Can’t Buy Me Alpha


I can’t imagine most of the manosphere, to say nothing about MRAs, haven’t read about the latest feminist triumphalism in a recent Pew study that’s determined that 23% of women now out-earn men. The ironic inconsistencies are an easy mark for most red pill men, but I imagine they’re particularly galling for MRAs:

Moms now earn more than dads in almost a quarter of all U.S. families, the highest level in history. It’s a huge leap from 50 years ago when only a handful of moms were bringing home the bacon, according to a study released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center.

Overall, women – including those who are unmarried – are now the leading or solo breadwinners in 40 percent of U.S. households, compared with just 11 percent in 1960, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau analyzed by Pew.

Cue the MRA rage posts about unmarried women receiving uniquely feminine social benefits and entitlements men have no access to, not to mention state enforced male child support for unmarried mothers and remarried mothers. I get it, really I do, but my emphasis here isn’t so much about the factual information being skewed by the feminine imperative, rather its neurolinguistic delivery of  those distortions.

That’s both good news and bad news, depending on which end of the scale you examine. At the top level, educated women are catching up with men in the workforce. But at the bottom rungs, there are more single mothers than ever and most of them are living near the poverty line.

Bear in mind this report by Amy Langfield was what hastily replaced this report by Bill Briggs – For Richer or Poorer?, When wives make more, some men’s health suffers – on NBCs frontpage. As I’ve written before, the feminine imperative will never allow even its own message to be sullied with a male perspective.

When wives bring home more bacon than their husbands, household budgets surely may sizzle but in some cases, men may pay a price. Some guys who lose their role as primary earners are known to lose sexual steam and may deal with insomnia and other issues, researchers say.

In relationships where women’s wages become slightly fatter than what their spouses pocket, scientists have determined that men are about 10 percent more likely to require prescription pills to combat erectile dysfunction, insomnia and anxiety, according to a recent study by Washington University in St. Louis’ Olin Business School.

Naturally the comment section is rife with feminine ridicule and accusations of men’s masculine insecurities being made manifest in not being able to get it up when wifey makes more money. The apex fallacy is a helluva drug for the feminine imperative.

“There is a powerful social norm for many men that it’s important to make more than their wives and, essentially, when that social norm is violated, what this does is make them feel emasculated,” said Lamar Pierce, a professor of strategy at Olin who completed the study in February, working with colleagues in Denmark. Other research has shown that men with wives who earn more are more likely to cheat. 

It’s going to be important to read that linked 2010 article about men who’s wives earn more being more likely to cheat, because this is the crux of who gets to decide what emasculation feels like for men. Lamar Pierce’s assertion, as with most blank slaters, is that masculinity is the result of “powerful social norms”  and not the result of a culmination of what millennia of biological and psychological evolution physically made of men. The nuts and bolts get discarded when the feminine imperative defines the terms of what men feel and why they do.

The problem here is that the nuts and bolts are about the physical male sexual response. What is it about women earning more money (excluding for single mother bonuses) that makes them less likely to pass the boner test? If the feminine imperative is to be believed, it’s due to men’s fragile egos and masculinity being defined by his ability to provide. No mention is made of women’s lack of femininity, physical sexual attraction or simple logistics when she’s the one tasked with bringing home the bacon. No mention is given about women’s desire to even be in the position of being the sole or majority breadwinner.

Buying Alpha

The main problem with women earning more than their men is far more hardwired into both gender’s psyches than the experts consigned by the feminine imperative will ever be allowed to relate. It’s not very complimentary to the imperative because it reveals far too much of its real inner workings and exposes its social engineering to effect them.

On the feminine side we have the cruel reality of feminine Hypergamy that’s constantly reminded that the man she’s paired with (or would pair with) isn’t capable of, or is less capable of, the provisioning her Hypergamy ultimately demands of him, and which she can provide for herself. For the single professional woman this imbalance results in their constant search for a man they consider “her equal”, and is the cause for many post-Wall women’s common lament of not being able to find the guy she thinks she deserves.

By this distorted logic, professional women subscribe to the social convention that they can ‘buy Alpha’; that their credentials, financial and social status ought to be the deciding factor for men’s intimate estimations of them, and any man not abiding by these conditions is by definition “infantile”, has a “fragile ego” and is “threatened by successful women”.

Feminine Operative Social Conventions are the meta-hamster of the gestalt consciousness of the feminine imperative.

On the masculine side the problems are twofold. The first comes from men’s evolved subliminal understanding about how being a provider is his last, best, resort of securing a mate who will send his genes on to future generations. Once this capacity is removed, he becomes conscious of his vulnerability to the predations of his wife’s Hypergamy.

If men met their future wives when the women already were the bigger breadwinners, “they never have any problems later on,” Pierce said. “The problems are all coming in marriages where the guys are making more, they get married, then their pay slips (below their wives’ salaries).” The study was published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Since mass media is rooted in a fem-centric reality, we’re spared the gory details of women’s Hypergamic re-estimations of their husbands. Rather, we’re left to believe that it’s the husbands who have an inability to cope with their wives making more money (due to fragile egos remember?) and suffer from a masculine insecurity that’s making their cocks go soft. No mention is made of men’s now-impassable Hypergamic shit-tests women demand of men affecting their previously stable marriages.

For the majority of Beta men, their cow-eyed confidence and reliance on being able to at least provide an equal contribution to a woman’s wellbeing as part of his Beta-Game sexual strategy gets flushed down the toilet when she out earns him. For Beta men, men’s primary sexual market value is derived from performance – unfortunately Betas are beginning to be outperformed by women and their wives. Once that outperformance is actualized for women, only Alpha dominance defines men’s SMV since it’s the other remaining side of women’s Hypergamy and their pluralistic sexual strategy.

