Betas follow along to women’s response.

I would argue that Alphas change behavior, women do or do not adapt, and then Betas follow the dictates of the sexual market. Whether you consider them Alpha or in some way marginally desirable by the women in this video these men have taken it upon themselves to find their something else.

In this video you have an example of men who both withdraw and make themselves better men (even if just by assuming some degree of control over their place in the SMP), but the attitude on the part of women isn’t, “Oh shit, we’d better make ourselves more acceptable mates for these desirable men or they’ll outsource us to Brazil.” Instead it’s the same entitled response we expect from women raised in a feminine-primary social order, “These men betterchange to accommodate us! It’s our game they need to play or they’ll be ass-out when they get older and lonely.” It’s this or else it’s some variation of “I make my own damn money” and they end up with the hapless Beta who would accommodate her because he too was raised to fall in line with feminine-primacy.

In all honesty I think correcting women has to begin at home. It needs to come from Red Pill fathers raising daughters from a Red Pill aware perspective. It’s got to come from a bottom up methodology, and quite honestly I don’t think that can happen until more men become Red Pill aware and accept their new role of mentoring the next generations as well as unplugging Blue Pill men today.

We have a generation of women today who are the products of fempowerment and ‘participation trophy’ equalism. That they’d EVER need to self-correct in order to have a better man in their lives is never an afterthought. Look at the women in this video, they are genuinely shocked that guys would be independent enough to save their money and take it upon themselves to look for romantic options outside of their ‘approved’ roles that ought to be in their lives. They literally don’t get it, so they fall back on male shaming and call them ‘sex tourists’ which is one degree away from ‘human trafficking’.

These women are the products of the oblivious entitlement that’s come from a feminine-primary social upbringing that’s taught them women can do anything and be anything. They’re taught to expect men to be compliant with their sexual strategies, but yet be their SMV equal-or-better without any qualifications on their part other than to have a vagina.

I believe the market can correct itself, but it must come from the bottom up and that starts by raising daughters and mentoring young women into more realistic self-understanding and more realistic expectations from themselves and others. I can hear the cries of “well good fuckin’ luck with that”, but at some stage Red Pill aware men will need to have the courage to go against the fempowerement zeitgeist. While encouraging boys to become girls is lauded in today’s world I also understand that encouraging girls to be even marginally realistic or to recognize the realities that their gender necessitates they be concerned with is this side of child abuse.

If women are to be corrected it’s going to need to begin with Red Pill fathers educating their daughters from an early age. If not, their daughters will find a generation of young men who are already looking for something else before she meets them.

Spare the Rod,…

spanking

Two weeks ago in A Woman’s Prerogative I explored the possible social changes that a male-controlled birth control might mean to our feminine-centric social order. I think it’s important to bear in mind that the primary reason something like Vasalgel would be in any way controversial is because we’re considering it from a social state where women are already allowed a unilateral control of birth, and by extension a virtually unilateral control over their Hypergamous choices. More importantly though is the fact the both women’s hormonal birth control and (prospectively) men’s Vasalgel birth control are both concealed forms of contraception. In other words there is always a certain degree of trust or an acknowledgement that a woman will faithfully take her pill, while a man’s word that he is or isn’t on Vasalgel would be the card he plays close to his chest.

I don’t want the discussion to be lost on the mechanics or the semantics of how Vasalgel would or wouldn’t change the intersexual landscape in this post. Rather, I think it’s important to keep in mind just how one-sided the process of Hypergamy is for women today. In all of the post-sexual revolution generations we simply take for granted things like sperm banks, safe and legal abortion, and unilaterally female-controlled birth control that is for all intents a trust-contract for men.

I use the term feminine-primary social order quite a bit in my essays. What I mean in this respect is that we tend to take women’s imperatives as the correct ones in virtually all arenas of westernized societies, and women’s benefits, real or imagined, will always come before any man’s imperatives are considered, if at all. The more we progress socially the more the feminine base of control becomes more evident. Case in point, we don’t really consider the gravity of women’s power in a concealed form of birth control in which women are the only arbiters and only they know the truth of until something like Vasalgel is invented to give men a similar degree of control.

All social mandates revolve around satisfying the insecurities and doubts inspired by women’s Hypergamy, or allaying fears and justifying the fears of having to live with the consequences that result from it.

I coined the term feminine-primary social order because there comes a lot of confusion with other terms like Gynocracy or Matriarchy, also not to be confused with Matrilinear. It’s important to delineate these ideas because Matriarchy implies a direct and overt form of social control while Gynocracy is a self-perpetuating form of indirect or covert social control enforced with the aid of both sexes but neither acknowledging the feminine-primary focus. Men aid in Gynocracy willingly because men (the majority Beta) see a deference to women as an expectation and a benefit to their own sexual strategy.

A feminine-primary social order is a manifestation of a Gynocentric pre-understanding on the part of both sexes, but neither sex considers, overtly, the power imbalance because common understanding is that women are always the victims of male oppression. This is a self-perpetuating status that will never be appeased because in so doing women lose a default form of power.

It’s ironic how, in an egalitarian perspective, women are supposed to be independent, rational free-agents right up until the consequences of their actions begin to impact their lives. Then it’s either men’s fault for their state, men are held accountable for those decisions and behaviors, or they are expected to forgive those consequences and solve the problems women created for themselves.

Self Improvement

One reason I don’t think Vasalgel will be legalized for mass consumption (or will eventually meet stiff legislative resistance) is because it puts a measure of Hypergamous control in the hands of men. We’ve already seen attempts to make ‘sex by deception’ equitable with rape. And we’ve already seen the legislation that makes even approaching a woman on the street equitable with a hate crime. My guess is that not disclosing a guy is on Vasalgel or he’s had a vasectomy could easily be construed as such too.

But what’s really at issue is the presumption of control a woman ought to have over men in this respect. There is no reason a woman would ever consider improving herself to be a more acceptable candidate for an LTR when it is all supply and no demand for her.

