Uncategorized

Hypocrites & Little Emperors

Over the weekend I read an interesting post from Vox regarding hypocrisy (great song BTW) and the impressions we as Game-aware men sometimes indelibly leave on guys who actually make the transition from from the Matrix to being Game-aware:

It is true that adulthood and maturity are drenched with hypocrisy, because we are all largely incapable of living up to our ideals, morals, and standards. But that doesn’t mean that wallowing forever in that point between childhood and adult is desirable, or even possible. With regards to Game, it is perfectly understandable that gammas and deltas might look at the decadent world of the alpha and think it looks like paradise, complete with 72 cheerfully compliant non-virgins, but that is as much of an illusion as the world of the blue pill.

For obvious reasons, nothing motivates a man’s imagination better than the potential for sex. On the most rudimentary level, the male ideal – the counter to feminine hypergamy – is unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. The most extreme idealization of this (72 virgins in heaven) is too far fetched for all but the most mentally imbalanced and religiously fanatical. However, men’s rational predispositions want to temper the unbelievable with the concept of the fantastically attainable. Think of it in terms of porn; most men tend to click past the videos of “porn stars” – huge breasted, HB10’s®, overly made up, in lingerie and high heels, all eager and willing to perform any feat of sexual acrobatic – they’re too improbable, too unbelievable. But give a guy a tempered, believable, sexual vignette, one into which he can relatively assume the POV perspective of the male, and now you’ve got participant. You’ve got a believer.

To varying, subjective, degrees of fantasized believability, a lot of newly unplugged red-pill men can visualize themselves in some, albeit limited, capacity to experience the Alpha’s porn. However, I don’t think Vox goes far enough in fleshing out the Alpha fantasy though. A majority of men (i.e. betas) wouldn’t entertain the notion that they could experience the, now stereotyped, hedonism of the rock-star bad boy PUA Alpha for the same reason overdone ‘porn stars’ don’t appeal to them – it’s too slickly unbelievable. What they will believe, and probably to their detriment, is that they can enjoy the Game well enough to fit their personal capacity to get with their ‘believable’ ONEitis girl who they just know is their perfect soul-mate. They’ll play the Game realistically and long enough insofar as it grants them access to the ‘type of girls who’d always rebuffed them.’

Rubrosa from the Sosuave forum picks up the continuation of this fantasy:

Every religious nut I’ve ever encountered who has passed judgement on me and my “sinning ways” has had a past which was heavy on the sex and drugs. In other words, they pissed all the “fun” living out of their system before they became “Born Again”. Now they preach “The Way.”

There seems to be a theme in certain parts of the manosphere (which I agree with) which states more or less the following:
It’s not about the chicks…it’s about you improving yourself….which gets the chicks.

I have a friend who’s a very successful Businessman/Playboy. We both have similar experience in terms of our journeys in dealing with the opposite sex. We were laughing at his story about how he didn’t feel like screwing this one girl only because he didn’t feel like driving that evening. I joked that if he was 20 years old, he would have made the drive. He laughed “Are you kidding? Back then I would drive 3 hours to get laid!”

I think that maybe I’m like those wackjobs who preach only after they’ve sinned. Does all my advice fall on deaf ears because no matter how much advice one hears, experience is the only true teacher? I have enough experience and Game savvy to where I can bang a different chick every night of the week with some reliability…so it’s somewhat EASY for me to say “It’s about you, not the chicks !” Kind of like a rich John Lennon singing “All you need is Love ”
I feel guilty in some weird way because I’m saying that chicks aren’t a priority maybe because I have a large supply.

Rollo ? Your take ?

I don’t read Rubrosa as making a religious statement here so much as he’s drawing comparisons in hypocrisy. ‘Do as I say, not as I’ve done’ is what he’s concerned with. The religious are easy targets in this regard, but really, everyone’s a hypocrite to varying degrees.

When I was a young AFC in my late teens I would’ve honestly been appalled by what I advocate on this forum today. My outlook at that time was incorrect and influenced by persons, conditions and social conventions of which I was totally unaware. The 19 year old Rollo Tomassi would’ve advocated the exact opposite of the 44 y.o. Tomassi would now. Does that make me a hypocrite today? Or, what if my outlook was correct and through the course of life and events I changed my way of thinking and lifestyle for a period of time, only to later go back to what had originally been truth to me later?

Life is learning. A hypocrite is someone who’s words and actions are incongruent, certainly in the present, but maybe not so much the past. I give advice here based on what I got so horribly wrong in the past, not because I did everything perfect from the get go. This is why it’s a dangerous business to build your reputation on moralism or absolutism. What your life experiences teach you will eventually come into conflict with convictions in spite of how rock solid you believe they are. And it’s then that people will call you to the carpet for being something you say you are or you aren’t.

Hail to the Emperors

Now, more to the point, yes, it is all about getting laid, AND it’s also about improving oneself too. Pussy has inspired more men to become great than any other factor in human history. I think what’s missing here is that the drive to succeed and the drive to get laid are mutually beneficial, and often symbiotic. The problems arise when you attempt to separate these two influences and turn them into absolute binaries.

Pussy = Bad.  Being a Little Emperor = Good

Pussy = Good.  Being a Little Emperor = waste of time, or just a means to pussy.

It doesn’t work this way.

When people say “If all you’re living for is fucking and women, then I pity you for not living right.” what they’re doing is making a binary judgement call while using themselves as a referendum. When one guy feels he’s living ‘by the rules’ then everyone else has to play by them too in order for him to validate his existence.

When another guy wins by not playing by the first guy’s rules he then needs to invalidate that win. Take a guy who did everything by the book, got married to the first girl he’d ever banged, went to college, has a decent job, has 2 kids, and sit him next to the high school drop out, who’s still unmarried, enjoys many women, stumbled into a well paying job and has few responsibilities. Who has the greater life experiences? Who’s “doing it right? Which one of these guys is more likely to try to invalidate the lifestyle of the other? Who envies who, and who is ‘happier’?