The Bought Alpha

The second masculine issue is the bought Alpha. When a woman is in fact capable of her own provisioning all that’s left wanting for her hypergamy is Alpha dominance. Most breadwinning women are condemned to being frustrated by this dynamic. The majority of elite earning women simply lack the feminine grace and physical appeal to attract this Alpha dominance. Fewer still have the capacity to surrender to that Alpha, but the upper 1% of elite earning women can, and they illustrate the dynamic here. I realize it’s an old article but have a quick read – Guys more likely to cheat on high-earning women.

In fact, men who were completely dependent on their partner’s income were five times more likely to cheat than men who contributed an equal amount of money to the relationship, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.

You’d think such men wouldn’t want to risk their meal ticket. But lower-earning men may be self-medicating their inner macho guy, says Cornell University sociology graduate student Christin Munsch, who conducted the study.“Having multiple sexual partners may be an attempt to restore gender identity in response to these threats,” she writes. “In other words, for men, sex [outside their relationship] may be an attempt to compensate for feelings of inadequacy with respect to gender identity.”

Despite the masculine shaming threaded throughout the article, what’s not being addressed is women who make substantially more money, or all the money, in their relationships have flipped a dangerous gender script. As elite earners, women tend to want to pair off not with the the guy who’d otherwise be a loyal, respectable Beta provider under other conditions, but rather the men they feel they ‘deserve’. The provisioning part of their Hypergamy has been satisfied, so the visceral part is all that’s left wanting. Thus they gravitate to the Alpha cads they’re aroused by, and they ‘deserve’ by virtue of their earning ability and status. These women’s Game is a reflection of Beta men’s Game – they believe that their provisioning alone will be the lynchpin in keeping their spouse loyal.

An Alpha guy (like Jesse James from the article) grows tired of being his wife or girlfriend’s accessory, and as is the Alpha nature, he’s happy to have the financial backing to fund his infidelity. An inverse of this would be Tiger Woods’ marriage and his indulgences. The marriage becomes a means to an Alpha end (or a hinderance for Tiger), and our rich, empowered wife duplicitously loves and hates that her Man is so desired by other women, but can’t balance her Hypergamic nature any other way.

Soft Dread



In the past I’ve covered in various detail the utility of instilling dread in a woman both pre and post monogamy. It’s been one of the more contentious principles I’ve endorsed, with women tending to revile me for having brought men to the awareness of dread’s uses, and men concurring with, but often hesitant in applying dread for fear of the backlash for having used dread conspicuously.

In Dread Games I made an attempt to clear up the real inevitability of dread in any average relationship. Dread is going to be a factor in any relationship due to the Cardinal Rule of Relationships:

In any relationship, the one with the most power is the one who cares the least.

As Roissy and many legitimate psychologists will tell you, the most secure relationships generally result from about a 1-2 point SMV imbalance favoring the Man in the relationship. In this imbalance, the actual strength  of that secure feminine attachment to the man (both in and out of a monogamous commitment) can be expressed as a soft, or passive form of dread. This expression of dread is still rooted in a woman’s imagination of emotional, physical and provisional loss, but just as the application of that dread is passive, so too is a woman’s progressive realization of that dread.

Soft Dread

Mrs. Tomassi and I were recently talking with a woman of about 49. She’s the ever-present front desk host at our gym and a casual acquaintance and friend. She’s not particularly unattractive for her age, reasonably good shape from a body perspective – I can tell she used to enjoy a lot of male attention in her 20s and maybe 30’s – but now just this side of 50 she’s moved not so much into a regret stage, but rather a hopeful sense of well post-Wall self-remorse. That might sound odd, but she’s at least optimistic about her ‘chances’ of getting with a “good man” in the near future.

She’s quite upfront and honest about the Alpha Bad Boy Jerks she’s dated, married one and then divorced from her past. In fact she’s one of the more lucid women I’ve encountered about her present state and how she came to it. Although she’s the typical result of a hypergamous life prolonged past the “eating her cake too” phase, she owns her mistakes.

Although we generally hit Gold’s at different times, occasionally  the wife and I go together in the mornings. It was on one of these mornings, and our friend at the counter stopped us to say,

“I love you guys, I really do. I see a lot of people pass through here but when I see you both together it gives me hope that I can have a good relationship like you two. You’re such a team, I really hope I can meet a guy I can connect with like that.”

We were on our way out, and she always has something else to say about her personal life so, while I guess I was somewhat flattered, I didn’t pay it much mind. That is until our ride back home when Mrs. Tomassi looked me square in the face and said, “I am so glad I didn’t end up like that!” I was actually kind of surprised at the tone of her voice. “Thank God that’s not me, how horrible to be in that position at her age.” I nodded my head because I knew she was expecting my usually analyzations of post-Wall women and the beds they make. Then, with a hint of a tear in her eye, she gave me one of the best compliments I’ve ever heard from her, “I hope Bebé finds and marries a Man just like you.”

That made me feel really good, and what I’m about to type here sound really shitty. After not a small swell of pride, I thought, while it’s nice to be appreciated in this respect, would this realization have come without the influence of our friend and her state of life?

You see, what I experienced that morning was a sort of de fact association of social proof. Granted, I’m not taking anything away from the love and solidity upon which my marriage and our relationship is founded on, but was I just the right guy in the right place for this realization to come to awareness? What I had just participated in was a form of soft dread. A dread that needs no emphasis or prompting from a Man, simply the occasion for it to come to the surface to be actualized.

