A League of Your Own

“Rollo, I’m newly Game-aware, red pill guy and I’ve been meeting girls with more and more success since my conversion, but I can’t help the feeling that the really hot girls I want to get with a so out of my league. 

Any suggestions?”

Iron Rule of Tomassi #8

Always let a woman figure out why she wont ƒuck you, never do it for her.

An integral part of maintaining the feminine imperative as the societal imperative involves keeping women as the primary sexual selectors. As I’ve detailed in many prior comments and posts, this means that a woman’s sexual strategy necessitates that she be in as optimized a condition as her capacity (attractiveness) allows for her to choose from the best males available to satisfy that strategy.

This is really the definition of hypergamy, and on an individual level, I believe only the most plugged in of men don’t realize this to some degree of consciousness. However, what I think escapes a lot of men is the complex nature of hypergamy on a social scale. For hypergamy to sustain it’s dominant position as the default sexual strategy for our society, it’s necessary for the feminine imperative to maintain existing, foster new, and normalize complex social conventions that serve it. The scope of these conventions range from the individualized psychological conditioning early in life to the grand scale of social engineering (e.g. Feminism, Religion, Government, etc.)

One of these social conventions that operates in the spectrum of the personal to the societal is the idea of ‘leagues’. The fundamental idea that Social Matching Theory details is that “All things being equal, an individual will tend to be attracted to, and are more likely to pair off with, another individual who is of the same or like degree of physical attractiveness as themselves.” In a vacuum, this is the germ of the idea behind the ‘leagues’. The social convention of ‘leagues’ mentality is where ‘all things are not equal’ and used to support the feminine imperative, while conveniently still supporting the principle of social matching theory.

The latent function of ‘leagues’ is to encourage men to filter themselves out for women’s intimate approval.

As social conditions progress and become more complex, so too do men’s ability to mimic the personal attributes of providership and security. In other words, lesser men become intelligent enough to circumvent women’s existing sexual filters and thus thwart their sexual strategy. These ever increasing complexities made it hard to identify optimally suitable men from the pretenders, and women, being the primary sexual selector, needed various social constructs to sort the wheat from the chaff. With each subsequent generation they couldn’t be expected to do all of this detective work on their own so the feminine imperative enlisted the aid of the men themselves and created self-perpetuated, self-internalized social doctrines for men to comply with in order to exist in a feminine defined society.

The concept of leagues is just one of these doctrines. Your self-doubt about your worthiness of a woman’s intimacy stems from a preconditioned idea that ‘you’re out of her league’. The booster club optimist idea that “if you think you can’t, you’re right” is true, and boundless enthusiasm may overcome some obstacles, but to address the source of the disease it’s more important to ask yourself why you’ve been taught to think you can’t. A lot of approach anxiety comes from your own self-impression – Am I smooth, hot, affluent, funny, confident, interesting, decisive, well-dressed enough to earn an HB 9’s attention? How about an HB 6? Our great danger is not that we aim too high and fail, but that we aim too low and succeed.

I’m not debating the legitimacy of the evaluative standards of the sexual market place – it’s a harsh, often cruel reality – what I’m really trying to do is open your eyes as to why you believe you’re only meritorious of an HB 7. Looks count for a lot, as does Game, affluence, personality, talent, etc. but is your self-estimation accurate, or are you a voluntary participant in your own self-devaluation in the SMP courtesy of the leagues mentality the feminine imperative would have you believe?

The Economy of the League

As I stated above the purpose of fomenting a stratified League mentality in men serves to autonomously filter the lesser from the greater men for women to chose from, however, it also functions to increase the valuation of the feminine as a commodity. Like any great economic entity, the feminine imperative lives and dies by its ability to inflate its value in the marketplace. Essentially the feminine imperative is a marketeer. One of the sad ironies of this, and the last, century is that the feminine imperative has attempted to base women’s SMP valuation on a collective importance to the detriment of the individual woman’s SMV. For men this is inverted; a man’s sexual valuation is primarily individualized, while men as a collective gender are devaluated in the SMP.

What I mean by this is that, as a collective entity women’s sexuality cannot afford to be perceived as anything less than the more valued prize. If all vaginas are considered the gold standard then men’s sexual default value will always be lower. By this definition men, on whole, are out of women’s league.

