Why Marriage Needs Men

I’d very much like to leave religion, at least in the organized sense, as a topic for another blog, however, as it applies to Game and intergender social dynamics it’s occurred to me that this isn’t entirely possible. Since its inception the SoSuave community has had a strict policy against threads specifically exploring religious topics. For obvious reasons these tend to get rather heated in terms of discussing theology, and most simply devolve into flame wars with no real purpose. Yet, in terms of how religion and moralism apply to the intergender landscape and sexual marketplace, I think it does a disservice to a fuller understanding of how the sexes relate to one another. In my tenure as a SoSuave forum moderator it pains me to have to delete so many promising threads because the topic strayed form “Game and religion” into “My God can beat up your God.” So my disclaimer for this blog is this; any time I delve into the subject of religion, moralism,  ethics or anything that might be construed as esoterically inspired, understand that I do so in an effort to address how it influences the social dynamics between genders. Never is it an attack on individual beliefs, rather consider it a critical analysis of how those beliefs interact with the reality we live in.

Why men need marriage.

Today’s topic article comes to us courtesy of Pastor Mark Driscoll. I briefly touched upon Driscoll’s pollyanna, socio-religious propositions in Could a Man Have Written This? and reference him in Build a Better Beta. Driscoll’s article, while ostensibly written to advertise his latest book, is really an essay in irony. This irony is literally written into the article’s title, and I’m certain that Mark is entirely oblivious to it. You can go ahead and read his very simplistic overview of modern gender relations; it will scarcely impress all but the most green of noobs in the manosphere that Driscoll is firmly planted in the world created by the feminine imperative. Even in just asserting ‘men need marriage’ we get an appetizer of the gruel of male shaming yet to be served. Sadly, he’s not covering any new ground that Kay Hymowitz and the bleatings of Kate Bollick haven’t already beat him to the punch with.

I don’t think I need to go in to too much detail about Driscoll throwing rocks at the moon to make it go away. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Game can see him for what he is. My concern is that HE doesn’t see himself for what he is. I’m concerned because I think his head is in the right place, but he so lacks any real-world experience with the sexual marketplace that he’s unaware of his participation in promoting a world view he’d otherwise be adamantly opposed to. Driscoll shares in the major failing of Social Conservatives in terms of understanding Game; they are the unwitting instruments of the feminine imperative.

Driscoll’s intent is to see men returned to some semblance of traditional masculinity, with all the benefits and liabilities that antiquated romanticism implies, but he employs the chief ideologies and tools of the feminine imperative to do so. The shaming conventions, implied lethargy, shirking of male-attributable responsibilities, et. al. he uses are the same clichés the feminine imperative has established as the articles of Man-Up! 2.0. Mark is blissfully unaware of the Male Catch 22:

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

Mark Driscoll’s presumptive starting point is putting men in the subservient role, while expecting them to Man-Up, take control, and be better men all with the idealized goal of becoming more appropriate, more suitable men for women. Marriage is the goal and the cure to prolonged adolescence – in other words better serving the feminine imperative qualifies men to be adults. From Could a Man have Written This?:

In girl-world, what directly benefits women necessarily is presumed to benefit men, so what we’ll see is a new wave of [female] bloggers bastardizing the world-worn ideas that the manosphere has put together and repackaging it in a female context. It’s Man Up 2.0; make a token push to “re-empower” men just enough for them to idealize the romanticism of the responsibilities required for living up to women’s expectations.

Without an afterthought Driscoll titles his diatribe “Why Men NEED marriage” with the presumption that getting married will force men to Man-Up. This is the extent of his critical thought, because he has no realistic frame of reference beyond what his self-righteous Matrix-think conditioning will permit. He’s batting for Team Woman (not unlike another infamous female blogger), but would have us believe it’s for our own good.

