Category Archives: The Feminine Imperative

For Better or Worse

betterorworse

Before I dive in here today it’s going to be important to put things into perspective with respect to an Old Married Guy becoming Red Pill aware and then applying what he’s learned in his marriage. In the last few comment threads the discussion has veered to what exactly the state of “monogamy” (if it can be called that) will look like in the next few decades given Red Pill awareness, Open Hypergamy, the progression of technologies that conflict with (or exacerbate) our evolved capacity to reproduce, etc.

The conversation tends to be a back and forth between what a more feasible and pragmatic approach to long-term relationships might be. The Young Single Guys make a (rather convincing) case for some form of men reserving the option of non-exclusivity; to take on short term lovers should the opportunity present itself – even if for just protecting a man’s state of Frame. Dread, being what it is, would necessarily be a mutually understood cornerstone of this arrangement.

The OMGs who’ve had the benefit of experience with respect to living with women (and in some cases divorces), rearing children (for better or worse) then offer up the realities of what a pLTR might be limited by with respect to actually living in an arrangement like this and the legal ramifications it leaves men open to.

Hashing out what Marriage 3.0 will or should look like is a discussion I’ll reserve for the next essay. For now I think it’s going to be important for that debate to recognize that since Red Pill awareness, in the intersexual respect, is a relatively new social awareness there’s always going to be differing experiences with it.

For the young men who’ve had the benefit of being Red Pill aware and learning Game, courtesy of communication technology and the experiences of countless other older men, it may sound kind of mundane when an Old Married Guy (OMG) finally ‘gets it’ after being Blue Pill for so long. But while you may never consider getting married in the future, you will no doubt get older and hopefully wiser in a way that your elders never had the benefit of. The reason I wrote Preventive Medicine was to do just this; to teach men what to expect from women and their sexual strategies and prioritization at their various phases of maturity. However, I would be remiss not to take into consideration what YSGs relate about the realities of today’s sexual marketplace. I think between us we have a very powerful knowledge-base.

As I said, for YSGs, it may seem mundane for a formerly Blue Pill OMG to kick up his wife’s sexual interest with his new Red Pill awareness, but consider that to him the Red Pill is an exciting answer to a long struggle. Likewise, an older guy reeling from an ugly divorce and rebuilding an even better life and sex life with Red Pill awareness is a fantastic feeling that I think is hard for YSGs to empathize with.

Instant Gratification

In my Stalling for Time essay I quoted reader YaReally and his understandable frustration with dealing with women in what’s become the modern sexual marketplace. I won’t re-quote it here, but the gist of it was how women of this generation are so predisposed to the attentions that social media offers them. The immediacy of social affirmation is just an Instagram post away and Beta orbiters are now a utility women simply take for granted.

It’s important to understand this in the light of how women’s psyches interpret instantaneous affirmation, as well as instantaneous indignation, attention and emotional consolation from both Beta orbiters and ‘you go girl’ girlfriends. I should also point out that there’s an even uglier side to this equation for women and girls who find themselves social outcasts. The cruel venom from haters is equally as instantaneous and likewise women’s evolved psyches struggle to process this.

As is the theme of this series, we have a situation wherein technological advancement outpaces human capacity to adequately process how it is affecting us. In this case we have women’s solipsistic nature that prevents the insight necessary to self-govern themselves with regard to how instant gratification of their base needs for attention is affecting their personalities and the decisions they make because of it. Prior to the communication age women’s need for interpersonal affirmation was generally limited to a small social circle and the opportunities to satisfy it were precious and private. It used to require far more investment on the part of women to connect interpersonally. But in the space of just two generations the social media age has made this affirmation an expect part of a woman’s daily life.

On top of this, we find ourselves in a time when feminine-primacy in our social structure makes criticizing or even making casual, constructive, observations of this self-gratifying vanity on par with misogyny for men. Women cannot hear what men wont tell them, and women have far less incentive to self-examine the consequences of what this affirmation-satisfying attention is working in them.

The Open Hypergamy Future

I get what the Young Single Guys are saying, I really do. I linked this article in a recent comment and after reading through it and author’s blog I can’t help but sympathize with the YSG’s grasp of the modern dating scene and how utterly hopeless it is for men to expect anything less than complete, life altering despair from the prospect of marriage. There is no upside to monogamous commitment, but the real kicker is that this condition is what women plan for and would hope for their own daughters.

Now, I understand Emma Johnson is another click-bait outrage broker, but is the sentiment her reader relates in raising her daughter to expect to be a single mother as an ideal state all that difficult or shocking to believe from women in this era?

My dream for my daughter is that she be in a loving relationship, and have a good ex-husband who really does a great job with the kids, 50 percent of the time.

People forget the joys of divorce — sharing your kids without guilt and having alone/me time.

[…]I also have time to exercise, enjoy vacations that are relaxing and involve lots of book-reading, and I have had time to nurture a relationship with my new husband, with fewer of the stresses of blended families.

The idealized state is one in which I outlined in The Myth of the Good Guy:

The problem with this ‘Good Guy’ myth is not because men can’t or wouldn’t want to try to balance women’s Hypergamy for them, but simply because women neither want nor expect that balance in the same man to begin with.

This is a new step in Open Hypergamy, the acknowledgement and proud embrace of women’s Hypergamous sexual strategy is not enough. The open expectation that one man will father and support her children while another will satisfy her sexually and appreciatively is not enough. The plan is literally to raise a young woman to adulthood with the expectation of her raising another child without a father/husband in her life and the child’s. We’re left to presume that the preferred norm for raising boys will be in teaching them it’s their responsibility to accommodate this norm.

The plan is not simply to end the Sandbergian plan for Hypergamy with the “Equal partner, someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home.” The plan is to leave that well-providing Beta once he’s been locked into indefinite utility and take up with a sexier husband with fewer parental stresses.

Yet, despite the overtness of women’s Hypergamy, men still have an idealistic hope that the worst predations of women wont happen to them. Read this woman’s post, sift through her other posts; she’s despicable, calculating, duplicitous and would put the knife in your back she told you she would,…but she’s also honest.

Whether by our conditioning or some intrinsic idealism, we want to believe in the earnestness of the Old Set of Books in the face of New Book women openly telling us “You stupid men, this is what we plan to do to you from the outset. Naked, open Hypergamy and all its machinations is what I will teach my daughters and grand daughters to do to your sons and grandsons. And you will take it and accept your Alpha Fucks or Beta Bucks roles in all of it because you’ll never get past your inherent idealism that we might not do all of this.”

We want to believe this woman is an outlier, but by order of degree, we know that whether it’s with softly spoken, loving words or a mommy blog that triumphantly yells these truths, women’s opportunistic concept of love will never align with our idealistic concept of love.

Primary LTRs

The arrangement this woman is hoping will be her daughter’s adult life is not too far different from what YaReally was suggesting about pLTRs; a primary long term relationship with a direct or indirect understanding that a man could take other lovers as fits him. He’s not the first to suggest the pLTR scheme as a workaround for marriage or raising a family sans marriage or binding commitment. And if Emma Johnson (or the reader she’s quoted) is to be believed this would be her own ideal relationship, albeit from the perspective of a woman retaining total Frame control.

Even a PUA like Mystery believed he could maintain a literal harem in some kind of live-in pLTR. And then there are the men who subscribe to the Charles Bukowski school of intersexual relations – in the right socioeconomic conditions this pLTR is realtively possible, but I think this is a poor substitute for what, as men we’d like to be an ideal, reciprocal marriage in which men can expect respect, desire, love, honor and all the other words no woman could ever hope to recite from their marriage vows.