For further consideration lets assume that average men, most being varying degrees of beta, are blessed with the ‘miraculous gift’ of an average woman’s sexual attentions. The power dynamic is already pre-established to defer to a feminine frame, so it’s small wonder that men would be prone to ONEitis even with an objectively average woman. This is the intent of the League schema – to unobjectively predispose men to commitment with women who under objective condition couldn’t enjoy the same selectivity. Roissy once postulated that for a healthy relationship to exist the Man must be recognized by the woman to be 1-2 points above her own SMV. This is a pretty tall order considering the feminine imperative’s emphasis on women’s sexuality being the more valued as default. And this is  to say nothing of contemporary women’s overinflated self-evaluations due to the rise of social media.

Gaming the League

All of the above isn’t to say that there isn’t a kernel of truth to the notion of leagues; it’s just not the “truth” men have been led to believe. For as much as the feminine imperative would have men subscribe to Leagues, it equally seeks to exempt women from the same League hierarchy by evaluating women as a whole. Needless to say men have their own rating systems – most popularly the ubiquitously physical HB 10 scale. I should add that it’s a foregone conclusion that any rating system men would establish for women in the feminine reality would necessarily need to be ridiculed, shamed and demonized, but you knew that already.

Irrational self-confidence is a good start to circumventing and unlearning the concept of Leagues; unlearning this conditioning being the operative goal. The Game-aware Man can actually use the concept of Leagues to his advantage with enough guile. When you approach a woman without regard to a League mentality or even a Zen-like obliviousness to it, you send the message that there’s more to you than a feminine reality can control. It’s exactly this disregard for the influence of the feminine imperative that makes the Alpha attractive; he’s unaware of, or indifferent to the rules his conditioning should’ve taught him earlier. Just in the attempt of Gaming a woman obviously “out of your league” you flip the feminine script by planting a seed of doubt (and prompting imagination) about your perceived value. Doubt is a very powerful tool, in fact the very concept of Leagues is founded upon men’s self-doubt. Turn that tool to your advantage by disregarding women’s social convention of Leagues.

The Rush

For today’s post we’re going to do a little experiment. Before you press the play button, take a deep breath, and while it is work-safe, you may want to plug your headphones in or be in someplace where you can be uninterrupted for 10 minutes. Be forewarned that any women within casual listening distance will likely be provoked to indefensible, yet hysterical defense of the sisterhood after eavesdropping. Pay attention to your heart rate and do quick self assessment of your mood. As you listen to this, be aware of the chemical reaction percolating in your bloodstream as the inevitable end comes. Then be aware of how you physically feel afterwards. Ok, press play.

 

All done? How was that for you? Heart rate up?

 

I must admit, I got an adrenaline rush out of that. Kind of like watching a car wreck in slow motion. However, I find that kind of ironic since any number of daytime shows (i.e. Tyra Banks, et. al.) have been basically doing the same shit for decades now. A lot of guys acknowledge the power of the chemical rush, but it’s only episodes like this that make it real for them. I’m sure most of the guys hearing this felt it; the high of adrenaline, endorphins, dopamine, etc., this is the chemical cocktail that women come to crave. I’ve read the chemical profile is very similar to that of heroin. Indignation triggers it for women in the same way sex and death trigger it for Men.

The main reason I wanted to pick this apart is because there’s a lot of elements to the whole incident. There’s so much at play in this, it’s hard to know where to begin. It’s interesting to read the responses to gauge what impacts people first. Women naturally lean toward the guy being classless for opting to hash this out in a very public forum, yet it feel fully justified for doing it themselves for decades. White Knights will come out of the woodwork to defend the indefensible in spite of the circumstance responding viscerally to a woman weeping. How did you feel when you heard the girl cry? We can pour through the reasons why the guy was a chump to have been living with her for as long as he did, but think of this more from the perspective of the physical effect it has upon the listeners.

Funny how even when a woman confesses to her infidelity we’ll look for ANY angle available to still cast her in the victim’s role. We’ll readily analyze the guy’s history, we’ll euphemize her misconduct as a “mistake” (or she’ll do it for us), and we’ll speculate “where her heart is really at.”

 

“but, Rollo, dumping the hor in private would have achieved the same end.”