The Adolescent Social Skill Set

Having been on vacation recently (sorry for the lack of updates) I took some time in between fishing charters and tequila sampling to look at the overhyped stories about the upcoming olympic games. Unfortunately the games don’t really hold the same appeal they used to, and now especially against the more constant awareness people have of professional sports. So in order to generate advertising revenue for the games themselves it’s become necessary for the media to seed the human interest stories months ahead of time about athletes the public would likely never have been aware of left to their own interests. Knowing who the top javelin throwers in the world are is a pretty niche interest.

So it was with a bit of non-olympic interest that I became peripherally aware of the Lolo Jones story. Grit Artisan had a pretty good breakdown about our newest American feel-good olympic hopeful. Win or lose, expect to see her image plastered on a LOT of sportswear, cereal box and energy drink advertising for the next 8 months.

Before you get the wrong impression, my intent in beginning this post off by drawing attention to Lolo isn’t to eviscerate her. I actually kind of like her. Minus the manjaw, she’s a solid HB 7.5 on the rigorous Tomassi scale, mainly because she got the athletic appeal I like, but she also seems genuinely likable. I use Lolo because she is a prime example of socialization based upon an adolescent social skill set:

From Grit’s post:

-She considers her virginity a gift (!) that she wants to give to her husband. She thinks its the hardest thing she has ever done in her life- harder than college or training for the Olympics. She also realizes and acknowledges the past temptation and opportunities that she could have had sex.

I think it’s important to note that a fem-centric media has used 29 year old Flo-Jo’s Lolo’s virgin status not only as a rallying cry for evangelically defined abstinence, but also as the typical and convenient male-sexual-response shaming device it loves so much. Track & field fans or not, all women can lament in chorus with poor Lolo’s quest to find the Right Guy™ amongst so many immature and uncontrollably sex-concerned boy-men:

It was on Twitter earlier this year where she first announced to her almost 55,000 fans that she was a virgin.

She also said on the program that she has grown accustomed to being rejected by men as a result of her beliefs.

She said: ‘Here’s the two things that happen when you tell a guy you’re a virgin, this is the honest truth. One, you tell them [and they say] “oh ok, I respect that”. But you can already see in their eyes [that they’re thinking] “she’s lying about this and I’ll crack it”.

‘So we’ll talk usually one to three months [later], then they’re like “oh shoot, she was serious”. Time for me to exit.’

I can’t imagine shots like this wouldn’t convey any message to the average guy other than, “I’m a devout christian and I’m waiting for marriage.” Yep, must be those incorrigible men’s sex drives that make ’em bottle out before putting a ring on it. Nothing like the continuation of the ‘there are no good men left’ meme to get the otherwise uninterested ladies into watching the Olympics. Maybe Garfunkle and Oates could dedicate this song to Lolo at the opening ceremonies?

Late Term Virgins

Before I get knee deep in the moral rationales for her ‘decision’, let me begin by stating that in and of itself I don’t necessarily disparage the idea of retaining ones virginity (male or female) when that person is fully self-aware of the long term implications that decision represents. I can already hear the howls from the monogamy minded members of the manosphere, “Why would you discourage women from retaining their virginity? Don’t you know the more dicks she’d had the less likely she’ll be able to pair-bond with a guy? You’re encouraging premarital sex and thus cock-carouseling!”

I’ve covered most of this material in Late Term Virgins, but the salient point here is about adolescent social skills:

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

Whether that person is Lolo Jones or Tim Tebow, the latent purpose of a vow of chastity made in a person’s adolescence is an effort to curb the long-term consequences of the actions that a volatile chemical cocktail of pubescent hormones prompt in them. This ‘decision’ is couched in whatever moralism helps them and their parents sleep better at night, but it doesn’t offer much in the way of educating a 15 year old promised virgin to understand the social implications of that promise when she reaches 30 and is still a virgin.

Wearing our public faces (the ones that look like wisdom and prudence) there will no doubt be a demographic with some reason to celebrate Lolo or Tebow. “Wow, they really do hold to their convictions. They are an example, unlike us lesser people who were too weak to resist our carnal appetites.” And while they finish that sentence there’s still a nagging discomfort in revering ‘celebrities’ for not experiencing something that 99% of the human population has experienced well before age 30.

Call it a Double Standard if you like, but when we encounter a 40 year old virgin male our underlying impression of him is not one of reverence, but rather one of suspicion. We wonder what’s wrong with a guy who’s never had sex. Part of being a total Man is to have had sex; it is to have had consolidated upon our most basic biological impetus. A man incapable of this (by choice or by circumstance) is considered deviant and forces us to wonder at his social maturation. In other words, a normal guy should’ve gotten laid by 40.

Lolo’s is an interesting case. There comes a point when normal women ought to have had sex as well. While we can make the case that sex-positive neo-feminism endorses cock-carouseling as a deviancy, there is also a stage at which we begin to wonder about a woman’s maturity and socialization when she hasn’t had sex by a certain age. By today’s standards, at 30 Lolo is practically a nun. We can cling to the sense of hope she inspires by holding out for marriage, but at what age do we determine that maybe Lolo is still stuck on the idealism of her youthful promises?

Adolescent Social Skills vs. Mature Social Skills

My sister-in-law got pregnant at 18 and married at 19. After about 20 years of marriage and 2 children she went feral. Hypergamy prompted her to divorce the husband who’d ‘done the right thing’ at 20 years old and remarry a millionaire. There’s more to this story, but one annoying aspect of her very brief dating period of the millionaire was her psychological regression back into the only social skill set she’d ever known; the one she’d used right up until becoming a teenage mother. Her phone call conversations with this late 40’s millionaire took me aback at first – it was script taken directly from the worst 80’s Brat Pack movie. Cutesy pet names, and behaviorisms that bespoke a woman whose social understandings were frozen in time since the mid 80’s to be thawed out in 2003.