I’ve locked horns with more than a few women who want to take me to task over my debating that human beings are not naturally monogamous. From a social perspective, loose monogamy and women’s inherent need for cuckoldry has always conflicted with our more or less successful human progress based on monogamous marriage. This is changing right along with the latest technologies that afford it to. As such, men are also forced to adapt and improvise with women’s inabilities to process these changes and the rapidity with which the next ones occur.

The old gals always like to tout that western society is the result of our agrarian roots and monogamous way of life. This is ironic since it’s women themselves who’ve fought tooth and nail to destroy exactly this ‘successful’ set up. Ruthless, open Hypergamy is now something to be proud of; something to instruct our daughters to utilize for their own solipsistic, selfish betterment at men’s expense – and to feel no shame for it, but rather expect it as the future norm.

It’s now time for men to either accept and adapt to this, or to form our own response to it in a way that not only benefits our interests, but the interests of women who can no longer process these changes without mens’ direct instruction. In Our Sisters’ Keeper I explored the notion that women of today are merely the women we deserve because men have kept their counsel about the affairs of women. We’ve got the women we deserve because our silence, and the silence of our forbearers, was the voice of complicity. Now we’ve come so far that women will send a man to jail or the unemployment office, or a paternity court rather than hear a man criticize her inability to process social changes that harm not only her but the larger social order.

There must come a point where men must unapologetically correct women for the betterment of society. Today this is a bold statement, one that could likely bring consequences to man’s life, but it’s only a bold thought because we’ve allowed women and their imperatives define the Frame of our social order for so long now. The socio-intersexual conditions we find ourselves in today are the direct result of women’s inability to process rapid social changes. As men we need to collectively recognize this. We need to recognize also that our social state is the result of allowing women to set a social framework that indentures men, that calls single motherhood and Hypergamous choices normative ideals.

We also need to recognize that we will be reviled for presuming some patriarchal control or male privilege, but we must have the confidence to set this aside in the knowledge that we now understand that women cannot cope with post-modern social and technological changes.


A Woman’s Prerogative

prerogative

“A woman talks to one man, looks at a second, and thinks of a third.” – Niti Sataka

Reader/Blogger Ian Ironwood had a really on-point comment about last week’s piece that I’d already considered for the next essay to continue this series:

Excellent post, Rollo. It goes without saying that the Pill and liberalized divorce law was the first step on this path, but few appreciate its logical conclusion. Especially feminism, in the face of evolving technology. Pendulums swing both ways, and the reverse can be devastating.

In particular, your discussion of evolutionary biology/psychology and evolving technologies is spot-on. One element many men (and almost all women) do not appreciate is the social change that will erupt when Vasalgel or one of the similar products/procedures is finally authorized by the FDA. For the uninformed, Vasalgel promises ten baby-free years for a man before it breaks down, and can be removed at any point to get a woman pregnant. It works without messing with your hormones by simply shredding the sperm in the vas deferens. It costs about $1000. One time.

The social implications of this are clear: suddenly for the first time in history, a woman would have to seek a man’s permission to have a child with him. This small, subtle shift will have dramatic consequences, especially as we head into the Age of the Herbivore. When all of those egg-freezing women and their younger, more opportunistic sisters can no longer practice rampant reproductive coercion, then the social balance will shift again, and hard. Men who screw without the shredder are not to be trusted and are demonstrably irresponsible…but men with it are impervious to the traditional biological means of ensuring a commitment. Suddenly we are very much on an even playing field, and everything is back on the table. It will take the conscious will and permission of both parties to have a child, and men in that position will find themselves in a far more powerful spot than they have ever been in.

Finding a suitable father for your kid is hard enough, from a female perspective. Finding one who also sees you as a worthy enough mother for his children to make the conscious decision to remove his birth control is going to be much, much harder. And the prospect of starting all over with a new man as her biological viability evaporates is going to be . . . problematic. We’ll see a much more intense emphasis on the Epiphany phase, and a multi-layered cultural panic as competition increases among women across the board.

The cultural freakout will include more-of-the-same “where did all the good men go?” “manbaby” “dropout loser mother’s basement” frustrated criticism of men; which is why it’s important, from a cultural perspective, that there are men articulating our essential cultural position: marriage, as it stands, no longer serves our interests, and we will select only women of the highest quality to raise our children with – mindfully.

It will be interesting to see how it evolves, but I predict this one little fact alone – independent of the other sexual distractions available to modern man, from internet porn to Tindr to prostitution to robotic sex dolls – will put modern feminism and womanhood in general into a crisis. I look forward to your next few parts.

Despite what a handful of new commenters believe, I have written in the past about the dramatic cultural shift that unilaterally feminine-controlled hormonal birth control has meant to Western culture. I started this by addressing the feminine side of the birth control situation in posts like Fem-Centrism (also an important chapter in The Rational Male) because it offers and confirms for Red Pill men so many examples of how the psychological nature of women interacts with their biological natures:

Sexual Revolution

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

Put simply, the feminine imperative will not allow this.

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

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

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

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

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

Freelove 2.0

It would appear that if all clinical testing goes according to hopes, Vasalgel will be this new form of unilaterally male-controlled birth control. I am, however, cautiously apprehensive about how accessible this breakthrough in male birth control will actually be. From the research I did for this piece, and coming from the usual feminist suspects, you’d think that Vasalgel would be a Godsend for sex-positive feminism. If I’m a bit skeptical it’s because the usual feminist sources are following the same shortsighted emotionalism that put them into virtually total control of the course of the human species.

Naturally, feminism would like to paint Vasalgel as some equalist responsibility for men. Almost every feminist article I read aboutVasalgel had some exasperated variation of “well, it’s about time men were given some responsibility for birth control” and then citing how difficult it was to remember to take a pill regularly. The other refrain was about how women couldn’t wait to get off the birth control hormones that made them fat, moody or just ornery, and how great it would be to have men be responsible for the convenience of their sex lives – more on that later.

But this is more than a bit facetious for women, because it only illustrates women’s (or feminist writer’s) obliviousness as to how male birth control will affect a base of power the Feminine Imperative has enjoyed for over five generations now. The fact that we’ve had female-controlled hormonal birth control, as well as legal, medically safe, abortion since the mid 60s and we’re only now developing/testing a male-controlled alternative in 2016 should speak volumes about our culture’s feminine-primary priorities.

This idea never occurs to women apparently; at least not publicly. Bear in mind all the development for Vasalgel has taken place almost entirely outside of western cultures (India being the test-bed). It could be that Vasalgel is still in its infancy with regard to a feminine-primary public awareness and women are still caught up in the hedonistically entitled mindset that only speaks to convenience in their sex lives. My guess is that not a lot of critical insight has been given as to how, as Ian and myself have explained, a feminine-primary social order would be affected by men’s far greater control of women’s Hypergamous strategies.

The ‘greater good’ of Vasalgel at this stage is all couched in the hope that it will help end unwanted pregnancies. That sounds like a progressive’s idea of a benefit to society, but at this stage what’s being overlooked is how a new technological advancement will immediately and irrevocably alter the direction of our larger culture.

I spoke to this in last week’s article. The rapid advancement of Vasalgel represents the potential of altering the direction of a social order that’s depended on the presumption of a unilateral control of Hypergamy for almost sixty years now. My guess is that once we get closer to realizing the use of Vasalgel as practical birth control for men the more resistance and legislation will be lobbied against it as the idea of what it could mean to the Feminine Imperative starts to sink in.

