Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Red Pill Monthly

 

Just a quick heads up, I’ll be doing another Livecast installment of The Red Pill Monthly with Niko Choski tomorrow morning about 10:20 am PST. We’ll be talking about ‘Runaway Hypergamy’ as the main topic, but I imagine that will veer off into discussions of the social and personal impacts of Open Hypergamy, maybe the growing acceptance of open cuckoldry.

I’ll also be giving away some freebies on the show – I’ve got four free codes for the new Audible version of The Rational Male as well as five login passes for Nick Krauser’s new Game intensives, Womanizers Bible.

As always, we’ll be taking questions or looking at comments in the Livecast stream, but if there’s something on your mind you’d like us to discuss please leave a comment here.


Evolving Hypergamy

propose-woman

Novaseeker had an excellent breakdown of how Hypergamy has developed and is radically altering a long established social order in favor of one centered on the female sexual strategy. This was timely for a post I was working on, so rather than allow it to be buried in the last thread I thought I’d riff on it a bit here:

So in my head, I tried to think of what the best response to hidden estrus would be from a male perspective, and the only thing I could think of was essentially hiding male horniness, I used the word stoicism. The only way to balance the effects of hidden estrus is for all men to simply appear to not want what a women are offering, to appear uninvested, uninterested, etc.., because this again gives the perception of a lack of abundance to the women and re-balances things. Eventually such behavior would become selected for to some degree, and male emotions would become less prominent.

I agree with what you are saying, although I think it’s important to bear in mind that the expression of female sexuality historically was quite restricted, once we were at a level of more complex social organization beyond the rather small. Things did vary by community and culture somewhat, but once things reached that level of social advance, in most places a woman’s family/kin had a huge control over the expression of her sexuality, with the parents (largely the father) and to a lesser extent her male brothers exerting substantial restrictive pressure on the expression of her sexuality.

I should note here that while there is a definite social structure built around various strategies of mate guarding, these social mores and familial repression of women’s Hypergamous impulses does, in fact, stem from evolved, behavioral adaptations.

Kin Affiliation Across the Ovulatory Cycle : Females Avoid Fathers When Fertile Consider that girls will make subconscious efforts to avoid their fathers during the proliferative phase of their ovulatory cycle. Also, consider girls enter puberty at an earlier age when their fathers are not present in the family. Both of these are examples of phenomena that have a physical manifestation and a latent evolutionary purpose, but socially we build moral/social frameworks around buffering for (or sometimes accommodating) them.

Likewise, there are social controls that span all cultures that have the same purpose of buffering against the predations and mechanics of women’s Hypergamous natures. The most stringent of these might be repressing of women’s sexuality, but the latent purpose is still the same; controlling for paternity assurances.

There was, of course, cheating of the system that took place in terms of women bucking the system covertly, but most women were not sexual free agents in most places most of the time historically, and so were not acting on their estrus, concealed or otherwise at these later points in history. It does seem like something which likely occurred prior to the time we developed significant social organization (which is unclear when it precisely happened, but likely happened gradually quite some time before the development of large-scale agriculture), and is inherited from that earlier time, while the later social structures mostly, or at least in many cases, served to rather severely hem in the expression of female sexuality and free sexual choice to a large degree.

The Feminine Imperative that exists today still uses these historically extreme controls as a baseline for provoking an emotional response among women (and feminized men) today. In spite of the realities of Open Hypergamy and Open Cuckoldry, and paired with the fact that we live in the most sexually permissive society the world has largely known to this point, there is still a necessity to sell a narrative of sexual repression in order to perpetuate a social condition of ‘victimization’ among women and thus perpetuate a status of concern and primary importance.

So I guess my perspective is not that what you are suggesting is incorrect, in terms of the deeper evolutionary inheritance, but that the response of men to this eventually evolved, socially, into the use of social/legal/moral structures that acted as a counterweight to the inter-sexual issues raised by concealed estrus, and that, being social animals, this was itself also a powerfully selected thing (tribes that did not adopt similar restrictive measures did not generally survive except in relatively isolated areas where they were not exposed to the same degree of competition with patriarchal tribes and their sexually restrictive cultures). I suspect it dawned on the males in some tribal groups that the gains to be had from a kind of system of “one girl for (almost) every guy (who isn’t killed in war, or banished or enslaved)” when it came to women, in terms of reducing sex-related conflict among men, became more important when the scale/size of social organization grew beyond the small and moved to a larger, more complex scale, where different structures were needed to ensure cooperation and alleviate conflict which could undermine that cooperation and the scale made possible by it. So in other words, the strategy that men adopted had to do with the needs of the social order and the need for greater cooperation and less conflict once the scale grew to the point where close kinship among the males could no longer feasibly serve as a conflict-reducer effectively.

This was done, of course, at the direct expense of the female sexual strategy, and females have been scratching and clawing against that result in various ways ever since that time, but really have only recently had the success of overturning pretty much all aspects of that restrictive system (while retaining selective elements of it in form, mostly, as it serves their own interests) with the collaboration of most men, by the way, in the process (for various reasons, many of which Rollo has detailed in various posts on this blog). The resulting system is therefore new, and requires men to adapt, which is what we are about doing here, of course. The idea is to have a system which is of a large scale and complexity, socially, and which requires high levels of cooperation in order to function, while at the same time removing the last vestiges of of the “one girl for (almost) every guy” sexual system and replacing it with the freest, most open and adversarial system of sexual competition among males that our species has likely seen since long before the time we evolved into socially-based human groups.

I’ve covered most of the male adaptiveness that Nova mentions here in the Adaptation series of posts. For the short version, however, it’s important to note that even the sexual restrictiveness of women in prior eras were themselves adaptations meant to buffer against women’s conflicting sexual strategy. As I stated in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies, for one sex’s strategy to succeed the other must either be compromised or abandoned. Prior sexual restrictiveness was a repression meant to force women to abandon and later (in monogamy) compromise their own Hypergamy (Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks).

It remains to be seen how feasible this is, longer term, because it is still so new. And the adaptation required by men is substantial, because the change is gargantuan from anything we have experienced in thousands upon thousands of years, in terms of sexual system and related mores. I think relatively few will adapt, and the majority of men will fail at the system, in terms of actually getting what they want. I don’t mean most guys will be incel all their lives, but that their relationships with women will be extremely skewed to the women’s terms, through a combination of outright duping, indoctrination into wishful thinking, and a steady move towards ever more libertine sexual morality for women as a part of the further expression of the Feminine Imperative.