I’m not so sure about that. I’ll be the first to advocate against revenge, but for pragmatic reasons (wasted effort), not so guys can cling to some self-righteous high ground. If the guy is resolved to break it off with her, and he has the opportunity to rub it in (on valentines day, caught red handed, thinking a proposal is due, etc.), but instead holds back and discreetly pulls up stakes, does it have the same impact? Would she genuinely appreciate the gesture? How would she ever know that he could’ve resorted to publicly humiliating her yet chose not to?

The guy opting for the “high-road” would be the only one capable of appreciating what he could’ve done if he hadn’t, and even his expressing his option to do so makes him sound vain and conceited. By all rights this woman was under the impression that he was going to propose to her on-air and was utterly crushed instead. How does a woman spared from this ever make that kind of acknowledgement?

The answer is she doesn’t. I’m not saying he should’ve done it, but in light of the life-altering gravity of entering into as binding a commitment as marriage (a topic of much discussion in the manosphere), I can understand why he’d consider it. We can call him a chump for living with the woman for 5 years, but he’s a chump who’d made the decision to commit and had the ring to prove his intent. She on the other hand, knew he’d decided to enter into this commitment, and not only betrayed that, but KNOWINGLY, and happily, was ready to let him propose in spite of herself.

 

“Is justice somehow rendered as “less than justice” when it is administered by your OWN HAND?”

 

Therein lies the rub. There will always exist an element of bias (revenge) whenever one enacts what they perceive as justice. Women are almost universally absolved of this. Carrie Underwood can write a chart topping song about vandalizing the truck of a cheating lover that women (and men) will gleefully memorize the lyrics and sing along with, but let a man publicly humiliate a caught-in-the-act, cheating lover and “he’s less of a man” and runs the risk of having his personal life ruined as a result.

As far as this guy breaking Iron Rule #4; yes, the guy’s a fool for having done so for 3 years, and I’d go so far as to say an even bigger fool for being monogamous with a solitary woman for 5 years during his prime (I assume Chris was in his 20’s). My point was to illustrate his degree of commitment (he bought a ring) not to justify his having lived with her as long as he did. Contrast this incident with Tiger Woods situation: a lot has been made about commitment being tantamount to male virtue, so my emphasis was his readiness to commit and the gravity it bears on a man’s life.

There was another aspect that I hadn’t considered in this. I don’t entirely believe that reversing the roles to understand a contrast would be applicable in this case. Generally women don’t ask men to marry them. I understand it happens, but never to the degree that a man must prepare to make a proposal of marriage. Chris had resolved in his mind to marry the girl, and acted on this resolve by buying a ring and planning to propose on V-Day. Men are the True Romantics; Women simply do not have a parallel experience for this.

I understand this is a bit of a stretch, but for a moment lets assume Chris knew exactly the future liabilities of his commitment – all of those high-road, morally binding liabilities Tiger reneged on in his marriage – should his response to her deception be any less measured than what he did when you think of what he’d almost committed to?

Think of the impact his commitment to her would’ve entailed; think of how it would effect their families, his career and / or educational opportunities, their future children and their personal decisions, his finances, his psychological well being, their quality of life, and the list goes on, but essentially he was betting his future life on this girl. The guy was a hair’s breadth from making that commitment when he discovered the deception. I think she got off rather lightly.

 

*I’ve got to give props to the guys over at the BodyBuilding.com forums for rediscovering this link for me. I had originally used this audio in a SoSuave forum post back in February of 2010 and lost the audio link. Thanks guys.

Plate Theory V: Lady’s Game

I had a good amount of response on last Friday’s Plate Theory post asking for a more complete idea of women being natural Plate Theorists, so I thought I’d elaborate on this.

Female Plate Theory

For as often as I’ve mentioned women being natural plate theorists, I don’t think I’ve ever gone into detail about it. I think it’s pretty well established that I completely disagree with idea that women will only fuck one guy at a time. I could outline several women I know from experience in this, but really, observing behavior will bear this out fairly predictably. I will however agree that they are predisposed to, and are socially encouraged to, seek monogamy, but as in all things female the talk rarely matches the behavior. Sexuality is a woman’s first, best agency and even the homeliest woman know this – even when they’re just complaining about other women using it.