When a Man’s status is long established it’s easy to take his qualities for granted by women. It takes another woman’s lack to bring that status into focus for her. In the same vein that women will pre-approve or pre-qualify you for another woman’s intimacy, likewise the personal state of other women will serve as a benchmark of social proof for a Man’s wife or LTR. I realize this has the potential to cut the other way for women who are more well off than others, but the dynamic is real. I’ve written in the past that women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices Men must make to facilitate their feminine reality, but if they ever come close to this appreciation it’s only at the prompting of women outside the relationship who can recognize it in the Men committed to other women.

Progressive Dread

The admittedly very rough graph I created to illustrate the contemporary sexual marketplace (SMP) is almost a manosphere link staple now. However, I’m going to reuse it once more here to illustrate another point:


When I wrote Navigating the SMP it was in response to a need for visualization of how men and women’s respective sexual market value (SMV) differentiate at different phases of their lives. Using this model it’s not too far a stretch to illustrate how dread plays a factor in women’s self, and relational awareness.

At their SMV peak, adjusting for the mean average, women’s potential for experiencing dread is as low as it will be in a lifetime. During this phase the potential for replacing a respective mate (or STR lover) is almost a nonissue. Even in emotionally invested relationships during this phase, the subliminal presence of a basic, unprompted, dread of loss is pushed into unawareness for women.

That dread of loss is replaced with the dread of insecurity as a woman ages toward the Wall. Before I continue here, it’s important to remember that security comes in many different forms – financial, emotional, psychological, spiritual and even self-esteem play a part in the totality of women’s security needs.

During the height of a woman’s SMV, men are scarcely aware of their potential value to a woman in the long term. Men’s recognition of dread is much more heightened when a woman’s SMV is peaking, while his is on a slow ascendency toward his late 20’s and early 30’s. He doesn’t want to miss his “dream girl” and she doesn’t want to sell herself short in the hypergamy gamble she’s playing.

As a woman ages to the Wall and beyond, and while a Man’s SMV accumulates into his 30’s, the role soft dread plays in the relationship is reversed. As women’s primary physical attraction decays, the subliminal dread of loss, and an ever decreasing ability to recreate her security, increases in her psyche. It may not be on the surface of her awareness, but there will be more reminders of her state with each passing year.

It seems unduly cruel to remind women of this dread; that’s not my intent with today’s post. In fact, just because I’m aware of the subtle reminders of soft dread women experience, I may play my relationship Game with a bit more sensitivity. That being the case, there’s no ignoring the reality of this dynamic and the utility it represents for a man aware of the state of women in various phases of their lives.

When I wrote Navigating the SMP the operative intent behind it was to make men more conscious of the predictability of women’s motives and behaviors at various phases of life – and plan their Game according to the signs they were seeing. In the case of soft dread, this realization may at first come as a hint of appreciation to the Man who’s dutifully persevered through his woman’s dominant frame for most of his LTR  Marriage. It may come as a comfort for a guy who’s unused to sentimental declarations of appreciation, but it’s important to remember the why in that declaration, rather than the who in that declaration.

Half Plus Seven


Last week Dalrock plumbed the dangerous waters of the Eat, Pray, Love feminine social convention for the geriatric crowd in Grannies Gone Wild! It’s an entertaining piece to be sure. If you believe(ed) in the Soul Mate Myth as some article of your personal faith or your internalized  blue pill conditioning, you’re in for a cold bucket of reality when you read the dating escapades of these Golden Girls once their lifetime soulmates husbands die and the Buffers of online dating and social networking are introduced to them by women of the Pepsi generation.

You see gentlemen, hypergamy trumps the soulmate myth, even for the 68 year old sweetheart you met in high school all those years ago. Sort of puts the Myth of the Lonely Old Man into perspective too.

Anyone with some red pill awareness isn’t shocked by this. The Feminine Imperative and the rigors of hypergamy are always a reality men will have to deal with, and even old age wont diminish the drive for optimization. What does change however is the means by which the Feminine Imperative will fluidly adapt the social conventions it embeds into our  social awareness in order to perpetuate itself. Collectively convincing 70+ year old widows and divorcées that ‘they still got it’ is just a new inroad for an old feminine social convention meant to reach the elderly demographic. It’s almost a future reassurance for the 40+ demographic unable or unwilling to live out the ‘Stella Got Her Groove Back’ script. The message is “Don’t worry, if you can’t get your groove back re-optimize hypergamy at 40, 70 looks pretty good too.

With the exception of ‘mature’ porn (not to be confused with MILF porn), the idea of women aged well past their post-Wall expiration date “exploring their options” might seem dubious,..until you read about the rise in sexually transmitted diseases amongst seniors.

Social Convention Fluidity

I’ve written more than a few articles outlining Feminine Social Conventions, but Dalrock’s piece highlighted the adaptability with which the Feminine Imperative will change those conventions to suit its specific purpose. There are many examples of this, but in this particular instance what we’re seeing here is a reinvention of a similarly useful feminine social convention – that is the Half Plus Seven trope made popular by teenage girls and aging spinsters concerned with their competitive edge in the SMP with the younger women men naturally find more sexually arousing. The Urban Dictionary spells this convention out for us:

“Half, plus seven” is the age-old dating rule for dudes. It justifies the dating of younger women, within reason. The formula begins with each dude’s age (for example, 22). That age is halved (22/2 =11), and 7 is tacked on to the divided result. Therefore, a 22 year old male may legitimately date an 18 year old female, a 25 male may date a female of 19.5, and a 30 male may date a female of 22. While there is no technical ceiling on this social anthropological formula, there is a point at which common sense takes over, and it just becomes disgusting. For instance, this formula should not be used to justify a 60 year old man dating a 37 year old female.
Half plus seven examples:

Guy’s age: 20. Formula: (20/2)+7 = Minimum acceptable age of female: 17.