Her Prerogative

Now, we have to bring the implications of male-controlled birth control full circle here. There’s been a common idiom about women’s ‘right’ to choice for centuries now – a woman’s prerogative; a woman always has the right to change her mind. I actually looked up where this notion first started and it went as far back as (you guessed it) courtly love of medieval times:

Breach of promise is a common lawtort, abolished in many jurisdictions. It was also called breach of contract to marry,[1] and the remedy awarded was known as heart balm.

From at least medieval times until the early 20th century, a man’s promise of engagement to marry a woman was considered, in many jurisdictions, a legally binding contract. If the man were to subsequently change his mind, he would be said to be in “breach” of this promise and subject to litigation for damages.

The converse of this was seldom true; the concept that “it’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind” had at least some basis in law (though a woman might pay a high social price for exercising this privilege, as explained below)—and unless an actual dowry of money or property had changed hands, a man was only rarely able to recover in a “breach of promise” suit against a woman, were he even allowed to file one.

This is another one of those old books ideas that women playing by the new books of modern times still clung to even after the Sexual Revolution. An important part of men’s Blue Pill Beta conditioning is to always defer to a woman’s judgement and choices no matter how duplicitous they may initially appear. Part of the old books social contract was based on a pre-understanding about what was at stake were a man and woman to come together, have sex and potentially bring a child into the world. Prior to the advent of birth control both sexes were on relatively equal presumptions of risk. A woman’s fickleness, duplicity or even prudence made a woman’s prerogative something pragmatic.

Now we move into an era where women have almost unchallenged, unilateral control of the birthing of the next generations of the human race. As I’ve mentioned before, with safe and legal abortion, feminine-controlled birth control, feminine-primary societal norms, feminine-controlled definitions of rape or harassment, and feminine-controlled legislation of men’s responsibility to fatherhood (irrespective of genetic origin) women’s consolidation on power is nearly complete.

All of these bases of social control revolve around a woman’s control of Hypergamy and the complete exclusion of men’s influence on it, beyond his genetic and provisional qualifications to satisfy it. When we combine the old books idiom of a woman’s right to change her mind with the nearly total control of Hypergamy, we see that the more we progress socially the more evident this feminine base of control is.

All social mandates revolve around satisfying women’s Hypergamous doubts, or allaying or justifying the fear of living with the consequences of them. Even in the current Presidential election we see this dynamic in action with the potential for the first female President.

Changes

In the next post in this series I’ll get into how women’s hindbrains struggle to keep up with the immediate rewards of social media and that the advancement of technology that gratifies their evolved psychological natures. However, for this discussion it’s important to understand that the advancements that have led to women’s social primacy of today are still tenuous. Vasagel could be one catalyst that is a game changer; a challenger not just to our intersexual dynamic, but the power hold women retain in directing Hypergamy and putting the direction of human breeding (in a much larger part) in the control of men.

I find it ironic and fitting that the promise of unrestricted sex which men believed they would enjoy with the advent of women’s hormonal birth control is the same rationale I’m reading from women about Vasagel. What they don’t consider is that this new invention will give men a new male prerogative with regard to who they will or will not start a family with.

I understand that in some ‘sphere communities Vasagel is the ‘big fuck you’ to women for have had such uncontested social control for so long, but to them I would advise not to get too elated too quickly. For the most part the socio-psychological infrastructure that conditions men for the Blue Pill will still exist, and there will always be Betas, even ones with the male prerogative that Vasagel implies, who will still defer to the feminine as their only means to sex and intimacy. The Feminine Imperative is nothing if not fluidly redefining itself to work around challenges to it s power. Vasagel may represent a change (assuming men are allowed to have it or can afford it) in our intersexual dynamics, but it will take some time before there is real change in our social dynamics as a result of it.


The Best Of The Rational Male – Year 5

girl-and-devil-1

Well another year has come and gone. I generally view the end of August as my year marker for The Rational Male. I didn’t add a page for year 4 since I’m not sure I want to clutter up the top of my blog layout with links pages, but I may yet combine the best of years 4 and 5 into one page.

A lot has happened in this span, I began the Red Pill Monthly talks with Niko Chosky. I still think I sound like a nasally teenager when I hear my voice, but the feedback has been nothing short of amazing on these so I believe we’ll continue with them for the foreseeable future.

Right after my year 4 best-of I did my first liv appearance in Vegas with Christian, Goldmund and Tanner Guzy at The Man in Demand Conference. I’ve discussed doing another one with Christian McQueen and we’re looking into venues for 2017. This was just an overwhelming experience to meet up with my readers in person, do the talk and have dinner at Sinatra’s. This was the first time for me to do an on premise event and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t a nervous wreck the night before, but every guy in attendance just impressed me to no end and the whole thing was something I’ll remember for the rest of my life.

I went through the process of having the audio mastered (courtesy of Sam Botta) to make it available via DigiRAMP for anyone to get a hold of now too.

Probably the biggest TRM news of 2016 was the release of the audio book of The Rational Male. It was a long time coming, but I think well worth the wait. I’ve come to believe that a book needs a time to mature into what its overall reception will be. The Rational Male book continues to sell very well and my focus has always been on emphasizing the printed book above all else since I feel that medium is the best to spark discussions and pass along to men who need it at the right time. That said, Sam Botta convinced me that men listen to books more than they read them so I thought the time was right and he’d just gotten back in the saddle so to speak after his debilitation in a hit & run car incident.

The book has exceeded any expectation I ever had for it and I still receive emails and tweets about how it’s changed men’s lives in the best possible way. The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine is also doing far better than I’d hoped if not eclipsing the first book. Sam and I are now in the process of doing the audio for TRMPM and I expect it will go live in early 2017.

The blog traffic continues to grow too.

stats

As most readers know, I do very little self-promotion for TRM and I only advertise the book on the TRP reddit forum and posting occasional Amazon reviews on Twitter. I always want the the message of this blog and my work to be relayed by the men who read and contribute to it. I’m a believer in the bottom up plan for improving men’s lives and ultimately the social order we find ourselves. I’m glad to see men passing on what they learn here. I’m happy to be able to focus on my ideas and have men spread the word for me.

I’ve done art direction and brand management for over two decades now. It’s what I do for a living so it wouldn’t be a stretch for me to convert TRM into a similar commercial success, but that’s never been my goal. From the outset I wanted to just do what I do and talk about the ideas I’ve come to or the dots I’ve connected. That isn’t to say I don’t appreciate making a little money from it, but I’ll never compromise my message to sell more books or start a Patreon site.

I’ve had guys tell me I should quit my day job and write full time, but I’ve never really needed to be an author for my livelihood. I do quite well for myself and not being beholden to being an official author allows me the freedom to do what I do without the concern of having to write ‘for’ anyone. I know there are guys whose schtick is to treat their writing like a product and they tell you to write for what your audience wants to read, but I think this inherently compromises the authenticity of the real message.

My goal isn’t to sell books, it’s to genuinely change men’s lives for the better with the tools and truths I present in my work. The Rational Male isn’t a ‘product’ for salesmen to sell, it’s a collection of ideas that, really, we’re all responsible for authorship of. Ideas are a hard thing to suppress, and they last far longer than the men who conceived them.

Honestly, when I started this blog back in 2011 I never imagined it would grow into what it’s become today. I have some plans now to do a site redesign. I’ve never really focused on the look of the blog, I just poured myself into its content, but I think after 5 years I’ll freshen the look up soon. I’m also in the middle of the first round of edits for my third book, the working title being The Rational Male, The Red Pill. That may change, but the primary focus will be on defining what the Red Pill is from an intersexual dynamics perspective. As a matter of policy I generally refrain from being too prescriptive for individual men to apply their Red Pill awareness, but in the new book I’ll break this rule and provide some generally applicable ways to live in a Red Pill paradigm.