I touched on this dynamic in Sexy:

Show Up Naked, Bring Beer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the manosphere men are constantly working at self-improvement. For most, self-improvement is their only imperative. Not a day goes by that I don’t read some Red Pill guy talking about how he’s changed his life for the better with his new found Red Pill awareness. Of course, it’ll be argued that this is for our own benefit apart from what women would like as the better of him. Be that what it is, that improvement still raises his SMV and still improves his prospects even its a ‘peripheral’ reward to him.

At present there is no need for women to be anything more than arousing and sexually available. There are no ‘femospheres’ dedicated to women’s self-improvement that parallel that of men’s. Even “Red Pill Women’s” forums would be hard pressed to explain how they planned to improve their selves.

Women no longer have any real incentive to dedicate themselves to self-improvement, to seduction or to embracing femininity for a prospective man. This harkens back to my post Crisis of Motive, why do you do what you do? However, what motivation does even an average woman (HB5-6) have to learn to cook, clean or make a home today? Even when women do, it’s never for men. The criticism is always not wanting to be a man’s mother and this is an interesting feminist oxymoron – literally any act of domesticity is construed not just as servitude on the part of a woman, but the necessity of it on the part of a man, or for men, reinforces the idea that men are all innately children in need of mommy’s services.

Correcting Women

In the last post I mentioned a need for ‘correction’ on the part of women. Naturally, the binary reflex response for some was to presume I meant that some kind of scolding or shaming was due on the part of men. And, of course, the images of men and husbands talking down to women like errant children was the predictable impression.

I think it needs to be said that correcting women needn’t be some in-her-face directly overt affair. It may be as simple as deciding for oneself what a man deems unacceptable behavior from women and voting with their dicks and their wallets. As Red Pill awareness spreads and men become more sensitive to seeing the truths inherent of today’s women there should also come a new pragmatism in men’s dealing with women. Correcting women will always be far more effective when it’s indirect. As I said, women will not learn so long as there is a feminine-primary social infrastructure that absolves them of any accountability. And if a man so much as offers his take on why a woman is in the shape she is or he’s bold enough to tell a woman how to avoid the pitfalls she’s likely to fall into he’s accused of misogyny and being a “monster” for daring to attempt to correct her.

In fact, this correction will likely be something Red Pill men won’t even consider as ‘correction’; it will simply make sense not to bother with women whose character has been molded by feminist influences or whose egos have exceed all sensibility in contrast with her sexual market value. And it will be women who actually inspire this new pragmatism of correcting women.

As open, overt, Hypergamy is more widely embraced by women, as the duplicity of their sexual strategy becomes something women triumphantly use in popular media and culture the more unignorable, that hubris, that raw deal, becomes evident to even the most Blue Pill of men. Mix in a degree of real, unilateral control for men – such as Vasalgel or its like would – and you put women into an uncomfortable and unfamiliar need to actually have to develop some sort of ‘value-added‘ to their characters.

I remember laughing at a Leykis 101 rule where Tom said something like if a woman you’re on a date with insists on looking at her phone or takes a call or is texting you should casually excuse yourself and leave her there to pick up the tab.

I used to think that was harsh, but I understand the sentiment that makes it necessary today. Women can’t learn what men wont teach them. Now, I get that women have Beta chumps on speed-dial ready to console them right after you do something similar, but it’s that drastic experience that’s needed to send a message. If you were Alpha enough to make an impression on her she’ll understand she fucked up. I’ve always advised men that if they know they’re heading for a breakup they need to be the initiators of it. It’s far better to leave her with the impression that the Frame was always in your terms.

I wish I could say that women will eventually learn from their mistakes, but women’s innate nature of solipsism combined with a social order that never holds them accountable and constantly reinforces their ‘correctness‘ in spite of it keeps them perpetually indignant to any insight a man might offer to them. One more reason a woman should only ever be a complement to a man’s life, never the focus of it.

When you combine women’s opportunistic concept of love with a society that never holds them accountable for the ramifications of it, no matter who it impacts, you get generations of women who are simply not worth anything to men beyond sex.

What we’re experiencing is the end result of a blank-slate egalitarian social order; you reduce human interaction to the lowest acceptable transaction. It will be interesting to see how something like Vasalgel will shift this condition by putting the choice of birth in the control of men. I get that Betas will always be available to breed, but women aren’t hardwired to be aroused/attracted to Betas. The onus of shifting their behavior in order to optimize Hypergamy will be on women if they want to consolidate on it with a better-than-deserved man with a higher SMV that her.

Women need the correction of men. How this correction is implemented is really what’s at issue. Being the apex male in a woman’s life as a means to initiating this correction is the first step. Dread can cause a women to self-correct of her own volition, but Dread is only effective if a man has real appreciable value to a woman.

Women will actually need to correct themselves to access the men aware of their Game, who demonstrate higher SMV, and have that guy actually be interested in her for more than a fuck – a fuck he wont need to worry about getting her pregnant with. Women have reduced themselves to sexual commodities and the only means to improving that state is to put a real, actionable, degree of control into the hands of men. At present, men have nothing to barter with beyond their own SMV and their hard won resources.

All that said, men must be prepared to walk at the first signs that he isn’t a woman’s first priority. The correction comes from a woman learning the value of a man the hard way. Demonstrate, do not explicate. You correct a woman by fucking her best friend. You correct a woman by putting all her shit out on the curb when she cheats on you. You correct a woman by being a man so valuable to here that she wants to comply with your rules. You correct a woman by being so valuable to her Dread is an ambient passive dynamic for her. You correct a woman by being aware of Alpha and Beta tells and acting according to the message her medium is telling you.

Women are never expected to shoulder consequences of their actions and as such they have no incentive for introspection or correction. There’s a social infrastructure that’s been established and revised for centuries that expressly excuses women from the consequences of their behaviors and ideologies. Women need correction, but they only learn it from the ramifications of their actions when men enforce it by their non-participation, non-cooperation with women’s ‘correctness’ or by women’s loss.