Guy’s age: 25. Formula: (25/2)+7 = Minimum acceptable age of female: 19.5

As with the most useful of feminine social conventions, the feminine imperative assimilates the ‘insensitive brinksmanship’ of men’s sexual strategies and repurposes them to serve feminine sexual strategies. You see while a man is 25 and his ½+7 acceptability is 19.5 this ratio adjust radically when he’s 40 and his ½+7 acceptability is 27. Forty year old never-married or divorced spinsters looking for a second shot at monogamy with their socio-economic rivals equals shriek in unison at the ½+7 rule they embraced when they were in their mid to late 20’s. Not so coincidentally this age ratio aligns almost perfectly with the optimization of male monogamy on the SMP evaluation scale.

I’ve locked horns with Aunt Giggles about the Half +7 theory on a few occasions and generally the debate ends when she agrees to the Roissy maxim that the most solid LTRs are the result of the Man being 1-2 points higher than the woman’s SMV rating, or perceptually so to her.

As an aside, it’s important to remember the Cardinal Rule of Relationships here:

In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.

When a woman perceives (legitimately or not) that your SMV is above her own, the power dynamic in the relationship is one of secure attachment. However, boost that SMV beyond 3 or 4 points and the relationship becomes one based on insecurities and fear of loss (for men and women). While dread is an important underlying element in maintaining a healthy relationship, push it too far and too overtly and you lean over into unhealthy insecurity.

As I addressed in The Mature Man, look at this from the half +7 rule, the older a man the greater the impression that he should have matured into a higher SMV than the younger woman, and thereby is perceptually of 1-2 points above her own by virtue of his experience and hopefully affluence. Principles like Amused Mastery are at their most effective when a woman perceives a man’s SMV is higher than her own.

That said, if there is any merit to Half +7 it’s more about SMV imbalance and the Cardinal Rule of Relationships than any feminine social doctrine. So when you look at my SMV graph you can also see the age differential between the points where men’s SMV would generally be 1-2 points above a woman’s (35+) and where a woman’s SMV begins to decline (27+).

Repurposing The Convention

When the age ratios of the ½+7 formula are strategically favorable to the feminine sexual strategy, the response by the feminine is one of enthusiastic embracement. Once that ratio progresses to the point it becomes a sexually strategic liability, or even the source of anxiety, the response is one of scorn and shame for men. In light of this you might think the feminine response would be complete abandonment of the ½+7 canard, but as we see, reinventing the formula from a fem-centric perspective becomes not only a source false empowerment (i.e. the Cougar fallacy), but also the motivation for the Eat, Pray, Love schema Dalrock so ably details in his writing. Thus we have 68 year old women ‘amazed’ by their sunset years desirability, inflated courtesy of technology age buffers, and a built in social convention ready to help them abstract and rationalize away any vestige of guilt they may feel about indulging themselves with (comparatively) younger men.

Hypergamy doesn’t care what age a woman is.

I should add here that any social convention that is a sexually strategic benefit for a woman, which later becomes a strategic liability, will be retrofitted to a man’s shame and repurposed to her strategic benefit under her new circumstances. Another illustration of this is the shifting acceptability of inter-gender friendships with women. Prior to locking down a suitably optimal hypergamous monogamy with a man, women will enthusiastically embrace the idea of men and women being platonic ‘friends’. Once she’s monogamous this acceptability shifts to unacceptability in favor of a cautious, measured jealousy, and again reverts back to acceptability while unengaged with a monogamous prospect. Women having male orbiters, women involved in multiple ‘friendships’ with men, is sexually advantageous to her hypergamous assessment of prospective men – however once that assessment is settled upon, inter-gender friendships (for her man) becomes a strategic liability for her.

Too Hot


Over the Christmas break I had Dalrock and several SoSuave members alert me to a recent story about the firing of a dental assistant for “being too attractive”. I’d thought it was pretty laughable at first glance, but there’s a lot more going on in this situation than just what’s on the surface here. Naturally the fem-centric media starting point is the egregiousness of the all-male Iowa high court unanimously agreeing that a woman could be fired for something other than her job performance. It’s always interesting to observe the legal twistings when when the feminine imperative smacks into a law it hasn’t yet distorted to its own purposes (like right-to-work laws). I’m sure the case will be taken up the chain to even higher courts, but the operative will be the same – women don’t want to be beholden to general laws that conflict with the feminine imperative. Give it time and new definitions of what constitutes sexual discrimination, and you’ll see how fluidly the imperative achieves its ends.

Beyond the indignation prompting social fallout, there’s an interesting illustration in Game theory here. Melissa Nelson, a semi-attractive 32 year old dental assistant has her 10 year employment stint terminated by 53 year old Dentist, James Knight for representing too tempting a  potential lover and too potential a threat to his marriage. This is where it gets interesting:

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.

Well, considering all she wore were standard issue medical scrubs it would appear that it didn’t take much to arouse the good dentist.

While her former boss claimed her clothes were so tight he couldn’t look at her without being aroused, Nelson said the only outfit she wore to work was standard scrubs worn by many nurses and assistants in dental offices.