Red Pill parenting and family interactions in a feminine-primary social order will feature prominently. Yes, it will include selections from the blog again, but with each I’ve added what I believe are general solutions to Red Pill problems, plus more new content.

Well, that’s it. I continue to be humbled by the response and reception of The Rational Male and I want to extend my true gratitude for everyone’s input, participation, reading my ideas and helping me do what I do – even the critics and detractors make me a better Red Pill author. So here’s what I thought represents the best posts from year 5.

Let me know what your favorites were in the comments and let me know how TRM has helped you as well.

 

With much gratitude,

Rollo Tomassi

 

The Rational Male Audio Book

Interviews

Red Pill Monthly

The Red Pill Monthly

The Red Pill Monthly

A Man in Demand Radio – Talk 3

The Red Pill Monthly – Frame

The Feminine Imperative

Solipsism I

Solipsism II

Damaged Goods

Good Girls, Bad Girls

Mansplaining

Sugar Babies

Losing My Religion

Parenting

The Red Pill Parent

Hypergamy Knows Best

Red Pill Parenting – Part I

Red Pill Parenting – Part II

Neofemininity

Red Pill / Game

Christian Dread

Ovulation & Dread

The Purple Pill

Don’t Hate the Beta

The Red Pill Balance

The Pareto Principle

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies

Positive Masculinity

Tribes

Hypergamy

Open Cuckoldry

Open Relationships

Evolving Hypergamy

Plan B

Late Life Hypergamy

Social

Storytelling

Empathy 2016

The War Brides of Europe

The Warrior Princess

Gamer Girls

Fempowerment

Ghosts in the Machine


Losing My Religion

fem-christ

In the interests of full disclosure, I’ll admit I’ve had this post in my drafts folder for some time now. As always, standard caveats apply with regard to my policy on posts about religion, politics, and socioeconomics. I don’t delve into the particulars of these subjects, but I will dissect how they coincide with intersexual dynamics.

It’s no secret that I’ve been a regular follower of Dalrock’s blog for over five years now. Along with Dal I also consider Donalgraeme and a few other bloggers in the ‘Christo-Manosphere’ Red Pill colleagues if not friends. I’ve always held Dalrock as a sort of Red Pill brother since both our blogs came up around the same time. I’ve quoted and credited him in both my books.

I do so because there was a time I considered pursuing a path in my writing that would follow the same Red Pill critique of religion, (Christianity for Dal) at least in some occasional sense. After reading Dalrock’s very insightful early posts I decided against it. Dal has earned the respect of the manosphere for his Red Pill lens of contemporary Christianity for good reason – he’s a consummate statistician and researcher, and he’s what I’d call “embedded” well within modern (I presume mostly evangelical) church culture. He does it better than I could hope to do that part of the manosphere justice.

I never go into any detail about my own faith for a couple of reasons, the first being it’s only peripherally relevant in my writing. Secondly, it’s always been my position that the Red Pill needs to remain fundamentally areligious and apolitical. That said, I am familiar enough with ‘Churchian’ culture and the psycho-social side of mainstream religion to understand it through my own Red Pill lens.

When I analyze Red Pill principles within social contexts I always have a hard time with religion. It grates on me because I’m of the opinion that one’s religious leanings, one’s interaction with existence and life, one’s consideration of the spiritual, ought to be something personal and private if it’s in anyway genuine. As such, and for some, it can be a source of real vulnerability and exploitation which is really nothing new to anyone. It’s one thing to be even agnostic and trapped in a Blue Pill world, but it’s quite another to have been raised to adulthood in a religious context and coming to terms with having some very deep ego-investments shattered by a new Red Pill awareness.

If you ask anyone steeped in the Blue Pill conditioning of the Feminine Imperative about how this exploitation operates in an intersexual context you’ll likely get the standard answer that religion is largely a “social construct designed to maintain the Patriarchy.” And I have no doubt that in a Judeo-Christian sense this was likely the case for millennia. I won’t dig into how much of this had the latent purpose of controlling for Hypergamy in this post, but in the generations since the sexual revolution and the rise of feminine social primacy this maintaining the Patriarchy is a failing distraction on the part of the Feminine Imperative.

Creating Religion in the Image of the Feminine Imperative

For the past five generations, there has been a concerted re-engineering of religion (and not just limited to Christianity) to better suit the ends of the Feminine Imperative. Just as men are sold the idealism of the old set of books while living within the social context that confounds them, religion has been coopted by the feminine. The old books religion has either been replaced wholesale by a feminine-interpreted, feminine-directed religion that places women as its highest authority, or it’s been restructured and rewritten to serve the same feminine-primary objectives.

For going on six years now, Dalrock has masterfully documented and rightly criticized these shifts in Christianity. Although I’m focusing on western Christiainty here, this re-engineering of modern religion is not limited to just Christianity. A Red Pill perspective reveals a lot of uncomfortable truths, one of these is how well the Feminine Imperative has succeeded in supplanting any and all masculine influence in religion.

I expect there will be female critics who’ll cite that, in most of church culture, it’s still predominantly men who control churches and religious organizations, but in the era of feminine social primacy, it’s not who executes the control, but whose beliefs control the executors. Pair this with the commodification of religion and we can see the spheres of true feminine control and feminine-primary purpose.

After almost six years of following the religious aspects of the Red Pill, I think it’s high time men acknowledge that modern Christian culture simply does not have men’s best interests as part of its doctrine anymore. Christianity, in particular, is by women, for women – if not directly executed by women, though even that is changing.

Church culture is now openly hostile towards any expression of conventional masculinity that doesn’t directly benefit women and actively conditions men to be serviceable, gender-loathing Betas. The feminist narrative of “toxic masculinity” has entirely replaced any semblance of what traditional masculinity or manhood once was to the church. Any hint of a masculinity not entirely beholden to a now feminine-primary purpose is not only feared, but shamed with feminine-interpreted aspersions of faith.

I recently read a study that our current generation is the least religious in history and I think as far as men are concerned much of that disdain for religion is attributable to a church culture that constantly and openly ridicules and debases any male-specific endeavors or anything characteristic of conventional masculinity. It’s no secret in today’s church franchisement that reaching out to, and retaining the interests of, men is at its most difficult.

Again, this is attributable to a generation of feminized men being raised into a church culture, and eventual church leadership, that has been taught to prioritize and identify with the feminine and reinforced with articles of faith now defined by the Feminine Imperative. The modern church has trouble reaching men because the church no longer has a grasp of what it means to be ‘men’.

To be clear, that’s not an indictment of the genuine faith itself, but rather a fairly measured observation of the way a feminine-primary church culture has shaped that faith. In the future, any man with a marginal capacity for critical thought will avoid the contemporary Christian church and religion for the obvious misandry it espouses; the only religious men you will find will be those raised into a life of religiously motivated Beta servitude – or those dragged to the feminine-directed church by wives who hold authoritative ‘headship’ in their relationships.

And even in what some consider to be pro-masculine or “macho” churches, we still find the Paper Alpha leaders preach from a mindset that defers wholesale to the feminine’s “Godly perfection” as they attempt to AMOG other male member to greater devotion to qualifying for, and identifying with, the feminine influence that pervades their church.

Religious men will be synonymous with a Beta mindset.

It’s gotten to a point where it’s better to look after your self-interests and repent of the sin later than commit to an institution that openly seeks to indenture you. I realize that might be anathema to the more determined religious man, but just understand that this is the pragmatic, deductive future that the contemporary, western-feminized church is presenting to men. The social contract of marriage from a religious perspective has shifted into the ultimate leap of faith for men. They literally risk everything in marriage – child custody, sexual access, any expectation of true, male authority or respect, long-term financial prospects, etc. – but this leap of faith comes with a metaphysical price tag.