Stalling for Time

stalled

I was made aware of a trio of rather noteworthy stories last week all of which I found dovetail nicely on topic together. The first was Tweeted to me about the new advent of artificial ovaries and how overjoyed our feminine-concerned social order was that ‘infertile‘ women might have a better chance of conception. The report’s subtitled perspective was, ostensibly, about how making a synthetic home for a woman’s egg-producing follicles could improve fertility after chemotherapy and help women with endometriosis conceive:

Women can become infertile after cancer treatment as the ovaries and the egg-making follicles they contain are vulnerable to chemotherapy, especially for leukaemias, brain cancers and lymphomas. Removing and freezing ovarian tissue beforehand to reimplant after treatment can help women conceive, but there is a risk that this tissue will reintroduce hidden cancer cells.

Call me a cynic, but I think if a woman’s had a cancer serious enough to warrant chemotherapy I’m not sure her capacity to conceive a child is really her most important concern. A noble reasoning to be sure, but another paragraph down and we get to the real reason for the excitement:

“It may be used by women who want to delay having babies or postpone the menopause“

The method could benefit other women, too. “When fully developed, this technology may be used in women who want to delay having babies for social reasons, or who want to postpone the menopause,” says Claus Andersen at the University Hospital of Copenhagen, Denmark.

Ah yes, the Holy Grail of bioengineered gender equalism – a safe and effective means of perpetuating a woman’s fertility well beyond all reason and concern for healthy parenting would otherwise mandate. Nowhere is it mentioned, or are we to politely consider, that women’s real reasons for wanting a safe way to extend their fertility has less to do with ‘infertility’ concerns and a lot more to do with their difficulties in optimizing Hypergamy.

Earlier this year I wrote an essay entitled Assurances in which I argue that women will demand that society and science accommodate and insure their indefinite fertility while they sort out why it is they can’t seem to find the right (and Hypergamously cooperative) guy with which to start a family. I began that article by outlining the recent worker’s benefit of ‘egg freezing’ some larger companies were offering in order to entice (executive level) women to work for them – women, we are meant to presume, are so absorbed by their careers that they need to dedicate their most fertile years to their professional aspirations. All in order to stay on an equal footing with hyper-competitive men of course:

The latent purpose of developing technology to freeze a woman’s eggs, for instance, is to cheat (or give the impression of being able to cheat) the otherwise natural process of fertility that women are beholden to.

The latent purpose of every pop-cultural trend that contributes to the perception that women can realistically exceed the window of their fertility is offered as an assurance that women have more time than would be naturalistically expected to optimize Hypergamy.

Ostensibly, the message for women is the cliché of ‘having it all’ – reassuring women that they can have a rewarding career and make a significant difference in their lives and the lives of others as well as realistically having a meaningful family experience later in life. The unspoken hindbrain message is that a woman has more time to optimize Hypergamy.

I took a lot of criticism for being so presumptuous in that assertion. How dare I suggest that professional women didn’t deserve to be afforded the same opportunities men, who peak in their own SMV well after women’s prime fertility years have passed, had in life, career, and family. The thoroughly modern women of today weren’t forestalling pregnancy because of any personal misgivings or difficulties in attracting Mr. Right, these women needed to freeze their eggs to have more time to develop their careers, don’t you know.

The Real Reason Women are Freezing their Eggs

Turns out, not so much. Actually not at all,…

They are often portrayed as hard-hearted individuals who are putting motherhood on hold in order to climb the career ladder.

But women who freeze their eggs are actually waiting for a man who is perfect father material to come along.

Researcher Kylie Baldwin, who asked a group of women why they froze their eggs, said: ‘I think they were looking for a hands-on father.

‘And it was the absence of this particular type of potential father, not just the absence of any partner, that led them to freeze the eggs.

‘It’s not just about not having the right partner, it’s about having the right dad for their child.’

Interestingly, some of the women were in a relationships – but froze their eggs because they didn’t believe their partner was father material and were hoping someone better would come along.

I should add a side note here and point out the importance these women place having “the right dad for their child.” It’s so important that they’d expect a scientific miracle to give them enough time to find this very important father. However, I’d encourage my readers to compare and contrast this to the complete lack of importance men are expected to place on their own roles as the biological father of a child with regard to raising a child that is not his own. You see, while a woman will freeze her eggs in order to find the perfect hands-on Dad to breed with, men are told that even when a child is not his own he shouldn’t concern himself with his own self-importance in breeding or raising that kid.

This study was an interesting confirmation of the assertions I’d made in Assurances – Women want an assurance of Hypergamous optimization. Egg freezing isn’t about medical concerns or even professional sacrifices; egg freezing is about Hypergamy and women’s increasingly diminished ability to satisfy it later and later in life. In the manosphere and in my book Preventive Medicine there’s an understanding that women’s Party Years, the years she rides the “cock carousel”, are dedicated to the pursuit of Alpha Fucks – her prime directive is generally focused on a short term breeding strategy. Women’s entitlement extends to the point now that they demand science extend this period and assure them they will have ample time to complete their quest for Beta Bucks, motherhood, provisioning and parental investments indefinitely, or at least as long as men might be able to live up to their peak SMV qualifications.

The women were predominately middle-class and highly educated and were aged 38, on average, when they had their eggs frozen.

Mrs Baldwin, a sociologist, said: ‘I asked them about what their motivations were and I would say none of the women underwent the procedure for career reasons.

‘Instead, it was very often down to their perception that it was not yet the right time for them to be pursuing motherhood for one reason or another.’

And, as you might expect, what article about women’s struggle in finding the right guy would be complete without shaming men for their reluctance to participate in playing the roles the Feminine Imperative demands they play in order to fulfill women’s sexual strategies?

The comments about men’s reluctance to commit echo some made by one of Britain’s leading fertility doctors earlier this year.

Professor Adam Balen, chairman of the British Fertility Society, said: ‘There is a notion that young men are not committed to relationships in the way they have been in the past.

‘Childhood for some men is being extended into 20s and 30s when they’re not committing to a relationship.’