And that comes back to the concealed estrus issue, because the social solution that men in certain groups came up with a long, long time ago (substantial restrictions on female sexual expression) is now pretty much completely removed in this culture, meaning that it is playing a bigger role in human inter-sexual relations than it has been permitted to play in a long time. In fact, the development of reproductive technologies and the related legal regime supporting their free use has augmented the ability of women to utilize this aspect of themselves to tilt the field in their favor, well beyond what nature provided them, in terms of controlling who among the men gets to breed. Again, most men will not be able to adapt quickly enough and will be in lopsided relationships as a result. Other men, like us, are able to adapt and thrive under the new system as individuals, knowing full well we can’t really overthrow something like the sea change in sexual system that we have seen occur, even if we thought that was wise, which it may very well not be. Every man, once he comes to this realization, therefore has a choice to make, really, and a fairly stark one. Most guys have no chance, however, because they are totally subsumed by the feminine primary and never come to a realization of things as they are, and just what the heck happened in the culture, sexually, over the last 100 years or so.

Although my last post may have been on the melodramatic side, the exaggeration is still founded on the same dynamic Nova is getting at here. Since the time of the sexual revolution there has been a complete social abdication on the part of men to have any say in exercising, much less advocating for, prioritizing their own interests in the sexual strategies equation.

It’s gotten to the point that even men’s initiating an approach at the most marginal form of intimacy runs the risk of not just rejection, but legal and social punishments for even taking it upon himself. The onus of sexual selection, as per every legal mandate, is unilaterally placed upon the part of women. The latent purpose of this is to prioritize women’s sexuality and women’s sexual strategy (Hypergamy) above men’s – all while clinging to the pretense of the sexual repressions that they believe still characterize the condition of women.

If you ever wonder at the declining marriage rates, the delaying of marriage until well past women’s prime fertility years, male suicide rates being four times that of women or the rise of men who’ve contented themselves in being single for their lives look no further than this reprioritization of women’s Hypergamy as the socially predominant sexual strategy.

[…]

I would say that attempts at overt male control of covert female sexuality oftentimes amount to window dressing that only serve to help convince the men of their paternity, even when they’ve no reason to be assured of it. Only in cultures like those established by strict Islamic doctrine/Sharia Law can paternity be (mostly) assured by social forces. Outside of that, women can oftentimes have free reign at getting away with good old-fashioned cuckoldry.

 

In a social order founded on Hypergamy, that dynamic demands that men’s utterly abdicate their sexual and biological imperatives to women. This means any paternity assurances, or even the idea that they should matter to a man, must be surrendered to the point that they are literally conditioned and bred out of the consciousnesses of men.


 

I’m hitting upon this in the hopes of prompting some discussion about the aspects of Hypergamy Novaseeker mentions here, but also because I will be discussing much of this with Alan Roger Currie this coming Thursday night on his podcast.

We’ll be talking at 10pm EST/7pm PST and this will be a live call-in format, so if you’d like to participate I’d encourage you to do so. While my appearance is not necessarily an endorsement of Mode One or anything else Currie is selling, I respect him as a thoughtful interviewer and he’s been asking me to appear for some time now.


Assurances

circusgirl

In 2015 women were offered workplace benefits that would allow them to freeze their eggs in order to grant them a promise of a future family irrespective of the personal or career choices they make in life. Granted, this benefit is only reserved for higher up positions in select tech firms that can afford to make a showing of concern for women’s professional and family aspirations (as a PR effort), but the message of even having an option to reserve giving birth at a later phase in life is clear:

Women want an assurance of Hypergamous optimization.

Whether it’s on the personal scale of socially engineering generations of men to accommodate this, or on the larger, more direct scale of legislating those assurances into common law, the underlying imperative is making that optimization as certain as possible for the largest number of women.

It’s important to remember that Hypergamy is rooted in doubt; doubt that any one man might serve to optimally satisfy the dual nature of women’s sexual strategy – optimal sexual agency for optimal genetic selection, and then optimal provisioning for optimal parental investment in offspring – Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks. This doubt of optimization defines the subconscious hindbrain experience for women throughout all phases of their lives.

I covered these phases in Preventive Medicine the book, but to keep things brief, it’s a necessary review when we consider how this doubt extrapolates from the biological level, to the neurological level, on to the personal experiential level, to the interpersonal/intersexual, and on to the great societal and political level. Ensuring Hypergamy is optimized for a majority of women, irrespective of their own suitability for a majority of men, (and at the complete abdication of men’s sexual strategies) is at the root of all feminine empowerment, all socialization of feminine primacy, all cultural efforts to normalize it, and all legislation determined to enforce it.

The latent purpose of developing technology to freeze a woman’s eggs, for instance, is to cheat (or give the impression of being able to cheat) the otherwise naturalistic process of fertility that women are beholden to.

The latent purpose of every pop-cultural trend that contributes to the perception that women can realistically exceed the window of their fertility is offered as an assurance that women have more time than would be naturalistically expected to optimize Hypergamy.

Ostensibly the message for women is the cliché of ‘having it all’ – reassuring women that they can have a rewarding career and make a significant difference in their lives and the lives of others as well as realistically having a meaningful family experience later in life. The unspoken hindbrain message is that a woman has more time to optimize Hypergamy.

If this doubt ensuring requires men’s sacrifices or special dispensations in order to accommodate women’s naturalistic realities or individual deficiencies, those requirements are simply means to an end.

Furthermore, the Feminine Imperative makes exhaustive effort in social, personal and political spheres to assure women that even when their Hypergamous choices prove debilitating or damaging that they have the prerogative to reset their chances at optimization proactively or retroactively.

Whether this is realistic or not is irrelevant to the messaging. This messaging is couched in the social expectation that men are required to afford women this forgiveness of past indiscretions (single motherhood, Alpha Widows, etc.), but again, the purpose of this reset is to provide women with the maximum amount of leeway in consolidating on an optimized Hypergamy.