Men declining to participate in faith-based marriage decline an aspect of a faith reset to serve women; women who are held as a higher order of sinless being than men by this new church. For the agnostic or areligious man, discarding a Blue Pill social conditioning for a Red Pill awareness is a difficult task, but for men raised to believe that their only doctrinally approved path to sex with a woman is abstinence until marriage, that man’s only hope is to accept his fate and stay the Beta a feminized church has conditioned him to be.

And once he gets to marriage and his approved expression of his sexuality, the “Christian” man finds that the feminized church, even the male elders, expect endless qualifications to women and his wife’s unceasing appeasement in exchange for that approved sex. It’s a tail-chasing that holds men to the old books social order expectations while absolving women of all accountability and expecting him to also make concessions for a new (feminized) social order that’s ensaturated the church.

SeventiesJason from Dalrock’s blog:

And then we have “Christian marriage” divorce rates which are only a few paltry percentage points lower than the secular world……..men like Chandler will blame “men” for not leading, not being ‘holy’ enough, not bold n’ biblical enough, not going to bed exhausted every night….and a pile of other excuses for why she “had no choice” but to end the marriage.

We have a whole cottage industry of ‘christian counseling’ and self-help books, usually written for and by women. We have conferences, TV channels, broadcast networks, podcasts, radio stations, outreach, plenty of churches in this country……..the Internet. A ton of resources. Books……every pastor great and small today is “working on” or has written a book.

How on earth did the early church survive under the penalty of death? Persecution. Seclusion, and outright shunning? How did it grow? How did it survive?

We are told over and over by pastors that “God has an amazing plan for your life!” and then to sell men in the world this ‘churchian’ ploy that you are somehow not as holy, balanced, ready, equipped, or mature to handle this amazing plan….ah, but your wife to be is! The unspoken consolation prize is “but…..hey, you get to have sex….and that’s the only thing men need or think about and want!”

That seems to be given begrudgingly today (in my men’s group…..goodness, so many of the married guys complain that their wives never want sex)

How did the early church turn the world upside down? All God did was send a few men, and they made it happen. We have so many tools today…..and we’re “helpless” and we tend to think a “building program” will help everything and if we let the men fix things on the property they will feel “useful”

For over five generations now, the modern church has become a Beta farm existing only to produce the same masculinity-confused men that the secular world has perfected today. In our idealism I think too many (even well-meaning Red Pill) men believe that the church is some insulation against the worst of the Feminine Imperative when it is in fact an institution that produces the same men we hope to free from the Matrix.

Dean Abbot had an excellent post about this dynamic in his critique of another post by Mark Braivo:

In spite of what you might hear in the media about how terrible and retrograde evangelicals are, the entire movement, even the “conservative” end is thoroughly feminized.

The central Christian teaching that ALL people are sinners gets glossed over. Instead, the notion that men are somehow worse by nature than women is everywhere, sometimes stated overtly, often in the subtext.

At the same time, women are elevated to a position of moral and spiritual superiority. Women’s sin is often excused in light of a man’s failings. I remember hearing a very well known evangelical leader tell a story about how his wife freaked out and started smashing all their dishes. What was his point? That she did this because he had been neglecting her. See, she is not an adult beholden to practice self-control, but rather an innocent, sweet victim driven to outlandish behavior by his shortcomings.

“Toxic masculinity”, any masculinity inconvenient to a feminine-correct purpose, is a sin both actively and retroactively in today’s church.

With every successive generation of Beta pastors that are produced by this farm you get more and more men whose only experience of that religion is one of servile deference to a faith that’s been fundamentally altered to the utility of women and feminine-primacy. Women love to complain that it’s largely men who do the preaching and decision making in church, but what they ignore is that these men are the developed implements of the Feminine Imperative.

I will wager that in the next 10 years Christianity will be unrecognizable from its prior tenets of well defined conventional masculinity and the faith itself will expressly be centered on deference to the feminine.

Culture Informs Faith

I’ve had several critics tell me that the problem with the modern church is really one of its culture and should be considered apart from the ‘genuine’ faith, however it is church culture that ultimately informs and restructures doctrine and articles of faith. When that culture is informed by the Feminine Imperative, open Christian feminists, and a feminine influence posing as doctrinally sound egalitarianism, this fundamentally recreates an old order religion in the image of a new order, female-primary, imperative.

This and endless variations of the feminization of religion across every denomination and sect is why contemporary religion is openly hostile to any semblance of conventional masculinity. Church is no place for a single man and is just a formality for the man married to a religious woman at this point in time. All considerations of faith aside, I cannot fathom an adult man with any self-respect finding anything attractive about the modern church. Either there is nothing for him there or he is despised and denigrated, openly in a faith altering way or discreetly in resentment, or in pandering ridicule of his juvenilized maleness.

I don’t type this without a sincere sense of what’s been lost, particularly for men genuinely seeking existential answers for himself. My observations here will undoubtedly be thought of as some attack on a genuine faith, but my issue here isn’t with religion per se, but rather the thoroughness with which the Feminine Imperative has either subverted wholesale or covertly influenced really all modern religion.

Yes, I realize that faith is something personal that should be set apart from churchy social influence, but the culture is a manifestation of the doctrine and collective belief system. That culture ultimately modifies and informs the faith itself, thus with every successive generation that social influence becomes an article of the faith for the next.

Better to laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, especially when the ‘saints’ are the priestesses of the Feminine Imperative.

The Red Pill lens in today’s church is a scary prospect.

Another commenter, The Question, had a good comment about this:

You’re absolutely right about the state of the Church in the West.

What makes it so dangerous for a Blue Pill man is that it is ground-zero for girls entering the epiphany phase. The single men who remain in the church are the ones will be pressured to fulfill their role in that strategy and will be treated with hostility if they don’t. I personally anticipate a renewed church “man up” campaign somewhere in the near future as the next wave of twenty-somethings near 30 and beyond.

I’d say the only reason to go is to meet cute single young women and that’s if the church actually has them and its theology isn’t wholly intolerable. College town churches like mine have quite a few young single ladies which is why I go.

I will admit, putting aside conscience and morality, the modern (‘Relevant’) church would be a veritable untapped gold mine for a PUA savvy of christian culture. Churchianity’s already got the perfect social architecture installed for pick up. Christian women aching for sexy Alpha dominance in a sea of preconditioned christian Beta “good guys”, high intrasexual competition anxiety for both sexes, instant reconciliation and sin forgiveness for women, hell, you can even talk a woman into an abortion without her having any accountability for killing her child at this point. What’s not for a PUA to like? Feminine-primary churchianity has been waiting for christian-savvy players for years now.

Men with a well defined Red Pill lens, having the sensitivity to understand the subcommunications of what’s going on around them in church, should be rightly horrified.

This is one reason Men like Dalrock are vilified by Christian women who understand he’s wise to what’s transpiring in the church – the Feminine Imperative has taken the Lord’s name in vain by presuming to promote its agenda and socially engineer generations of men to support it by claiming it’s God’s will.

Read the Fempowerment narratives of any ‘Christian women’s ministry speaker’, they will defend the sisterhood above any tenets of faith. They’ll tolerate blasphemy of the faith, but never the Feminine Imperative. They’ll rationalize abortion as a man’s sin, but never accept accountability for it and any man to attempt to rebuke them (for anything really) is counter-shamed for male chauvinist judgementalism. And being judgemental of any woman is the most mortal of sins a man can make in the new church

In the feminine-primary church, the Holy Spirit is the Feminine Imperative, what she says is an article of faith. Men who become aware of this via the Red Pill are a danger to 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.