The principle that a woman’s first priority is to seek out security is true, and we’d be wise to bear this in mind when evaluating motives for behavior, but their methodology is what’s in question here. There is an understandable confusion for guys in this respect. On one hand women present a constant facade that the fear of being perceived as a slut (i.e. concurrently fucking more than one guy at a time) is primary to their self-respect and respectability. However, this has to be tempered with the desire to experience a variety of men in order to ensure the security/provisioning from the best among them. So in order to facilitate this women must practice a kind of calculated hypocrisy that is socially reinforced by the gender as a whole as well as some men (usually those so optionless as to excuse the behavior in order to get to her sexuality, or guys so conditioned that they overlook it as normal).

It is socially acceptable for a woman to blatantly spin plates.

Does this sound outrageous? While a woman who makes her sexual practices a bit too overt runs the risk of being perceived as a slut (which is dubious in this age as it is), most relatively attractive women covertly have a constant bullpen of starters ready to go to bat at any one time – these are also known as ‘Orbiters’. These are the attention providers, the “maybe” guys. And it makes little difference in terms of available options which she chooses at any given time, the very fact that she has five or six of them pursuing her is enough to boost her sense of self-worth, her social status within her same-gender peers, and give her the confidence to drop any one of her plates at a moments notice for any reason knowing that 2 or 3 more guys (or 20 more on facebook) stand ready to take his place, no questions asked and prepared rationalizations at the ready.

In addition, this practice is socially reinforced by women doing the same thing and the social conventions constructed to excuse the behavior. It’s the unspoken rule of a woman’s prerogative; she can always change her mind. This is a powerful tool for women –  in any situation, if a woman doesn’t choose to be sexual it is necessarily forced (or obligated), even when it’s after the fact. Either the “Jerk” forced her, physically or emotionally, or she had thought she wanted to, but later reconsidered – it makes little difference. In all social situations the default is to side with the feminine, the “weaker sex” – women, from sympathy or empathy, and men, from a desire to eventually become intimate with them. Dalrock expertly describes this convention in his “Don’t hit me, I’m a girl” post.

In either instance, the feminine prerogative is socially reinforced. That’s important to understand because even by my focusing on it here as a male, my motives for doing so become suspect. That’s how embedded this dynamic is – to question it risks ostracization. However, I also understand that for the greater part of women, this plate spinning dynamic isn’t a conscious effort on their part. In fact I’d suggest that it’s so thoroughly recognized that women default to it autonomously. Also, this is a good example of the first principle of power – when you have power, always feign powerlessness.

Free Reign

So, with a firm understanding that their behaviors will for the most part be excused, they are free to practice the feminine form of plate theory unhindered by social reprisal. The feminine plate spinning involves much more than sex though. Remember that attention is the coin of the realm in female society. The capacity to command attention determines self-esteem, peer status, sexual selectivity, and a host of other factors in a woman’s life, so spinning plates becomes more than just a “which guy am I gonna bang tonight” prospect. This dynamic and these factors are what makes women natural plate spinners. Even when a woman has no intention of ever becoming sexual with a “maybe” guy, his attention still has some value to her. It appeals to the long term prospective for security that’s a continuous subroutine running in her hindbrain. This is the rudimentary psychology behind hypergamy.

Now, combine all of this with women’s native language – covert communication – and it’s natural for a man to assume that a woman will only ever become sexual with one guy at a time. This serves the latent purpose of keeping him in a kind of stasis. If he assumes women will only be sexual under the precondition of commitment she is free to spin plates (essentially weighing options) as she pleases and sample at will what she sees as in her hypergamic best interest at the time. If the carrot looks good enough the guy will patiently pull the cart until such time as another, better carrot comes along. Either way he’s in that stasis. If a guy were to see her social and psychological machinations for what they are, he’d never pull the cart – so it serves women best that men think commitment should always be required for intimacy, even in the face of her behavior directly contradicting this.

Plate Wars

Lastly, this social dynamic serves as a very effective weapon for women against each other. As I stated in the last Plate Theory post, competition anxiety between women is something men can exploit for their own plate spinning, but the reason it is useful is because women so readily use it against each other. For a woman to say another is a “slut” translates into an overt betrayal of this unspoken social contrivance. She essentially is saying, “the rules are that women require commitment for sex, but here’s one who’ll never be worthy of any guy’s commitment because she wont play by the rules you suckers think she will.”