Again, it’s childish men’s fault that women have been brought to egg freezing science. This then brings us full circle to NPR’s recent story about economists “puzzlement” over why men are leaving the workforce in droves.

“I wasn’t going to go back to work. It was almost going to just be a nice transition into retirement for me — a very early retirement. I mean, I’m only 36 years old,” he says.

And if he does go back to work, he worries about the prospects.

“Things move really, really, really quick [in IT], and I’m worried that if we can’t make it work, that I’m going to go looking for a job and they’re going to say two years out of it, ‘Sorry, brother, you don’t have what it takes to work here anymore,’ ” Rekkedal says.

Tara Sinclair, chief economist for job-search site Indeed.com, says brawny jobs are being replaced by brainy ones, and that trend doesn’t favor men.

How’s that for an interesting social cycle?

There’s a common refrain you read in both the femosphere as well as religious bloggers about the state of extended adolescence they believe men are extending today. I even wrote about this ridiculous impression of men’s clinging to juvenility in Are You Experienced.

Men forestalling their “adulthood” – a characterization that is entirely dependent on how well a man aligns with women’s imperatives – by dropping out, or otherwise not preparing to be a potential provider for a family a woman deems is at last necessary to her, are considered ‘kidults’ or extending their adolescent years. Professor Adam Balen in the egg freezing article says men are extending “childhood” into their 20s and 30s.

Ironically, you’ll find the most ardent critics of extended adolescence in the writings of Man-up-and-marry-those-sluts religious male bloggers intent on virtue signaling their acceptability to women who will benefit most from their ‘manning up’ and overlooking their Party Years indiscretions.

On the other hand, women wishing to forestall motherhood – a characterization which used to imply a woman’s entrance into adulthood – are never characterized as “extending their childhood.” Women who opt to delay marriage can always fall back on the unacceptability of ‘most men these days’ to excuse their own extension, or they are “focusing on their career.” Women can never be cast in any way other than Strong and Independent®. In fact, this is the first, default presumption we make about a never-married or never-mothered woman.

The Daily Mail article about the truths of women’s reasoning for freezing their eggs puts the lie to this presumption. Women’s latent purpose in egg freezing is to extend fertility until their ideal Alpha man arrives in their lives.

Then, of course the blame become circular on men – men not accepting the role that open Hypergamy expects them to already be aware of and accept wholesale makes him guilty of extending his childhood. Women then blame their spinsterhood on a lack of acceptable ‘adult’ men.

There is never any incentive for personal insight on the part of women, not even when she’s far past her reasonably fertile years, to say nothing of her capacity to intersexually compete with her sisters for those acceptable men. Nowhere is there an afterthought that acceptable men would actively avoid her or find her unacceptable for his own long term investment.

Advancing Gender Dynamics

Finally, we need to add to this the obscene amounts of on-tap social validation women enjoy today. I’m not the first author to recognize or write about this, but there is a very real psychological dynamic that humans in this era have had to deal with which no other previous generations had to consider. Our capacity for technological advancement has progressed so quickly over the past century (and 16 years) that human beings are scarcely capable of understanding what these advancements imply to us as a society and largely as a species.

One reason I believe evolutionary psychology will always have a place in the manosphere and Red Pill discussion is because it aids us in understanding how our minds have evolved and what we can expect from ourselves, or cultures our intersexual dynamics in the context of how we’re experiencing these technological advancements. I had a reader tell me once about how appalled his grandmother was at the idea of a sperm bank when they first appeared. Today it’s part of the scenery, but when they appeared it was scandalous to the mindset of that era’s acculturation. Fast forward from the 1960s to now; in just over half a century think of the tech advancements we have with us today that we take for granted, but our grandparents would marvel over. Now think about how those advancements are interpreted by our hindbrains in so short a time.

Communications technologies, and now a social media explosion, affect our very plastic, yet feral hindbrains in ways that our new globalizing culture can’t keep pace with. I bring this up, because it’s important to consider how women’s feral selves are affected by an instantaneous attention and affirmation that previous generations of women craved, but never dreamed of having this kind of facility with.

As the conversation is won’t to do on this blog’s comment threads, the topic du jour picked up on the merits, or lack thereof, of monogamy vs. legal marriage vs. pLTRs (primary long term relationships or ‘plural’ long term relationships as the term fits). I’ll be addressing this in the next post, but I’ll foreshadow a bit with this; sifting through one of his usually long comments, this bit from YaReally stuck with me (emphasis mine):

“But even if your Game is as tight as YaReally’s, try interesting a modern young chick in commitment. Go ahead. You’ll be in for a shock. A woman in her prime years is so high on a never ending validation train that she’s sure it will never end. Why should she commit? There’s no incentive to do so. She always branch swings to better, and better is always available before she’s even tired of what she’s got.”

You hear them say “I wouldn’t give up my social media for that dream guy”, but you don’t hear why they won’t. The “why” is what we’re up against. They are conditioned to think they will never hit the wall, Amy Schumer at 45 gets the rich doctor in the end, they have endless offers of commitment and monkey branch higher and higher up the tree in their prime.

I have fuckbuddies who’ve disqualified high status guys. and rich jacked 6-pack dudes for like one or two errors. My favorite was one who disqualified a guy because the area of medicine he picked to specialize in wasn’t EXCITING ENOUGH. So she interpreted that as him not having enough ambition. She turned him down for such a silly reason. But why wouldn’t she? She has dates lined up anytime she wants with guys as high value or higher than him around the block whenever she wants. If she takes care of herself the attention train won’t stop till 35+. Why would she want to limit her Hypergamous options by settling in her early 20s?

That’s why those girls look at you funny when you suggest giving up social media. They can’t comprehend any reason TO. It doesn’t compute.

In a globalizing culture where both science and social order is predicated on the satisfaction of women’s imperatives, why indeed would any woman believe she isn’t entitled to it all? Both technology and social reengineering have placed women into a position where their hindbrains cannot hope to interpret the experiences they afford, much less have the attention span necessary for the insight to process how they should best cope with changes they’re scarcely aware of or take for granted.

