As I mentioned in the prior comment thread, I’ll be testing out a once a month(ish) livestream podcast with Niko Choski for a while. This talk is meant to be an informal discussion of topics I go into on The Rational Male, as well as what’s trending in the manosphere. It’s also to give guys an opportunity for some feedback and exchange in the live comments.
Some of my regular readers may be wondering why I didn’t advertise this first trial more and the answer is I wanted to use this one as a test to see the initial response. I’ll be promoting future livestreams more aggressively, but I knew this one would be less than polished. I deliberately tried to keep it to an hour to make it more digestible, but we did go a little over to answer questions.
In this cast we discussed my article on The Red Pill balance and how a Red Pill awareness is not just vital to a man’s personal development with women, but how it can help in various other aspects of his life. We discuss the differences of that Red Pill perception in the MGTOW community that Niko has recently divided himself from.
You can of course comment on the YouTube feed, but I’m going to take open comments here about what you thought of the discussion and even my engaging in a once a month talk like this. I expect more than a few from the MGTOW communities will find there way here, but I’m more interested in what you thought about the idea of us doing this.
I’ve been asked for a while as to why I don’t just do a solo podcast myself, but I don’t really like to do things off the cuff with regard to what I write and explain. I prefer to approach things from all angles in my writing before I hit the publish button. That said I do see the value in a discussion like this when it’s about topics I’ve already covered or perhaps something going on in mainstream society or the ‘sphere.
So let me know what you think. The comment thread is open so if you want to tell me it’s a bad idea, fine. If you like it, great. If you want to chime in on any of what we discussed feel free to.
While I’d had another post on deck for today I simply couldn’t let Divided Line’s most recent comment go unanswered. I was going to riff on his comment in that thread, but it occurred to me that his concerns would be educational for many new readers and what I tell him here might give even my regulars something new to think about.
This is the part I can’t get. I can look back and see how my beta behaviors made it impossible for my ex to respect and love me. I see those behaviors for what they are, but what I can’t do is internalize a competing value system, or a competing idealism, one which would allow me to judge myself in the way you’re judging yourself here. I still get stuck on “but she *should* have loved me for those behaviors,” even if I understand on an intellectual level why she didn’t. Even if I game myself into believing I feel differently about it, I know that on some level, I’m still going to be hoping that every girl I get involved with will prove to be capable of fulfilling that blue pill idealism. I fully expect to just fall back into oneitis and needy supplicating behaviors whenever I meet somebody. they just creep up on you without you even realizing it.
When I go into the intricacies of men’s innate sense of idealism this is what I mean. In a Blue Pill context there will always be an expectation of some possibility of an ideal state with a woman. The problem here isn’t men’s idealism, but rather the conditioning of it to expect an idealized Blue Pill outcome.
From a strictly deductive standpoint DL’s ex should have loved him for the idealized, pro-social, pro-family, pro-parental investment, pro-providership and pro-egalitarian that were some of the most integral parts of his life’s Blue Pill conditioning.
The reality is that he’d been convinced of a Blue Pill social order founded on an Old Set of Books.
Let’s get real about it. It’s not like women have good reason to behave the way they do. Whatever evo-psych explanation we can come with, it doesn’t provide them with an excuse. They’re not stewards of the gene pool, there is no greater good that is served by hypergamy. In a modern context it’s a liability, not an asset. At the limbic level they’re screening for traits that would have been advantageous 20,000 years ago, not in a modern industrial or post industrial society. Should I try to convince myself otherwise and judge myself according to my evolutionary fitness or something? It seems absurd.
When I wrote Our Sisters’ Keeper I delved into the question of whether it could be expected of women to take responsibility for their own decisions, moral or otherwise. It generally comes down to a question of the seeming determinism that Hypergamy represents, and the deductive male-logic that, idealistically, expects women to take personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
In this respect Hypergamy doesn’t provide women with an excuse for the consequences, but the question of personal responsibility still doesn’t change the the underlying motivators, incentives and influences that Hypergamy exerts over women. The devil biology made me do it is the same alibi for Hypergamy as it is for men’s Selfish Gene.
While the software may change with the environment, our firmware and our hardware are still very much based in the evolution that benefitted our prehistoric predecessors. What measure you personally choose to judge yourself by is up to you, but again, the hardware and the firmware doesn’t change.
Under our modern social environment women have an unprecedented, virtually unilateral, stewardship of the gene pool. So much so in fact that women’s sexual selection strategy, Hypergamy and feminine social primacy are enforced by law and ensaturated into our social fabric. Whether this is for ‘the greater good’ or not all depends on who’s agenda defines what ‘good’ is.
For a very long time men had at least some measure of being able to direct the course that the gene pool was going. Men’s influence today is only as potent as women’s legislated sexual selection will allow them.
Women aren’t dogs, they’re human beings. They’re perfectly capable of self awareness and of awareness of others. In theory they’re perfectly capable of higher order idealism – anybody who can think at an abstract level should be. Women are unaware of themselves because the bar is so low for them, because they are profoundly privileged and everything is handed to them on a silver platter, not because they’re incapable of treating men in a way that would have made the blue pill equality ideal possible.
It really just boils down to a profound form of inferiority, their unwillingness to empathize or give a shit. They don’t care because they don’t have to. It’s a fundamental hollowness at the core of their character.
You’re presuming an egalitarian inspired similarity between men and women, and once again I’ll refer you to what I proposed above; you’re expecting software to override firmware and hardware. There are simply evidential and provable physical and cognitive differences between men and women.
I believe you’re correct – women are perfectly capable of self awareness and of awareness of others. In theory they’re perfectly capable of higher order idealism – however, this is not women’s firmware directive. It is not their initial mental point of origin.
True, women can learn to be empathetic, learn to be idealistic, and yes, learn to sublimate their innate solipsism, but their capacity to learn to override their firmware doesn’t erase the root conditions they must learn and practice to override.
And yes, we’ve reached a (western) social order that prioritizes and privileges women by setting the bar very low for them, thus making this ‘learning’, or even the desire to learn, to override their neural firmware not just a challenge, but entirely unexpected of them.
The capacity fro women to realize that Blue Pill ideal is there, but what this does is pit women’s innate dispositions against what men think would be an ideal state for both sexes, and then holds women personally responsible for not ‘learning’ to override their firmware.
Dalrock has a series of posts about feminism that blames men for the failures of feminism. Feminism would work if not for uncooperative men; the same is true for Blue Pill men – Blue Pill idealism would work if not for uncooperative women. Both blame the failures of their goal-states on the other sex’s personal / social character flaws without consideration of the hindbrain, firmware that always rebels against those states.
How do you just accept that and blame yourself for being beta? I’m not saying you shouldn’t, I’m saying I want to be able to do the same thing. I just can’t access that mindset.
What was so terrible about the blue pill equalism really? We all regard it with contempt, but we’re just being pragmatic, since it’s unworkable, a cruel lie we were all fed from birth. I get all that. But in and of itself, what was so terrible about it? Had it been possible – which it is not – would the idea been worthy of such contempt? I can’t convince myself of that.
Again, men’s idealistic root note wants some kind of cooperative Blue Pill harmony to exist in a mutually shared, mutually negotiated and mutually agreed upon state between men and women. Yes, Blue Pill equalism seems very pragmatic, that’s what makes subscribing to it so seductive, and potentially so damaging for idealistic men. The Feminine Imperative figured that out a hundred thousand years ago – men are the True Romantics, and that’s been their thumbscrew for millennia.
All I did was treat my ex the way I wanted to be treated. In fact, that’s all I did in any of my relationships. And not even because I was trying to be Ghandi or live according to some conscious code, but simply because that is what came naturally. That’s what made the relationship appealing and worth investing in in the first place. Feeling that way about her cultivated a selfless aspect of myself, one that I actually *like.* I miss feeling that way. I loved her because she inspired me to treat her the way I did, or to want to treat her that way. I can look back on it and see it as beta, and if I regard women like robots running an evo-psych script, I can see that it would have been impossible for her to love and respect me, I guess. So is that what it boils down to? Thinking about women as if they are children or dumb dogs and accepting it?
There is great power in the Golden Rule. I don’t mean that from the sentimentalist, “do unto others” perspective, but rather how available you make yourself to exploitation and manipulation when adopting that mindset. There is no position more vulnerable than an expectation of equal treatment from another for like treatment from yourself. It presumes a mutually shared acknowledgement of how that other would perceive treating you as they would themselves.
The fundamental differences between men and women (idealistic vs. opportunistic love concepts) virtually ensure that a conflict will occur when you pair this expectation of equal treatment and equal appreciation with the cardinal rule of sexual strategies:
The Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies: For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.
Men’s predilection for idealism make them the logical candidates for this compromise or abandonment of their own imperatives, however, in doing so they fall prey to self-sacrifice in the hopes of mutual appreciation, earning relational equity and all while idealistically affirming for themselves their own righteousness of that sacrifice. The more you suffer the more it shows you really care, right?
And thus we come back to the software vs. firmware conflict again.
This is what I mean when I say that women are “awful.” I don’t even have words for it. I don’t understand how I’m supposed to get past the contempt or sense of being wronged. You can tell yourself “stop being beta, bro. Don’t wish it was easier, wish you were better, etc.,” or anything you like, it doesn’t change the reality or the fact that I recognize the reality. It’s like trying to convince yourself that 2+2=5.
My idealism was co-opted to serve the FI, but what is competing idealism? Stoicism and being a badass who can take it? Beating myself up for being beta and striving for what? It’s like I’m supposed to improve myself, but I can’t see anything that I would actually regard as an improvement, just traits that would appeal to women’s hunter gatherer libido.
The first step is giving up hope on the Blue Pill ideals you’ve been conditioned to believe are desirable, much less achievable. You need to accept that Blue Pill idealism will never be achieved in a Red Pill paradigm.
The next step is to accept that you can create new hope and a new ideal founded on Red Pill awareness rather than succumbing to a nihilistic despair that’s based on the hope for Blue Pill falsehoods.