Think about this for a moment, when Knight hired her 10 years ago she would’ve been 22 and he would’ve been 43. Looking at the more recent pictures of Nelson, I can see she’s followed the standard SMV curve, and while I wouldn’t rate her higher than maybe a cleaned up HB7, no doubt Knight was privy to watching her progress from her SMV peak at 22, to the inevitable two child, postpartum “chop it short” mommy-do at 32. After watching this and enduring the slow-burn, sexual pangs for a decade I suspect that Knight probably spent in inordinate amount of masturbatory energy on her mental image.

He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, “that’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”

No doubt about, we’ve got a beta here. Blatant and obviously telegraphed sexual interest ham-fisttedly delivered  as a compliment not only belies the beta, but no woman in human history has ever responded positively to it. In all my time counseling in the manosphere I’ve heard some derivative of this line constantly used by beta orbiters hoping that their ONEitis will get the message that she’s not being treated as well as she should be, and he’s uniquely qualified to appreciate her for her rarity. What chumps like Knight don’t get is that genuine desire and sexual impulse cannot be negotiated.

All a long-married beta like Knight is doing is falling back on his adolescent social skill set. This is the hallmark of a chump who’s never developed his Game beyond what it took to convince his wife to marry him.

Knight and Nelson — both married with children — started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.

Once you see the pictures of Mrs. Knight all of this crystalizes for us.


Now we add in the element of Mrs. Knights suspicion and a healthy dose of parochial shame from their pastor (most likely at Mrs. Knights behest) and we see the good dentist moved to terminate “just an ordinary mom”.  Here we see an all too common theme of the feminine imperative; using men to settle a score between women. My guess would be that had Mrs. Knight not discovered said texts, Nelson in all her ‘hotness’ would still be employed.

Knight is a very religious and moral individual, and he sincerely believed that firing Nelson would be best for all parties, he said.

I generally reserve my interpretations of the religious ramifications of Game to blogs like Dalrock’s, but at the risk of encouraging the moralist commenters on my blog, I have to draw attention to how the feminine imperative influences religious perceptions. This very religious and moral individual in all likelihood had been devising scenarios in his head about how he might engage in some kind of sexual tryst with Nelson through out her peak SMV years. He watched her progress through a relationship, watched her get married, gave her maternity leave when she had two kids, and still he pined. That pining only ended when Mrs. Knight demanded Nelson’s termination. Once again, biology trumps conviction, and did so for a decade, but once his back is to the wall he makes necessity a virtue.

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month’s severance. He later told Nelson’s husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

When you compare James Knight to David Petreaus’ situation you can’t help but notice some surface level similarities. Both married to well-past the Wall wives and open (at least ideally) to getting with younger, better looking women. Their stories are an all too common theme in today’s SMP. Just based on what I see from the pictures, Knight strikes me as that archetypal mature guy who married young (well before fully realizing his true SMV), played by the rules, and probably only woke up to his SMV when a hot 22 year old made him realize his past potential. When a guys like this make sexual allusions comparing undriven Lamborghinis to the objects of their sexual desire, the real message is their own sexual dissatisfaction with their wives. Harboring that angst for 10 years while your ‘too hot to work with’ ONEitis is only infrequently getting banged is a special kind of beta hell.

When I wrote about the redefining of men’s mid-life awareness, Knight’s circumstance is the uglier side of that.

The truth about men’s mid-life crises isn’t about recapturing youth, it’s about finally understanding the trappings they’ve been sold into through their 20′s and 30′s and coming to terms with that often horrible truth. Some men do in fact buy the sports car, get the new hottie wife or act in some fashion that appears reckless and irresponsible. This isn’t due to infantilism, but rather new understanding of their own position as men. They’ve “lived responsibly” for so long and for so little appreciation that when that true realization is made they feel the need to move. They’ve become respected, put in the hours, the sacrifice, the censoring of their own views. They realize now that they’ve sold off true passions in favor of maintaining what others have told him was his responsibility – whether it was his choice or not. And all for what? A fat wife? A shrew? Maybe even a fantastic marriage and a wonderful family life, but also a nagging doubt about not seeing enough of the world by 40 because of it.

Now, before it gets said, I’m not suggesting that Knight have gone ahead and got after it with Nelson (if that was ever a consideration), but I do understand his predicament and the motivators behind it. If anything Knight serves as yet one more warning for men in realizing their SMV too late. The real tragedy here is that for a brief moment Knight was becoming aware of his (waning) SMV only to reinsert himself back into the Matrix with the aid of his wife and pastor. The real damage will be dealt in his new need for constant repression of this knowledge every time he bangs his wife, every time she nags, every time she gives him that doe-like thousand yard stare; he’ll understand the oldest manosphere proverb – once you know about the Matrix there is no going back.

The Epiphany Phase


When I was detailing the landscape of our contemporary sexual marketplace in Navigating the SMP there comes a point on women’s SMV (sexual market value) progression where she becomes cognizant of her SMV decline and impending date with The Wall. Generally this occurs in women’s late 20’s and possibly early 30’s but as a rough estimate on the graph I provided in that post, this is the point of transition at which women realize their decaying capacity to hypergamously compete with women in their sexual primes, and the point at which men are beginning to realize their own increasing SMV potential. I dubbed this intersection the point of Comparative SMV. It’s also important to note that this phase conveniently coincides with the social convention of women’s mythical biological clock. (more on this later).