This post is the first in a series detailing the contrast between how our evolved biological natures conflict and cope with the changes our rapid advancement demands of us, and how our intersexual and social relations are changing as a result of it.

The Key Masters

keymaster

In last week’s comments Not Born This Morning dropped this comment in the last thread:

It has been said and it seems fairly well established as a presumed reality that “Women are the gate keepers to sex and men are the gate keepers to commitment”. This model of gender specific “gatekeeping” seems to be the most widely accepted model in the red pill community and the general culture accepts it readily. This model seems rational enough, it significantly forms our frame of understanding about gender dynamics upon which we base our interpretations of behavior & intents, and our decisions to act. But is it the best model to explain what is really going on? Could this model be inferior in that it fails to account for an underlying more fundamental motivator? Is there a more accurate explanation for women’s intents and behaviors? Could this model be potentially deceptive?

The sex side of this model is simple and easy to understand. It is very clear and specific to the fundamental biologic. It is inarguable, not negotiable. The primary drive motivating the sexual aspect is not political or social. It is biological. This is not the case with the commitment side. The commitment side is primary to the political and social realm. “Commitments” are always components of contracts written or otherwise.

To comprehend what I’m about to explain, we must first agree on the primary definition of commitment. As I understand it, a commitment is a pledge to do something, a proclamation to perform certain action (or inaction) within a specific context for the benefit of another usually in exchange for some consideration. In the sexual context women seek “commitment” from a man primarily for provisioning and sexual exclusivity. The man “commits” to the woman that he will abandon his freedom and not enter into sexual relations with other women. He pledges himself financially and sexually to her exclusively. Realistically, this form of “commitment” includes the man abandoning his options. If he becomes sexually involved with another woman, it is widely considered that he has “broken his commitment” and he is dishonored by her and society for “breaking the commitment”. But, has he really broken any commitment other than a self denigrating pledge to forgo his freedom and abandon his options? Since obviously the male imperative is polygamy and spreading his seed, then isn’t the imposition to “commit” in the first place really a dishonor of his sexuality and a dishonor to him? If so, isn’t “commitment” in this context nothing more than a form of enslavement?

So by saying men are the “gate keepers of commitment” aren’t we really saying that men are the “gatekeepers of their own enslavement”?

I’ve read this line of thought from various MGTOW hardliners in various iterations and I’ve even written a post on the concept of commitment  and what it does or doesn’t mean to a man. The idea is to equate committing to a woman with some irrational agreement to self-induced slavery. However, the problem most men have with commitment is that the old set of books has a social mandate for men to keep their word or honor an agreement. It’s what men do. Say what you mean and stick to it, but as with most every uniquely male custom, Honor among men has been one more useful distortion of the Feminine Imperative.

As I mentioned in the Paradox of Commitment, men don’t have nearly the fear of commitment our feminized social order would have us believe. Men aren’t “commit-o-phones” when it comes to military service or dedicating themselves to a business. These are the areas the women’s magazines conveniently overlook when it comes to comparing men’s commitment with committing to women in monogamy. I’m bringing this up because it’s important to see how men commit to things other than fidelity to a single woman.

If we’re going to equate monogamous fidelity to a woman with slavery we also need to see how other commitments can be viewed as being, or not being, slavery. Is the commitment of military service slavery? Particularly if you know have a pretty good idea of what to expect from that commitment? Are you volunteering for slavery if you start a business and become financially beholden to it?

From  the Paradox of Commitment:

You can even take marriage out of the equation; if I’m in a committed LTR with a GF and over the course of that relationship I realize that she’s not what I’m looking for (for any number of reasons, not just sex), even though she’s 100% faithfully committed to me and the LTR, should I then break that commitment? If I do, am I then being unethical for having broken that commitment irrespective of how I break it? Should the commitment to my own personal well being and future happiness be compromised by another commitment?

What’s my obligation; neglect myself in favor of a bad commitment or to the principle of commitment itself?

It’s my take that commitment ‘should’ be a function of genuine desire. Ideally, commitment should be to something one is so passionate about that the limiting of one’s own future opportunities that come from that commitment is an equitable, and mutually appreciated trade. This is, unfortunately, rarely the case for most people in any form of commitment because people, circumstance, opportunity and conditions are always in flux. A commitment that had been seen as equitable sacrifice at one time can become debilitating 5 years after it depending upon circumstance.

Under the old social contract, the idea that a man would compromise his sexual strategy to fulfill a woman’s (Hypergamy in the long term) had a presumed exchange – sexual access, parental investment, companionship, a good, supportive feminine role example for the kids, etc. – that made the commitment of marriage at least somewhat appealing, if not entirely equitable. I supposed a case could still be made that even under the old order of conventional gender roles and expectations men were still committing themselves to a downside bargain. But in our new, feminine-primary social order, with our broader communication, it’s certainly signing up for slavery of a sort in comparison to the options available being single.

A lot of guys think that by my advising men to spin plates and remain as non-exclusive as possible that its sole purpose is to free them up to indiscriminately bang as many women as possible. While sexual variety maybe an upside to non-exclusivity, there are many more freedoms and options that a non-exclusive man can invest himself in where committed men cannot, or wouldn’t even think to.

So yes, from a male sexual strategy perspective, and considering the terms of that commitment and consequences of breaking it are all glaringly apparent, signing up for that commitment might be assigning yourself to a kind of slavery. Under our present social conditions, staying single might be as good as it gets for men.

However, that said, there is still an undeniable, idealistic, hope that men can make the best of a marriage. Most men (see the 80% Beta men) still remarry in far greater margins than women, even after horrific divorces. We can attribute that to the sustainability of men’s sexual market value lasting longer than women’s, but the desire to want for a lasting monogamy is what I’m getting at. Even in light of the fact that women are hardwired for Hypergamy, and in light of women’s inability to appreciate the sacrifices men must make to facilitate their realities, men still, sooner or later, have a desire to lock down or otherwise wife-up a woman he idealizes. I have read the testimonies of men who will go to any length to stay in a marriage if even the outside hope of it improving exists.