The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies

monogamy

When I first began writing on SoSuave over a decade ago I used to get into what I consider now some fairly predictable arguments about monogamy. It was an interesting time since it was around then I was getting into some heated arguments in my behavioral psychology classes in college.

I had just written what would later become my essay, There is no One and a good majority of my classmates and all of my teachers but one were less than accepting of the theory. I anticipated most of the women in those classes would be upset – bear in mind this was around 2001-02 and the Red Pill was yet to be a thing – what I was surprised by was how many men became hostile by my having challenged the soulmate myth.

I got a lot of the same flack from women then that I get from uninitiated women when they read my work now; “Aren’t you married? Isn’t she your soulmate? Don’t you believe in love? You must’ve got burned pretty bad at some time Mr. Hateful.” Those were and are what I expect because they’re the easy subroutine responses a Blue Pill ego needs to protect itself with. There was a time I probably would’ve mouthed the same. That’s how the conditioning works; it provides us with what we think ought to be ‘obvious’ to anyone. And at the same time, we feel good for ‘defying the odds’ and believing in what we take for granted, or common sense.

This is how deep the subconscious need for assuring our genetic heritage goes. For women this assurance is about optimal Hypergamy, for men, it’s about assurances of paternity. In either case, we need to believe that we will reproduce, and so much so that we will attribute some supernatural influence to the process of doing so. The fulfillment of your own sexuality is nothing less than your battle for existence, and on some level, your subconscious understands this. Thus, for the more religious-minded it gets attributed to fate and faith, whereas for the more secular-minded it’s about the romanticized notion of a soulmate.

Monogamy & ONEitis

I contemplated the idea of ONEitis for a long time back then. I’d most certainly been through it more than once, even with the BPD ex-girlfriend. By then I understood first hand how the belief absorbs a Beta and how it is an essential element, effectively a religion, for a Blue Pill life experience. I didn’t realize it then, but I was maturing into a real valuation of myself and I had the benefit of some real-world experiences with the nature of women to interpret and contrast what I was learning then.

Honestly, I had never even encountered the term ‘ONEitis’ prior to my SoSuave forum days. I referred to the soulmate myth in my writing as best I could, but it wasn’t until (I suppose) Mystery had coined the term. Outside the ‘sphere people got genuinely upset with me when I defined it for them.  Back then I attributed this to having their ego-investment challenged, and while that’s part of it, today I believe there’s more to it than this.

The old social contracts that constituted what I call the Old Set of Books meant a lot in respect to how the social orders prior to the sexual revolution were maintained. That structuring required an upbringing that taught men and women what their respective roles were, and those roles primarily centered on a lifetime arrangement of pair bonding.

It’s interesting to note that the popular theory amongst evolutionary anthropologists is that modern monogamous culture has only been around for just 1,000 years. Needless to say, it’s a very unpopular opinion that human beings are in fact predisposed to polyamory / polygyny and monogamy is a social adaptation (a necessary one) with the purpose of curbing the worst consequences of that nature. We want to believe that monogamy is our nature and our more feral impulses are spandrels and inconveniences to that nature. We like the sound of humans having evolved past our innate proclivities to the point that they are secondary rather than accepting them as fundamental parts of who we really are.

Women, in particular, are far more invested in promoting the idea of ‘natural’ monogamy since it is their sex that bears the cost of reproductive investments. Even the hint of men acknowledging their ‘selfish gene’ nature gets equated with a license to cheat on women. This is an interesting conflict for women who are increasingly accepting (if not outright flaunting) of Open Hypergamy.

I’ve attempted in past essays to address exactly this duplicity women have to rationalize with themselves. The Preventive Medicine book and posts outline the conflict and how women internalize and ‘hamsterize’ the need to be both Hypergamously selective, but to also prioritize long-term security at various stages of their lives. Ultimately a woman’s position on monogamy is ruled by how she balances her present Alpha Fucks with her future prospects of Beta Bucks.

Seed and Need

It might be that women would rather share a confirmed Alpha with other women than be saddled with a faithful Beta, but that’s not to say that necessity doesn’t eventually compel women to settle for monogamy with a dutiful Beta. In either respect, the onus of sustained, faithful monogamy is always a responsibility placed upon men. The indignation that comes from even the suspicions of a man’s “straying”, a wandering eye, or preplanned infidelity is one of the most delicious sensations a woman can feel. Women will create syndicated talk shows just to commiserate around that indignation.

But in an era when the likes of Sheryl Sandberg encourages women to fully embrace their Hypergamous natures and expects men to be equally accepting of it, it takes a lot of psychological gymnastics to reconcile the visceral feelings of infidelity with the foreknowledge that a less exciting Beta will be the only type of man who will calm her suspicions.

It’s important to also contrast this with the socialization efforts to make women both victims and blameless. As I mention in the last post, men who lack the appreciation of the necessity to prepare for a sustained monogamy with a woman are considered ‘kidults’ or prolonging their adolescence. They are shamed for not meeting women’s definition of being mature; that definition is always one that centers on the idea that men ought to center their lives around being better-than-deserved, faithful, monogamous potentials for women’s long-term security and parental investment.

On the other hand, women are never subject to any qualifications like this. In fact, they are held in higher regard for bucking the system and staying faithful to themselves by never marrying or even aborting children along the way to do so. So once again, we return to the socialization effort necessary to absolve women of the consequences that the conflict Hypergamy poses to them – they become both victims and blameless in confronting a monogamy they expect from men, but are somehow exempt from when it’s inconvenient.

Pair Bonding

Arguably, pair bonding has been a primary adaptation for us that has been species-beneficial. It’s fairly obvious that humans’ capacity for both intra- and inter-sexual cooperation has made us the apex species on the planet. However, the Feminine Imperative’s primary social impetus of making Hypergamy the defining order of (ideally) all cultures is in direct conflict with this human cooperativity. A new order of open Hypergamy, based on female primacy (and the equalist importance of the individual), subverts the need for pair bonding. There is no need for intersexual interdependence (complementarity) when women are socialized and lauded for being self-satisfying, self-sufficient individuals.

Add to this the conditioning of unaccountable victimhood and/or the inherent blamelessness of women and you get an idea of where our social order is heading.

Both sex’s evolved sexual strategies operate counter to the demands of pair bonded monogamy. For millennia we’ve adapted social mechanisms to buffer for it (marriage, male protectionism of women, etc.), but the cardinal rule of sexual strategies still informs these institutions and practices:

 

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

In this respect, it is men who are expected to make the greater compromise due to an evolved sense of uncertainty about paternity and the social mandate to accommodate women’s sexual strategy.

The counter to this is that women have always borne the responsibility of parental investment if they chose a father poorly (or didn’t choose), but in our post-sexual revolution social order, the consequences of this responsibility have been virtually eliminated. In fact, those consequences are now viewed as evidence of women’s independent strength.

Even aborting a child is a source of pride now.

Men bear the greater effect of compromising their sexual strategies to accommodate and resolve the strategy of women. When we account for the normalization of open Hypergamy, soft cuckoldry, and the legal resistance to paternity testing (ostensibly centering on the emotional wellbeing of the child in question) it is much clearer that men bear the most direct consequences for compromising their sexual imperatives.