The Epiphany Phase

I’ve previously described this phase as a parallel to men’s feminine-redefined midlife crisis. This is a precarious time for women, usually the years between 28 and 30, where she makes attempts to reassess the last decade of her life. Women’s psychological rationalization engine (a.k.a. the Hamster) begins a furious effort to account for, and explain to her reasonings for not having successfully secured a long term monogamous commitment from as Alpha a man as her attractiveness could attain for her. Even women married prior to this phase will go through some variation of self-doubt, or self-pity in dealing with the hypergamic uncertainty of her choice (“Is he really the best I could do?”)

It’s during this stage that women will make radical shifts in their prioritization of what prerequisite traits qualify as ‘attractive’ in a man and attempt to turn over a new leaf by changing up their behaviors to align with this new persona they create for themselves. Since the physicality, sexual prowess and Alpha dominance that made up her former arousal cues in a Man aren’t as forthcoming from men as when she was in her sexual prime, she reprioritizes them with (presumed) preferences for more intrinsic male attributes that stress dependability, provisioning capacity, humor, intellect, and esoteric definitions of compatibility and intimacy.

For the spiritually inclined woman (which is to say most women) this may manifest in a convenient return to convictions she’d disregarded since her adolescence. For other’s it may be some kind of forced celibacy; a refusal to have sex under the hypergamic auspices of her ‘party years’ in the hopes that a well provisioning male (the ones not realizing their own potential SMV as yet) will appreciate her for her prudence – so unlike herself and all of the other girls who rejected him over the last decade.

The self-affirming psychological schema is one where she’s “finally doing the right thing”, when in fact she’s simply making the necessity of her long term provisioning and security a virtue she hopes men will appreciate. And if they don’t, then there’s always shaming them to think they’re ‘less-than-men’ for not living up to her eating her cake once she’s had it.

The Shifting Point

Case in point Hephzibah Anderson, author of the book Chastened, The Unexpected Story of My Year Without Sex. Here we have a graphic insight into the inner workings of women’s rationalization at the crossroads of acknowledging her decaying SMV, the need for long term male security, provisioning and intimacy, and realizing the necessity for a new psychological paradigm to justify her shift in behavior.

It’s easy to dismiss this interview as just another 3 women allowing their hamsters to colate on camera, but when you view this clip in a red pill context a surprising amount of information is revealed about the Epiphany Phase women experience.

We begin here with the now clichéd Kate Bolick Brand® former boyfriend-in-love regretfulness as the catalyst for Hephzibah’s newly gained insight. He’s serendipitously buying a ring for his new fiancé and the Alpha Widow mojo takes root in her psyche, “some girl found him valuable enough to marry.” She then proceeds through the predictable, “I’m 30 and need to reprioritize my life” boilerplate that’s made more than a few women authors a good deal of money writing for The Atlantic.

As I noted earlier, this phase also coincides with a woman’s sharp decline in fertility and childbearing capacity, so the instinctual urgency to breed, reinforced by the myth of the biological clock contributes to this internal crisis. All of this coalesces into some amazing feats of rationalization hamster acrobatics.

I’d thought those thoughts once or twice, but it would never have occurred to me that I’d actually go ahead and voluntarily eject sex from my life. It took a bizarre serendipity, a torrid affair and a chance anecdote to make me realize that the kind of sex I was supposed to be cool with as a post-feminist, 21st-century Western woman — a casual sort of intimacy without intimacy — was not working for me.

Better late than never right? Unfortunately no. While I’m sure this realization will seem ennobling to the more moralistically predisposed  mindset, what you see now is the expectation of a new appreciation for her insight which was prompted by her need, not a genuine introspective. It’s kind of ironic in that the Chastening Hephzibah is so proud of was prompted by her own necessity.

All right, in most circumstances it’s still just about required for life’s perpetuation, but we can lead perfectly healthy and, indeed, happy existences without nooky, whoopee or bonking. People can — and do — go decades without sex. Some live their entire lives without it.

Side Note: In Girl-World a woman can electively forego sex for an entire year and it’s recognized as a sacrifice worthy of writing a book to be published by a major print publisher, while the only way a man can be recognized for his 40 year celibacy is when he enters a fitness center and guns down 7 women in a pilates class. As I’ve stated before, when a woman tells you “I don’t understand why sex is sooooo important to guys“, she’s telling you the literal truth.

Elizabeth I was known as the Virgin Queen, and there was nothing metaphorical about the title, history assures us.

Robert Dudley and a long list of the Queen’s confirmed lovers disagree. What follows here is an attempt by Hephzibah’s rationalization engine to affirm what she’d like to think is her radical decision to go abstinent – plenty of luminaries from the past have gone without and lived perfectly fine lives. What she’s in denial about is the necessity of sex in a mature human experience. Sex is the glue that holds a relationship together; without sex a woman becomes a man’s mother, sister, daughter, aunt, friend, but not his lover, and certainly not his wife. Deemphasizing the importance of sex, actively desexualizing yourself in the hopes that it will make you more sexually arousing is an effort in self-defeat.

What follows here is yet another overwritten self-examination of a woman facing the Wall and attempting to reconcile a past of eschewing offers of genuine intimacy with (albeit probably beta) guys and her own hypergamous impulses during her 20’s. When a pre-Wall Anderson makes a conscious effort to remove sex from the equation in order to bring her more “clarity” about a man’s long term value what she’s doing is attempting to dissociate hypergamy from that process. In doing so she devalues the important sexual aspect of a relationship and turns off the men she’d probably fit well with because she believes that sex is the foil in her past failures, not herself, not her ego-investments, not the delusions the feminine imperative has saddled her with. Sex isn’t her problem, her innate hypergamy will eventually reveal this to her, but it’s how she’s been doing it and the late hour at which she’s come to her “new” epiphany with all of its urgency.