She is tacitly disqualified for a man’s commitment and is, at least in the accusing woman’s mind, a reduced threat in this feminine competition. She becomes exposed in the same game they’re all playing and in being so loses attention and therefore status and personal esteem. It seems petty to guys, but it’s really intra-gender warfare. Think of how many times an exceptionally attractive woman, that is completely anonymous to a group of women you happen to be with, berate her based on appearance alone. “She’s must be a tramp if she dressed like that.” These are the same women who’ll berate a man for basing his estimation of a woman on her outer appearance. This is feminine competition anxiety. Ask a woman to name the most attractive female actress they can think of. Odds are it will be a woman (who as a guy you’d never think of) who presents the least threat of this anxiety.

Gentlemen, as I’m fond of saying, women will fuck. They may not fuck you, they may not fuck me, but they will fuck someone. The girl who bangs the hot guy at the foam party in Cancun on Spring Break within 5 minutes of meeting him is the same girl who want’s you to believe that they’ll only fuck one guy at a time and then after commitment. All women are sexual, you just need to be the right guy at the right time for the job.

Late Term Virgins

Anyone seen the Virgin Diaries yet?
Originally Posted by jafyk on the SoSuave forum:
What’s your take on people waiting to get married to have sex?

I could simply take the easy way out of this and defer to my now infamous Wait for It? post, but I don’t think it would sufficiently address the phenomena of women abstaining from sex until marriage. I mention women here implicitly because there’s no man on planet earth with a mean average testosterone level who wants to wait for sexual intercourse. For guys who convince themselves of this sadistic delusion it’s generally an element of their particular form of Beta Game.

Many an AFC believes that having held onto his virginity for so long is a great selling point for himself. It follows the standard Beta Game protocol of attempting to instill value by proxy. In other words “I’m not like those other guys, I held onto my virginity this long and you are so special a girl that I’ll forego this conviction to bang YOU, you lucky special girl you.” The assumption is that she’ll be so flattered by such an offer she’ll reciprocate with all her unbridled lust. Of course the more likely scenario is she’ll use this confession as a convenient out of the situation by saying how she could never live up to his expectations – essentially a moralized version of the LJBF escape clause. She’s not the girl he’s looking for. By admitting this, he’s essentially saying “I was saving my virginity for the woman who’ll be my wife.” The covert message is just short of a marriage proposal; marriage being the pretext for sexual intimacy. Needless to say, this will often be overwhelming for the girl.

All that said, and as odd as it sounds, I can appreciate the conviction of saving oneself for marriage. As impractical as it’s become, the latent purposes for doing so do make practical sense, or at least they used to. Unfortunately the idea has been subjected to the modern insecurities and inconsistencies of the overly religious, smashing headlong into modern entitlements of contemporary feminine hypergamy. Without turning this into a theology thread, the idea of maintaining virginity has become a hinderance to full maturityin modern times, and this is then exacerbated by confused and inconsistent understanding of gender definitions from the past 50 or so years of feminization. Religion is no insulation against the rigors of the sexual marketplace and the church is no shelter from the Matrix, and if anything, feminization thrives there.

Simply put there are experiences and opportunities for personal growth that only embracing our sexuality can offer. One point I regularly make with respect to AFCs is that at some stage in their maturation they became retarded. I use “retarded” in the clinical, not the derogatory sense here; their social maturation becomes held up by their lack of access to experiences that would help them develop new cognitive models. Most of the time this is due to an inability to see past old conventions they learned in adolescence which halts them from passing to the next level so to speak. The problem with saving oneself for marriage becomes apparent in this. I’m not saying there is no merit in it, just that most people subscribing to it blindly do so without understanding the limitations inherent in it.

From my experience in the church, most men I know are either so entirely unprepared for the responsibilities of marriage they tend to hook up with single mothers, or they see marriage as an inconvenient obstacle to their getting to fuck and marry at 19 in order to be “legitimately having sex” with no caution or condition whatsoever to whom they marry. Add to this the predominance of weak-masculine, asexual fathers and dominant masculinized mothers insisting on the feminine as priority and the religious AFC cycle continues. I should also add that this arrangement of marriage-for-sex is total abdication to the feminine imperative. The new feminine primacy paradigm figured out the utility of using duplicitous traditionalism to further it’s influence long ago.