I shouldn’t really say that she regressed to her adolescent skill set, because she never really had the opportunity afforded by experience to develop a mature way of socializing as an adult (of 40+ years at the time) should realistically be expected of. Her story is a gross, anecdotal illustration that made me realize the larger, much more nuanced, whole of people using their last relatable experience as reference for understanding and applying themselves in novel situations.

One of the most consistent dynamics I deal with when I’m asked for counseling or even just casual advice is determining how much real-world experience the person asking me has. For example, it’s a much tougher task to unplug, and teach a guy Game whose social understanding is rooted in idealistic, adolescent beliefs he’s never had the opportunity to mature past via experience. For many in the manosphere it’s an almost enjoyable act to be the iconoclast of juvenile, Disneyesque plugged-in idealisms, but it really does nothing to help the man (not to mention woman) whose only frame of reference has ever been based in their adolescent social skills and understandings.

With every passing year, by order of degree, it becomes that much more difficult to get a person to accept their social retardation and unlearn their adolescent skill set as their only skill set.. A man of 25 might be willing to come to terms with his lack of referable experience, but the man of 45’s ego, by virtue of age, relies upon that model in order to feel validated. He’s had half a lifetime of experiences, but all of that was built upon, and limited by, a social model he’d learned and frozen at age 18.

Add the feminine rationalization hamster to this equation and it’s easy to see how stories like my sister-in-law’s come to pass. For women there’s little motivation to move beyond the adolescent model that worked so well for them in their teens. Thus we have mid-50’s women who’re easily entertained by television (HBO’s Girls) and stories that allow them to vicariously relive the framework of their adolescent social awareness. I have little doubt that in my sister-in-law’s psyche nothing was out of the ordinary, but to those around she was either cute in her unawareness of her 20 year old social behaviors, or she was an anachronism.

Women can get away with a lifetime of social awareness halted at age 17, but socially, men are expected to know better. This is why Lolo Jones gets a smile and a wry wink at 30, but the 40 year old virgin man is “creepy.”

Social Models

There was a time when the practical merits of virginity made sense. When a person’s life expectancy was about 50 years, an adolescent skill set was much different than it is today. There’s a reason individual cultures had ceremonies for passing into manhood and womanhood at age 15, we needed to be men and women at a much earlier age. Adulthood was literally 18. Since then, our biology and our evolution, physically and psycho-socially, conflict with that older model. We’ve drawn the process of maturation out to accommodate a longer lifespan as well as the contemporary expectations of education, career, family, etc. as per the norms of the societies that foster them.

Yet we still use the older socialization model – the one when more was expected of us earlier – as a base for judging the relative maturity of an individual. For all the handwringing about ‘Kidult’ men not manning up to fem-centric expectations, it’s almost comical to think that those expectations are rooted in a traditional, social model for maturation that hasn’t existed in almost a century in western culture. They want the anachronism of the old model to be relevant to men for exploitative purposes that they’re willfully or blissfully unaware of, yet we’re supposed to congratulate a 30 year old woman for not having sex based on an antiquated social model. Lolo Jones living in 1912 would be an old maid by those social standards; people of that era would wonder what was wrong with her.

Perceptions

 

I attended a conference about a year ago where one of the presenters was this feminista chick talking about how to make your business appealing to women. Some of the stuff she was saying was really out there in that she painted most businesses as ‘inferior’ because they did not go out of their way to become female friendly. Despite the fact that her strong feminist slant was semi-obnoxious to the audience (primarily men), there were some nuggets of wisdom in there.

One of those was that for women, intuitive perceptions are by-and-large women’s primary basis for making judgments about everything, whereas men will use information to make judgments. If the public bathroom in your office is anything less than sanitary & comfortable, a woman will use that as a gauge for the success of your entire business over actual financial data. In that same regard, she’ll use testimonials (social proof) from other women over any proof-based demonstrations of success you have. Obviously these are generalizations, but they underscore the point that there are fundamental differences in the way the two sexes perceive the world around them.

Bear in mind that the ability for the everyman to create the illusion of success has only been around for the last 100 years or so. The advent of protracted consumer debt has created the ability for people to acquire material possessions which allow them to feign success and status. For a 21st century example, look no further than social networking – the ultimate way to craft a perception of status which may not be at all aligned with reality. Yet, facts are trumped by facades in female psychology, and it’s nothing to fault women for. It’s simply how they’re wired.

I think what we can learn from awareness of this reality is that part of our role as men, in the role of leader in relations with women, is to control the facade. Keeping her interest level peaked is a function of her consistently being able to see and bask in your success as a man. It costs money and it costs time to deliberately focus on one’s image, especially if you are content with a low-complexity lifestyle, which I think describes most men’s inclination were it not for the mating game (i.e. society’s expectations, driven by the feminine).

It’s a scary thought to consider how easy it is to sway the hearts and minds of most women simply with imagery over substance. It’s manipulation of the image which makes even flat broke women work themselves into a rabid frenzy over $200 purses. Successful politicians and marketers have become masters of working this psychology. If there was any wonder left as to why women are the primary consumers in western culture, look no further than the power that perception plays in women’s decision making processes.

The Strata of Perception

In past posts I’ve emphasized the idea that women may claim to want truthfulness, but they absolutely do not want full disclosure.

Right about now I’m sure there are readers thinking “This is some really stupid shit, what you’re saying is I have to manage my ‘facade’ indefinitely and never let the fantasy perception drop? I can’t possibly be expected to ‘play a role’ all the time! When can I Just Be Myself and be comfortable in knowing she’s into me for me?”