Hephzibah is easy pickings for the manosphere Men with a bent for shaming women about riding the Cock Carousel (she even alludes to this in the article). That’s a given, but it’s not the operative issue I’m on about here. What her story illustrates for us is the psychological machinations behind the reconciliation of her unfulfilled hypergamy and her need for future intimacy, security and provisioning.

For red pill, Game-aware Men, this is a supremely important stage in women’s maturation to consider. A woman in the Epiphany Phase is looking for a “fresh start” for a much more visceral reason than some newly inspired sense of self. This motivation prompts all kinds of behavioral and social conventions to facilitate a man’s commitment to forgiving her past indiscretions. As Roosh has pointed out more than once, it’s women in this phase of life (or the mothers of women in this phase) who most vocally complain about men’s lack of interest in committing to them. As Hephzibah is painfully aware of, women in their peak SMV years don’t complain about a dearth of marriageable men– “Man Up” is the anthem of women in the Epiphany Phase.


Recently Vox had a not unexpected run-in with the ladies over at Aunt Giggles’ Beta Emporium regarding one of my favorite feminine social conventions. There’s a very definitive feminine ownership of certain terms that the feminine imperative uses to maintain its primacy. Like any good ideology, control of the messaging is vital to perpetuating the feminine social frame. Thus terms like “shallow” and “superficial” are contextually defined from a feminine perspective and, through shaming, serve to enforce feminine primacy.

There are a lot of applications women will use “shallow” for, but the primary use is to shame men’s natural arousal/attraction cues being based on physicality. As I detailed in The Wall, women have a life long relationship with the impending decay of their only real agency over men – their physicality and their sexual access.

Why should physical appearance be a criteria for anything? The operative question; Why should the importance Men place on the physical always be characterized as “superficial”? Why is it that a man is “shallow” for following his biological imperative, while a woman seeking commitment is considered “prudent”?

Because women are only acting on behalf of their own biological imperatives when they do so. Like all feminine social conventions, if men can be made to believe that a woman’s best interest is actually his own, she retains control of the frame. How do they effect this? Repeat it over and over until men identify with it and it becomes a societal norm. This then places men into a state of internal conflict – they’re not supposed to want hot women for fear of being deemed “shallow”, but yet they always seem to find themselves attracted to, and aroused by, the most physically ideal women they encounter.

Controlled Selection

So, how, and why, then does this social convention work? Why is it necessary? The simple answer is that the latent purpose of shaming men into denying their own biological imperative better serves to maintain women’s control of hypergamous sexual selectivity.

The cold hard reality all women face is that, in the sexual market place, they are always a depriciating asset. In a biological sense, a woman’s sexual marektability decreases as she ages, but even when this isn’t universally the case, the insecurity that comes from realizing ths decline is still present for women. With effort, a woman can be sexually desirable at 40, but the internalized anxiety she experiences from having to remain sexually competitive with women 20 years younger doesn’t diminish – at some point she’ll lose her edge.

In order to counter this dynamic a social mechanic had to be developed. Men would need to be shamed for their biological preoccupation with younger, sexier, more sexually available women that they naturally, and observably, prefer. If men could be socially and psychologically convinced that physicality (their primary determinant for attraction & arousal) was less important than intellect, integrity, or any other esoteric, moralized virtue (or the perception of it at least), this then (theoretically) levels the playing field of intra-sexual competition among women. By making his importance of physicality “shallow”, women of all shapes and sizes could be instilled with “inner beauty”. It’s what’s on the inside that counts and any man to disagree is “shallow”, “superficial” and thus undeserving of their intimacy.

With this social convention in place women can have their cake and eat it too. Sexual selectivity in their youth and a realitive assurance of that same selectivity in securing a long term commitment of male provisioning as they age. Social convention circumvents biology and women retain the frame. It’s only when “scientists” such as myself pull back the curtain and show you the Wizard of Oz that men are labelled “misogynists” or “superficial.” It’s the perfect convention; one that even in revealing it still shames the one doing so – or at least calls into question his motives for doing so.

“Shallow” at Home

How important does the role of attraction play in a relationship? The funniest thing is you can apply the same idea to women with regards to a man’s level of success. If a guy cheats on his girlfriend or wife after she ‘lets herself go’ and puts on 20 extra pounds he’s called ‘shallow’, yet if a woman leaves a guy who’s out of work and/or lacks a certain level of ambition she’s just “being prudent” or doing what’s in her best interests and her children’s. It’s a man’s biological imperative to mate with as many fit and attractive females, while it’s a woman’s imperative to choose the male who is best capable of satisfying hypergamy and providing her with long term security, and by default to ultimately share in parental investment. But, feminized society calls a man ‘shallow’ and a woman ‘wise’ for embracing the sexual strategies and arousal cues nature has dealt for them. So it’s my advice that we stop accepting this epithet of ‘shallow’ as some kind of punishment for simply being a man.

I can remember a poll thread on SoSuave we started that went something like, “What do you notice first about a girl?” and went on with physical attributes like Boobs, Ass, Legs, Hair, etc. The thread basically devolved into a ‘you’re just shallow’ flame-fest, but it was fascinating to see the pre-set responses from the teenage male members. Answers that didn’t even apply to the topic like, “I’m really only interested in her ‘great personality'” were common from the more plugged-in responses. This idea of not coming off as ‘shallow’ even in a relatively anonymous forum just proves how endemic this notion of ‘shallowness’ really is.