Men’s idealistic nature can either be his greatest vulnerability or the source of his greatest strength and drive. It’s the context and conditioning of that idealism that makes it a danger or a boon. Stoicism is a practical measuring of that idealism based on self-knowledge and a truthful understanding of the state in which a man lives (Red Pill awareness).
Why are we so much more idealistic and imaginative in our youth? Because we have very little life experience with which to measure that idealism against. This is exactly why the Feminine Imperative must condition men from an early age – to direct that idealism to its own Blue Pill ends before a man learns enough about his reality to reject the imperatives’ ends in favor of his own.
And that is why undiluted, uncompromised Red Pill awareness being widely available is a threat to the Feminine Imperative.
“I’d honestly love if the manosphere would actually focus on helping men in relationships and self-improvement.”
I had this comment offered in a recent thread. It’s a common gripe from women who believe they’re in some way Red Pill and want to divert their new acceptance of Red Pill truths to serve the same tired ends of the Feminine Imperative. The operative, of course, is always whose definition do we base the measure of ‘improvement’ on? For most women the term ‘improvement’ always aligns with whatever best serves a female sexual strategy – because from a feminine-solipsistic perspective whatever serve women should necessarily serve men.
A lot gets made of the Dark Triad or the Dark Side of Game where a skillful player can sadistically use his newly learned red-pill super powers for evil instead of for the greater good of mankind. Game-aware women – the ones who have been forcibly exhausted of all pretense of maintaing the illusion that Game is a lie – feel as though it’s owed to them, in their concession of Game’s reality, that Men should use Game to women’s benefit. Even to the last effort women still cling to the tools of a feminized acculturation;
“Yeah, OK, you got us, Game is really what women want, Hypergamy is the law of womankind, but now it’s your responsibility that you use it for the better benefit of society by molding a new breed of improved Betas to accommodate fem-centric monogamy. You owe us our security for having admitted to the grand illusion that’s kept you in thrall for so long.”
It’s an indictment of Game-aware women, and sympathizing men, that they should feel a need to delineate some aspects of Game into good camps (pro woman, pro feminized monogamy) and bad camps (manipulative, polygynous, male-centered). Even in the admission of the truth that Game has enlightened Men of, the feminine imperative still seeks to categorize the application of Game to its own end. That Men might have some means of access to their own sexual strategy is too terrible a Threat; Game must be colored good or bad as it concerns the imperatives of women and a fem-centric societal norm.
As the default, socially correct and virtuous concern, women have an easier time of this. As Game becomes increasingly more difficult to deny or misdirect for the feminine, the natural next step in accepting it becomes qualifying its acceptable uses. While hypergamy is an ugly truth, the characterization of it becomes “just how women are” –an unfortunate legacy of their evolution. However for Men, the characterizations of the harsher aspects of Game in its rawest form (contingencies for hypergamy) are dubbed “the dark arts”.
In her trolling ignorance she fails to understand that she and many “Red Pill Women” before her all want a better Beta. They want a Beta with a side of Alpha – in essence a better slave; one that’s just ignorant enough of female nature and the consequences that ignorance represents, but one who also Just Gets It and satisfies their need for amused mastery, masculine dominance (when it’s convenient and affirming), and ‘just gets women’ so well he never needs to be made aware of women’s nature.
The difference in this case is that the ostensibly “Red Pill” woman now looks to the manosphere’s best and brightest to provide them with such men via some distortion of Red Pill social proof. Not only that, but, in their entitled hubris, they are all too willing to pander to exactly the male idealistic nature I described in the last post. Their appeal is to Red Pill aware men’s sense of duty, honor or integrity in mentoring other Blue Pill Beta men (the ones they hope to improve) in an acceptable Purple Pill fashion – just enough ‘self-improvement’ to serve women’s sexual strategies, but just enough watered down ignorance of women’s feral nature to serve as what they believe would be their ‘right guy’.
You’re just not a “Man” if you don’t promote a feminine reviewed and approved version of the Red Pill to other men.
Many of the wives and women that participate in formerly Red Pill married forums follow this invasion into that previously male space and then turn it to similar ends.
The worst part of this bastardization of course is that they only need to encourage the parts of Red Pill awareness that serves their ends. They feel entitled to Red Pill men educating the plugged-in in how to become the ‘improved’ men they believe they deserve. Thus it’s an easy bandwagon to get aboard so long as their redefinition of what actually is Red Pill jives with what they feel is their due in men.
The ideal situation for Red Pill women here is to have a group of respected Red Pill men educate the next generation of plugged-in men to provide the attractive aspects of this awareness while stifling the uncomfortable threatening aspects that might require women to actually prove their own worthiness of those men.
My good friend Dagonet had a bit of a misguided hope in this tweet today:
Once again, male idealism gets the better of one of our own. I wish it were in fact the case that women’s innate, evolved Hypergamy could be overridden so they would find men’s higher-order virtues and ideals to be arousing and attractive. This, however, is not the reality we are dealing with.
Men think that women want “confident, strong” men. Why do we think that way? Because women told us so, or we have read it in some “wise” 500 pages psychology book. Our old provider needs to believe this, so that he has some “noble” manly goal he can pursue. Of course it is very beneficial for women to have STRONG, CONFIDENT slave that protect her. Put aside our male ego, our goals and aspirationas when we want to understand women. They know that our male ego will side with them, will help them in their game. Unhampered by ego, woman can easily enslave man like that.
Male ego tells us – we have to be strong and confident..cos it is “manly”, it’s “respectable” and women SHOULD respect that! So it is a given that they respect that! While in reality…nothing is further from the truth. She wants strong and confident men as her protecting slaves but she tingles and craves for emotionally unstable man. Like attracts the like. Is Tyler Durden a strong, confident man? He is unstable, knows weak spot of women, he can live in a moment, is more unpredictable than woman. He is emotionally intelligent, more so than typical women. He behaves more like a woman than like a man. Therefore he HAS POWER over them! Is Mystery a strong, confident man? Anyone who’s read “the Game” knows how he was driven mad by one, single chick.
What are the traits of men, women are madly enslaved to? Is it confidence, is it strenght? NOPE. It is unpredictability, unstability, emotional COLDNESS, psychopathy! In this case he is more unstable than her, so SHE is trying to fix the relationship, she is trying to give them some rules, some stability, some “security”. She must do all the work, otherwise there is nothing. She fills the void. He who cares less…..
We still do not want to confess hard, dark truth about women and about ourselves. We still talk about this burden of performance, confidence, strenght, emh..POSITIVE masculinity. We still discuss with women, try to persuade them with logic, try to impress them with our “performance”, knowledge, experience. So can our man with innate need to perform rule/care less about, the realtionship? How? He is enslaved by his very need to perform which performance will be judged by women!
Ultimate lotharios are neither strong, nor confident. They behave more like women than like men. They do not feel the need to perform, to protect, to build, to be confident, to answer, to be responsible. Take Charlie Sheen as an example. This man is emotionally damaged, unstable, irresponsible, weak. Majority of women are much more stable than him. Yet he has fucked more then 5000 of them. You think it is due to his fame? I am sure each of us know weak men, psychopatic men with no fame, yet with harems of women.
It is still the same…discussion of slaves how to be worthy of women. Maybe mentality, maybe genetics, do not know which one more. And new generations of lambs arises…primed for slaughter as the last. We are loosing my friends, big time.
There’s a lot to unpack here, but I’ll drop a two of the responding comments before I do. YaReally provides some counterbalance here:
And here we come to two different results because Gregg isn’t entirely inaccurate that a lot of fucked up damaged dudes are catnip for girls (and not just damaged fucked up girls, hi madonna/whore complex). Whenever we get two different results we have to drill deeper to find the commonality.
It comes down to the guy having an emotional impact on the girl. It doesn’t matter whether you make her feel good or bad emotions (ideally you make her feel both at various times), all that matters is that you have emotional impact on her. The damaged basketcase hot & cold guy who treats her like a princess one minute then tells her to fuck off because his life is falling apart the next is giving her a full range of emotions. So is the super confident guy with his shit together who’s running push/pull on her.
The biggest thing no one will talk about because it sets guys on a bad path is how fucked up and falling apart your life can really BE and you can still attract and keep hot poon around. Ideally we want men to go the TRP route where they build their careers and hit the gym and don’t booze it up etc. But the reality is you can be a fucking MESS and still get hot girls, as long as you have emotional impact on them. It’s why chicks will whore themselves out for ugly pimps and go back to abusive relationships, and on the flip side it’s why they’ll leave dependable boring guys who give them an emotional flatline day to day.
Personally I think that in the old days a chick had a baby at an early enough age to fulfill her need for crazy emotional impact drama to keep her happy and not craving it, but these days since they don’t want kids till they’re 30+ they fill that voice with the cock carousel, cats, Eat Pray Love adventures, hundreds of hours of Netflix (shows/movies full of emotional ups and downs), fucking guys like me, etc.
And finally I’m going to paraphrase SJF’s comment here for another perspective:
What makes you think “lothario” is the kind of man some of us want to be? (although I’m not sure if you are advocating being one or not.) A lothario is an unscrupulous seducer of woman. Unscrupulous means having or showing no moral principles; not honest or fair.
Just because a man has an innate desire (not need) to perform, doesn’t mean he is enslaved. The Rational Male certainly confesses/explicates/describes truths about women and ourselves. Some of us aren’t shackled by knowledge of the burden of performance and having confidence, strength and positive masculinity. Some of us have found that not to be a burden. To be a low hurdle to real power. With low downside and potentially huge upside.
As an aside here I would also point out that Gregg’s focus on men’s Burden of Performance is entirely on serving women’s interests rather than a natural order of male idealism. This is a common mindset among Blue Pill, plugged-in men, they can’t imagine an existence where their finding of an idealistically male purpose or passion in life is set in a context that doesn’t relate to how women perceive it. It’s a logical trap that most MGTOWs find themselves in – they want a world where their performance burden is removed with regard to women, but still refuse to accept that this burden exists independent from women’s perceptions.