In Nursing Power I outlined the power dynamic behind women’s drive to maintain the primacy of a feminine defined social order, but it’s too easy to simply think that women’s ultimate end of attaining power is for the sake of power alone. That want for power is driven by the obsessive hindbrain need to quell the doubt that Hypergamy instills in women. All we need do is look at the societal changes women will push to legislate for once they have even marginal degrees of power.

Margins of Power

Serendipitously commenter Not Born This Morning took me to task on this idea in the last comment thread:

@ Rollo – “The new, post-sexual revolution order is a model ostensibly based on ‘sexual freedom’, but what this really represents is a return to that naturalistic sexual order based on pre-agrarian, evolutionarily incentivized hypergamy.”

This is not true.

The naturalistic sexual social order of pre-agrarian human existence expressed BOTH genders natural sexuality without preference of one over the other or the perversion of both that we see today. Today’s laws and social conventions prevent men from returning to THEIR natural sexuality. We are not returning to the naturalistic sexual social order and there is no indication that we will any time soon.

Many of todays “betas” are restrained “alphas”. Law and social convention restrains them.

As a point of order here, I wasn’t suggesting that ‘societally’ western culture is returning to anything like a pre-agrarian sexual paradigm, but rather that pre-agrarian evolved paradigm of Hypergamy is informing the social narrative. Both pre and post agrarian, Hypergamy still influenced and determined our socio-sexual direction – men performed, women chose.

It is not idealism, intellectualism, mental masturbation or “cultural changes” that determine human behavior. We like to pretend that emotional idealism steers history but it never has and never will. We think women are “liberated” by laws and social conventions but they are not. The laws and social conventions that we think make it possible for women to “enjoy” new “freedom” are not the cause, they are only ideals and “paradigms” that result from the real cause.

These laws and social conventions are only thoughts, documents and behavioral practices that confirm what has already happened and been accepted. Women have been liberated from responsibilities and hardships they faced prior to agriculture.

Technology and industrialization were the real enablers of female “liberation” and “freedom”. Today, because of technology, we are relatively safe from predators, famine, disease, and tribes of other humans, etc. We are intellectually advanced (maybe) but definitely physically and mentally weaker. Today’s human female does not need the superior strength, tenacity, strategic intelligence and initiative possessed by surviving males in pre-agrarian tribal groups. Back then, she and her children could not have survived without it him. Today we breed mostly wanna be hyenas and betas and they are voting accordingly.

While we may have a greater mastery over our environment and women may not need strength, tenacity, etc. women’s sexual nature is still informed by an evolved Hypergamy that responds to, and is aroused by, these cues in men.

However, NBTM has a point. Perhaps I should revise that idea, but I will say that post-Sex Rev, the paradigm has favored women’s sexual strategy as the one to define our predominant social order (i.e. unfettered Hypergamy).

Given that freedom and preferential deference to women’s imperatives in a social context, women use both to optimize on a Hypergamy that evolved from pre-agrarian physical and social environments.

Thus, with all the Beta security/provisioning aspects of Hypergamy being met by men (either directly or indirectly) the Alpha sexuality/breeding aspect of Hypergamy is the only thing not directly or immediately available to women without their own qualification for it.

And even this is progressively being accounted for both socially and legislatively with regard to sexual consent law ambiguities, ubiquitous abortion, divorce concessions and curbing every trivial expression of male sexuality from men not ‘worthy’ of expressing it. In fact virtually every socially mandated convention that limits men’s sexual expression or his most marginal want of qualification in women is really an effort in forcing men to comply with women’s need for optimizing Hypergamy.

That’s an important footnote in a social order that’s primarily focused on women’s Hypergamy as the predominant one, and then one that is primarily focused on men’s Alpha side sexual suitability. Beta provisioning needs being relatively assured, women demand satisfaction, qualified and verified satisfaction, of men’s suitability in an Alpha breeding context.

For example:

You’ll have to forgive me for using this video of Gronk (the first has been making the rounds on Twitter), but his nature, attitude and behavior are illustrative of a Hypergamous social order that forgives the excesses of a confirmed Alpha.

I stated in a prior essay that women will break rules for Alphas, but create and impose more rules on Betas while expecting compliance from them. This can be extended to the greater whole of a society based on the Feminine Imperative; feminine social mores forgive the Alpha while punishing the impotent Beta for daring to qualify himself as an Alpha.

One reason women despise the undeniable efficacy of Game is because it devises to bypass women’s innate, evolved filters for determining men’s Alpha suitability. Game depends on triggering women’s emotional states, bad or good, so in addition to intentionally working around her filters, Game also creates an emotional impact.

Bypassing women’s filters, and misrepresenting (or impersonating) a genuine Alpha article is a capitol offense to Hypergamous doubt. So it should come as no surprise that the most egregious laws and social mandates with regards to men’s “appropriate” sexual conduct center on women’s qualifying men and verifying his value to her optimization.

Example: Assemblyman Troy Singleton wants to introduce a bill that would make misrepresenting oneself as a means to sex to be equatable to rape-by-fraud:.

And thus we come to NBTM’s assertion that,…

Today’s laws and social conventions prevent men from returning to THEIR natural sexuality. We are not returning to the naturalistic sexual social order and there is no indication that we will any time soon.

Through cultural, religious or physical means Hypergamy has always had contingencies to keep it in check. These contingencies (rape included unfortunately) are all efforts for men’s assurances of paternity and fidelity in a long term mate, and ultimately (hopefully) constitute men’s exercising an influence on the direction of his culture and species.

From Martie Hasslton on Sexual Pluralism and Mating Strategies:

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

I’ve emphasized the last bit here because it’s important to consider that the reproductive efforts of lower SMV men necessitate the institution of social structures that also (potentially) ensure his narrowly invested efforts in fewer (or one) mate and his offspring. That man cannot afford to be caught on the losing end of polyandry or cuckoldry. Thus the 80% of men with the most investment and most to lose in the conflict of women’s sexual strategy (Hypergamy) establish social conventions to develop assurances of their own.

Those social structures, religions doctrines and various cultural norms are contingent insurances against the results of a society based on unfettered Hypergamy. In essence those structures were established as buffers against the lack of influence men would have in a society that unilaterally empowers women’s Hypergamy and removes any decision making influence.