Embrace your testosterone, really, it’s OK. No one faults a woman for not being attracted to an ambitionless, unsuccessful guy. You shouldn’t feel guilty for admitting to a preference for a girls ass or the size of her chest.

Mate Guarding

Ah, another week, another fantastic article from the Chateau. I found this particular post interesting because the study (once again by our friend Dr. Martie Haselton) he breaks down here confirms virtually everything I was developing in Your Friend Menstruation. It pretty much sums up in no uncertain terms what I was detailing about how women in their folicular (proliferative) phase of menstruation become more sexually aroused by men exhibiting Alpha physical traits and behavioral cues.

However, Heartiste and this study go one step deeper than just the observable arousal from Alpha cues. It also demonstrates women’s observable aversion (disgust) to beta cues in men during the same menstrual fertility phase.

At their most fertile period, these women are less likely to feel close to their mates and more likely to find fault with them than women mated to more sexually desirable men, the research shows.

“A woman evaluates her relationship differently at different times in her cycle, and her evaluation seems to be colored by how sexually attractive she perceives her partner to be,” said Martie Haselton, a professor of psychology and communication studies at UCLA and senior author of the study.

Through a series of high-profile studies, Haselton’s lab has revealed telling changes that take place in women’s behavior during ovulation. Possibly to increase the odds of attracting suitable mating partners, these behaviors include a tendency to dress up and to speak in a higher-pitched, more feminine voice and — in a potential inbreeding-avoidance mechanism — to refrain from contact with male kin. In addition, the lab has found that women whose mates are less sexy and masculine tend to be more attracted to other men during the few fertile days leading up to ovulation.

The researchers found that women mated to the less sexually attractive men were significantly more likely to find fault with their partners and, again, feel less close to their partners during the high-fertility period than the low-fertility period. Women who rated their mates as more sexually attractive, meanwhile, did not exhibit these changes and instead reported being more satisfied with their relationship at high fertility than at low fertility. [emphasis mine]

Most of this I elaborated on in Your Friend Menstruation, however Heartiste then gave me some food for thought here right after this research finding:

When a man’s woman is being bitchy, the problem is him, but not in the way most men would think. Most men will promptly resort to DEFCUNT Level 1 Beta Supplication Mode to appease their harridans, thinking, wrongly, that their women are bitchy because they haven’t gotten enough signs of commitment and support from their partners. And who could blame these men for thinking this? When nagging, inconsolable women lob heat-of-the-moment accusations at their men, the accusations usually take the form of scattershot wails about one-size-fits-all conventional relationship issues that come straight from therapists’ hackneyed textbooks.

“You don’t care about me.” “You never listen.” “You don’t support this marriage like I do.” “You forgot to go food shopping AGAIN. How many times do I have to remind you?!”

So these beta men, quite reasonably, care harder, listen longer, support stronger, and buy enough groceries to fill a fat housewife’s appetizer plate. He reasons, “This is what she claims she wants, so this is what I’ll give her. And that should make her be nice to me like she was last week.”

In the meantime, the alpha male is now on his fifth year of forgetting to go food shopping, and his lover hasn’t bitched once about it

The subconscious default Beta behaviors Heartiste is alluding to here are exactly what I’d classify as Mate Guarding behavior. Appeasement, supplication, sensitivity, etc. are all the classic default behaviors Beta men will resort to in order to solve the “problem” of their mate’s apparent dissatisfaction with him. You see, the man with a Beta mindset earnestly believes that Beta Game is his best strength in attraction with women. So when something is wrong with his precious little snowflake he automatically defaults to upping the Beta.

The more Beta the man the more his proclivity to Mate Guard will be.

I realize this is a very bold statement, but judging from the principles of sexual selection and how women’s biology has evolved to better effect her innate, sexually pluralistic hypergamy, only less sexually arousing Beta men would have needed to psychologically evolve mate guarding mental schemas to protect their parental investments with biologically hypergamous women.

Furthermore, the more organically Alpha men would be rewarded not only with relational fidelity (for fear of losing the hypergamic optimization he represents to a woman), but also sexually due to women’s natural arousal by them during her fertility phase. You could also make the case that predominantly Alpha men would be less prone to mate guarding since their sexual selection and mating frequency would be greater than predominantly Beta men, but this is also further compounded by women’s biological arousal and sexual rewarding of Alphas as dictated by her menstrual cycle.

End result? Alpha men would have been less environmentally motivated to evolve mate guarding strategies that Beta men evolved as a contingency to women’s sexual pluralism (i.e. cuckoldry)

Beta Contingencies

In Mrs. Hyde I quoted yet another study by Dr. Martie Haselton from Why is muscularity sexy? (Aunt Giggles wept):

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.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.

Using strategic pluralism theory as a guide, we can see how mate guarding behavior in predominantly Beta men would have evolved out of necessity. While women (in the past) may have to face trade-offs in weighing genetics versus provisioning, vows of fidelity do little to quell her arousal for Alpha seed when she’s in the proliferate phase of her cycle. In fact I’d argue that the advent of monogamy and monogamous marriage itself is a mate guarding strategy evolved by the meta-interests of Beta men (the most numerous men).

Just to end this on a positive note, I think it’s important to remember that through Game, self-betterment physically & educationally and red pill awareness men aren’t doomed to the absolutes strategic pluralism outlines. In fact this theory, I think accurately, only defines the contingencies and logical outcomes of the SMP – it’s not outlining determinism, it’s illustrating probablism . It doesn’t mean a man can’t transform himself into a contextual Alpha.

Time’s Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time’s up.