In other words they can’t exit the Game, the fundamental rules persist; whether they choose to play or not the Game proceeds in spite of their involvement.
That being what it is, I’ve set these two concepts together here for a reason. First we have a set of Red Pill women seemingly desirous of Red Pill aware men that serve their imperatives within their acceptable frame of what “Red Pill” ought to be for them. Second we have a parallel between Gregg’s take and YaReally’s take on what women are honestly seeking in an ‘improved’ man – a more perfected slave; one who can embody the worst contradiction to positive masculinity (from Gregg’s perspective), and one who despite his performance burden is really only required to provide emotional polarity to generate tingles and genuine desire.
Liz’s comment from the last thread (emphasis mine):
Masculinity is not bad, it is good.
The poster responded that toxic masculinity refers to behaviors that cause distress (telling a son not to cry and so forth). I didn’t go further into the argument with her, we didn’t see eye to eye enough to really engage anyway […]
Juxtapose this with the feminine way of going things. He is told everyone has his or her own unique specialness and he just needs some encouragement.
Sometimes I think our idea of “bad” and “good” are skewed, and that’s just feminist poisoning.
Toxic masculinity is yet another narrative buzz word the Feminine Imperative has made endemic in the same way it repeats the “rape culture’ meme. By adding the term ‘culture’ to any article you find offensive you make that article an endemic phenomenon – Rape ‘culture’, Bro ‘culture’, a ‘Culture’ of Corruption, etc.
‘Toxic’ Masculinity is another such exercise. It presumes a universally agreed upon definition of what exactly is toxic – very similar again to the good and bad uses of Game in the Dark Art / Dark Triad associations I made at the beginning of this article. And in Liz’s exchange that definition is whatever male-specific behaviors women find “distressing”.
However as we see in Gregg’s example of ideal masculinity, those distressing attributes are in fact the most arousing attributes of men. I’ve used this example before, but the most pussy I’ve ever enjoyed, the most freely given and most genuinely sought after of myself by women was when I was virtually penniless. I didn’t need to signal parental investment and provisioning cues to get women’s sexual interest, I just need to fit the bill for what YaReally defines as the “fun guy” – or as Sheryl Sandberg agrees, “the bad boy, the crazy boy, the cool boy, and the commitment-phobic boy in order to prompt a woman’s genuinely inspired sexual best.
Altruism plays a role in mate choice, particularly in women’s preferences and in long-term (LT) relationships. The current study analyzed how these preferences interacted with another important mate choice variable, physical attractiveness. Here, female participants were presented with photographs of men of varying levels of physical attractiveness, alongside descriptions of them behaving either altruistically or not in different scenarios. The results showed women preferred altruistic men, particularly in LT relationships and that this interacted with physical attractiveness such that being both attractive and altruistic made a man more desirable than just the sum of the two desirable parts. Also, being altruistic made low attractive men more desirable but only for LT relationships. Finally, men who were just altruistic were rated more desirable than men who were just attractive, especially for LT relationships. Overall, these findings are discussed in terms of the role of altruism in mate choice, particularly in LT relationships and directions of future research.
There’s subsection of Red Pill thought (Athol Kay in particular) that believes that Beta attributes align with the effects oxytocin has on men and women. I’m adding this here to provide a balance to that misguided idea:
It has been suggested that the degree of compassion—the feeling of warmth, understanding and kindness that motivates the desire to help others, is modulated by observers’ views regarding the target’s vulnerability and suffering. This study tested the hypothesis that as compassion developed to protect vulnerable kinships, hormones such as oxytocin, which have been suggested as playing a key role in ‘tend-and-befriend’ behaviors among women, will enhance compassion toward women but not toward men. Thirty subjects participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, within-subject study. Following administration of oxytocin/placebo, participants listened to recordings of different female/male protagonists describing distressful emotional conflicts and were then asked to provide compassionate advice to the protagonist. The participants’ responses were coded according to various components of compassion by two clinical psychologists who were blind to the treatment. The results showed that in women and men participants oxytocin enhanced compassion toward women, but did not affect compassion toward men. These findings indicate that the oxytocinergic system differentially mediates compassion toward women and toward men, emphasizing an evolutionary perspective that views compassion as a caregiving behavior designed to help vulnerable individuals.
Those example might seem a bit abstract, but I’m putting them up here to make the point that women’s sexual selection filtering is a two-fold prospect rooted in the dual nature of women’s Hypergamy. What best serves Alpha Fucks is contradicted by Beta Bucks.
Thus we have notions like the attributes that make up “Toxic Masculinity” being arbitrarily whatever aspects of the male nature women find themselves most lacking in men. And by way of that we get a definition that fluctuates according to the Feminine Imperative’s needs. Because of this women, Red Pill or otherwise will never be honest arbiter of ‘improving’ men’s states of masculinity.
Before you move on to reading today’s post, please take 14 minutes and listen to Niko Choski’s latest here Man:the being made of stone, it’ll be relevant in the second half of this post.
Niko is MGTOW, and from what I know is fairly highly regarded in that sphere. I did an interview with him back in August and since then have become a semi-regular listener of his youtube channel. We’ve occasionally bounced ideas off one another since the interview and I hold Niko in the highest respect for his intellectual approach and insights.
So it’s with that in mind that I’m going to use his latest offering here as a contrast to what I’m going into today.
Reader Divided Line stopped me in my writing tracks on another post with this comment from the last post thread. Not the least of which because I’d just finished listening to Niko’s audio here, but also because it was an interesting juxtaposition to what I’d planned to go into today. I’m going to quote Divided Line here and riff a bit as I go (emphasis mine):
A lot of what you’ve said here echos my own thinking to such a degree that it’s as if you read my mind. I agree 100%.
What you’re talking about here, I think, is the inherent value of goodness or justice. I think Plato took up this question in the Republic and nailed it better than most.
In the beginning of the dialogue the question is “what is justice?” But it quickly transforms into “what is the value of justice?” In other words, if goodness wins us no reward, then what value does it have? Is it valuable in its own right? Would it have value even if it cost us something, or indeed cost us everything?
Glaucon puts the question like this (paraphrasing): “What if the perfectly just man is seen by everyone as perfectly unjust, while the perfectly unjust man is seen as perfectly just?” He then puts it on Socrates to effectively prove that, even in this scenario, justice would be worth it.
We could gender this question and simply ask “what if the perfectly good man is seen as perfectly unattractive to women, while the perfectly evil man is seen as perfectly attractive?”
Is goodness worth it even if it isn’t profitable sexually or socially? It’s the same question.
Why be a ‘good’ man when what we consider good by both personal and social measures isn’t rewarded (or only grudgingly rewarded), while what we consider ‘bad’ is what is enthusiastically rewarded with women’s genuine desire and intimacy? In other words, Hypergamy doesn’t care about what men consider good or bad.
It seems like this is the predicament red pill awareness puts us in when we have to consider the value of our formerly beta self. What makes the beta the beta is his weakness, of course, but it is simultaneously his civility. We’re not defective people for wanting or even needing the possibility love, empathy, truth, friendship, kindness, and – above all else – trust in our lives. It just makes us human. If we project our deeply rooted desires for these things and treat others the way we want to be treated, wouldn’t society be better off for it? And isn’t this what the supplicating, loyal beta does when latches on to a woman he believes to the “the One?”
We want to relax. We want to be open and honest. We want to have a safe haven in which struggle has no place, where we gain strength and rest instead of having it pulled from us. We want to stop being on guard all the time, and have a chance to simply be with someone who can understand our basic humanity without begrudging it. To stop fighting, to stop playing the game, just for a while.
We want to, so badly.
If we do, we soon are no longer able to
When I consider Niko’s perspective alongside this I begin to see a stark paradox; mens’ want for a relief or a respite from that performance burden tends to be their undoing. I wont get too deep into this, but one reason I see the MGTOW sphere being so seductive is the hopeful promise of that same relief. Simply give up. Refuse to play along and reject the burden altogether. Japan’s herbivorous men crisis is a graphic example of the long term effects of this.
However, this is the same mistake men make in their Blue Pill, Beta conditioning. They believe that if they meet the right girl, if they align correctly with that special ONE, then they too can give up and not worry about their performance burden – or relax and only make the base effort necessary to keep his ONE happy.
The Beta buys the advertising that his Blue Pill conditioning has presented to him for a lifetime. Find the right girl who accepts you independent of your performance, and you can let down your guard, be vulnerable, forget any notion of Red Pill truths because your girl is a special specimen who places no conditions on her love, empathy, intimate acceptance or genuine desire for you.
And this is also very seductive and inuring for the Beta who’s been conditioned to believe there can realistically be a respite from his burden.
That’s how it seemed to work in my own life. Looking back on it, I was so grateful to my ex, who was easily the most attractive girl I’d ever been with, that I would have taken a bullet for her. I didn’t want anybody else. I didn’t even think about other girls – the first time that had ever happened to me in a relationship. I can remember thinking that even if she gained weight, lost her looks, and got old, I’d still want her. I would have “loved” her forever. I was good and ready to cash in my chips, exit the SMV, and retire. I would have arranged my whole life around making her happy and would have felt lucky to have had the privilege.
At the time, all of that felt noble and brave, but looking back on it, it just seems pathetic and pathological, the result of my neediness. But the thing is, what if she had reciprocated it? Wouldn’t it have been a relationship worth having? Had she reciprocated it – if any woman was capable of reciprocating that – it wouldn’t have been Disney movie bullshit, but the real thing. We’re supposed to think such a thing is possible and that’s what keeps us playing along. The Red Pill is really about recognizing its impossibility, I think. There is no possible equity. To be sure, a woman can be loyal and dedicated to you, in theory, but she’ll only give that loyalty to the guy who needs it least. It’s like a cruel, cosmic joke.
Such as it is, that girl lied to me, ran for the hills the moment I showed weakness and needed her the most, and cheated on me. Big surprise, right? With a red pill awareness now I can see how predictable that result was, but at the time I was blindsided by it. I never saw it coming. I couldn’t understand how she could do such a thing when I’d invested so much in her, when I was so willing to give her all the things I’d always wanted most. I assumed she wanted the same things – men and women are the same, right? That’s what the egalitarians tell us. I couldn’t understand how those things could be so valueless to her that she would just throw it all away like that. She didn’t value them at all.