The short answer to this is yes, you must never let your guard down; her emotionally associative perceptual interpretations will ALWAYS be an influencing factor in assessing your hypergamous worth for her. However, the practical answer is maintaining that perception becomes increasingly easier to do as you build upon prior perceptions, and legitimately owning those perceptions as part of your personality.

Whether you’re Game-aware or not, every girl you engage with, whether a plate to spin or a monogamous potential mate, your role, your character, has all been crafted by the gestalt sum of the perceptions she’s built around you. Even from before the moment you approached her with romantic interest you’ve been progressively layered with her emotionally associative perceptions. Perhaps by friends, maybe social proof, or even pre-conditioned expectations (for better or worse) that she cast you into, your personality to her is the sum total of a strata of emotional perception. Later into an LTR (or even a fuck buddy situation) this perception becomes more solidified.

The difficulty most men have with using this perception dynamic to their benefit is based upon their failure to grasp how women cognitively differ from men. It seems patently disingenuous for a man to manipulate a woman’s perception of him to his advantage when he’s been socially convinced that women are rational agents needing factual information upon which to base their personal decisions, and are aware of their emotional impulsivity and therefor controlling of it. This is the equalist tripping stone, men’s acculturation has taught the average guy that women are cognitive equals to men.

The tragic part of this situation is that men are, passively or actively, always making attempts to influence that feminine emotional perception to better facilitate some kind of harmony between themselves and women. When a married guy tells me his wife has no respect for him the root of that condition lies in an inconsistency of perception on his part.

“Man, everything was so good in the beginning, but then I went Beta on her, got needy, got ONEitis and she left me for the stud at the custom motorcycles chop shop.” Again, perceptional inconguencies with priorly established perceptions, and then modified by external novel emotionally associative perceptions.

Roosh vs. Brazil

I presume most of my readers are also RooshV readers, but if you’re not, today’s post might open your eyes a bit to the magnitude of the Matrix’s influence. It appears that the rapidly feminizing nation of Brazil has deemed Roosh’s musings on the state of Brazilian women to merit a significant threat:

To the website Administrator and Server
Ref: Association of image of Brazil

Dear Responsible Officer,

The Brazilian Federal Government, through the MINISTRY OF TOURISM, has found that the website, hosted in the network of server ThePlanet, promotes pornographic content in the internet. Such content relates striking and characteristic features of the Brazilian Identity, such as the colors of the flag, culture pictures and images of Brazilian cities, to prostitution or sex.

Considering the institution of the Brazilian National Policy on Tourism, created by the MINISTRY OF TOURISM, Article 5th of Federal Law n. 11.771/2008: “The Brazilian National Policy on Tourism aims at, among other things, preventing and fighting touristic activities related to abuse of sexual nature and others that affect human dignity” – the Ministry is taking steps to dissociate the image of the country with internet content of sexual and/or pornographic nature, which stimulate internet users to seek Brazil as a tourist destination for such activities.

Given that, the MINISTRY OF TOURISM OF BRAZIL kindly requests the removal of such materials from the website located in the URLs listed attached, or the dissociation of such pornographic content with Brazilian identity or Brazil, as well as the removal of pay-per-click ads and subsequent redirection of such website, since these associations are in disagreement with the image of the country and are harmful to the actual aim of the Brazilian Government: the increase of sustainable tourism in Brazil.

Brazil is signatory to several International Conventions, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which suppresses the trafficking in women and exploitation of prostitution, and the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, which determines the prevention, suppression and punishment of trafficking in persons, mainly women and children, activities which are often sustained by means of sex tourism.

Thus, we reiterate our request for the removal and disabling of access to pornographic material identified in this document in order to collaborate with the policies sought by the Brazilian Government to Brazil.

Should you have any questions, we are available via e-mail given in the signature of this message.

Sincerely,

MINISTRY OF TOURISM OF BRAZIL
enforcement@turismo.gov.br

Attachment:

http://www.bangguides.com/travel/brazil-compendium/

I had planned to simply drop a comment on Roosh’s thread here, but I felt the situation deserved a little more analysis than a quick hit response.

It’s interesting to note that a an entire country’s governmental system would feel so threatened by the idea of exposing the truths about women’s innate impulses and how a man might use them to his advantage that they would feel compeled to write an official statement to the author of one book that describes their country-women.

What kind of an indictment is it of a claim to power’s legitimacy that it would even consider publicly asking Roosh to censor his works? The comment thread will draw the typical Spearhead anti-feminist outrage, but I think that the forest which gets lost in the trees here is the gravity of why Roosh’s writings would be highlighted. What’s changed about the institution of a country the size of Brazil that would make Roosh’s writing significant enough to warrant this kind of notice?

Granted it is the Ministry of Tourism, but it would appear that the newly feminized government of Brazil (as well as Iceland) has yet to learn the concept of the 36 Law of Power:

Law 36: Disdain Things You Cannot Have: Ignoring Them is the Best Revenge
By acknowledging a petty problem you give it existence and credibility. The more attention you pay an enemy, the stronger you make him; and a small mistake is often made worse and more visible when you try to fix it. It is sometimes best to leave things alone. If there is something you want but cannot have, show contempt for it. The less interest you reveal, the more superior you seem.

A lot of manosphere critics believe that the community is paranoid and conspiratorial; that we imagine feminism and its doctrine to be more insaturated into society than is evident. Brazil’s tourism board is but one small constituent part of the government, and not really even legislative body, however the message can only be one of an overall doctrine permeating the message of the country and disseminated through what amounts to its PR department.