Sanitizing Game

Recently there’s been an upswing in a social conservative push to ‘sanitize’ Game; essentially taking the drive and principles of the manosphere and converting them to fit into their doctirnal narrative:

A major illustration of this can be found in the ‘late-to-the-party’ resurgence of masculine ideals in mainstream evangelical christianity today. Like so much else in christian culture, they’re happy to use the popularity of a secular phenomenon and repackage it as kosher, the manosphere is no exception. Hacks like Mark Driscoll and more than few other “relevant” new order evangelical pastors have co-opted manosphere (MRA?) fundamentals – even ‘purified’ forms of Game – as their particular cause du jour for returning men back into their roles of accountability to the female imperative. This of course has an overwhelming appeal to White Knight prone guys, but the push is disingenuous for the same reason ‘pro-men’ female writers are – they still use the girl-world, female imperative rule book to define their outlook.

Rediscovering masculinity is the new black in ‘relevant’ church. It sells very well, and in and of itself it’s not too dissimilar from the perspectives of the manosphere about owning your gender. The similarities end in the application. While it maybe cathartic to beat your chest and pretend to fight like a UFC fighter at some ‘christian’ men’s weekend (evangelicals men have inexplicably embraced MMA fighting in the last 5 years), the takeaway message is still one of apologizing for their testosterone. They can only own their masculinity insofar as it doesn’t upset the feminine imperative.

Never take dating advice, or really any opinion of intergender relations seriously when it’s coming from moralistic guys who’ve never had the benefit of past, first hand experience with women. Evangelical understanding of gender relations is based only upon a very insular and anachronistic perspective. Consequently, what constitutes their understanding is derived from living vicariously through their unchurched friends, romantic comedies, reading statistics that agree with their perspective, all in an effort to make themselves feel better about having married the first girl they met at church camp.

Driscoll is a fantastic illustration of a guy who’s been entirely out of touch with the social changes and the sexual marketplace since he got married.

***

For further reading Dalrock has an excellent breakdown of this article here.

The Curse of Jung


The sexual revolution represents a far more significant turning point in human events than I think most people living post-sexual revolution will ever fully appreciate. I was born after it, and I would presume most of the influential participants involved in our current gender discourse today were also products of a post sexual revolution acculturation. The vast majority of authors dutifully typing away on both manosphere and feministing blogs are, for the better part, results of the social-gender restructuring that occurred in the late 60s. With this in mind I think it’s important to reflect on the era prior to this to really grasp the significance of that change, and to understand how we’ve come to take certain aspects of our new gender reality as simply matter of fact. It’s hard to believe there was a time when we didn’t need to ask why men were Men.

1950

A lot of critics of really anything pro-masculine today will always fall back on the canard that the ‘misogynist’ author would “love to return to the 1950’s”. The epithet “misogynist” is as useful as “homophobe” for the same reason that it’s an easy throw-away label to help disqualify a dissenting point of view. If it’s hurtful or forces critical thinking that challenges an ego investment it’s far easier to categorize the offender as holding to outdated modes of thinking. Make your opponent’s views an anachronism and your perspective appears more valid simply because it seems the more novel and developed. But were the 1950’s some gilded age of masculism? What about the 30’s or 40’s, or even the 19th century? Feminists and feminized men fondly resurrect the specter of the 1950’s as if the decade were some apex turning point in women’s enslavement; like the Hebrews under Pharaoh’s yoke yearning for the promised land. All the men who held any sway over society are caricatures of white, middle class boors – more Archie Bunker than Ward Cleaver, but even Ward’s benevolence and bearing would be suspect of passive-aggressive patriarchy.

What’s tragic in this silly dismissal of a masculine mindset is that it presumes any man in this, or the past three generations could ever have any realistic frame of reference for life in the 1950’s. This is doubly true for contemporary women using this shaming association, but in recognizing this we have to open up a new pandoras box. What else is the feminine imperative using (deliberate or unconsciously) as “common sense” to rise to prominence?

Modern feminist understanding of gender, and really our feminized society as a whole, is based to it’s very foundations on an anachronism even more outdated than some mythologized chauvinist era when “men had it so good, while women were their doting, unwitting slaves.”

The Curse of Jung

I go into a lot of detail describing feminine social conventions on this blog. Some people think it’s unfair to target just female conventions; there are after all many other social conventions that apply to men as well. I’d agree with this of course, and besides this blog’s focus being given to the social/psychological aspects of Game,  those male conventions have already been (and still are) the subject of, literally, centuries of analysis and scrutiny. However, I’m going to focus on one to illustrate the progression of  the cultural shift that was prompted by the sexual revolution.