On occasion I’ve suggested that men watch the movie Blue Valentine. You can check out the plot summary on the IMDB link there, but you really need to watch the movie (on Netflix) to appreciate what I’m going to relate here. The main character suffers from the same romantic idealism and want for a perfected, mutually shared concept of love between himself and the single mother he eventually marries.
It follows along the same familiar theme of Alpha while single / Beta after marriage that most men experience in what they believe is their lot. More often than not the Alpha they believed their wives or LTR girlfriends perceived they were was really just a guy who’d do for their needs of whatever phase of maturity she found herself in.
By itself this would be enough for me to endorse the movie, but the story teaches a much more valuable lesson. What Dean (Ryan Gosling) represents is a man who idealistically buys the Blue Pill promise that men and women share a mutual love concept, independent of what their sexual strategies and innate dispositions prompt them to. Because of this misbelief Dean gives up on the burden of his performance. He drops his ambitions and relaxes with his ONE girl, contenting himself in mediocrity, low ambitions and his idealistic belief in a woman sharing and sustaining his romanticized Blue Pill love ideal – performancelessness.
He relaxes, lets his guard down and becomes the vulnerable man he was taught since birth that women would not only desire, but require for their false, performanceless notions of mutual intimacy. The men of this sphere who don’t find themselves divorced from their progressively bored wives are often the ones who trade their ambitions and passions for a life of mediocrity and routine,…so long as the security blanket of what they believe is a sustainable, passable semblance of that love (but not desire) exists in their wives or girlfriends.
Their burden of performance is sedated so long as their women are reasonably comfortable or sedate themselves. That false sense of contentment is only temporary and leads to their own ruin or decay.
No Quarter Expected
I’ve since watched something similar happen to a friend not once but twice. It’s textbook, standard shit. AWALT.
Cultivating these unrequited beta aspects of somebody’s character, if we did it on a mass scale, creates a society worth living in. It’s a civilized society where these things are most possible and it’s a truly worthwhile relationship where both parties regard each other this way and can full expect it to be reciprocated. It requires faith and trust, but we all know better. Our survival depends on knowing better, post sexual revolution. Women were never worthy of such trust and they’re entirely incapable of it. They were never capable of it. We were just supposed to think they were and cultivate the better aspects of our natures in order to be worthy of them.
The ugly truth of it is that women were never worthy of us.
Women’s sexuality doesn’t reward justice or goodness – if it did, reciprocity would be the norm and none of us would be confused about relational equity. Women reward not goodness, but strength. And strength is amoral, meaning it can be either just or unjust, good or bad. The guy with strength can either be the villain or the hero – it makes no difference to women. They can’t tell the difference and in truth don’t care anyway.
There is a set of the Red Pill that subscribe to what I’d call a ‘scorched earth‘ policy. It’s very difficult to reconcile the opportunistic basis of women’s Hypergamous natures with men’s hopeful, idealistic want for a love that’s independent from their performance burden. So the idea is again one of giving up. They say fuck it, women only respond to the most base selfishly individualistic, socio or psychopathic of men, so the personality they adopt is one that hammers his idealism flat and exaggerates his ‘Dark Triad‘ traits beyond all believability.
It’s almost a vengeful embrace of the most painful truths Red Pill awareness presents to us, and again I see why the scorched earth PUA attitude would seem attractive. Women do in fact observably and predictably reward assholes and excessively dominant Alpha men with genuine desire and sexual enthusiasm.
The problem inherent in applying reciprocal solutions to gender relations is the belief that those relations are in any way improved by an equilibrium between both sexes interests. Solution: turn hard toward the asshole energy. Men understand the rules of engagement with women and they know Game well enough to capitalize on it so why not capitalize on that mastery of it?
The dangers of this are twofold. First, it lacks real sustainability and eventually becomes a more sexualized version of MGTOW. Secondly, “accidents” happen. MGTOWs will warn us that any interaction with a woman bears a risk of sexual harassment or false rape claims, but for the scorched earth guy a planned unplanned pregnancy on the part of a woman attempting to lock down her Alpha is far more likely to be his long term downfall. Emotional and provisioning liabilities for a child tends to pour cold water on the scorched earth guy.
It wouldn’t be inaccurate to say that women are philosophically, spiritually, and morally stunted. They have a limited capacity for adherence to higher ideals and this is why they don’t know or care what actual justice or goodness is. Like Schopenhauer said, they “mistake knowledge for its appearance.”
It took me a long time to be able to accept this. That is women’s true inferiority – and women are profoundly inferior. And I take no pleasure in recognizing that, as if I’m somehow touting the superiority of team men. It’s awful, in fact. Dealing with it is the ultimate burden of performance for us as individual men, but also as a society. At some point we’re simply going to have to confront women’s moral inferiority. If we look at our institutions, the very same that are crumbling now all around us, we can see that previous generations of men already figured this out. We just forgot what they knew.
So what’s the answer? Is justice valuable for its own sake? All of us would probably on some level want to be able to say yes and argue the case, but I don’t know if I can do so convincingly.
I’m with you on this, part of me thinks “Fuck this. It can’t be like this.” But it is. I wish I had the answer.
Niko attempts to redress the assumption that men feel some necessity to be someone they really aren’t. In Vulnerability I go into how the Feminine Imperative is only too willing to exploit this self-doubt by labeling men as existential posers and their conventional masculinity is a ‘mask’ – a false charade – they put on to hide the real vulnerability that lies beneath.
Unfortunately many men accept this as gospel. It’s part of their Blue Pill upbringing and is an essential aspect of their feminine ‘sensitivity training’ and gender loathing conditioning. When masculinity is only ever a mask men wear the only thing real about them is what real women tell them it should be.
What we don’t consider is the legitimacy of our need for strength, independence, stoicism, and yes, emotional restraint. That need to be bulwark against women’s emotionality, that need to wear psychological armor against the Red Pill realities of women’s visceral natures is legitimate and necessary. If a man’s vulnerability is ever it’s because his display of it is so uncharacteristic of his normal impenetrability. The woman’s demeanor, and the narrator’s voice, in the last post’s Campbell’s soup commercial is an example of the weak, vulnerability women expect from lesser child-men – and a commensurate expectation of him to just get that he needs to be strong.
That’s the inconsistency in women’s Hypergamous nature and the narrative of the Feminine Imperative’s messaging. Be sweet, open, vulnerable; it’s OK to cry, ask for help, be sick and weakened, we’re all equal and empathetic – but, Man Up, “what, you need your mommy?”, assert yourself, the asshole is sexier than you, where’s your self-discipline? – but, your masculine identity is a mask you wear to hide the real you,……
I play many roles in the male life I lead today, and I’ve played many others in my past. I’m Rollo Tomassi in the manosphere, I’m a father to my daughter, a husband and lover to my wife, a brilliant artist and pragmatic builder of brands in my job, an adventure seeker when I’m on my snowmobile and a quiet contemplator of life and God when I’m fishing. All of those roles and more are as legitimate as I choose to make them. Do I have moments of uncertainty? Do I waiver in my resolve sometimes? Of course, but I don’t let that define me because I know there is no real strength in relating that.
The Red Pill Balance
Red Pill awareness is both a blessing and a curse. The trick is balancing your Red Pill expectations with your previous Blue Pill idealism. It’s not a sin for you to want for an idealistic reality – that’s what sets us apart from women’s opportunism. You do yourself no favors in killing you idealistic, creative sense of wonderment of what could be. The trick is acknowledging that aspect of your male self.
KFG had a comment to this point:
If men did not hold heroism as a higher ideal, we wouldn’t be here.
If women did not hold survival as a higher ideal, we wouldn’t be here.
This was precisely the dynamic I was referring to when I wrote Idealism.
Men’s idealism and idealistic concepts of love are the natural counterbalance to women’s pragmatic, Hypergamously rooted opportunism and opportunistic concepts of love and vice versa. Those differing concepts can be applied very unjustly and very cruelly, or very judiciously and honorably, but they are the reality of our existence.
Red Pill awareness isn’t just about understanding women’s innate natures and behaviors, it’s also understanding your own male nature and learning how it fits in to that new awareness and living in a new paradigm. Is something like justice valuable for its own sake? I’d say so, but that concept of justice must be tempered (or enforced) in a Red Pill understanding of what to expect from women and men. Red Pill awareness doesn’t mean we should abandon our idealism or higher order aspirations, and it certainly doesn’t mean we should just accept our lot in women’s social frame because of it. It does mean we need to balance that idealism in as pragmatic a way with the realities of what the Red Pill shows us.
Use the wisdom, knowledge, and legwork of other people to further your own cause. Not only will such assistance save you valuable time and energy, it will give you an aura of efficiency and speed. In the end your helpers will be forgotten and you will be remembered. Never do yourself what others can do for you.
When I was first introduced the the 48 Laws of Power the seventh was the one I had the most trouble accepting. I should really say I have trouble ’employing’ this law, because I’ve spent my entire life as an artist in some capacity and I’m very particular about the integrity and character of what it is I create. Obviously we have rights management and plagiarism laws to ensure against the more blatant ‘stealing’ of ideas, but a lot of what accounts for taking unwarranted credit occurs in more nuanced social situations.
It’s usually in these social circumstances that the average person makes use of Law 7. It’s hardly a law at all considering how naturally humans will use it. In a purely ethical sense it’s kind of a no-brainer; don’t assume credit that you’re undeserving of, but bending the perceptions of what we base our estimates on is where the real art comes in.
On a personal level, my investment in what I create and how that creation is received is what matters most to me. I understand the want for a quick reward, but I’m more concerned with a cheap imitation of what I’ve created debasing the quality and effort it took to create it. For instance, I’ve spent the better part of my career creating products and brands for people with a lot of money who really had no real investment in what it was I was making for them. All they wanted was a “product” that they could promote and sell.