This is the macro-scale of the Feminine Imperative. This is the message when an entire country allows fem-centrism to dictate how it will relate with the rest of the world. And it is still the same message from the micro-scale – obfuscate, distract, demonize the men who would expose the Achilles heels of the Feminine Imperative. The reaction of the Ministry of Tourism is precisely the tact that I would expect a petulant woman to use when confronted with the realities of hypergamy, or the associated discomfort that comes from being confronted with her own duplicitous behavior, “Just shut the fuck up OK? You’re a misogynist!”

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

The Threat

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

My use of the word “threat” here isn’t to imply malice. I’m sure more simplistic associations with violence or conflict is the natural one, but a “threat” is a challenge – how one deals with it is what’s at issue. As I stated in the Three Strikes thread,

Women’s sexual strategy is very schizophrenic – ideally women want a Man that other women want to fuck, but in order to assess his sexual market value to other women he’s got to have exercisable options for her to compete against, or at least display indirect social proof to that effect. So, she needs to limit his options while simultaneously determining he has those options.

This internal conflict between a want for security and provisioning, and a need for the ‘gina tingles that only the excitement indignation, drama and Alpha dominance can stimulate is the fundamental root for women’s shit tests. From Plate Theory VI:

Essentially a shit test is used by women to determine one, or a combination of these factors:

a.) Confidence – first and foremost
b.) Options – is this guy really into me because I’m ‘special’ or am I his only option?
c.) Security – is this guy capable of providing me with long term security?

Women’s shit testing is a psychologically evolved, hard-wired survival mechanism. Women will shit test men as autonomously and subconsciously as a men will stare at a woman’s big boobs. They cannot help it, and often enough, just like men staring at a nice rack or a great ass, even when they’re aware of doing it they’ll still do it. Men want to verify sexual availability to the same degree women want to verify a masculine dominance / confidence.

For a woman, to encounter a man with a healthy awareness of his own value to women, this constitutes a threat. Here is a man for whom’s attention women will demonstrably compete for, AND he knows this. This is the most basic affront to the feminine imperative; to be unplugged, of high SMP value and to derive confidence from it. Therefore, in order to actualize her own sexual strategy, his self-confidence MUST be put into self-doubt, because if such a man were to use this knowledge to his own benefit he may not select her from a pool of better prospective women. Thus she must ask “Are you really sure of yourself? You think you’re so great? Maybe you’re just egotist? Don’t tempt fate.”

In this example we can see the conflict inherent in women’s sexual strategy; she wants the Alpha dominance of a confident Man, but not so confident that he can exercise his options with other women well enough to make an accurate estimation of her own SMV.

Ambiguity in men’s assessment of a woman’s true sexual market value is the primary tool of the feminine imperative.

The same characteristics that give him his confidence and acknowledged sense of worth are exactly the same things that women want to be associated with. Even the most controlling, domineering wife still wants to tell her friends that the AFC she married is a “real Man”, and even after privately berating him, will defend him as such because anything less is a reflection on her own self-image. She wants to be with a Man that other men want to be, and other women want to fuck, because it confirms for her that she’s of an equal or higher value to attract such a Man.

Women don’t want a man to cheat, but they love a Man who could cheat.

That is the threat and the attraction. Women want a Man that has confidence in his own value; that’s sexy, but the more he self-realizes this the greater the anxiety is that she’ll be found wanting as he better understands his options. So it becomes necessary to develop social contrivances that are standardized across the feminine gender that limit the full recognition of masculine self-value. Thus masculinity is ridiculed, men become characterized as slaves to their sexuality, and masculinity becomes doubted by virtue of itself. In a global sense, the feminine imperative relies on the same ambiguity women will individually employ to confuse the efforts of men to assess their true SMV. By means of social conventions, psychologically force him to doubt his own SMV and women become the arbiters of it.

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’.

Timeline of the Professional Woman

Most ‘professional’ women are forced into an uncomfortable choice in life. Generally women in this demographic have decided to pursue a career at the sacrifice of caring for a family, and for some, initially, there is a learned disdain for the idea of being ‘trapped’ in a domestic life. Some are aware of this sacrifice and some are not. Most professional women swallowed the all too common ideology that “you can have it all”, a ‘rewarding’ career, a family and are deserving of an equally professional, equally intellectual husband that will respect her choosing the career path and equally share in what she perceives as his domestic duties. This of course is the new image of the American Dream for egalitarian equalists. And like most professional women, at some point they come to realize this dream is false because the sacrifices required to attain this fantasy defeat it’s own conditions.

Timeline of the Professional Woman

At age 18 she’s progressed through high school with a high GPA and her single mother or 2 parent equalist family (only rarely is it a single father) has raised her to believe she can go far, and through the financial aid available only for women and/or the college fund her parents planned for her to be ready to compete in “a man’s world”, she’s ready for college. Not a bad thing for a woman who understands the future sacrifices she’s about to make and is ready to actually meet the challenges of a University and a ‘promising’ professional career.

At age 24-26 she’s achieved a bachelor’s or master’s degree, perhaps a doctorate by 28. More often than not though it’s a bachelor’s degree, and an expectation of professional respect in the professional world. 90% of professional women graduate with education, psychology, journalism or communication degrees. That’s not to say some don’t seek out careers in law or medicine or business, they do, but in far fewer numbers. Regardless of her education, her expectations are the same as her peers – once in the workplace she will be rewarded and respected based on merit. Unfortunately, in the professional world, things don’t go as smoothly as her Women’s Studies teacher prepared her for. She discovers that to function as a professional she is also required to be responsible as a professional and more times than not, it’s not all that ‘rewarding’. In fact it entails a lot of rejection and a lot of hard work at the sacrifice of a personal life and personal relationships.