From Warren Farrell’s book. Why Men are the Way They Are (h/t to SJF):

Why are men so afraid of commitment? Chapter 2 explained how most men’s primary fantasy is still, unfortunately, access to a number of beautiful women. For a man, commitment means giving up this fantasy. Most women’s primary fantasy is a relationship with one man who either provides economic security or is on his way to doing so (he has “potential”). For a woman, commitment to this type of man means achieving this fantasy. So commitment often means that a woman achieves her primary fantasy, while a man gives his up. — P.150

Men who “won’t commit” are often condemned for treating women as objects — hopping from one beautiful woman to the next. Many men hop. But the hopping is not necessarily objectifying. Men who “hop from one beautiful woman to another” are usually looking for what they could not find at the last hop: good communication, shared values, good chemistry. — P.153

The meaning of commitment changed for men between the mid-sixties and the mid-eighties. Commitment used to be the certain route to sex and love, and to someone to care for the children and the house and fulfill the “family man image.” Now men feel less as if they need to marry for sex; they are more aware that housework can be hired out and that restaurants serve meals; they are less trapped by family-man image motivation, including the feeling that they must have children. Increasingly, that leaves men’s main reason to commit the hope of a woman to love. — P.159

Dr. Farrell is still fundamentally trapped in a Blue Pill perspective because he still clings to the validity of the old order books/rules, and the willfully ignorant hope that women will rationally consider men’s sexual imperatives as being as valid as their own.

That said, Farrell’s was the germ of the idea I had for the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies, he just didn’t go far enough because he was (and still is) stuck in Blue Pill idealistic hopes of monogamy. Bear in mind, Farrell’s book is based on his intrasexual understandings of everything leading up to its publication in 1986, however, this does give us some insight into how the old order evolved its approach to monogamy then into an open, socially accepted form of Hypergamy now.

He relies on the old trope that men are afraid of commitment by reasoning that men only want to fulfill a fantasy of unlimited access to unlimited sexuality – all shallow, all superficial, while women’s priority of commitment is correct, selfless, valid and blameless. Farrell also reveals his Blue Pill conditioning by making the presumption that men only Game women in the hope that they’ll find a unicorn, and they’re endlessly fucking women for no other reason than to find a woman with good communication, shared values, good chemistry, etc.

I sincerely doubt that even in the mid 8os this was the case for men not want to commit to a woman, or essentially compromise his sexual strategy to accommodate that of women’s. Farrell never came to terms with dual nature of women’s sexual strategy and how it motivates women over time because he believes men and women have, fundamentally, the same concept of love and mutually shared end-goals.

Mandates & Responses

In the decades since this publication, the normalization and legal mandates that ensure men will (by force if necessary) comply with this compromise is something I doubt Farrell could’ve ever predicted. Legal aspects, social aspects, that used to be a source of women stigmatization about this compromise have all been swept away or normalized, if not converted to some redefined source of supposed strength. Abortion rights, single parenting (almost exclusively the domain of women), postponing birth, careerism, freezing women’s eggs, sperm banks, never-marrying, body fat acceptance and many more aspects are all accepted in the name of strong independence® for women.

Virtually anything that might’ve been a source of regret, shame, or stigmatization in the old order is dismissed or repurposed to elevate women, but what most men never grasp (certainly not Dr. Farrell) is that all of these normalizations were and are potential downsides to a woman’s Hypergamous decisions.

MGTOW/PUA/ The Red Pill, are all the deductive responses to this normalization, but also, they’re a response to the proposition of the compromise that the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies presents to men in today’s sexual marketplace.

In all of these ‘movements’ the fundamental, central truth is that they all run counter to the presumption that men must compromise (or abandon) their sexual imperatives – long or short term. Thus, these ideologies and praxeologies have the effect of challenging or removing some of the total control of Hypergamy women now have mandated to them. Even just the concepts of MGTOW/PUA/TRP are equatable to removing this control.

However, it is still undeniable that there is a necessity for monogamy (even if it’s just temporary) or some iteration of pair bonding that ensures men and women raise healthier, stronger, better-developed children. We are still social animals and, despite what equalism espouses, we are different yet complementary and interdependent with one another. Mutual cooperation, tribalism, monogamy and even small-scale polygamy have been beneficial social adaptations for us.

Gynocentrism and the respondent efforts against it defeat this complementary cooperative need.

Gynocentrism / egalitarianism defeat this cooperation in its insistence that equalism, self-apart independence, and homogeny ought to be society’s collective mental point of origin in place of the application of differing strengths to differing weaknesses.

So we come to an impasse then. It’s likely it will require a traumatic social event to reset or redefine the terms of our present social contract to ever make monogamy a worthwhile compromise for men again. We can also contrast this ‘raw deal’ compromise against the Cardinal Rule of Relationships: In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. It’s easy to think women simply have no need of men when their long-term security is virtually assured today, but fem-centrism goes beyond just separating the sexes by need. It wasn’t enough to just separate male and female cooperation, fem-centrism has made men’s compromise so bad that they must be made to despise their sex altogether. Men had to be made not only to accept their downside compromise but to feel ashamed for even thinking not to.


Are You Experienced?

ontheroad

About three weeks ago I was made aware of an article on the New Republic blog called Bros Before Homes and a few of my followers on Twitter asked me for my take on it then. I did feel it merited more than 140 characters so I figured I’d build a post on it. Honestly, I had more than a couple irons in the fire for blog posts ahead of this, but in hindsight now I’m glad I waited a bit before digging too far in.

I am going to riff on it here, but before I do I’d like to point out that my posting Sugar Babies, before this post was a strategic decision on my part. You’ll understand why a bit later, but keep in mind the general premise of that post – women’s commodification of intimacy dynamic – and the priority of self-importance women place on themselves with regards to what men must pay for and why women believe they’re worth men’s having to pay for it.

I’m asking readers to keep this in mind because Bros Before Homes will contrast starkly next to Sugar Babies.

From the tone of the article you probably won’t need to look up Phoebe Maltz Bovy‘s portfolio to understand her clichéd feminist bias. It’s all of the self-importance and the prerequisite solipsism you’d expect from ‘journalists’ of her stripe, but try to read past the snark she thinks is interesting. Her sarcasm only highlights women’s duplicity with regards to men freeing themselves from the Feminine Imperative and women commodifying their intimate interests in ‘acceptable’ men.

The gist of Bovy’s fabricated angst is how offensively sexist it is for men to prioritize life experience, exploration, self-betterment, hobbies and the virtue signaling she sees inherent in men when they actually go their own way. Men cutting themselves free from the expectations of the Feminine Imperative and a feminine-primary social order always imply the threat of them coming to realize their own value.

It’s also that the very idea of experiences mattering more than things is a way of valorizing the stereotypically masculine. “While men are conditioned to dream big—to see their happiness in terms of adventure and travel, sex and ideas and long nights of hilarity—women are now encouraged to find deep fulfilment in staying home to origami our pants,” she wrote.

Whether women are being encouraged to rid our homes of useless belongings, or urged to shop for new ones, the result is the same: Society continues to associate women with the home and the material, men with the outside and experiences. While the enjoyment of domestic life, of stuff, isn’t inherently negative, it is dismissed precisely because of its associations with the feminine. An orientation towards stuff over experiences, moreover, gets cast either as recklessly materialist or, as Tony perceives it, an impediment to enjoying life. The only constant is that what women prefer, or are imagined to prefer, is thought inferior.

[…]We’re meant to admire the experience-lovers for their indifference to stuff, which implies they’ve got their priorities straight: to live life to the fullest. It’s no coincidence, though, that these experience-lovers are so often male, as it’s a stereotypically male aspiration not to be “tied down”—that is, not to have domestic responsibilities. But these men do have roofs over their heads. The bourgeois life they’re rejecting is simply one they’ve outsourced. After all, Tony hasn’t rejected the material life. He’s just got a woman—his mother—tidying up after him.