Naturally the quality and integrity of that brand or product had to be something they could get behind (the horse must at least look like it could win), but not be held too personally accountable should that product end up being less than ideal. That’s a nice way of saying most salesmen I’ve known love a widget if it’s something that sells, but they’re never really on the hook for if it sucks – that accountability rests with the creator.
While we were dining after the Man in Demand conference we had discussion about exactly this dynamic. I make an effort to keep my business endeavors as businesslike as possible, but there are brands and things I create that I will personally invest myself into. I have to be very careful of this because it took me a long time (and more than a few failed attempts) to develop the discernment to know what’s worth putting myself into. However, it is especially satisfying for me to travel to another country and see one of my bottles in the duty-free stores at the airport and then be at a bar & grill somewhere on vacation and see one on the backbar.
I explained to the guys that what I create (and own) are not “products” to me. I dislike that term in that sense. I understand the utility of that word to salesmen; product is an easy unit of measure, but to the person creating that thing it’s a measure of the quality of their idea. To refer to that creation as a product impersonalizes that creation and allows the seller to remain at arms distance should the creation be wildly popular or a horrible failure.
That pride of ownership or the abandoning of it is a convenience for someone only invested in promoting that thing, but on some level it is never really theirs with the same responsibility as the one who created it. So ultimately the noncommittal position of selling, promoting, endorsing, etc. becomes an arrangement of convenience since the creator’s idea is where the ‘product’s’ strengths lie – and also where the real accreditation should too.
I’ve occasionally been accused by the ignorant on Twitter of being dependent on The Rational Male for my revenue. Most of my regular readers know what I do for a living and understand why that’s silly, but I don’t think it’s any real secret that what I write here and in the books is something very personal to me. The Rational Male has always been something I’ve invested myself in for obvious reasons, but I’ve always resisted turning it into a brand per se. There wont be any TRM T-Shirts coming in the foreseeable future.
I’m proud to be responsible for what I do here and I will never be beholden to making what I create into a ‘product’ for others to sell. One of the best things about being in the position I am is being anti-fragile enough to write what I believe is important while still keeping myself solvent on what I do apart from it. This allows me a much greater freedom than needing to write something to stay solvent.
You’ll have to forgive my intro here, but it got me to thinking about a larger point I had in mind about how and why a man invests himself in various endeavors in life. I’ve worked hard to get to a point in life where I can say my personal successes (and failures) are my own and not the result of others’ funding or some fortunate dispensation, but rather based on the strength of ideas and responsibly owning them as the creator. Yet another reason I have a problem with Law 7; for as much as you may gain by employing it you rarely develop the insights that failing of your own accord teaches you. Experience teaches harsh, but it teaches best.
I think one of the reasons men find the popularized, feminist, social convention of ‘male privilege‘ so disingenuous is because we want to be appreciated for the sacrifices and perseverance needed to even have what looks like a meager, hand-out, kind of privilege. An atmosphere of default privilege debases what men have honestly invested themselves in. I’ve always held that women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices men make to facilitate their feminine-primary reality, but that’s not to discount men’s want to still be appreciated for them.
Whether that’s manifested in financial wealth, personal freedom, status or earned wisdom there’s a fundamental want for an appreciation that is rarely ever forthcoming. One reason I believe many men have a self-fulfilling definition of what it is to be Alpha is because they feel they’ve earned that identification through hard work and playing by a set of ruleseveryone else should, but get frustrated when their efforts go unappreciated, if not outright exploited. Again, Law 7. It’s galling to see others rewarded for exploiting what you think should be appreciated.
There’s a subset of MGTOW reader/writers who question every man’s motive for doing what it is he does thinking that appeasing women is at the root of every effort. Nothing is a genuinely inspired passion if the end result is women’s affectations. I covered this in Crisis of Motive, but what exactly is a genuine motive in that sense? If the byproduct result of my genuine interests is having sex with gorgeous women and/or a beautiful wife and a couple of well adjusted kids should that then discredit my unique talents and interests in what I do?
What if, after all a man does, he seeks an appreciation that will only rarely be unsolicited on his part? It’s one thing to command respect; it’s quite another to demand it.
In this sense I think what is most egregious about the present state of marriage is that, for the greater part, all of the personal equity a man invests in himself over the course of his lifetime is only a divorce settlement away from being halved for him (if not more so). A man’s personal equity (not to be confused with relational equity) is only one false rape allegation away from ruin. This is the institutionalization of Law 7: that a woman can largely and legally get a man to do all the work and then take (at least half) the credit from his own success – or at least that’s the social expectation.
Granted, a woman can also be on the hook for her lack of character judgement should she pair with a man who becomes a burden to her. There are rare instances when a woman may find herself financially beholden to a bad choice in marriage, but then it’s a situation of that man’s genuine achievements in life and usually an inability to take his burden of performance and make the most of it. For the most part, the role of support falls to the man in societal expectations; women and feminized men are the ones supported.
In fact, it’s a point of shame for men to be supported in such a fashion. Whether that’s warranted of not, it is men who are expected to make more of themselves than what they started with. A needed provisioning from women only puts his achievements’ validity in question. Like it or not, men should avoid the perception of themselves not pulling their own weight.
A while back I was asked why the Burden of Performance should be called a “burden” at all. Should it not be a “challenge” or a “opportunity”? All optimist semantics aside, it is uniquely men whose character is judged on what he started with and what he made of himself.
I’m sure equalist critics will want to cast women into the same performance role, but in a uniquely male sense, it is men who are expected to make more of themselves. To be a ‘man’ is to produce in excess of what you consume – thus having the potential to support a family, an extended family, ensure security, give back to his community and/or reinvest that excess in greater endeavors or passions. While it may be part of the Feminine Imperative’s media campaign to popularize the character of the Strong Independent Woman® there is still room for women to expect the best out of a man while being provided for herself. In other words women have both the option to strive for independence while also retaining the option to be provided for by her husband or an LTR. And failing either of these, they retain an institutional right to Law 7.
Men must be independent resource providers, they must make more of themselves than what they began with, independent of dispensations or special privilege. There is no safety net, no other socially acceptable option to be provided for and still retain his being definitively a ‘man’. One of the hesitations I have with endorsing the Red Pill idea of going ‘Monk Mode’ is less about the isolation and more about the motivation men need to find within themselves to better themselves.
We look down on men who are dependent on women. Whether that’s financially, emotionally or physically, there is no option for dependence. One of the primary complaints professional, educated, independent women bemoan is their inability to pair off with a man of ‘like’ (or above) status. They’ll make euphemisms to characterize the men who would be their ‘equals’ who wont date them, but what they fail to acknowledge is the fundamental, root level truth of men’s burden of performance. For all the high-minded hopes of equalism, women’s Hypergamy still wants to filter for both sexual and provider acceptability in men.
Back in 2012 I based a post on Creative Intelligence from a study about how improvisational skills and creativity factored into a woman’s Hypergamous considerations. I wont quote it in length here, but suffice it to say that there is a measurable difference in how women perceive men with a trained or innate ability to improvise in, and overcome, times of adversity. As might be expected a man with a proven capacity to produce more than he consumes – especially when he’s had to come back from failure or misfortune – tends to be a more attractive mate choice that the man who chances into his own affluence.
Bear in mind that attraction and arousal are different sides of the Hypergamy coin (AF/BB), but many cross-cultural studies suggest that a capacity for creative, innovative, adaptive intelligence has been an evolutionarily selected-for socio-sexual trait in men – much less so in women. That’s important for the MGTOW critic to remember, it’s not as simple as a feminine-primary social order dictating men being slaves to their burden of performance. Just as gender is primarily biological, and not a social construct, neither is women’s evolved, Hypergamous sexual filtering.
Now, with the evolutionary basis of attraction in mind, it’s also important to consider that in our evolutionary past women evolved to take calculated risks in optimizing their Hypergamous sexual selectivity. The utility such Red Pill concepts as social proof, dread, Game, amused mastery, etc. are evidenced because they work with (or sometimes against) this Filter.
Hypergamy wants a pre-made Man. If you look at my now infamous comparative SMP curve, one thing you’ll notice is the peak SMV span between the sexes.
Good looking, professionally accomplished, socially matured, has Game, confidence, status, decisive and Just Gets It when it comes to women. Look at any of the commonalities of terms you see in any ‘would like to meet’ portion of a woman’s online dating profile and you’ll begin to understand that hypergamy wants optimization and it wants it now. Because a woman’s capacity to attract her hypergamous ideal decays with every passing year, her urgency demands immediacy with a Man embodying as close to that ideal as possible in the now.
Hypergamy takes a big risk in betting on a man’s future potential to become (or get close to being) her hypergamous ideal, so the preference leans toward seeking out the man who is more made than the next.
The problem with this scenario as you might guess is that women’s SMV depreciates as men’s appreciates — or at least should appreciate. As I outlined above, the same hypergamy that constantly tests and doubts the fitness of a man in seeking its security also limits his potential to consistently satisfy it.
As I’ve mentioned in many prior posts, Hypergamy demands assurances. In fact so paramount is that need for Hypergamous certainty that women have evolved peripheral awareness to be sensitive to psychological and socio-sexual cues that confirm a man’s Hypergamous acceptability to her. Furthermore, so important is this need of assurance that in a society founded on feminine social primacy, the Feminine Imperative will legislate legal institutions to prevent men from misrepresenting themselves as a more optimal Hypergamous choice – as well as legislate penalties that insure women against both Hypergamous fraud and less than optimal mating choices.
As you might guess, the development and evolution of Game is one such psycho-social contingency men refine and use to workaround this Hypergamous filtering; and one that the imperative is still making efforts to restrict. However this doesn’t discount the way men have, in the past, built themselves up based on both social expectations, but also genuine interests and passions. Naturally, if a man is the genuine article and as a byproduct attracts women as a result of it, that might be preferable to ‘faking it till you’re making it’ – but if that’s the route you go be sure that you do in fact ‘make it’ because it’s what you feel passionate about.