The Odysseus Effect

One last conflict that “late term virgins” have to resolve is that in order to get to a point of intimacy with a woman – in order to marry them and thus have sex – is that there is a necessary sexual desire for both people. The conflict is this; in order to get to that pure, acceptable sexuality there is a needed sexual desire that has to preexist. It’s exactly this lusty taboo (sin) about sex that is necessary to prompt a person to marriage (holy). The selling point is a mutual sexual interest – we want to fuck people who want to fuck us – and this ‘forbidden fruit’ dynamic is a primary element in Virgin Game. If you have a professed strong conviction against premarital sex, and your desire for a woman is more consuming than that conviction, you’re essentially willing to defy the gods to fuck her. What woman, especially the pollyanna religious variety, wouldn’t appreciate being elevated above the dictates of God? It’s the ultimate in pedistalizations.

Fem-Centrism

My intent with yesterday’s (relax, they’re just tits) post was to illustrate how the reality in which we find things “normal” is rendered by fem-centristic influence. Across ethnicities, and encompassing all manner of social diversity, this influence is so insaturated into culture, laws, media, entertainment, from our collective social consciousness to our individual psyches that we simply take it for granted as the operative framework in which we live. I realize this is a tough pill to swallow, because the male imperative does in fact intersect with the female imperative depending on mutual goals. However, the point is that the operative framework, the reality we function in, is defined by the feminine.

I can remember first becoming aware of just the hints of this the first time I watched a popular sit-com on TV with a critical eye. There simply were no positively masculine actors or roles in ANY show, and rather every male was ridiculed for his masculinity. This then led into other aspects of society and media I was just starting to become aware of. Feminization was everywhere, but my inner guilt for even considering that possibility was hindering my unplugging from it.

I remember at first feeling guilty about feeling offended by just my noticing this. I felt ashamed of myself for thinking that maybe things weren’t as ‘normal’ as women would like me to think. What I didn’t understand was that this was part of my conditioning; to internalize a sense of shame for questioning that ‘normalcy’. A lot of men never get past this programming and never unplug. It’s just too embedded in “who they are”, and the resulting internal conflict will prompt them to deny the realities of their condition and sometimes actively fight others who challenge the normalcy they need in order to exist.

Once I’d gotten past the self-shame, I began to notice other patterns and interlocking social conventions that promoted this fem-centrism. From the macro dynamics of divorce laws and legal definitions of rape, to the gender bias in military conscription (drafting only men to die in war) and down to the smallest details of mundane water cooler talk in the work place, I began to realize just how overwhelming this influence is on our existences.

Observing the Framework

Recently I listend to an advice radio talk show where a woman called in in emotional distress with her husbands actions. Apparently she’d dated the man for a year or two before marriage and they talked about how neither wanted children from the outset. Prior to the marriage both agreed, no kids, that is until about a year into their marriage the wife had secretly gone off the pill and made deliberate efforts in her sexual activities with her husband in order to conceive. Trouble was she wasn’t getting pregnant. Only later did the man confess that he’d had a vasectomy so as not to risk having kids with any woman he paired up with.

The ensuing indignation wasn’t directed at the woman’s admitted duplicity and covert efforts to deceive her husband into thinking she’d had an accidental pregnancy, but rather all the fires of hell were concentrated on this man’s alleged deception of her. This serves as a prime example of how the feminine reality frames the directions of our lives. Publicly and privately, not even an afterthought was spared for the woman’s motivation and desperate measures to achieve her sexual imperative because the feminine imperative is normalized as the CORRECT goal of any conflict. A woman’s existential imperative, her happiness, her contentment, her protection, her provisioning, her empowerment, literally anything that benefits the feminine is not only encouraged socially, but in most cases mandated by law. Ironically, most doctors require a wife’s written consent to perform a vasectomy on a married man; not because of a legal mandate, but rather to avoid legal retaliations and damages from a wife. By hook or by crook, her imperative is the CORRECT one.

Some will argue that it hasn’t always been thus, and that in certain eras woman have been reduced to property like cattle. While that may have some merit I would argue that the perpetuation of this notion better serves the new feminine reality in promoting a need for recognition of victim status and thus a need for restitution. The truth is that even the most ardent supporters of reconciling a “patriarchal  past” are still operating in the feminine realty in the now. Other than sultans and emperors, very few men born prior to the dark ages have ever really ‘owned’ a woman.