Bovy’s presumptions here smack of her reaching for some way to denigrate men’s pragmatically eschewing materialism or being tethered to what would otherwise be considered “grown up” responsibilities and looking for something more personally meaningful for themselves. As with all femosphere journalists you get a bonus 10% on your women’s studies essays if you can find a way to sneak the word’s “sexism” or “misogyny” in a piece.

Bros Before Homes is really nothing novel in the manosphere. MGTOWs have been advocating this reward-for-independence from women for as long as there’s been a movement. What is novel is that this return to a man being his own mental point of origin and prioritizing life experiences as his first priority is a result of an awareness that’s now filtering into the mainstream. It’s very easy to criticize men for being juvenile about foregoing what popular culture would have us believe is preparing ourselves for adulthood, but when this new idealism affects the men women hope will be well-positioned Betas when they’ve reached the end of their Party Years, then there’s cause for concern.

As a side note here, I should also say that it’s interesting to see how fluidly the progress of feminism comes full circle in Bovy’s thought process. She uses the same ambiguous tropes of a regressive society expecting women to resign themselves to domesticity and tidying up after men as if 60+ years of Fempowerment “leveling the playing field” never occurred. This is the same, very tired, cover story that second wave feminism used in the sixties.

The underlying irritation here is that men’s new prioritizing of experiences above materialism is a thorn in the side of women who’ve been given carte blanche to their Hypergamous whims. Bovy cries sexism because she presumes men are unable to engage in all this experience seeking without a support team of mothers and house-bound women, but what really makes her sore is that men doing the seeking reminds women of their natural predilection for materialism and the base of opportunism their concept of love is founded upon.

Bovy’s first mistake is that she’s statistically inaccurate.

The Blue Pill conditioning of the past 60 years has done everything but teach men to “dream big—to see their happiness in terms of adventure and travel, sex and ideas”. That particular conditioning is reserved for women playing along with the Eat, Pray, Love narrative. If anything it’s just the opposite. From education to family to church, men are conditioned for servile Beta-hood and lambasted for not ‘Manning Up’ and being supportive of women’s empowerment at the cost of their own. Conversely, women and womankind have been lifted to unrealistic idealism in pursuing their own interests at the cost of childbearing and monogamous domesticity. Apparently, Bovy’s never read Lean In or even watched a Disney princess movie in the last 50 years.

Off the Reservation

What worries women is that all the Blue Pill conditioning men have endured for the past several decades might be undone if men were to actually make themselves their mental point of origin. What worries the representatives of the Feminine Imperative is that Betas might see the pragmatism in following the example of men who put themselves first and eschew the trappings of building their lives around the materialism women seek when their looks fade and their need for men’s resource security is a better prospect than having to compete for men with their sisters. When marriage is an easily recognizable sucker’s bet to the point that even Betas can see the sense in avoiding it, that’s when the Feminine Imperative must shift to a new tactic.

Open Hypergamy makes for aware Betas. Men aware of the game they are expected to play must either tamp that understanding down into denial or they simply refuse to play. That refusal can come in many examples, but the reasoning is the same. The deductive, pragmatic response is for men to go their own way and put themselves at the beginning of their thought processes and goals.

The success of women’s sexual strategy depends on ignorant Betas being prepared to meet (or wait for them) at the time at which their need for security is the greatest. This expectation of Betas in Waiting is part of a Hypergamous plan; it is the consolidation of an Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks prioritization (also known as the Sandberg Plan). Bros Before Homes is an offense to this plan.

This then becomes a paradox for the Feminine Imperative. A man’s life experiences are generally a wellspring of attraction if not arousal for a woman. Experience is the source of a genuine Amused Mastery and a man’s self-serving experience is usually a prime indicator of an Alpha mindset. My Red Pill brother Goldmund is a perfect example of how personal, self-asserted, self-initiated experiences can be parlayed into a very effective Game.

Be that as it is, the proposition of any and every Beta going MGTOW in various ways, hitting the open road and regaling women with the stories of their exploits presents a problem to Hypergamy; Hypergamy wants certainty and a well-traveled Beta is still a Beta. Furthermore, living for the experiential implies less investment in Beta men developing skills, status, affluence and the personal equity that make them good prospects for Beta providership when they reach the critical age at which women need their cooperation in fulfilling their Hypergamy. At least, that’s the implied concern for women. Men with a sense to educate themselves from experience are usually all the better for it – even when that experience is a nightmare.

I should add here that prioritizing experience above other consideration needn’t be limited to Bovy’s silly impressions of Jack Kerouac’s On the Road.  What concerns the feminine is that men would devote the lion’s share of their personal efforts on anything unrelated to meeting women’s future or present security needs. It’s not just men wanting to scale Mount Vesuvius, it’s men having any self-import at the expense of women. When men’s ambitions are centered on satisfying themselves  and not about developing equity that’s useful to women, that’s when those men (and those who would encourage it) are shamed for not being an adult. They are shamed for not manning up or growing up to meet the needs of women and thus not living up to “adult responsibilities”.

Responsible Adults

It’s not an accident that society conflates men’s servitude with qualities of adulthood – it’s the design.

As such, women begin to get nervous that their future provisioning and security are their own responsibility. How those needs are met are a discussion for various other threads I’ve written, but the social expectations of men qualifying for ‘manhood’ by assisting women to fulfill their own Hypergamous imperatives are at the root of the “sexist” accusations on Bovy’s part. To her, it’s sexist not to plan one’s life according to women’s ‘correct’ sexual strategy.

Bovy actually shares a lot with contemporary Christianity. Ensaturated by feminine primacy, the modern church has made efforts to convince men that their servitude to women is both an article of faith and a prerequisite for responsible adulthood. In a reversal of traditional faith, men aren’t men until they’ve established themselves as being capable of providing for both themselves, but for women as well. Any man shirking this is shamed for “prolonging is adolescence”. All life priority and preparation is presumed to revolve around supporting a future wife irrespective of her own decisions and the results that come from them. The contemporary church is a Beta production institution as it is, but it’s interesting to see how both Bovy and modern Christianity align on the position of men’s proper roles.

This is an interesting parallel when you consider the lengths to which women have gone to emancipate themselves from (ostensibly) being dependent upon men’s influence and provisioning. Western culture has evolved around the strong independent woman stereotype, yet it’s sexist for men to emancipate themselves from the worst of women’s sexual strategy. Bovy’s perspective relies heavily on the Old Books rules set in the misguided belief that women are still beholden to roles of domesticity and repression in an era of triumphantly embraced Open Hypergamy.

Materialism

As I mentioned in the opening, it’s important that we contrast this concern for Betas leaving the plantation with the blatant soft prostitution of the Sugar Babies dynamic. In the light of women’s naked opportunism, and with that opportunism’s materialistic purpose, it’s easy to see how patently false Bovy’s premise is here.

In an era where we develop successful apps to aid women in setting their price on a basic date, it’s easy to recognize Bovy’s disingenuousness. MGTOW and its Red Pill aware derivatives are really just practical, logical responses of men protecting themselves from an Open Hypergamy women are all too ready to educate them about. The End of Men is also the eventual end of women’s expectations of long term provisioning. If Bros aren’t interested in homes the old social contract is put in jeopardy and Open Hypergamy only serves to expedite this shift. Women at the Epiphany Phase looking for the “equal partner” that Sheryl Sandberg assures her sisters will be waiting for them find that men have declined to play along.

The old joke is that if women would have sex in a cardboard box men would never buy a house. The joke’s played out now because women are happy to fuck an Alpha in much less, and now they’re proud enough to tell Betas all about it.


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.