The primary reason I wrote Preventive Medicine was to help men avoid having women’s institutionalization of Law 7 ruin their long term personal efforts and achievements. Many critics want to lock horns with me as to when a man’s Peak SMV generally occurs in life. That’s fine, but whether or not you agree with my accuracy in this regard the fact remains that it takes much more concentrated, long term effort to reach that peak than women’s fast-burn peak SMV. I don’t just mean this in terms of his professional status, but also his maturity, his acquired wisdom, his judgement of others’ character, the lessons learn from the bruises of his failures and near misses.
All of this requires an investment in oneself that simply the having of resources handed to you will never satisfy. That personal investment in oneself, as it should, amounts to a lot of internalized equity – an equity that will never be appreciated by women whose Hypergamy is looking for a pre-made man. Hypergamy doesn’t care about the effort and perseverance required to achieve the status you (should) enjoy at your SMV peak.
I’ll be the first to admit that when it comes to short term sexual selection, the most wanton sex I had was at the time in my life when I was the poorest. As an underemployed semi-rockstar I used hit it with the best of them, and from a purely sexual perspective, it’s true, criminal and Alpha cads will still fuck 80% of women. But there’s more to the worth of a man than just his notch count. Sexual experience constitutes a very important measure of that, but a man should want more for himself as a man, as a father, as leader, as a creator, even as a cad.
Life experience and the benefits that a man should draw from it are personally valuable. In fact, men feel the equity of these efforts are so valuable that men will commit suicide at 5 times the rate of women; and in particular between the ages of 45-49. Why do you suppose that is? What assurances of long term security does the common man have for himself? What is he faced with when the plan he sets forth for himself in his life is destroyed in one precarious instance?
Once again, using the male deductive logic, it may seem a better option for him to hit the reset button than to be faced with having his life’s equity, his largest investment, his creation, stolen from him. This is a graphic illustration of men’s Burden of Performance, a burden women simply don’t face.
During the last post’s comment thread I sort of went back in time to when I’d first heard the term ‘open relationship’. It was back in the mid 80s and I’d heard it being proposed to me by my first girlfriend when I was around 19 and she’d grown bored of my predictable Beta perfection. Needless to say this moment preceded my semi-pro rock star 20s and the natural Alpha-ness I matured into. So at the time I was thoroughly steeped in the dutiful Beta conditioning of believing that ‘going steady’ monogamy and only banging the ONE girl was the right thing to do.
I also believed that women’s motives were reliably based on what they said rather than what their behaviors implied (and their contradicting behaviors were the result of being confused by nebulous ‘society’s’ unfair expectations of women). So it was with a great deal of confusion that I was forced to wrap my head around exactly why my ‘girlfriend’ would want to retain me as an intimate orbiter while she pursued other guys to bang and become potential intimates with.
She suggested an “open relationship” – all the same non-sexual intimate expectations with no expectation of reciprocal sexual fidelity – an idea she’d no doubt been familiarized with from her former hippie ‘free love‘ parents. And not unlike the simpering Beta in today’s cartoon, I too was uncomfortable with sharing my 18 year old girlfriend with any other guy. Looking back it was quite the conflict to my 19 year old, Beta conditioned mind. On one hand I was taught to respect the independence of a woman and didn’t want to be the guy to tell her what she could or couldn’t do, but I also bought into the Disneyesque sacrifice all for true love narrative.
I suppose now I owe her some gratitude since my rejecting this “I want to play the field” episode was instrumental in setting me on a course for my Alpha 20s and the “don’t give a fuck” attitude that unintentionally served me so well with women then.
Today there are cutesy synonyms like ‘poly’ to describe a woman who believes it’s in her multiple lovers’, as well as her own, mutual interests that they obligate themselves to what really amounts to her attention, emotional and sexual needs independent of each guy who fulfills that role for her. The problem arises in the degree of investment those men believe that an above board ‘poly’ woman will be able to appreciate. I had this situation presented in last weeks’ comments:
Why does an open relationship favor women and not men? It’s only cuckoldry if you don’t approve of it. If you agree to an open relationship for both of you, then it seems like an equal footing.
The cuckoldry Devil is in the details; and in this case that Devil is in the perceived ‘agreement’ and who’s doing the agreeing. Contemporary Open Cuckoldry and the social conventions of ‘free love’ era faux-idealisms in ‘open relationships’ work in tandem today to promote the sexual selection strategy of women’s Hypergamy.
Cuckoldry, in its most visceral, Hypergamous sense, favors women because there is no margin for error on a man’s part. Bear in mind that an ‘open’ relationship only serves a woman’s sexual imperative because she benefits from comfort, rapport, security and likely provisioning of the primary man with whom she’s come to this agreement with. In all honesty I’ve rarely met a guy in an open relationship who wasn’t a Beta at the mercy of his wife or LTR’s proliferative phase, Alpha Fucks, Hypergamous impulses.
Most of them understand their optionless condition and resign themselves to the women they’ve committed to, wanting to, and acting on fucking more suitably, conventionally, masculine men than themselves. Arguably, most stay at home fathers fall into a sort of contextual form of an open relationship for much of the same reasons even if their wives are only getting a vicarious Alpha ‘fix’ by working among higher status men who haven’t abdicated on their burden of performance by adopting the feminine support role.
What About Those Assholes?
Now I am aware of the often domineering men who insist on fucking women outside of their commitment to a monogamous lover. I also understand that the reverse can and does apply. I’m also aware that when a man’s SMV exceeds a woman’s it places her into a similar position to that of the Beta men I’ve just described.
Bear in mind that the issue I’m on about here isn’t one of fault, but rather how an effectively polygamous relationship serves the interests of either genders’ sexual strategy.
It’s vitally important to consider how both of these ‘open relationship’ formats are popularly perceived in a cultural context. For a woman, being ‘poly’ may hold some stigma to it. She may be considered a de facto slut in some sense – remember she’s maintaining the pretense that she’s committed to one or more men, rather than a booty call where there is no pretense of exclusivity – but the social (not to mention legal assurance) efforts being made to ‘normalize’ what amounts to her cuckoldry of that ‘primary’ partner is reinforced because it seemingly serves as some kind of new-age feminine-primary family unit. And after all, he too is ostensibly free to exercise his sexual strategy in this arrangement. A win-win, right?
In the case where the ‘primary’ partner is the woman and the high SMV man leaves her no choice but to adopt his sexual strategy as the dominant one in the relationship, that ‘open relationship’ is considered dysfunctional and socially frowned upon. He’s a cad or a philanderer at best, and an abusive self-absorbed inconsiderate monster at worst. Reverse the sexes in today’s cartoon and imagine what the feminine-primary social response might be.
Force Fitting Sexual Strategies
What we’re observing in a modern interpretation of ‘poly’ or ‘open relationships’ is a conflict between the normalization of unilateral control of sexual strategy within a monogamous relationship context. I know that sounds like a mouthful but consider…
The Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies: For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.
No doubt many Blue and Purple Pill readers will (in the interests of “equality”) remind us that there was a time when it was socially expected of (high socio-economic status) men to “keep” a mistress (or use prostitutes) as well as a wife, or even have many wives. All socio-economic Apex Fallacies aside, this being an outlier rather than a norm, those arrangements still put that man into a position of maintaining support for both (all) women in order to satisfy his sexual appetites as well as the relative wellbeing of them.
In the modern instance where western(ized) women are a protected class in a feminine-primary social order, the priority of sexual strategy changes hands. I cover this exchange in the Adaptation series of posts, but to paraphrase, Free Love, open relationships or now, ‘poly’, has really become an increasingly acceptable methodology for women to optimize both the Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks aspects of Hypergamy while still enjoying a semblance of the security that old order monogamy provides for women’s emotional needs.
In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.
In an economic state where women are less financially dependent on (or autonomous from) men, the Alpha Fucks aspect of Hypergamy will take priority. That’s not to say the Beta comfort and rapport appeal becomes worthless as an emotional investment, but it’s less likely for a woman to need to prioritize that aspect while pursuing the Alpha Fucks aspect. Beta comfort and security have a value, but that value requires less urgency than pursing Alpha sexual experience (functional breeding opportunities).
Consider the poor Beta symp in the cartoon. That caricature is of a Beta conditioned man struggling with the Old Set of Books, with the old order ruleset expectations from a woman who will never recognize them because she’s never needed to. It’s his investment in her, his necessitousness, his optionlessness and his inability to see it’s the source of his frustration and his anxiety. He needs her, expects more from her, than she needs him.
The lie inherent in the humor of the cartoon is that women possess the capacity to compartmentalize their emotional investments. The Medium is the Message; women can only compartmentalize their feelings for men they don’t see as Hypergamously optimal men (i.e. Alpha, higher than their own SMV men). For men who embody that optimization, women simply cannot afford to feel anything more than submission (a submission to a dominant man they innately desire) to him and are thus unable to consider anything like compartmentalizing their emotions for him.
For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she’s able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring’s survival with the best provisioning partner; this is an evolutionary jackpot.
‘Open’ relationships, and the social narrative reinforcement of the concept, are one such adaptation to facilitate this methodology.
All of this may seem a bit pervasive coming from the guy who advises men to spin plates and date non-exclusively for as long as it takes (if ever) to attain the depth of experience to become a relatively good judge of women’s innate nature, and then if he so chooses, decide how best to pair and parent with her.
The difference in this approach is characteristic of the differences in men and women’s sexual strategies. In Plate Theory, while there is an above board implication of non-exclusivity, there is never an implication that a woman is (or should be) more than a non-exclusive dating opportunity. There should never be any pretense of there being an established, invested relationship as we see in the ‘poly’ concept of women.
In fact this is the primary distinction in non-exclusivity; who’s Frame is the predominant one? In a woman’s ‘poly’ Frame there is a retainership implied in what she believes should be an accepted non-exclusivity.
Ask yourself this, why would a man persist in an ‘open’ relationship? What unique advantages does he get in this arrangement that he couldn’t by simply staying single, practicing Game and spinning plates? Then ask yourself what unique benefits does a woman receive from the same ‘polyamorous’ arrangement?