Among the many archetypically masculine traits is a man’s reservations of emotion. For various biological and neurological reasons, men are the more rational of the sexes. This isn’t to deny them an emotional element. Indeed I’ve described men as the true romantics, however, classically men have to a better degree than women, been the more reserved gender when it comes to expressing emotion. What I’ve just described here is one of the base tenets of Carl Jung’s school of psychological theory. It’s kind of ironic that Freud would be so vilified by modern feminism, yet find his protege Jung would contribute so much to the fundamentals of the feminization of society.

One of the key elements Jung introduced into western culture’s popular consciousness is the theory of anima and animus; that each individual, irrespective of sex, possesses greater or lesser degrees of association and manifested behavior of masculine and feminine psychological affiliations. In 2012, when you hear a 6 year old girl tell a 6 year old boy “you need to get in touch with your feminine side” in order to get him to comply with her, you can begin to understand the scope to which this idea has been internalized into societies collective consciousness. So long and so thoroughly has this theory been repeated and perpetuated that we can scarcely trace back it’s origins – it’s simply taken as fact that men and women possess varying degrees of masculine and feminine energies. First and second wave feminism founded their psychological premises of gender on Jung’s ideas and so evolved the reasonings for a push towards the social feminization we know today. The seeds for the feminine-centrism we take for granted today were planted by a Swiss psychiatrist in the early 1900’s.

Whether or not there’s merit to Jung’s ideas, there’s little doubt of the impact they had on fem-centrism. Early feminists saw Jung’s theory as the perfect springboard to further a pretense of ‘gender equality’; thus making individual gender balance (i.e. androgyny) a new idealized goal state. Men simply needed to be perfected by exploring their ‘feared’ feminine natures, and women needed to be allowed the opportunity and freedom to masculinize themselves in order to perfect that androgynous balance. Introduce convenient, feminine controlled hormonal contraception and viola, gender equalism was born.

Dangerous Thoughts

I’m going to introduce a radical thought into the gender landscape that’s been manicured by the feminine imperative and Jungian theory for so long; what if it’s a good thing Men should be masculine and women should be feminine? What if it’s beneficial to our species survival that our very biologies are complimentary to our gender? What if we should be teaching our boys to get in touch with their masculine sides? What if gender is actually more nature than it is nurture? What if Jung got it wrong and we’ve allowed the feminine imperative to standardized our perceptions of gender for over a century based on an incorrect presumption?

The prevailing feminist wisdom clings to the Jung inspired notion that gender is a just social creation and one that sustains a Patriarchal hierarchy. All we need do is dress our children in as neutral an environment as possible and society will progress towards a more idealized, more humane, androgynous norm. But this is counter to the new data we find with ever increasing regularity, both in clinical studies as well as a better scientific understanding of neurology and endocrinology and their relation to sexuality and gender identity. In the early 1900’s Jung lacked even a fraction of the knowledge we’ve studied and proved about the human animal in 2012. In addition to this we have over 100 years of advances in fields of psychology that didn’t even exist in Jung’s time. We’ve seen the social impact of over 40 years of feminized Jungian theory – are we seriously going to continue this ideology, oblivious to the long outdated legacy it has on contemporary culture? Are we going to allow the originator of Beta Game to continue defining what constitutes masculinity and femininity in our society?

The Slut Paradox

Every man wants a slut, he just wants her to be HIS slut.

ANDREW DICE CLAY: Hey, is that your chick there?

GUY IN THE AUDIENCE: Yeah!

DICE: Damn she’s pretty hot!

GUY: Yeah,..

DICE: You been together a while?

GUY: About 6 months.

DICE: Nice. She faithful to you?

GUY: Oh yeah.

DICE: She good in bed?

GUY: *nods head enthusiastically*

DICE: She suck a good dick?

GUY: (laughing) Ohhh yeah,..heheh,..