At 30 she sees the girlfriends she went to college with married and perhaps having their 2nd child. She still clings to the self-affirmation that her choice requires she have, but can’t understand why she hasn’t ‘gotten it all’ by now. She’s single or may even be divorced at this point, but looking for that ‘professional’ and intellectual equal of masculinity that the fantasy sold her, yet it hasn’t quite worked out that way. Most guys her age don’t have the intellect she expects they should or they lack the status in their careers. Men more successful and mature aren’t interested in her since she pales in comparison to the 22 y.o. women they seem to prefer.

At 35 she’s achieved quite a bit in her career, but has no prospect for a family at this point. She enjoys reading the articles in the women’s magazines that affirm what she thinks she experiences often enough – that men her age are juvenile with ‘fragile egos’ and only want to become involved with women in their 20’s because they feel ‘threatened’ by a woman who would dare to be their equal. The truth being that the men who she’d consider her peers are hardly juvenile at this age, but rather calculating, they generally have a better understanding of what they want and what is satisfying for them after more than a few failed attempts and have learned how the game is played to a greater or lesser degree. Particularly professional men of the same or higher status than she, since they have more access to being particular with the women they choose to become involved with. They are aware that the 35+ y.o. professional woman’s personality has been shaped by 12-15 years of expectations of ‘having it all’ and they are aware that she is generally not a good candidate to start a family with since he knows all too well the sacrifices and responsibilities necessary to achieve his own status. A career man rarely sees a career woman as a good choice for a wife or an LTR, not because he’s ‘threatened’ by her status, but because he’s known and worked with enough of them once he’s reached 35+ years of age to steer clear of them.

Men typically could care less what a woman earns or what she does to earn it – it’s simply not a factor in attraction for us – we don’t take a woman’s status or wealth into consideration; all she has to be is hot. That is a guy’s one condition for intimacy, physical attraction, sexual availability. She’s gotta be hot – whether she makes six figures or is in the pit of poverty is irrelevant in attraction. Oprah and Star Jone’s husbands still have to get aroused, and all the money in the world wont be any better an aphrodisiac.

Status, wealth and the other rewards that result from ‘professional’ life are conditions women have for MEN in attraction. That’s not to discount men being physically attractive or other conditions, but women have far more conditions for their intimacy than men, and these conditions are predicated on characteristics that prove a man as a good provider for her and any future offspring’s security. These male characteristics (or sometimes just the prospects of a man attaining them) are defined by women as having value and are therefore attractive. Attractive enough to make a man with these qualities one to be competed over with other women. Women define what is masculine, they define what male traits have value for their investment of intimacy. Men define what is feminine, they define what female traits have value for their investment of their provision of security and meeting the condition criteria women place on them for their intimacy.

The ‘Today’s Woman’ crowd loves to use this pseudo-fear that men are expected to have in response as to why guy’s ought to be ashamed of themselves for basing their attraction on the physical by blaming it on ‘men’s fragile egoes’ or how they ‘feel threatened by professional women’. It comes down to an expectation and entitlement from their ‘professionalism’ that men should redefine their own attraction based on what women find attractive in the masculine.

This is the overreach of the feminine imperative – to attempt to thwart men’s biological predispositions by convincing them what they should find attractive and arousing in women. This becomes all the more ironic when you consider that the women the imperative would have men be attracted to are masculinized versions of  women.

Women in the professional realm would like the conditions for attraction to be predicated upon their professional status (wealth), individual merit and/or aspects of their personal integrity, and a whole list of esoteric qualities, but they still fight against men’s basic impulses – she’s-go-to-be-hot! If a woman is attractive, a man is more than happy to have her foot the bill regardless of comparative incomes, it’s just icing on the cake for us, but this is analogous to a woman who marries a rich guy who also happens to be good looking and fun in bed.

As most women bemoan, men have a tendency to see women as sex objects in attraction. Women have a tendency to see men as success objects. The problem with this ‘professional woman’ mythology is that professional women want to be success objects themselves, but nature keeps confounding their efforts.

Now, all of that said, if a woman’s choice is to enter the public realm and pursue a career in the same fashion that men have for years, more power to her. Great, you go girl, so long as she understands the responsibilities and liabilities of doing so. They should also thoughroughly understand that men will define what is attractive for them, not women, professional or otherwise.

Kill the Beta

Rational reader Paul recently sought out my guidance for probably the single most asked for advice I receive.

I’ve read through your blog entirely, and my biggest issue is, how do I kill the beta? Every girl I sleep with, or even fool around with, I end up developing feelings for. Even if it was a one night stand or the girl is cheating on a bf with me. It’s like I have no self control; like I’m a girl that agonizes over every guy she sleeps with.

I wish I honestly had a definitive answer for Paul. If I could construct some step-by-step program, a universal template that men could all follow in order to kill their inner Beta, I’d be rich beyond my wildest dreams. Just as I said with about the Alpha Buddha, if I could find a way to bottle the essence of Alpha I’d be set for life. The real truth is that there is no simple answer to this, because each man’s conditions are unique to him. To be sure there are common roots to their problems, and common mindsets that form as results of attempting to formulate working sexual strategies (Beta Game) within the feminine Matrix, but undoing these mental schemas and reforming a better functional sexual strategy is unique to the individual.

I feel that this is the major reason Game is not taken as seriously as it should be – it’s a lot of work doing your own self-analysis and then creating a strategy to remake yourself. One of the reasons PUA gurus and the Game demigods of the last decade seem so cheap, like snake oil salesmen, is because they fail to take into account the degree of personalization necessary to truly kill the inner Beta that guys eventually have to confront. That’s an element of internalized Game that the guys doing seminars would rather not address because your degree of success, in truth how you even measure success, is entirely dependent upon you. Hooking up with girls you’d never had access to before may sell pick up DVDs; changing the inner workings of your personality is a much tougher order. If you ever look through the ‘self-help’ psychology section of a book store and wonder why there are so many books published in the topic, it’s exactly due to this dynamic – effecting a fundamental change in one’s life requires an effort that few people have the patience and perseverance for.