When you’re contemplating this, try to divorce yourself from the emotional investments and focus on cold hard evolved Hypergamy and how it would function for either sex in that arrangement. Keep in mind that as far as feminized society is concerned, and for all of the triumphalism of independent women, the onus of committed relationship responsibility still defines the worth of a man.
I’ve seen men make the mistake of mentioning that they would never raise another man’s child on FaceBook. Shit storms ensued. The usual shaming tactics were trotted out such as manning up. Interestingly enough I’ve heard a woman (on one of those absolutely dreadful day time talk shows such as the View) say that a woman in a relationship with a man with his own kids was a fool for wasting her time on his kids instead of hers. The framework for open cuckoldry is already there, we just need to see the push that makes it completely socially acceptable.
Open Cuckoldry is already in its developmental stage in a social respect. When you consider the Sandbergian plan for Open Hypergamy, the logical implication of this is what’s described here – prioritizing the sexual selection and Hypergamous optimization of women on a societal level while maximally restricting (via social shaming and disapproval) the sexual strategies that would ever serve male interests,…so long as that male is anything less than an optimal Alpha.
Open Cuckoldry has many euphemisms now, but in the Red Pill aware perspective it’s just a matter of time until the social plan of prioritized Hypergamy and outright cuckoldry becomes a social norm.
TuffLuv also presented me with a related question in the last comment thread:
A little too black and white on this stuff Rollo. Sure cuckoldry, as you call it is becoming the norm.. the euphemism being “mixed family”. But I see the majority of instances not being a chick who had the child of some alpha bad boy, or even alpha good boy.. I just see fickle chicks who dumped the baby daddy cuz she either found something better or went looking for something better. The poor dad is just an every day average guy who got his heart broken by the bitch.
So, ponder if you will, if there is a difference between a man raising another man’s child(ren) where the bio father is less alpha (possibly by far) than the new suitor, and a beta man raising the child of one of the woman’s former studs.. I think in the real world you find the former far more than the latter, except in cases where the married or committed woman actually went out and cheated and got pregnant with another man’s child. Maybe that happens a lot but that is not *open* cuckoldry.. That’s classic cuckoldry, and perhaps the only thing that should be called cuckoldry.
I think there should be another designation for the former case. It’s still a bit shameful, but not nearly as much as the latter, eh?
Definitely something to consider, but this situation also implies a change in conditions or context with regard to the woman doing the cuckolding. The fundamentals don’t change – that woman may have bred with a less than optimal man, but the Hypergamous sexual selection impulse still drives her to seek out the Alpha fucks aspect of Hypergamy. She’s Making Up for Missing Out and still she has the provisioning and support she needs in order to pursue the opposite side of the Hypergamous equation she missed out on courtesy of the Beta father.
During the Q&A section of the Man in Demand talk I gave back in September I was asked about where I believed the social dynamic of Open Hypergamy would lead. In specific the idea was proposed, and I agree, that the logical next step for a social order founded on feminine Hypergamy and one that prioritizes the female sexual strategy as preeminent would lead to a state of openly accepted cuckoldry.
Although I can’t say it’s an accepted social dynamic as yet, there are many social indicators that are revealing this push towards a normalized cuckoldry. I’ll explore these for a bit in this essay, but for now these indicators are about a move away from conventional monogamy in the hopes that a ‘soft cuckoldry’ might be a precursor to instituting a more accepted open cuckoldry.
I think it’s also important to keep in mind a couple of primary principles about this shift. First is the fact that, initially, an openly accepted state of feminine-controlled cuckoldry will never be called ‘cuckoldry’ proper. If we use the example of a socially accepted (if not celebrated) open Hypergamy as a model, open cuckoldry will be sold as a more logical, more humane sexual strategy for men and women in light of divorce statistics, romantic boredom and other sexual studies that indicate men and women weren’t evolved for monogamous commitment.
The second is that open cuckoldry is the extension of a unilaterally feminine controlled Hypergamy. That is to say that as Hypergamy becomes more normalized as a social imperative that sexual strategy will extend to optimizing Hypergamy across genders. If that optimization is taken to its logical end it will require men not just to adopt cuckoldry as a norm, but to socially reward them for advocating it among their own sex.
Cuckoldry By Any Other Name
As I said, it wont be called ‘cuckoldry’; the connotations are negative, so a redefining will be made in order to make the practice more socially palatable. The Feminine Imperative wont recruit the very men it needs to perpetuate cuckoldry as their own sexual strategy if the term is derogatory. Thus we’ll get euphemisms for alternative lifestyles, ‘open marriages’ or a “Designer Relationship“:
We live in an era when everything is customizable. Relationships are no exception. Some people will continue to practice their grandparents’ form of monogamy, and others, probably the majority, will be serially exclusive and pair-bonded. Still others will explore some form of non-monogamous expression that encompasses one or more of the facets we’ve discussed or may flow in and out of being exclusive based on what the relationship requires. (We’ve done this ourselves.) Having the ability to customize a relationship means having the freedom to respond to life’s vicissitudes.
The first time I came across the concept of ‘soft polygamy’ I was in a behavioral psychology class exploring the practices of modern marriage and contrasting them with the long term sexual behaviors of men and women. As you might imagine the context of the study focused entirely on the ‘bad behaviors’ of men who essentially transitioned from serial monogamy to serial marriage. The idea was that in the process of moving from one LTR to another men were establishing a soft form of polygamy.
In a social respect, men have far more to lose from serial marriages than do women. The financial liabilities of divorce are well known to the manosphere, but so are the emotional and familial accountabilities. So from a strictly male perspective, serial LTRs are a dicey prospect, but from a female perspective, in a feminine-primary social order, institutionalized Hypergamy and the soft polygamy that results from the Sandbergian sexual strategy, soft cuckoldry becomes pragmatic in optimizing Hypergamy for women.
At this point we should consider the Heartiste maxim about feminism again:
The feminist goal is removing all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality
Institutionalized cuckoldry is the logical means to restricting male sexuality, but we have to consider what function that restriction serves for women. From an Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks perspective the plan is simple; restrict that sexuality as women find need for a particular man’s service.
Diamonds and Rust
While I’m reluctant to prognosticate, my guess is that future generations of men will be conditioned to accept their role in this cuckoldry as part of their socialization. The above Forevermark diamond advertisement is one illustration of this. Open Hypergamy and its acceptance has already made its popular debut in mainstream media and advertising, and likewise open cuckoldry is just now finding a social foothold.
It takes the Red Pill Lens to appreciate the efforts as they’re being made by a large society. The Forevermark ad is intended to be funny or cute, but it belies a deeper, more poignant truth about Alpha Widows, Hypergamy and the long term sexual strategy Plan and roles women expect men to play in it.
I was made aware of this ad being circulated from a reader on Twitter and at first thought it was a reworked joke. It is however legit and billboards with this campaign are up in major cities. Without the benefit of a Red Pill Lens I can see how most men would laugh it off or women might giggle sardonically about it, but the the fact remains that a clever copywriter is aware of the sexual dynamics that make it funny.
I pulled the following quote from Deti on one of Dalrock’s more recent post:
“I think what we will continue to see is growing disengagement.”
Yeah, this has been discussed here and elsewhere in the almost 5 years I’ve been around here.
I think that what will happen is that things will continue sliding in the same direction they’re going now, until a critical mass is reached. I don’t know what that critical mass is, what will trigger it, or when it will be reached.
We live in a mostly free society with a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. We have maximum freedom and autonomy right now, with both sexes being free to pursue pretty much whatever they want, however they want to. That is the prime characteristic driving the current circumstance — that, and up to now, there’s been enough money taxed, borrowed and stolen to pay for it.
A growing number of men are not getting as much sex as they want. A growing number of women aren’t getting commitments in the form they want — when they want or from the men they want.
So things are going to keep sliding that way. More and more men will walk away and direct what energies they have left elsewhere — into work, or beer/bros/Xbox/porn, or travel/leisure. (Oddly enough, this might make many of them more attractive to women, since they’re spending less time directing their attentions to women.) More and more men will earn just enough to support themselves, since they don’t plan on marriage, and fatherhood is out of the question. They will lack the skills to improve their lives. They will not get nearly as much sex as they want, but they will learn to live with it — mostly through porn, the occasional hookup, and the even more occasional prostitute. The price of prostitutes will skyrocket as demand increases; and a few more women will go into high-end call girl work to earn side money.
More and more women will direct their attentions into their work, travel/leisure, and having children without men. (This will definitely make more of them less attractive to men except as on again, off again sex partners.) They will not get the commitments from men they want, but they will learn to live with it. They will complain about it with increasing volume and shrillness, but they’ll learn to live with it.
Until something happens to cause the tides to turn. Again – don’t know what, or when, or how. But something will happen to cause a hard reset. And it will be exquisitely painful for everyone. I don’t want it to happen, nor do I relish it. It’s not something to desire or look forward to because of the pain it will bring. But I do think it will happen. I don’t think it will happen in my lifetime or my kids’ lifetimes. We could easily slide like this for another 50 to 100 years.
I think one consequence of this separation of the genders will include a socially normalized institution of cuckoldry. To take hold it will need to be termed something different, but in effect the process of women conceiving with one man and then expecting another man to parentally invest himself in that child will be a casual expectation of women. With so many men effectively (if not intentionally) going their own way, the idea that any man wouldn’t be expected to serve as a surrogate parent will become commonplace.
Genders divided by feminism or feminine social primacy will need a ‘customized’ form of cuckoldry that allows for the Alpha Fucks side of Hypergamy to be reconciled with the Beta Bucks side by enlisting different men for either purpose.