DICE: I suppose the next question would be, “How do you suppose she got that way?”

If you had an idealized Quality Woman girlfriend who was smoking hot, well adjusted mentally, loyal, would make a good mother, came from a good family, etc. etc., but would only ever begrudgingly have sex with you, in missionary position only, never consider giving you head, and only once a month (in 13 minute increments) because she’d been conditioned to believe that sex was immoral and she didn’t want to be thought of as a slut, would you marry her?

This is the Slut Paradox that vexes contemporary man; what number of prior lovers can a woman have that would be acceptable for you? Seven? Five? How many hobby horses should there be on the cock carousel before a woman is a slut? Don’t bother answering this, because for your average (beta) man, the number – even if you could get full disclosure – is irrelevant to him.

You see, thanks to the pre-existing social infrastructure that the feminine imperative has established, the average man can’t believe his luck when he finally does become sexual with a woman – whether it’s his first time or it’s the hundredth with his wife. So high is her pedestal that it’s literally a twist of fate. The gods have smiled upon him with the sexual favors of a woman, and his good fortune is made all the better when his lover already knows how to perfectly suck his cock just like the women in all the porn he’s watched since he was twelve. No questions are asked – you don’t qualify a gift from the gods, you just accept it.

The Slut Paradox is a very complex issue because it wraps up so much social, emotional and biological importance and details. I’m using the ‘average’ man here as a starting point because he’s the social majority; he’s the benchmark for how both genders approach the paradox, because it’s his discretion to give a woman’s sexual past any kind of gravity. For as much as women will bleat on about “slut status” and double standards, it really all comes down to how the average – in this case beta – male contends with (or doesn’t) a woman’s sexual past. As enlightened Game-aware Men we’re largely exceptions to this rule, or at least blamefully aware of the mechanics of it.

In the initial attraction and arousal stages of a sexual pairing, the average guy doesn’t care about a woman’s prior sex life. It’s only after that pairing becomes solidified that it becomes a consideration.

Unless a woman is a porn actress, I don’t think it’s the number of guys that bothers Men; and I don’t even think it’s the details of how many dicks she’s had. What’s bugs men is that they want to possess her. Men want her genuine desire, but know other guys have had it already and moved on – and they’re cool with it, and she’s cool with it, but he’s not because he wants to own her. He wants to know that he’s getting the best of what she has to offer sexually and emotionally. He wants to know that HE’S the guy who brings out the slut in her that no other guy has experienced fully.

This is the root of the paradox issue. The average guy is playing by the feminine imperative’s stated rule set. He wants monogamy, he had to work at it. He had to negotiate with her for what she willingly, genuinely, desired to do with 5 other guys (assuming she’s honest). And on some level, he knows her desire for him is compromised because he had to plead his case with her so she’d warm up to him. Only now that he’s gotten what he’s idealized for so long he realizes other’s have had it before him without anything that comes even close what he invested to get.

Alpha Widows

Now before I get run up the flagpole here, I’m completely aware of the studies indicating a woman’s capacity to bond monogamously is inversely proportionate to the number of sexual partners she’s experienced prior to monogamy. I wont argue the merit of that concept, but I also don’t think that it fully encompasses the dynamic. I say this because, as Katy Perry so adequately illustrated recently, even ONE prior lover (or even unrequited obsession) can be Alpha enough to upset that bonded monogamous balance. These are the Alpha Widows – women so significantly impacted by a former Alpha (or perceptually so) lover that she’s left with an emotional imprint that even the most dutiful, loving beta-provider can never compete with. A woman doesn’t have to have been an archetypal slut in order to have difficulty in pair bonded monogamy.

So again I’ll ask, how many is too many? For an Alpha Widow, one’s enough. It’s my contention that the Slut Paradox isn’t a numbers game so much as it’s an Alpha impact game. What if your new partner has only banged a mere 2 men before you, but engaged in intense sexual experiences she feels self-conscious about doing with you? Is she a slut?

As a final thought, I should add that women have long been aware of the utility that the Slut Paradox represents in maintaining primacy for their sexual strategy. I elaborated on this in the The Tool of ASD,

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.