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.

The Feminine Reality

I think one of the basic premises I acknowledge in my essays is one that even some of the more ‘enlightened’ Men of the ‘community’ don’t entirely grasp. This is the presumption of a feminine reality. Sometimes I refer to this as the female imperative, other times I might colloquially express it in terms of it being “The Matrix” for an ease of understanding, but I always presume my readers (even of my comments on other blogs or forums) have a basic understanding of this.

I think I may be a bit mistaken in this.

Everything a man experiences, every social conditioning he receives from the earliest age, every accepted social norm and every expectation of him to qualify as the definition of a mature adult Man in contemporary society is designed to serve the female imperative. Moralist wallow in it, absolutists and defeated white knights existentially depend upon it, and even the better part of relativists still (often unwittingly) feed and serve the feminine purpose. In fact, so all encompassing is this reality that we define our masculinity in the terms of how well we can accommodate that feminne influence.

Our media celebrates it, and brooks no dissent. There is very little dissent, since to peel back the veneer is to be at odds with a reality defined by the female purpose. You feel lonely because you can’t understand it’s influence, and the conditioning you’ve been subjected to defines the objective solution to curing that feeling. You base the decisions of your future, your education, your career, your religious beliefs, even where you’ll choose to live, to better accomodate the feminine influence either in the present or in preparation of accommodating it in the future.

You get married, out of fear for not being found acceptable of it, or from social shame for not yet having accepted your role in service to the imperative. Your children are offered in tribute to it, while in turn you unknowingly perpetuate it in them. You pay tribute in alimony, in divorce proceedings, in the expected sacrifices your career demands to maintain its influence in your own life and in society at large. You exist to facilitate a feminine reality.

We can excuse it with moralisms, we can attach notions of honor and stability to it, we can even convince ourselves that the feminine imperative is OUR own imperative, but regardless, men still serve it.

Sexual Strategies

For one gender to realize their sexual imperative the other must sacrifice their own. This is the root source of power the feminine imperative uses to establish its own reality as the normative one. From this flows the rules of engagement for dating / mating, operative social conventions used to maintain cognitive dominance, and laws and legalities that bind society to the benefit of the feminine. From this is derived men’s default status as the ‘disposable’ sex, while women are the protected sex. It’s this root that the imperative uses to excuse (not apologize for) the most blatant inconsistencies and atrocities of women.

Monogamy and fidelity are only useful when paired with an optimized hypergamy. Without that optimization, they’re inconvenient obligations to the the feminine reality.

In order to effect this reality men must be convinced of a degree of more control than the feminine imperative exerts. They must believe that it is they who are the masters of a reality defined by the feminine, while remaining dependent upon the systems that the feminine reality outlines for them. So they are told they are Kings, brutes, savages, patricians, intellectuals, anything that might convince them that the reality they exist in is privileged and expressly serves their purpose. Already the ‘protected sex’, this all encourages the default presumption of victimhood for the feminine.

The crowning irony of the feminine reality is that men should be accused of patriarchy while enabling the very framework of the feminine imperative. The feminine sexual strategy is victorious because even under the contrived auspices of male oppression, it’s still the female goal-state that is agreed upon as the correct effort. Satisfying the feminine imperative, achieving the ends of the feminine sexual strategy is still the normative condition. Men’s goals are aberrant, women’s are beatific.

Forgive me if I’ve waxed a bit too poetic here, but it’s important to see the Matrix for what it really is. The next occasion you lock horns with even the most well-meaning woman’s (or mangina’s) opinions about life, relationships, marriage, having babies, religion, etc. understand that her perceptions are based in this reality. She’s correct because her beliefs line up with what the framework of her reality reinforced in her as correct. Any other frame of reference is either utterly alien to her at best, wicked and evil at worst.

Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

Compatibility

There is a groupie for every male endeavor. Except World of Warcraft. – Roissy

Rollo, what are the Best Hobbies for meeting chicks?