The Best of The Rational Male – Year 4

Milestones-Photo

Four years ago on August 19th I finally took some SoSuave friends’ advice, stopped procrastinating and began organizing and building upon about 9 years worth of writing I had done on that forum and in my university work. Back then all I wanted to do was flesh out the forum posts I thought might make for some interesting reading. I had so many members and newly unplugged friends ask me to collect all of these essays in one place I had to make some sort of effort.

Four years later I think I’ve moved beyond just the core Red Pill ideas I had then. I don’t keep a personal journal. I do have a small notebook I write ideas into as they hit me, but my only way of reviewing my writing is looking back through these notes and searching back through 4 years of writing here. Even if I’m just going back through the previous year’s work it’s an interesting review of where my life was at as well as where the manosphere in general was too.

Even if you’re just peripherally aware of the events in the sphere you know that things have been more than a bit unsettled for the past 5 months. I really dislike involving myself in the manosphere’s PR, but as one of the primary writers (one of the three ‘R’s as it were) I’m sometimes compelled to do so. I would much rather be writing about what I do than writing about the ‘sphere itself. I don’t do this for a living, nor do I have any plans to ever make it my vocation. I enjoy the freedom of being able to focus on issues I believe are important to making men Red Pill aware unencumbered by any concern about how my writing  might affect revenue generated by web stats or advertising.

As of today I have 452 published posts. My posting has gone up a bit more this year to 1-2 per week. I’m getting a bit more comfortable with this schedule as it allows me to craft a post over the course of a week and give more thought (and counterthought) to what I’m mulling in my head. I like doing the weekend discussion questions too so I’ll be upping these for the weekenders here in the coming year.

2015_stats

In 4 years the view traffic is fast approaching the 13 million mark. My monthly views are averaging almost half a million now. I might be a bit off, but I think this is pretty impressive for a Red Pill blog that doesn’t advertise and has never been monetized. I have a stake in a couple of liquor brands that would kill for half of this traffic.

I’ve been a bit more public in the last few months. Since the last ‘Best Of’ post I’ve done 5 interviews, and in a couple of weeks I’ll be making my first in-person appearance at the Man in Demand conference in Las Vegas. I’ve got some high hopes for this event, but I should state for the record that it’s the first and only appearance I’ll be making for at least a year. I have no plans of ‘going public’ in the foreseeable future.

Obviously I think the best thing about the past years was publishing the second book Preventive Medicine. I now own the trademark for The Rational Male (just to be official and protected) and I do have plans for a 3rd installment of The Rational Male series, but this wont be until Q4 of 2016 at the earliest. I should also say that I’ve been entertaining the idea of writing what I call Red Pill fiction. Not to go into too much detail, but I’m toying with the idea of writing some down to earth, gritty fiction that’s firmly rooted in a Red Pill perspective.

Beyond all this, Sam Botta has just recently finished the audio and editing of the first book in Audible format. The plan is to have it available by mid-September, but I’ll be announcing it officially when it’s available.

The following are links to the posts I felt had the most relevance and impact for the year. The comment volume has increase exponentially this year which I’m very happy about. Open, unmoderated, discussion has always been the strength of this blog and it’s encouraging to see the interaction stepped up this year.

I have a love-hate kind of feeling with the Best Of posts. I want to highlight what I think were great, but I do so at the risk of marginalizing the posts I think had great merit, but just didn’t make the cut. These selections aren’t necessarily the most popular or the most commented on, but I thought they deserved some consideration as the most significant (several were even included in Preventive Medicine).

The Rational Male – Preventive Medicine

Interviews

Series

Social

Red Pill / Game

Hypergamy

SMV

Personal Development

Love

Thanks for another great year!

 

RT


Peak Hypergamy

Peak_Hypergamy

Commenter Divided Line came on with such a strong take on Our Sisters’ Keeper I had to riff on it:

Hypergamy is a given and it’s not going anywhere. But even if women’s sexuality is biologically rooted, their rationalizations for it aren’t possible without a compliant culture. So long as women are the damsels, the victims who are put upon by the cruel and all powerful patriarchy, so long as men are perceived to be powerful and free in a way that they clearly are not nor have ever been, open hypergamy is possible. After all, any guy who points it out or complains about it is branded an embittered loser, a misogynist, a creep, and so on, but I wonder to what degree this will change as red pill awareness spreads and penetrates the mainstream. I mean, how long do we think that men will go on smiling and nodding when it’s increasingly the case that more and more of us can see what bullshit all of this is?

What it makes me think of is Alana Massey’s Dickonomics article.

If you haven’t already read it, she goes on and on about how male attention is abundant and cheap, proving that women are well aware of what men who bother with online dating realized from the start. She recognizes the extreme degree of power this gives her before hamstering it away with this:

“Some will read my gleeful rejections on the many faces I encounter on Tinder as evidence of a disturbing uptick in malevolent, anti-male sentiments among single straight women. It is not. It is evidence of us arriving nearer to gender equilibrium where men can no longer happily judge the clear and abundant photos and carefully crafted profiles of women but become incensed when they take the opportunity to do the same.”

How many times have you seen this? All venality, cruelty, selfishness, indifference, etc is justified, of course, because men have it so good, women have it so bad, blah blah etc. So she can write something like this and the sisterhood will nod their heads and no doubt be able to ignore doubt or second thoughts in regards to their atrocious, destructive, and cruel treatment of the opposite sex. Women, like people who rationalize generally, tend to think in bogus bumper sticker one liners because they provide excuses not to think for themselves. And men, after all, just saunter about in the patriarchal torture dungeon of a society free and powerful, and pluck women from the trees before discarding them like jizz towels, so naturally, why should she consider their complexity as human beings or ever recognize what a rotten, horrible human being she is? They’re free to retaliate against men for women’s imaginary oppression.

But how long will they be able to keep employing these rationalizations and getting away with it if the public dialog changes? And it has already begun to change. I’ve watched it happen over the last year. You see more and more disclaimers in articles which appeal to the you-go-girl crowd. It really does seem as if there is a growing awareness that they are full of shit, or at the very least, that maybe there are moral complexities and obligations that come with female social power, to the degree that they are even willing to recognize that power.

Hypergamy isn’t going anywhere, but since men increasingly are comparing notes now and voicing their criticism of women’s bullshit (at least online), maybe it really isn’t the case that women are going to be able to continue this bullshit with public sanction. Is this wishful thinking?