In an infamous cartoon in The New Yorker in 2001, one woman confides to a friend over drinks: ‘I was on hormone replacement for two years before I realized what I really needed was Steve replacement.’ Medicine has been reluctant to engage the question of just how much monogamy and long-term togetherness affect sexual function and desire, and the ‘Steve’ problem remains an issue that is tacitly acknowledged and yet under-discussed. To return to Julie’s growing pile of self-help titles, the books all promise to return, revive, restore without really getting down to the brass tacks of why desire extinguished in the first place. As Julie notes, the honeymoon grinds to an end, but the issues leading there are complex. In short supply is attention to the way mind and body react to social structures such as popular media, faith and marriage.
To develop drugs to boost libido is like ‘giving antibiotics to pigs because of the shit they’re standing in’
The American psychologist Christopher Ryan argues that the institution of modern marriage – meaning an exclusive couple bound by romantic love – is antithetical to long-term excitement. Ryan is best known for Sex at Dawn (2010), a book authored with his wife Cacilda Jethá, that makes the case that sexual monogamy is deeply at odds with human nature. He is among a growing number of researchers suggesting that the rift between women’s purportedly limitless sexual potential and their dulled actuality might owe to the circumstances of intimacy. Accordingly, the conjugal bed is not only the scene of dwindling desire, but its fundamental cause. The elements that strengthen love – reciprocity, closeness, emotional security – can be the very things that smother lust. While love angles toward intimacy, desire flourishes across a distance.
The entire article is very insightful if not a bit depressing, but with the Red Pill Lens we can begin to understand the latent purpose behind the message. I’ve gone on record about the pushback against clearing the pink pill for use as being a direct threat to women’s control of their own Hypergamy. The concern, ostensibly, is that a libido stimulating drug might be used to induce a woman into having sex that her otherwise sober sense would prevent; effectively it could be a ‘rape’ drug.
What’s finally being addressed in this article however is what I’ve been saying since I was aware of the drug’s trials – a chemical that induces libido in women removes an element of their control in sexual selection and compromises Hypergamy. I’m not entirely sure the author was aware of the points she was revealing in this, but she succinctly makes the case for both institutionalized cuckoldry (or certainly a ‘customized’ soft polygamy for women) and advocates for women maintaining control of their Hypergamy unclouded by a drug that would remove that control by chemically inducing them into sex that isn’t of their own choosing.
The ‘cure’ to women’s low libido is holistic, not biological. Women’s sexual deficiencies are presumed not to be the result of a ‘broken’ biology, but rather a lack of proper motivation. I should point out that all of this validates all the points I was making about Dread in marriage last month on Biblical Gender Roles– maintaining a condition of proper motivation (i.e. Dread), the holistic cure, is exactly what even femosphere authors are tacitly advocating.
The elements that strengthen love – reciprocity, closeness, emotional security – can be the very things that smother lust.
Yet now, even when a pharmaceutical solution to the lust problem is made available the ‘cure’ is rejected. Why? Because on a root, limbic level women’s hindbrains know that Hypergamy cannot be optimized with a drug that removes Hypergamous choice. The real solution has never changed and women are now put into a position of having to openly acknowledge that for all of the pretense of “mismatched libidos” or “sex just declines after marriage” social conventions, men’s cuckoldry is the real plan for Hypergamy.
When presented with a pill that will make them sexual, when given a cure to their low sex drives with the men who’ve made lifetime commitments to them, women will still refuse to take it. Hypergamous doubt can’t be quelled with a pill.
Well, dammit, I had a very insightful article warming up in my drafts folder about Open Cuckoldry (it’s still coming, promise), but I felt compelled to riff on the new Pirelli Tyre calendar photoshoot first. The calendar art is replete with a semi-nude Amy Schumer sipping a pumpkin-spice latte, “tastefully” rendered in greyscale (the calling card of an ‘artiste’ as a opposed to just a ‘photographer’) and the doughy eyed stare of a comedienne who grasps the ludicrous seriousness of how her image will be received and delivered by a feminine-centric society.
I’ll be honest, I don’t much care for Schumer as a comedian or an actress, and if you read here with any regularity I’d expect you don’t either. She characterizes, with triumphantly unwarranted hubris, everything the Feminine Imperative would like generations of women to celebrate as a victory over the evil “Patriarchy” that, by design, is never entirely defeated. In a post-End of Men society, fat, goofy women will be the banner bearers the imperative will have dance on the symbolic corpse of the “Patriarchy” that will never die or be unuseful to it.
The irony here is that Amy’s naked girth is being lauded by the usual media suspects as “brave” and “stunning”. Calling a woman of this physique “stunning” is like telling the retarded kid he actually ran the football back for a real touchdown to win the big game. Perhaps Amy is self-aware enough to realize this, but her participation in her own humiliation tells the bigger story. The fact that she rationalizes her nudes as being “authentic” as opposed to ridiculous verifies this.
Now before I go much further here, I’ll remind readers that I’m entirely aware that this “groundbreaking” photoshoot of “real” women is little more than a publicity effort, nominally on Pirelli Tyres (are they a British brand?), but mostly for photographer Annie Leibovitz and her feminist triumphalisms (she also shot ‘Woman’ of the Year, Caitlyn Jenner).
Since the inception of this blog I’ve always gotten props for the pictures I select as my lead-ins to what I’m writing. This talent is really the result of my having worked in advertising and brand development for years, and having to be the de facto photographer and photo editor for more than 20 years. Trust me, I get the language of imagery, and it’s not difficult to see the train that Leibovitz is riding here.
At the launch of the calendar on Monday, Leibovitz explained that none of these photographs had been conceived with the male gaze in mind. Williams’s photo was “not a nude but a body study”, she said, while Schumer’s was a comic conceit: “The idea was that she was the only one who had not got the memo about wearing clothes.”
…arty soft-core ode to pinups produced by the Italian tire manufacturer,…
The Bigger Narrative
There’s a much larger story being sold here than a fat comedienne’s rationalizing her nude form as championing “authenticity” or “realness”. What we’re observing, yet again, is the frustration of women being able to optimize their inherent Hypergamy against what our evolved biology dictates for them.
I’ve written extensively on the conflict between an idealized Equalism and human beings’ evolved predilection for Complementarity. Whenever there is a new ‘outrage’ over “body shaming” or “fat shaming”, with a Red Pill lens we can see what this conflict represents: The frustration women experience, and the anxiety of insecurity they feel when presented with the prospect of not being able to optimize their Hypergamous impulses because simple biology selects them out based on their physicality.
No doubt Leibovitz believes in her rationalization that she’s shooting artful nudes without the mythical ‘male gaze’ in mind, but she knows on a visceral level the form of every nude woman in art throughout history has been rendered with the intent of replicating a beauty that inspires arousal (thus the ode to the pin-up). The simple hard-coded fact of nature is that the form of a semi-nude woman, by order of degree, stimulates the area of the male brain associated with tool use and thereby objectification. On a limbic level, sex with beautiful, arousing women is literally a problem to be solved by the male brain.
Leibovitz gets this. In fact she banks money on instigating the deliberate contradiction that human biology poses to her own (and a larger society’s) ego-investments in blank-slate Equalism. The root of this prefabricated indignation rests in women’s existential doubt of optimizing Hypergamy. That doubt conflicts with the uncertainty of establishing a social order that will force men to act and be influenced by idealized Equalism rather than their evolved biology.
In other words, the latent purpose of this social order is to force men to comply with women’s sexual strategy, irrespective of their evolved sexual arousal cues.
The ostensible want for an ideal Equalism, or a dubious gender parity, is really the cover story for the want of 100% consolidated control over their ability to optimize Hypergamy by literally controlling the sexual selection choices men are able to make for themselves.
Schumer apparently earns the label of “real” because a few rolls around her midsection are on display – because her body is less than perfect by pop culture standards. Would she be any less “real” if she didn’t allow her body to be consumed in this way? Can’t all bodies count as “real”, no matter what they look like and who lives in them and whether or not they choose to show themselves – clothed or naked?
I find it interesting that an out of shape Vin Diesel is ridiculed for his present physique, or that ‘Dad Bods’ are sardonically described as ‘sexy’ while the over-the-shoulder giggles ensue, but what I don’t expect is for these men to be held as a physical ideal in women’s estimate. There are no photographers, male or female, shooting artful nudes of overweight men, normal “real” men of professional accomplishment, or middle linemen for exclusive calendars. Firemen with rippling abs sell very well, but “real” men? Not so much.
However the difference is that men don’t expect women’s choices of what physically arouses them to shift in favor of their physiques based on expected societal shifts. In fact, we don’t even expect women not to laugh at a naked Seth Rogan or Jonah Hill. The automatic impression is to laugh at them because they don’t come close to women’s physical ideal, so the presumption of intent must be humor. Yet we are expected to perceive a naked Amy Schumer as “real’, “authentic”, “brave” and “stunning”, and to do so with genuflection, devoid of laughter and ridicule.
The uncomfortable truth is that women have far higher, far more static and far more stringent physical ideals for men than men will ever have for women when it comes to basic visceral arousal cues. Yes, I understand there are more variables to attraction than just the physical, but we are talking about representing physical ideals in photos and calendars here. Firemen and Sports Illustrated swimsuit models are the standard order for a reason – evolved, practical, efficient biomechanics that have made us what we are today, not pop-culture stereotypes.
T-Rex Wants to Hunt
T-rex doesn’t want to be fed; he wants to hunt. You can’t just suppress sixty-five million years of gut instinct. – Dr. Grant, Jurassic Park
Sexuality, families, and men did not come about because of society. To the contrary, sexuality, families, and men are what made society possible in the first place. – Pook
These are some excellent examples of the conflict I’ve described above here. The Equalism of Annie Leibovitz – the dubious societal idealism that hopes these fundamental, biological underpinnings can be overridden by a self-defined higher order cognitivism – will always lock horns with the T-Rex that represents human biology. Annie and the rest of the prophetesses of gender equality are only, symbolically, trying to feed the T-Rex of evolved gender dynamics in the hopes he’ll stay in the paddock, behave himself and only occasionally put on a good show for the customers.
However, even in the hopes of that a contrived, idealized gender Equalism will ever pull the teeth of the T-Rex, the same evolved need women have for Hypergamous certainty informs the concept of what that ideal “equality” should look like. The T-Rex is women too.