Yeah…i know..you’re not suppose to be looking for chicks while you are practicing your hobby but…fuck that crap. I’m always on the lookout….and hanging with a bunch of drunk dudes who play softball on the weekend in SWELTERING heat doesn’t sound like my gig.

It’s very entertaining for me to hear guys reason as to why they got into yoga, or my all time favorite, salsa dancing as some means of meeting girls. I mean really, if that’s the goal you choose to devote the precious few hours of your leisure time to then I suppose a guy ought to take up scrap-booking or zumba.

If you’re picking up a hobby in order to meet women all you’re doing is attempting to Identify with what you expect your idealized woman to appreciate. If you get into something for this reason it’s not a hobby, it’s a Buffer.

Successful men don’t chase success – success chases them. Women are going to expect you to have your own uncontrived, interests, passions and hobbies established before meeting them.

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

That said, you can stretch this association quite a bit. If you enjoy playing basketball after work with friends or hitting the gym, there is a benefit to her – your improved health, better looks, less fat, etc. so the “hobby” is more tolerable. There is a kind of hierarchy of leisure activities, hobbies, passions, etc. that women rank based on how it relates to themselves and the social perceptions that are associated with it. You could even make the case that playing X-Box helps you decompress after a hard day at work, but this is less tolerable than something that has tangible benefits or at least the association of benefits for a woman. You have to learn how to mediate this in an LTR. It’s actually a fantastic opportunity to maintain the frame within a relationship if you have the wherewithal to endure her protests. I have a LOT of passions and interests that I enjoy. Some directly benefit my wife, others don’t, but the moment I give one up, I surrender and that’s the moment she loses respect for my authority as a Man. I fully acknowledge there are interests I have that Mrs. Tomassi is casually indifferent to or outright despises, but were I to acquiesce with “OK honey, you win, I’ll stop it with such and such”, I lose prominence.

Nothing irks me more than AFC husbands who abdicated their authority and prominence by giving up things that they loved prior to marriage. And then they tell me how “thankful” they are that they married a woman who “allows” him to watch Hockey occasionally on the little TV set they have in their bedroom (not the widescreen in the living room). If guys are obsessively playing fantasy football or baseball in preference to banging their wives, I think the first place to start is with the wife. Most often it’s a referendum on her. Men should not need to create their own space, their home should be their space. Your home should be your ‘Man-Cave’.

Common Interests

When I was dating my wife we shared one common interest – fucking like rabbits whenever and wherever. There’s are very few things my wife and I do together as a couple as far as common interests go. We don’t share hobbies, we do bodybuilding, but separately, she taught me to ski when we were first married, but after our daughter was born we ended that.

I think in general people place far too much importance on “common interests” as if it’s some kind of glue that should hold a relationship together. I think shared beliefs and appreciation for individual identities is much more vital for a strong relationship than whether or not you both enjoy tennis. It’s our differences in personality and how the traits of our individual characters complement each other that makes a couple grow. I have a tendency to intellectualize things; my wife’s ‘common sense’ simple wisdom helps temper this in me. My wife is generally very impatient, and I have the patience of Job (particularly with our daughter) – this complements her deficit. My wife is a ‘worst case scenario’ worrier, I tend to be more pragmatic and optimistic and this balances another aspect of our relationship. I have a tendency to be more artistic and passionate and this fills a need she has, but is unable to articulate. It’s differences in identity that complement the deficits of the other and a vibrant appreciation of them that account for strong couples.

I would advise guys to re-think this compatibility myth. Every time I see these 40 point personality tests that “ensure compatibility” on eHarmony I want to puke. They’re all based on shared commonalities and this has a potential to lead to disaster. Men need to be able to excel in certain areas or activities in their lives that serve as a renewable source of social proof for the women they pair-bond with. Gender equalists will of course take offense to this in assuming it’s adversarial – as is always their tact – presuming that a woman reduce herself to ‘allow’ her man to win at something. The reality is that women want a Man who’s good at something because it serves to gratify women’s innate narcissism as a source of associative pride for her. Women want a Man other men want to be, and other women want to fuck, and in the context of an LTR or marriage, a guy with an exceptional, recognized talent or passionate dedication to something, however compartmentalized it is, can be all the reminder she needs to help validate her decision to commit to that Man.

As nice as it is to have a mate that shares your interests, a relationship based on how alike the couple is only leads to homogenization and stagnation.