So with all of this in mind, let me say right now, I don’t have a map for you – anyone telling you they do is selling you something – however, I will attempt to point you in the right direction. I can’t say what will work, only you can find that out on your own, but try to bear in mind that changing yourself is a process that takes time. Even for the guy’s who have an easier go of transitioning to an internal Game-state personality, it’s still an ongoing process. I’d like to think of myself as at least a lesser Alpha (by Roissy’s measure), but that doesn’t mean I don’t trip up at times. This is what I mean by the process; you’re not going to be bulletproof and pass every shit test ever thrown at you, but be encouraged in knowing you learn from what you do wrong and adjust for the next time. There is no grand arrival moment when you know you’re an Alpha, or if you don’t like that term, there is no definitive point at which you’ve internalized Game. You don’t get some certificate of Game completion. You can, however, definitively change your thinking, it’s always on-going.

Knowing is half the battle

If there truly is a first step in internalization then it has to come from educating yourself. This is actually one of the most difficult tasks. If you’re a reader of my blog, or are at least peripherally aware of Game as a concept, this is going to seem pretty obvious, but remember that there’s an entire world of men who are still plugged in. Only a fraction of them will even be amenable to considering Game and positive masculinity, and fewer still will see its value. From our perspective it seems like a matter of course; we read the books/blogs, familiarize ourselves with the concepts, we pick what might work, experiment with ideas, evaluate the validity of them and adopt them or toss them. However what’s apparent to the unplugged seems like blaspheme to the plugged in.

Your “education” doesn’t stop once you’ve unplugged. In fact I’d argue that it’s even more vital in internalizing a new mindset since you’re now putting things into practice. One thing I remind guys who spit the red pill back up is that there is no going back. A lot of frustrated guys who discover Game and fail to apply it because they lack the social skills or they convinced themselves that PUArtistry was their easy magic formula to fuck the girl of their dreams, they tend to want to regress back into the comfortable shell of their former ignorance of intergender social dynamics. Only they find that there is no return. They see the truth in the what they’d been blind to no matter where they turn. The social interactions, the feminization, the raw deal they’ve been conditioned to accept as normal – all of that subtly reminds them of the truth they’re avoiding and they hate it. They become hostile to it.

I add this because it’s a very real danger for guys transitioning into internalizing positive masculinity. In the same respect you now have become (or should become) more sensitive to Game truths and the unplugged reality you now find yourself in. There’s a point of departure from what you thought was normal to seeing the signs around you. An easy illustration is really contemplating any gender related issue in popular media. You’ll hear a song, watch a sit-com, overhear a conversation in the lunch room, and begin to realize how surrounded you are by basic presumptions of a culture remade by feminine primacy. Understanding what your position in all of this is is crucial to internalizing a new mindset or backsliding into your old frame of thinking.

Practicing the change

It should be self-evident that applying what you’ve come to see as a new truth for yourself is vital. You need to get off the internet and field test the theories you learn here and elsewhere. Whether that means going to sarge at the clubs, or adopting a new attitude with your wife, or even the women you deal with at work, it’s really up to you. The hardest part of practicing change is the initial shock of having the people who know you question the validity of the new you. If you were to move to a new city, completely change your social circle and play the role of an asshole Alpha, no one is the wiser. However, make a radical shift in your personality with those who’ve known you for years and you’ll be a poser who’s “trying to be something he’s not”.

Human beings need predictability – it gives them a sense of control over others. When you alter yourself, or have your personality altered by an outside force, this is a threat to that predictability, so the logical counter is for others to attempt to put us back into our places. Shaming comes as a natural tactic for women, but the push is always to get you back into their frame. And that’s essentially the threat others interpret, the new you is a frame grab. Do it all at once and people will accuse your personality of being a disingenuous reaction to having been burned. Do it subtly and persistently over a time and people will be more willing to accept the change as genuine. Always insist on change, but never too quickly.

This is important to remember because your friends will be your biggest source of doubt in your transformation. They might mean well, but understand, that intent comes from a desire to see normalcy, not your best interest. The first time an old girl-friend you had a thing for calls the new you an “asshole”, it’s kind of a shock to the system. There’s always this stab at the old you who wants to set things rights, but you have to resist this impulse to take offense. It’s really hard to say “yeah, I am an asshole” as a point of pride when your whole prior life’s learning taught you not to offend others and particularly not girls you ever wanted to fuck. It’s counterintuitive to the beta in you. As sadistic as it sounds, you’ll be more consistently rewarded for your capacity to indirectly offend the women you want to get with, and the internal conflict this creates between the beta you and the burgeoning alpha you is the hardest part to reconcile. This is where most guys fail in transitioning, and this is primarily due to an unpracticed ability to keep their emotions in check.

Aesthetics vs. Social Robots

As I’ve stated before, men are the True Romantics, women are simply the vehicles for that rarely appreciated romanticism. One of the biggest gripes the post-sexual revolution feminization had with men was some prepackaged notion that men weren’t in touch with their feminine sides. We were “out of touch with our feelings”. God curse Carl Jung’s rotten corpse to hell for ever convincing popular culture that each sex had equal, but unexpressed, measures of feminine and masculine energies. Western culture has been so saturated with Jungian theory that we don’t recognize it as such. It’s become normalized to believe an idealized goal-state is a genderless, androgynous society.

Rants aside, up until the last 50 years, it has in fact been men who’ve been the sex with the most self-control regarding emotion. It’s been just this reservation that’s made Men more endearing to women. Either as enigmatic poets and artists to figure out, or as natural stoics who’s every measured expression of emotion is an event unto it’s self,  it’s been Men’s classic reservation of emotional inaccessiblity  that’s made women more interested in Men. In contemporary society, men are encouraged to express themselves as a primary way to accessing a woman’s intimacy – essentially killing any sense of mystery to unravel with full disclosure. Brain function gender differences aside, It would be my guess that men socially evolved a more reserved expression of emotion, not due to some juvenile insecurity, but rather because it so consistently worked in generating interest in women.