I’ve made the case in several other blog comment and forum threads, but it’s getting almost too easy to point out women’s overt embrace of Open Hypergamy. There was a time – only 4 short years ago – that I would be run up the flagpole for publishing my observations on the ins and outs of women’s sexual strategy. Women in the blogosphere hated the fact that I was exposing their Game. They didn’t like the idea that I was informing men about the plan women had for them or the part they played, and by informing them it represented a fundamental threat to the long term success (and essentially their long term security) of that plan.

If you’re feeling nostalgic you can skim through the comments of posts like Wait For It? or The Threat:

Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.

[…]

Race to Awareness

Because of women’s relatively short window of peak sexual viability it is imperative that men be as unaware of their slower, but progressively increasing SMV for as long as possible in order for them to achieve the prime directive of female hypergamy; realize the best genetic options and the best provisioning options she has the capacity to attract in that peak window. If Men become aware of their SMV before a woman can consolidate on her options with monogamous commitment her sexual strategy is defeated.

The mistake (and the binary retort) is to think this need for contrivances was concocted in whole as some grand sisterhood conspiracy. This just proves an ignorance of social constructs. For a social contrivance to be such, it necessitates being repeated by society WITHOUT a formal conception – meaning we learn the contrivance from seeing it, internalizing it and repeating it ourselves without forethought. The best social contrivances are inconspicuous and rarely questioned because they’ve been learned without having been formally taught. This is why I think encouraging men NOT to bother trying to understand women is in itself a social convention. Don’t look at that man behind the curtain, just accept it for what it is, enjoy the show, you’re better off that way, the Mighty Oz has spoken.

This is the threat that Game represents to the feminine imperative. Widely shared, objective assessments of Men’s SMV and how it develops is the antithesis of the female sexual strategy. Women’s greatest fear is that they could become the ‘selected’ instead of the ‘selectors’.

Bear in mind I wrote this years before I published Preventive Medicine. This was also only a few years before I formally identified women’s embrace of openly, proudly, flaunting their sexual strategy. I can remember being soundly rebuked by women denying they adhered to anything so callous as an Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks schedule with regard to men.

There was a certain nervous undertone that accompanied their shaming that revealed how protective they were of keeping the plan as ambiguous and secretive as possible from men in general. For every acknowledgement of the biological influences of Ovulatory Shift behaviors by these women there was always an obligatory, “yes, but, people are people, we’re above all that, it’s what’s on the inside that counts, NAWALT” intended to offset the ugliness of it.

Now, the same women who adamantly denied what their functionally opportunistic concept of love represents; the same women who rejected the idea of an Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks sexual strategy openly and triumphantly boast about it. It’s become a source not only of agency, but a proud admission of perceived power on the part of women.

At some point the social impetus behind Open Hypergamy became so blatantly obvious they could no longer deny the truth of it. The Genie was out and it was more advantageous to not only to welcome it, but to brandish and profit from forcing men to accept it. Thus we have Open Hypergamy both subtly and triumphantly waved in our mainstream advertising, our pop-culture, our social media, our music and even the movies we take our kids to enjoy.

To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.
– George Orwell

I expect most of the worst aspects of Open Hypergamy (Overt Hypergamy if you prefer) are fairly obvious to my readers. Even the now the subtle influence in the media and advertising becomes not-so-subtle for men accustomed to seeing things with a Red Pill Lens. We can only shake our heads and hope that so blatant a confession of relishing power in Hypergamy on the part of unaware men will come to light for them.

Divided Line raises a very poignant observation – what’s next? What’s the natural progression?

Hypergamy isn’t going anywhere, but since men increasingly are comparing notes now and voicing their criticism of women’s bullshit (at least online), maybe it really isn’t the case that women are going to be able to continue this bullshit with public sanction. Is this wishful thinking?

I think there is a caveat we have to address here first. With Red Pill awareness it gets very easy to slide down the slippery slope and believe that ‘all women’ will have some equal capacity to enforce the worst of Open Hypergamy on men in general. Yes, in a westernizing context, women have an almost unilaterally state-backed influence on enforcing men’s de facto participation in Hypergamy by order of degree. However, it’s important to remember that men’s willing participation or coercion in it is still (as yet) limited by women’s capacity to attract and involve them.

Men want (and yes, need) sex and will find behavioral and psychological adaptations and workarounds to get it. That may be MGTOW, prostitution, porn or an as yet developed alternative of virtual sex. It may be Red Pill awareness and applied Game, it may be a self-aligning push to pander to the most extreme elements of the Alpha Fucks or Beta Bucks ends of Hypergamy, or it may be upping fame or a false social proof (via personality politicking on social media) that makes for men’s future adaptations.

Peak Hypergamy

I’m not a prognosticator about such things, but I can make logical estimates based on observations. One thing is for certain, and I discussed this with Niko in our talk, intersexual politicking and the condition of women will reach a ‘Peak Hypergamy’ state in the not too distant future. There will indeed come a point when even Blue Pill men will be unable to ignore so gross a power imbalance between the sexes.

There’s been some debate as to whether there’s some socially conscious ‘marriage strike’ in the manosphere for some time, and I think marriage statistics being at an all time low bear much of this out. I don’t think this is the result of some nascent MGTOW awakening, but rather a deductive, peripheral, general awareness men have of Open Hypergamy in our current social order at the moment.

Just as a last aside here, let me state that I am aware of the more militant, absolutists of MGTOW belaboring the idea that ‘the juice aint worth the squeeze’ and the dangers of even approaching a woman risk his being accused of sexual harassment, much less having recreational sex with her leaving a man open to post-sex regret-rape allegation. I get that. It’s part of the ascension toward a ‘Peak Hypergamy’ social state. My question is whether these men would find it worth their while to engage with women if their fears were removed in a post Peak State social order? Some may even live long enough to have to figure that out for themselves.

I think Divided Line is correct – there will come a state when Open Hypergamy’s power consolidation becomes too obvious and the social mechanics the Feminine Imperative has used to ensure that consolidation will be too much for women to maintain as a collective. Then what? What will women rationalize for themselves when they realize their monster has become too much?