I think this desire might be both a conditional and innate drive in men.

In Mrs. Hyde I quoted a study by Dr. Martie Haselton from Why is muscularity sexy? :

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

It’s entirely possible that a man’s sexual strategy is the simple result of his adapting to his circumstance.

Under the old social order, prior to the upheaval of the sexual revolution and feminine social primacy, investing heavily in one’s mate made good sense if the guy wanted to procreate. As men, I think we still want to apply more value to our commitment in this respect. I think it gets back to the fallacy of relational equity, but because most Blue Pill men believe that there is value in their committing to a woman, and they falsely think that women have the capacity to appreciate it, we tend to build more into it as some kind of mutually understood relationship leverage.

Gatekeepers

Back before Roosh began making his necessities into virtues, he had a pretty good insight about women being “gatekeepers” of both sex and commitment:

A popular manosphere saying is that women are gatekeepers to sex and men are gatekeepers to commitment. I wish this was an absolute truth, but it’s not. As a collective, women are often gatekeepers to both sex and commitment. Most men reading right now can surely attest to their failed attempts to secure commitment from women they slept with, and if you poll the entire population of men, you may find that they are the initiators of monogamous relationships more often than women. It only makes sense for this to be true: it is way more damaging for a man to have his woman sleep with another man and get cuckolded than the other way around. The 0.5% of the population who are skilled players and have more say with commitment don’t put a dent into this common reality. As a sex, men have very little say in determining the relationship dynamic.

[…]It would be a nice fantasy for us men to believe that we have a say in relationships and sex. It’d be nice to think that our “alpha” behavior and our game determines how a relationship can proceed, but often it doesn’t. We’re just giving the girl what she has already decided on. Do you really think you’re selling televisions to customers who came into the store with the intent to buy bicycles? The girl who falls in love with us wanted to fall in love with us, the girl who had fun with us wanted to just have fun with us, and so on. And even when a girl wants a bicycle, she still wants a certain kind of bicycle. This is why game is a numbers game, because girls are incredibly picky even when they are sexually available. The horniest girl in the club who decided on having sex will still have her pick of the litter and opt to get the best that she can.

From the perspective of men using Game to secure some kind of commitment with a woman, I’d agree, it is a numbers game. But, in general, most men aren’t learning PUA/Game to settle into an LTR and most Red Pill aware men (should) understand the nature of women well enough to leverage Game if (ever) they do look for commitment.

Roosh was correct about men not really being gatekeepers of commitment though. I think there’s a definite want on the part of guys to believe that they have some sort of leverage in the ultimate scheme of things. The Feminine Imperative constantly conditions men to think that their commitment to a woman is something insanely valuable to women. Thus, we see shaming tactics designed to call men out for avoiding commitment irrespective of men’s reasons for wanting to take precautions. This has the effect of conditioning men to think that they are the gatekeepers of something valuable.

In a sense, commitment is something valuable to a woman, however, in the age of Open Hypergamy and Strong Independent Women®, the writing is on the wall for men with regard to the convenient need for that commitment at the end-game phase of a woman’s sexual market value. So yes, a man’s commitment to monogamy with a woman has inherent value, but men are hardly the gatekeepers of it when it is a woman who does the deciding as to whether any one guy’s commitment makes any difference to her.

So, we come to a question of comparative equity with regard to men “signing up for slavery” and how inherently valuable his commitment (as convenient as it’s needed) really is to a woman. I have no doubt there are several women reading this right now who are in “relationship limbo” with a guy they desperately want to commit to them in some official capacity. And no doubt they’ll drop a story in the comments personalizing it to be typical of men, but I would argue Roosh’s point that men are the initiators of monogamous relationships far more often than women. Ironically, commitment only has value to a woman when it’s denied to her by a man who’s SMV outclasses her own.

For obvious reasons, highly desirable women, women at the peak of their sexual market valuation, are always the least concerned with men’s capacity to commit. They largely have the luxury to be selective, but furthermore the time at which women are at their highest SMV is usually the point at which men are still building upon their own. Eventually, commitment only has an appreciable value to a woman when she is most in need of it; when her SMV is in decline.

I should also point out that men, the majority being Blue Pill Betas, are the most necessitous of a woman’s commitment when she is at her highest, his is an unproven commodity, and he appreciates the value of a woman’s commitment. Thus, most men look for a stable monogamy in their early to mid 20s, while more mature men who’ve had time to build their SMV into their mid to late thirties tend to be less concerned with monogamy. This is why we hear the constant drone of women bemoaning that highly valuable, supposedly peer-equitable men’s unwillingness to commit and settle down with women aging out of the sexual marketplace. Women are far less concerned with the commitment-readiness of young, unproven men who themselves would commit to even a women in the mid-range of her SMV.

At the end here, I think it’s time Red Pill men disabuse themselves of the idea that they are the ‘gatekeepers’ of commitment, and rather employ their internalized Red Pill awareness and Game to be the ‘key masters’ of women. While I have no doubt that commitment can be a carrot on the stick for some women, the problem really lies in how that commitment is in anyway valuable and balance that knowledge with the fact that commitment, once given, becomes valueless and taken for granted when it’s established. The fact that you’d commit to a woman isn’t something that carries a relationship, no matter how badly she wanted it from you before.

There really is no quid pro quo when it comes to commitment or value in believing you’re a gatekeeper of it.

Law 20
Do Not Commit to Anyone

It is the fool who always rushes to take sides. Do not commit to any side or cause but yourself. By maintaining your independence, you become the master of others – playing people against one another, making them pursue you.

Sugar Babies

prettywhitegirl

Whenever I use a manosphere acronym I’m always torn between presuming my readers will already know the terminology and need to re-explain a concept that the letters represent to new readers. We use a lot of acronyms and placeholder terms in the ‘sphere. These are necessary, but when you apply needed terms to abstractions and unfamiliar ideas critics will always fill the blanks in for themselves by telling you what you think you mean according to their preconceptions.