Not so in this age. At every instance boys and men are conditioned to think that emotional expression is a means to solving problems. Boys don’t cry, was instituted with a purpose. Unguarded easily expressed emotion is a feminine trait. It’s not that men should become social robots, deadened to all but the most intense emotion; it’s just become normalized to cheapen that expression by overuse. Displays of a Man’s emotions should be rarely given devine gifts  for women who are generally lacking in true appreciation as it is.

Unlearn what you have learned

It’s very difficult for a beta man, conditioned for so long to be emotionally available, to turn these emotions off. The good news is I’m not suggesting you do, I am suggesting you unlearn your reasons for developing emotional sentiments so easily. It’s easy to go emotionally cold as a result of being burned, it’s a much taller order to tamp that emotionality back into check when you’re really feeling good about it. Our emotions make us human and humane. It’s important to embrace that, but equally important to see how easily it’s used against you. You need to unlearn the reasons why you’re so easily emotional. Maybe it’s abandonment issues, maybe it’s a more deliberate conditioning in your upbringing.

Remember in high school, in drivers ed class, when you were taught to turn into a skid rather than turn with the skid? When we’re driving and we find ourselves in a skid our natural impulse is to slam on the the breaks and/or, worse still, to turn with the skid. Everything in our self-preservation instincts tells us to do this, but all it does is aggravate an already precarious situation. However, when we’re taught, and we practice, not hitting the brakes and not turning into the skid, often enough we make this our default reaction and we find that the car rights itself, we avoid disaster and continue safely on down the road.

You have to unlearn the old behaviors and condition new ones in order to right your course. This takes practice and repetition – even in the face of conditions that you would impulsively think would need to be reacted to otherwise.There is no substitute for perseverance.

Changing your mind about yourself is the first step. This is actually the most difficult step for guys because most don’t want to believe they need to internalize a new way of thinking about themselves. Lethargy, for the most part, can be the primary reason most guys don’t want to change. It’s far easier to create rationales for oneself as to why they are happy in their present condition than it is to critically confront and initiate real change.

Unfortunately, I can’t give you some standardized program to help you magically turn into the Man you hope to be. Only you can determine that course, but I will say this, the Man you wish to become requires you to take action. The goal posts for your own satisfaction will always keep moving away from you, and that’s a good thing. This is what inspires us to grow and mature and develop a capacity to overcome challenges. However, all this requires action on your part.

You can pore through all of the advice and sift out the wisdom from this blog and the community at large, but none of it will amount to anything for you if you wont act. I can’t begin to recall all of the times I’ve counseled young guys, giving them all manner of advice and encouraging them to put it into practice, only to have them constantly bemoan that they can’t find the motivation. More often than not it takes some traumatic experience or they have to be reduced to having nothing left to lose before they’ll really have the fire lit under their asses to become more than they are.

I don’t consider myself a motivational speaker, but at some point you have to cross the abyss and change your mind about yourself.

Could a Man have written this?

Blame the Sexual Revolution not Men.

Mona Charen had a very concise critique of  the overwritten personal ad that passed for Kate Bolick’s life’s confession, All the Single Ladies.

I wont say that I don’t admire Mona for having the courage to write a less than favorable critique; particularly one that points the blame back on a feminization that enthusiastically looks to reinvent it’s own social conventions in order to rationalize away the post-Wall dire straits women like Bolick are finding themselves in. However, is anyone really surprised that it’s now women receiving public recognition for acknowledging psychological and sociological principles and dynamics that the manosphere has covered for over a decade now?

I’m glad to see it getting the publicity, but ONLY a woman could write this without suffering fem-screech backlash accusations of misogyny. This is the environment we’re in today. I have no doubt that Ms. Charen will receive her share of frothing hate from ego invested Jezebels, but at least her critique will register for them. No man could write this critique and be taken seriously, and therein lies the danger in women co-opting the message the manosphere has been compiling for 12 years now. The environment is such that anything remotely critical a man might offer is instantly suspect of misogyny or personal (‘he’s bitter”) bias, however, couch that message in a female perspective, play Mrs. Doubtfire, and you’ll at least reach the audience beginning with something like validity.

Not surprisingly this element of message delivery is lost on most women. Adopting the male perspective seems novel, something that might set a woman apart in a sea of common fem-speak, but it’s important for Men to understand that anything positive a ‘pro-man’ female author has to offer is still rooted in her female reality. In girl-world, what directly benefits women necessarily is presumed to benefit men, so what we’ll see is a new wave of female bloggers bastardizing the world-worn ideas that the manosphere has put together and repackaging it in a female context. It’s Man Up 2.0; make a token push to “re-empower” men just enough for them to idealize the romanticism of the responsibilities required for living up to women’s expectations.

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

I’m once again painfully reminded of how women believe that they are the only lasting authority and irrefutable arbiters of anything that has to do with personal relationships. They have, and continue to control the language of anything relationship. Just look at the comment threads of any relationship article. Every female response is written from a position of authority. The same women who can’t articulate anything informative in other contexts  can write absolute volumes about relationship by-laws, etiquette, formalities and how it’s men’s honor bound duty to comply with their reality in a comment post.

We are acculturated into a world where the ‘common sense’ is to presume that social dynamics should ALWAYS default to a feminine imperative. In essences everyone, male or female, should agree with any social dynamic that benefits the feminine. Without even an afterthought you are cast into what would benefit a feminine frame and a female ideal. To the feminine mind (of both women and feminized men) this is just the way the world is.

Men are simply facilitators for a feminine reality.