I’ll reiterate it again; socially, it didn’t take long for women to transition from a secretive Hypergamy to an open display of it. The same women who called AF/BB the imaginings of misogynous men only 4 years ago are now proudly claiming it as truth (they knew all along) and a means to a power they’ve always had and should openly use.

The social, political and personal stress point of Peak Hypergamy is coming. It may take a bit longer, but there will come a point where even women will be forced to recognize the consequences of legislating their hubris.


This is now

this_is_now

Razorwire had another great comment about the “wait for me at 30” social convention that was this week’s topic (emphasis mine):

The thing with the “wait for me” or “in x years” lie is that it truly does reveal the pervasive dominance of the Feminine Imperative (FI). Sure, an 18 y/o woman will drop this on her high school beta BF as a kind of preemptive moral relief from confronting her true sexual agenda (alpha fux) but what I find to be worse – through my own experience, is how the lie is not just the cagey maneuvering of a woman in her sexual peak but rather something all women invoke with the full backing of the entire supporting cast.

Its not just the individual woman dropping this pretty little lie, but it is the how the lie is supported by the entire culture and propagated such that this little lie becomes the big lie, which is that her sexual strategy must remain paramount, her magical journey of womanhood must not be subordinated or impeded in any way by a man – or men, or even her own choices.

So even by 18, she has learned early and often that these little lies are not like most lies; they don’t lurk about like so many contingent liabilities, or like writing bad cheques about town that will soon enough come back to bite her. No they are more like swiping her EBT card, fully backed by the FI.

Its not coming out of her moral account, so the weight of these lies are carried by the recipient. And not only is he expected to accept this charge but he is actually paying for it on the other end as well through the various extractions and taxes the FI upholds.

It is at this other end where the little lie turns big; it becomes too hard to ignore, when the other Jimmy Choo falls. When a man actually gets to that point “in ten years” and has watched as the truth reveals itself over and over in the interim he is still expected to accept her EBT without hesitation.

He is again asked to accept the lie that “those mistakes/other men/experiences made her who she is today” that she is “finally ready” and thus he should see this as equity accrued to him.

The lie on the font end is a lesson learned. But it is the fact that the lie is perpetuated over all of those years and choices, only to be eventually re-heated and served up lukewarm when she decides to change lanes that is so damaging.

And the normalcy whitewashed over this is astounding, to the point in which a man might hear his own mother instructing him to accept it for all kinds of reasons and rationales that pave over his own experiences and observations. He might also get his ear bent by his dutiful beta husband friends, parroting similar platitudes of man-up. It can be a solitary place for a man, residing at the other end of the lie.

There’s more to the comment, but this was the grist of it I wanted to address. I’ll confess I had a hunch that if I let the comment thread go on long enough some good brother would scoop me on this next post. Razorwire didn’t disappoint.

More so, the very next comment by Adam Man added some more cement to the mix:

I’ve been seeing this picture pop up in my facebook feed

beautiful

Do women really believe this? Apparently yes. If not for Rollo and Dalrock, I would have had no idea that intelligent (I’m convinced there are many intelligent women) women actually believe this.

Are women really that clueless? I feel like I need to ask this every month to be reminded that there are many many clueless people out there, but stuff like the picture above is absurd.

Tropes and memes like this are only absurd if, as a man, you haven’t accepted the most salient part (bolded) of what Razorwire observed in his comment, her sexual strategy must remain paramount. This is the essence of the feminine primacy I’ve explained in countless posts, but it bears repeating that this primacy is firmly root in 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.

Not to belabor it yet again, but it will also serve my point here to restate the Sandbergian declaration of Open Hypergamy as well:

“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

I’m contrasting these two points to illustrate the circumstances men will find themselves in when they arrive at the point at which women will find themselves the most necessitous in consolidating their own sexual strategy (Hypergamy) in the long term.

I mentioned in That was then that the Break Phase is a very critical point for a young man’s life-decision making due to his Blue Pill conditioning and Disney naiveté about where he ought to serve women’s interests best. Naturally this is a precarious time because, for the majority, those young men are predisposed to sublimate their own ambitions and sacrifice their best interest because they cling to a Blue Pill hope; a hope that those sacrifices will engender a young woman’s attraction and she’ll reciprocate with something like his misguided concept of a mutual love.

The Plan

That was then. Now at 30 and (hopefully) with a learned and earned degree of merit, success, developed judgement, character and a reasonably well kept physique, a man finds himself in a position like no other – his options and agency to enjoy the attentions of women seem to suddenly be at an apex.

The planning women had at 19 when they told him to “wait for me at 30” now becomes more urgent as she becomes more viscerally aware of the Wall.

She knew this day would come when she was just entering into her peak SMV years.

As I’ve outline many times, women between the ages of 29 and 31 will enter the Epiphany Phase in which the rationalizations of their 20’s Sandbergian plan sexual priorities conflicts with the provisioning necessity and parental investment needs necessary for her long term security.

For men entertaining women embroiled in their Epiphany Phase inner conflicts, not only is this a very confusing phase for the uninitiated Beta, but it is also an equally precarious period with regard (once again) to the consequences of his life’s decisions with her. Most men find themselves players in women’s meta-sexual strategy at this time because they believe that their perseverance has finally paid off. All of that sacrifice and personal achievement has finally merited him the genuine interest of a “quality woman”.

For the men who never learn a Red Pill awareness what they fail to understand is that it’s at this point they’re are expected to abandon their own sexual strategy in order to complete that of the (now Epiphany Phase) woman they’re considering a pairing with. Whether they were literally asked to wait for a woman until she was 30, the effect is the same, they have waited their turn, they have waited to be of service, they have waited to fulfill a feminine primary sexual imperative.

You’ll notice I’ve bolded “over time” in Sandberg’s quote. This is an important, and not so subtle, detail to consider in the selling of a mandated and feminine-correct strategy to men.

The plan was never to find a man who “wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home.” The plan was to create and ensure a Beta provider is waiting for her when she needs him most – one pre-whipped and pre-willing to forgive the indiscretions of her fucking the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys, on her ‘journey of self-discovery’.

To effect this, not only must he be convicted of his righteous purpose in that plan, he’s got to be convinced that when he arrives at this juncture in life “nothing is sexier” than him. His Beta, Blue Pill conditioned ignorance about his true role in this planning is of the highest importance.