Next to the (abstract) terms of ‘Alpha’ and ‘Beta’, SMP and SMV are two of the more contentious placeholders for manosphere concepts. SMP is Sexual Marketplace and SMV is used to represent the relative Sexual Market Value of an individual within that SMP. There’s a lot to consider when when we attempt to define just what that ‘marketplace’ entails, but the point of contention for critics is that by valuating a person based on a perceived market state we dehumanize that individual. For those uninitiated to Red Pill concepts, a complete denial of any sexual marketplace is usually the first retort.

People are People and everyone is special” or some variation of the nebulous individual’s uniqueness needing to be held as the benchmark for each case of ‘value’ are the common refrains. Even denying an observable, measurable marketplace altogether for fear of being ‘judgemental’ is part of the Red Pill critic’s predictable counter to the idea of a sexual marketplace.

However, the latent purpose of this denial is really a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ tactic that keeps players ignorant of the system they exist in. Just as with the 49th Law of Power, deny the game exists and you can better play it.

As with all Red Pill truths, the awareness of where one fits into the scheme of the SMP, and accepting the sometimes cruel realities of it can be a bucket of cold reality for men (and women). The simple truth is that our capacity to valuate various stimuli in our environment has been a survival-beneficial adaptation for us.

We commodify a lot of our personal lives these days. We simply don’t have a problem accepting the easier aspects of this. ‘Time is money” is quick aphorism we apply to a lot of situation for ourselves. When a woman does the breakdown of all her ‘unpaid’ housework or childcare for an article in Forbes she’s lauded for commodifying and valuating that work. But let a man commodify women based on their general sexual appeal and utility to his sexual strategy and he’s dehumanizing and objectifying women.

If you’re interested in further reading about how we apply market principles to various aspects of our lives I’d suggest the book Life Inc. by Doug Rushkoff. It’s a great read, particularly the ideas about how we view buying a house as an investment rather than a place to live. I bring this up here because it’s a similar dynamic to how women invest themselves with men in the long term and the short term according to Hypergamous necessity. Women’s Hypergamy largely defines the modern sexual marketplace.

The Benefits of Opportunism

Women love opportunistically, men love idealistically. I’ve written several essays about how Hypergamy predisposes (often subconsciously) women to sexual opportunism, and men’s concept of love is rooted in idealism. I won’t belabor summing up these dynamics today, but if you want to review them you can read through the Love series of posts, and male idealism can be found here.

In 2016, the modern dating landscape, as well as contemporary marriage, has become varying degrees of ‘sex work’. I went into this topic a year and a half ago in Commodifying Love. This post was mostly meant to elaborate on another post Dalrock had written observing the utility feminist had with being miserly with love. I sought to explore it a bit further:

As Open Hypergamy becomes more proudly embraced and normalized in society, so too will women’s sexual strategy be laid more bare. And in laying that strategy bare, so too will women’s opportunistic model of love become more apparent to men. This new apparentness is already conflicting with the old-order messaging that kept men hopeful of realizing their idealistic love state.

Women cannot sell Open Hypergamy and the love-conquers-all ethereal ideal love at the same time.

I daresay this quote was a good bit of foreshadowing. One aspect of having a Red Pill lens is that it allows you to see the writing on the wall in so many ways with regard to intersexual dynamics and how they influence societal shifts. When I proposed that men and women’s concepts of love differ, and that much of the disconnect between the sexes is the result of the fact that we don’t share a mutual point of origin for that love, Blue Pill people got upset.

Women’s concept of love originates in an opportunism stemming from a subconscious need to optimize Hypergamy. To this day I still get angry comments from women for having used the word “opportunism”. Naturally, there’s a negative connotation to opportunism, but I use it in this context to describe a function in women’s sexual strategy. I could’ve used the term ‘practical’ or ‘pragmatic’, but often enough what inspires women’s need to optimize Hypergamy is anything but practical or pragmatic.

Everyone needs to realize that men are the “romantics pretending to be realists” and women; vice versa.

This week I received more than a few requests to give my take on the latest trend in women’s sexual opportunism. This comes courtesy of Vanity Fair and their exposé of the Sugar Babies/Sugar Daddies “dating” dynamic that’s become part of The New Prostitution Economy. Have a read of the whole article, but the short version is a breakdown of how women (all in their SMV peak years) look for “arrangements” with generous men eager to fund their lifestyles or (ostensibly) their education goals. In exchange, these men get the privilege of ‘dating’ if not fucking these women who would otherwise be out of whatever league they ascribe themselves to.

sugarbabies_2

I have a real love-hate relationship with articles like this. It’s far too easy to pile on and get wrapped up in the salaciousness and outrage dynamic – which is really what the article is written to prompt. But at the risk of writing an article about how “horrible women are/becoming” I think this trend is really the next logical extension of what I was describing in Commodifying Love a year and a half ago.

Yes, it’s just prostitution by another name. Yes, there is a pop-culture effort to normalize what would otherwise be a manipulative exploitation of men – but who cares, right? If poor Beta saps have the money, it’s only pragmatic that women legitimize the ‘pay-to-play’ model while they can capitalize on it in their prime years, right? And yes, the feminist narrative will simultaneously vilify the men resorting to being a “Sugar Daddy” while applauding the empowered women who play the game as well as they do.

Sarcasm aside, what’s underneath this dynamic is a graphic illustration of just how women’s opportunism looks when the stigma of keeping Hypergamy concealed from men is now brought into the light and proudly embraced in a feminine-centric social order. The social effort to normalize Open Hypergamy takes another step forward when women’s effective prostitution becomes indistinguishable from ‘normal’ dating – that is dating based on common attraction or interest.

The ‘date’-as-investment-opportunity becomes inseparable from women’s opportunistic concept of, and approach towards, love. Commodifying love and sex blurs the line between what is genuine desire and what is motivated interest. The conventional meme is that women have a difficult time separating sex from emotional investment, but the progression of Open Hypergamy – in this case the deliberate feigning of intimate interests on the part of women – puts the lie to this and reveals the true pragmatism with which women will apply their sexuality. Open Hypergamy becomes open prostitution, but this relationship becomes an accepted exchange or transaction the more comfortable women get with revealing the crueler nature of their sexual strategy.

“You can’t tell who the hookers are anymore.”

When we look at women’s opportunistic approach to love, psycho-social dynamics like the War Bride dynamic come into stark contrast next to the Sugar Babies trend – they are both natural extensions of women’s need to optimize Hypergamy and ensure their long term security.

“You can’t tell who the hookers are anymore,” says another guy at the bar, a well-known D.J. in his 30s. “They’re not strippers, they’re not on the corner, there’s no more madam. They look like all the other club girls.”

He tells a story of a young woman he let stay in his hotel room one weekend while he was working in Las Vegas. “She met up with this other girl and all of a sudden they had all these men’s watches and wallets and cash. They wereworking.” He laughs, still amazed at the memory.

“It’s like hooking has just become like this weird, distorted extension of dating,” the D.J. says. “ ‘He took me to dinner. He throws me money for rent’—it’s just become so casual. I think it’s dating apps—when sex is so disposable, if it doesn’t mean anything, then why not get paid for it? But don’t call it prostitution—no, now it’s liberation.”

They all look the same because the commodification of intimacy is the same. Hooking is dating when the only degree of separation is in the comfort women have in the transaction. The necessary compartmentalizing of feelings or emotional investment on the part of women – the ones we’ve been sold for so long as inseparable from their sexuality – are only mitigated by men they perceive as having a higher SMV than those who they view as ‘clients’.

Money isn’t a factor in this equation of SMV; why would it be when provisioning is so easily had via dating clients ready to pay her rent or something else comparable? I’ve dug into this before, but with respect to women’s short-term sexual priorities (the Alpha Fucks side of Hypergamy) money rarely plays a role in genuine arousal; and even then it’s by order of degree in how necessitous that woman may be – or in this case, how entitled to those resources she has convinced herself she deserves.

The larger social embrace of “Sugaring” is an extension of Open Hypergamy. So not only is there an expectation of capitalizing on a woman’s party years, but that once she’s reached the Epiphany Phase she can be relatively confident that her years of Sugaring will be socially normalized and not factor into her long-term capacity to optimize Hypergamy (see the Sandberg effect). Women’s opportunistic concept of love is informed by Hypergamy, so it feeds into the SMP valuation of her intimate transactions.

And this dynamic isn’t just limited to younger women in their SMV peak years; women in their later phases of maturity have also found how useful apps like Tinder are in getting men to do the manual labor tasks they’d otherwise have to pay for themselves.

Genuine femininity has become so rare in our present social order that it can now be bartered as a luxury experience for men who can afford it. So uncommon is feminine behaviors and demeanor now that men will pay a woman’s bills when they can convincingly act feminine, sweet and appreciative. It’s no surprise that married men account for the majority of Sugar Daddies; they seek what they lack in their marriages – sex, femininity, appreciation, caring, even loving conversation – an escape from wives who feel entitled to their efforts and provisioning with out reciprocation.

Even feigned femininity is better than a nagging loneliness in marriage

Transactions

Acknowledging Hypergamy openly is acknowledging the transactional nature of women’s concept of love. It’s ugly, but as Hypergamy becomes an increasingly normalized a blurring of the line between dating and prostitution becomes more common. As I’ve said before, there will come a point that even the most Blue Pill man will be forced to recognize women’s blatant sexual strategies. As it stands now there is some confusion for these guys, thus, we see men wondering who the hooker is and who the available club girl is because both employ similar methodologies.

As a result men become less able to distinguish genuine desire from transactional role playing by women. Even in marriage transactional role playing has already been normalized and a presumption of a feminine frame of authority pervades most marriages – wives allow a husband to believe he’s in his Frame so long as the transaction is beneficial to what her ego believes is her due (see Briffault’s Law).

Solutions & Caveats

Sometimes it’s not enough to simply say “now you know, and knowing is half the battle”. The other half of the battle is taking actions and precautions to avoid the tar pits and protect oneself. In the future I believe it will be imperative for men not only to understand the nature of women’s sexual strategy, but also what to expect from the results of women’s previous decisions to effect them.

Guys ought to consider that by marrying or engaging in an LTR with former Sugar Babies they will not only deal with an Alpha Widow in terms of her sexual past, but also Sugar Daddy provider widows as well. Imagine the lifestyle switch to a lower socioeconomic status than what her former Daddy provided her with. Even dutiful Betas in Waiting will find their patience tested in competing with the previous lifestyle of a Sugar Baby.

Of course the easiest answer is always to recuse yourself from dating a Sugar Baby, to say nothing about entering an LTR with her, but as I mentioned earlier, hooking will be dating or some crossing of that line in the not so distant future. It’s important to bear this in mind, particularly when the transactional nature of it will run contradictory to the narrative that men are never owed sex for anything. The subcommunication is one of an implied contract, but the indignation will be one of men’s non-selected presumptions that sex is what’s being barter for.

From now and into the foreseeable future men must consider women from a realistic assessment of how their sexual strategies inform their decisions and base their own decisions accordingly. It’s also important to remember that the sexual market place differs in various contexts. Usually this context is reflective of the culture or social group engaging in, and reinforcing it. Women sexual opportunism doesn’t change, only how it’s expressed in a social context. Not all women are ‘Sugaring’, however the motives that allow for a normalization of it exist in all women – even the sweet nice ones who want to make a good impression on you.

It’s not impossible to engender a genuine desire in a woman. If that weren’t the case I wouldn’t be writing, but it’s important to be aware of how Hypergamy will evolved social dynamics to better facilitate its optimization. This can be a very damaging influence on both women and the men who attempt to navigate a sexual marketplace founded on unchecked Hypergamy.