In prior generations, the ones before the sexual revolution, the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies could be balanced in both sexes mutually compromising those strategies to ensure the complementary benefit of both men and women. Those days are no more. They’ve been replaced with men’s planned (subconscious and aware) abdication to women’s Hypergamous sexual strategy. That compromise in strategy has been replaced with women’s solipsistic expectation that men will, by default and by right, abandon their own sexual strategy and sublimate their own self-interests to ensure the strategies and interests of women.

Red Pill awareness and contingent strategies on men’s part are the only recourse to this ‘plan’.


The Love Experience

experience

Glenn and a few others had a question about last week’s Love Commodity post.:

@Rollo – This seems very inconsistent to me. How can this be true – ” Men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. ” While this is true? “In an era of unapologetic feminine primacy and unignorable open Hypergamy, this commodification undeniably rests with the feminine.”

You’ll have to forgive a long explanation, I couldn’t simply drop this into the commentary, a full post was necessary.

The first thing we need to consider is the Male Experience vs. the female experience. I hate to get too existential, but it comes down to our individuated experiences as men and women. I’m going to give two examples here and this will also cover the Hypergamy is everything thread I noticed the commentary too.

There’s an interesting conflict of societal messaging we get from an equalitarian / feminine-primary social order. This is one that simultaneously tells us that “we are not so different” or “we are more alike than we are different” and then, yet implores use to “celebrate our diversity” and “embrace (or tolerate) our differences” as people.

This is easily observable in issues of ethnicity, but it also crosses over into issues of gender. The most popular trope is that ideas of gender are a social construct and that women and men are comparative equals and only their physical plumbing makes them different in form only.

From a Red Pill perspective we see the error in evidence of this egalitarian fantasy. I’ve written countless posts on the evidential and logical fallacies that make up gender equalism, but the important thing to be aware of is the conflict inherent within that belief – equalism expects men and women’s existential experiences to be the same, while also pleading that we embrace the differences it purports we don’t actually have.

It fundamentally denies the separation, from an evolved biological / psychological perspective, that men and women experience life in different ways. The idea is that it’s the nebulous ‘society’ that determines our gender experiences and less, if nothing, of it is truly influenced by a human being’s psychological-biological firmware.

zdr01dz posted this:

I think maybe this is in part because men have no innate desire to marry up. Hypergamy doesn’t compute for us. I know what hunger feels like and I assume women feel it the same way I do. I’m empathetic to poor, hungry children because I know what they’re feeling. However I have no idea what hypergamy feels like. I’ve never felt it’s pull.

My second example comes from Women and Sex in which I explore the fallacy of the social convention that insists “women are just as sexual as men” and that “women want sex, enjoy sex, even more than men.”

This canard is both observably and biologically disprovable, but the presumption is based on the same “we’re all the same, but celebrate the difference” conflicting principle that I mentioned above. If a dynamic is complimentary to the feminine then the biological basis is one we’re expected to ’embrace the diversity’ of, but if the dynamic is unflattering to the feminine it’s the result “of a society that’s fixated on teaching gender roles to ensure the Patriarchy, we’re really more alike than not.”

The idea is patently false because there is no real way any woman can experience the existence and conditions that a man does throughout his life. I mention in that essay about how a female amateur body builder I knew who was dumbstruck by how horny she became after her first cycle of anabolic steroids. “I can’t believe men can live in a state like this” were her exact words. She was just beginning to get a taste of what men experience and control in their own skins 24 hours a day and it was unsettling for her.

Women are used to a cyclic experience of sexuality, whereas men must be ready to perform at the first, best opportunity sexually. These are our individuated experiences and despite all the bleating of the equalists they are qualitatively different. As zdr01dz observes, no man has an idea of what Hypergamy feels like. To my knowledge there is no drug or hormone that can simulate the existential experience of Hypergamy. Even if there were, men and women’s minds are fundamentally wired differently, so the simulated experience could never be replicated for a man.

I understand how Hypergamy works from observing the behavior and understanding the motivating biology for it. I also understand that our species evolved with, and benefitted from it – or at least it makes deductive sense that what we know as Hypergamy today is a derivative of that evolution – but what I don’t have is a firsthand, existential experience of Hypergamy and I never will. Likewise, women will never have a similar existential experience of what it’s like to be a man.

So it should be an easy follow to deduce that how a woman experiences love, as based on her Hypergamic opportunistic impulses, is a fundamentally different experience than that of a man’s. The equalist social order want’s love to be an equal, mutual, agreement on a definition of love that transcends individuated gender experience, but it simply will not accept that an intersexual experience of love is defined by each sex’s individuated experience.

I have no doubt that there are areas of crossover in both men’s idealistic concept of love and women’s opportunistic concept, but this experience of love is still defined by gender-specific individuation. By that I mean that women can and do experience intense feelings of love for a man based on her Hypergamously influenced criteria for love.

I’m actually surprised that more women have yet to call me to the carpet about their personal experiences of love from the commodity post, but if you sift through the comments on Women in Love and other blog/forum comments you’ll come across examples of women describing in great detail how deeply they love their husbands / boyfriends, and are in complete disarray over being told their love stems from Hypergamic opportunism. Again, I have no doubt that their feelings of love are genuine to them based on their individuated concepts of love; indeed they’re ready to fight you tooth and nail to defend their investment in those feelings. What I’m saying is that the criteria a man should need to meet in order to generate those emotions and arrive at a love state are not universally mutual as an equalitarian social order would have the whole of society believe.

So, yes, men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely – from their own individuated experiences. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. The processes they used to come to this love state differs in concept and existential individuation, and what sustains that love state is still dependent upon the criteria of men’s idealistic and women opportunistic concepts of love.

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

The commodification of that love state is presently weighted on the feminine because the Feminine Imperative is socially ascendant. The importance of satisfying the female sexual (and really life-goal) strategy takes primary social precedence today. Thus men’s individuated experience is devalued to an assumption of an “it’s-all-equal” universality while women’s is blown up out of all real valuation with collective expectations of “embracing their unique difference” set apart from that universality. If men’s experience is one-size-fits-all it’s really a small, and socially blameless, step for a woman to withhold the reward criteria men place on their idealistic love in order to satisfy their own sexual strategy.

Women’s social primacy allows them to feel good about themselves for commodifying the idealistic rewards men value to come to their own state of love, as well as maintain it.

It is one further step to embrace the concept that men’s experience of love, the idealism he applies to it and even his own sexual and life imperatives are in fact the same as those of women’s – while still setting women’s apart when it serves them better. Thus the cardinal rule of sexual strategies comes to a feminine-primary consolidation by socially convincing men that women’s experience and imperatives are, or should be considered to be, the same as men’s individuated experiences. Add women’s already innate solipsism to this and you have a formula for a gender-universal presumption of the experience of love based primarily on the individuated female experience of love.

In other words, women expect men to socially and psychologically agree with, reinforce and cooperate with the opportunistic feminine model of love as the equalist, gender-mutual model model of love while still believing that women share their own idealistic model. It’s the correct model that should work for everyone, or so women’s solipsism would have us believe.


Commodifying Love

commodity

Dalrock gave me something to chew on recently:

In my first post of 2014 I introduced the topic of the ugly feminist.  As I explained at the time, this is an old charge but is typically aimed at the superficial instead of the core problem.  Feminists are ugly because the philosophy of feminism is ugly. It is based on avoiding caring for others and being miserly with love.  Several commenters pointed out that this is a devastating charge against feminism, as they could see no viable counter argument for it.

I’m not going to try to offer a counter to Dal’s assertion because in essence I think he’s correct. However I will suggest that this ugliness is the result of a commodification of love (and with it sexual access) that’s resulted from the unfettering of women’s Hypergamy. Love and caring is the commodity women’s Hypergamy uses to fulfill their dualistic sexual strategy.

To this day my most contentious post (and chapter in the book) on RM is Women in Love. This is primarily due to first time readers taking my assertions to their literal extreme. Women’s concept of love stems from opportunism, men’s concept stems from idealism. Most women and Blue Pill men take this to mean that women cannot actually love a man, and absolutist men angry with themselves for having never understood it think much the same thing, “My God! I knew it all along, women cannot actually love a man.”

I assert neither of these positions (really the same position) in that post, nor any of the followup post (that no one seems to want to read once they make up their minds), but what I do assert is:

Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.

In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.

Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

In prior posts I’ve also made the case that men’s idealistic perspective of love stems from an unending need for performance to merit a woman’s opportunistic love. It’s not that men want an unrealistic, unconditional love, but rather they want a woman’s love to be a refuge from having to perform up to, above and beyond the requirements of satisfying an unending optimization of her Hypergamy. It’s not unconditional love they idealize, it’s a love that’s not predicated on their burden of performance.

What frustrates this love idealism is that men are popularly sold the idea that women’s love is based on a mutually similar model. From Disney movies to romantic comedies, to Shakespeare and epic stories, to popular music and the daily talk shows, the message is that love (if it’s real love) is omniscient, conquers all and overcomes all odds. It’s a very seductive message of hope for men whose lives and existences are evaluated on constant performance.

“Could she really love me despite all of my glaring inadequacies?”

“Does she love the real me or is it my money and the lifestyle I provide for her?”

The fact that these themes are a constant in human history illustrates the subconscious, peripheral awareness we have of the differing models of love each sex bases their understanding of love on.

The Commodity

What this selling of idealistic love does for men is keep them in a state of perpetual hope that this idealism is shared by both sexes and they can realistically achieve that ideal goal of a love not founded on his performance. It’s important to note here that this performance isn’t necessarily something a man must make a constant effort to maintain (though this is the usual case), but rather what he represents, not who he is personally. It may be that his effortless looks or inherent status represents a cue for a woman’s optimal hypergamous satisfaction, or it may be the result of years of dedicated performance effort – either way it’s what that man represents; remove the factors a man possesses that satisfy a woman’s Hypergamy and her opportunistic model of love will reveal itself.

Feminists are ugly because the philosophy of feminism is ugly. It is based on avoiding caring for others and being miserly with love.

Dalrock’s observation here is profound in that it illustrates exactly the state of opportunism on which women base their concept of love. On some level of consciousness women understand the inherent value their love, concern, attention and caring has for men. It’s repression or expression is a commodity that has reward value for men who also have an awareness that their performance is what merits a woman’s love.

The popular criticism is that this want for an idealistic love is really a man’s preoccupation with his need for sex, but this is to be expected from a fem-centric culture that needs women to ration love and caring for men in order to ensure its social dominance. And God forbid a man express his desire for a performance-less based love and caring; he’s ostracized for wanting a mother’s love (Freudian), being necessitous (thus powerless) and revealing his deficiency in performance.

As Open Hypergamy becomes more proudly embraced and normalized in society, so too will women’s sexual strategy be laid more bare. And in laying that strategy bare, so too will women’s opportunistic model of love become more apparent to men. This new apparentness is already conflicting with the old-order messaging that kept men hopeful of realizing their idealistic love state.

Women cannot sell Open Hypergamy and the love-conquers-all ethereal ideal love at the same time.

Dal is correct, the philosophy of feminism is ugly, but it’s important to consider that feminism is just the current social operative of the Feminine Imperative today. For the moment women can be miserly with love and caring. They can even express resentment for having to be so with men who they doubt are meritorious of it, or for those who don’t measure up to the rigors of an increasingly open and increasingly demanding Hypergamy.

They can do this because they understand that the hopeful, idealistic love they have men convinced can be achieved is still a commodity to men.

Before I close, I’m going to give you a bit of Red Pill hope (again). Men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. My point with this essay is to reveal how this love develops and the conditional environments it comes together in. In spite of the strongest bonds, there is a threshold at which men’s loving idealism and women’s performance requirements can test, stress and break that bond.

Men’s idealistic love can be strong, as can women’s opportunistic love – the two models are not mutually incompatible, and it’s my belief that the two are even complementary to each other. Neither is a right or wrong way to love, and neither is the definition of real love. Bear in mind these are models that predicate a condition of love, what happens after that is up to the individuals.

Where these models become incompatible is when one commodifies and exploits the condition of love that the other holds. In an era of unapologetic feminine primacy and unignorable open Hypergamy, this commodification undeniably rests with the feminine.

For further reading see the Love series of posts:

Women in Love
Men in Love
Of Love and War
Burden of Performance
Love Story


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,788 other followers