Master & Servant

master-servant

Evan12 on the SoSuave forum has an interesting observation:

I’ve noticed in many lesbian couples the submissive woman in the relationship is not embarrassed from that , and she showed her love and submissiveness to her partner without shame. For example they write on their facebook “I want to worship you” or “you are my goddess ” etc.

Also in real life they took some clear orders from their dominant partner, that if a man would’ve ordered a woman in-front of others they would consider it degrading to them .

In the workplace, I find women submit to other female managers very easily and sometimes even voluntarily, but when a man is manager they play a lot of power games to challenge/question his authority.

Is this because of public shaming from the figure of woman following a man, so women feel more free to show her submissive side when it is toward a woman and not a man ?

The inimitable Burroughs (who is cordially invited to comment more on this blog) then picks up the next salient point:

The next time you switch on the television, count how many programs have the token ‘stupid boyfriend’ or ‘abusive husband’ or ‘paedophilic father’ figure.

Switch over to a children’s channel / time window and watch how many cartoons or programs reflect ‘silly daddy’ characters or ‘bullying big brother’.

Don’t forget, of course, nearly all the women in these same programs will be smart, sexy, sassy and full of beans, capable of juggling a career lifestyle with children, a husband and a social circle

– let’s not forget that she’s undoubtedly a wonderful cook and always remembers everybody’s birthdays.

If these images are being constantly spread out over our airwaves, what does that tell our children who are growing up watching & learning daily, hourly, that men are just so stupid, abusive and … well, useless?

I addressed a good portion of Evan’s observation in Sexual Fluidity:

Ironically—or not, as some might argue—it is certain “masculine” qualities that draw many straight-labeled women to female partners; that, in combination with emotional connection, intimacy, and intensity.

“Men can’t understand why I want to be with Jack, a lesbian, when I could be with a biological man,” says Gomez-Barris. “And at first I thought it would be threatening, but I have a rebellious spirit. He’s powerful, accomplished, and appealing. And in some ways, the experience is better than in heterosexual sex.

So what are we seeing here? Heterosexual women, still crave the masculine dominance that men cannot or will not provide her. Thus, we see condition dictate response.

Burroughs accurately notes the social symptoms of the dynamic. It’s not difficult to outline how the institutionalized social feminization (via mass media ridicule and shaming of masculinity) of men over the past 60 years has greatly contributed to men uncomfortable in their innate masculine predispositions. However, by the same means, the other side of the story is women’s fem-centric conditioning predisposes them not to expect masculinity to be anything other than negative when coming from a human being born with a penis. Masculinity paired with a vagina however is the only legitimate form of masculinity acknowledged.

It takes a feminized society of millions and half a lifetime of institutionalized feminization conditioning to repress the male definition of masculinity in a man. As I’ve noted before, feminization seeks to redefine masculinity to better fit with an egalitarian equalist doctrine, but what thwarts the effort is men’s biological, and in-born psychological, bent to manifest a uniquely male defined masculinity.

Hypergamy’s Doms & Subs

This is only one half of the dynamic though. The other half being women’s innate desire, through natural hypergamy, to be submissive to that male-defined masculinity; but only to the man who is dominant enough to satisfy a woman’s hypergamy.

In an era when Hypergamy has been given free reign, it is no longer men’s provisioning that dictates her predisposition to want to be a submissive partner in their relationships. To an increasingly larger degree women no longer depend upon men for the provisioning, security and emotional support that used to insure against their innate Hypergamous impulses. What’s left is a society of women using the satisfaction of Hypergamy as their only benchmark for relational gratification.

Men with the (Alpha) capacity to meet the raw, feral, demands of women’s Hypergamy are increasingly rare, and thanks to the incessant progress of feminization are being further pushed to marginalization. The demand for Men who meet women’s increasingly over-estimated sense of Hypergamic worth makes the men women could submit to a precious commodity, and increases further stress the modern sexual market place.

But women want to be submissive –preferably to the dominant Man qualified to quell her Hypergamy, but in his absence (thanks to mass feminization) substitutes needed to be created. One of the most important points doubters of the Feminine Imperative need to understand is that every social dynamic must work to the benefit of the feminine. When we observe modern social variances on traditional themes, understand that these are modification intended to ‘re-provide’ women with a previous benefit lost due to the distortion of feminine primacy. No men around to provide that masculine dominance? Turn women into men.

Enter the Hyenas

One thing you’ll notice amongst the majority of homosexual couples is an inherent hierarchy of dominance. With all the debate about gay marriage and civil rights these days, I find it fascinating that a subculture founded on non-traditional values, to the point of  subverting them, would demand with such fervor to participate in one of “traditional society’s” most traditional institutions – marriage. Even homosexuals want that heterosexual, interpersonal social structure.

For all of the sermonizing about the want for egalitarian equality, the observable establishing dynamic is still one of a dominant and a submissive partner in a monogamous framework. As our collective gender identities become more homogenized, the role of whom will play the part of dom and sub becomes based upon who better has the stronger personality to live that role out.

Combine this with a collective social consciousness that, by default, puts men into a position of masculine ridicule, and you get the now stereotypical ‘whipped’ husband seeking his dominant wife’s permission as part of his internalized sense of identity. You also see the homosexual woman ‘worshiping’ her dominant partner – a partner more hypergamy-satisfyingly masculine than any man she’s ever encountered, or ever had the capacity to attract. We see the ‘tough bitch’ fearlessly making demands of her female (and male) subordinates that would be grounds for harassment were a man to issue them.

The Meta-Shit Test

We have a society based on presupposed male incompetence, but women still want the hypergamic satisfaction of submissiveness that men should provide for them. It’s in their fantasies. Women’s literature from classical antiquity to modernity is characterized by a want for masculine dominance.

This is the great social shit test of our time. In spite of a world arrayed against him, a Man needs the fearlessness of purpose to pass what has become a meta-scale test of hypergamy. The provisioning, support, emotional investment, and security a man could establish that used to buffer Hypergamy are all ancillary to satisfying Hypergamy now. Feminization has seen to it that in defying its purpose you are identified as being less than a man, but still challenges men to be Men by defying it.

The Plan

the_plan

For the longest time I never had a plan. Oh, I knew what I wanted to do in life; something artistic, publicly recognizable, flamboyant, but the path to get to that reality was never really concrete for the 17-19 year old mind. First and foremost I wanted to get laid. I had aspirations and I recognized my innate talents, but I really had no plan.

At first I did what most conditioned Betas do at 17 and followed the ‘official’ script approved by the feminine imperative – nice guy > rapport > comfort > commitment > monogamy > and if magical predestined sex happened to be graced upon me at one of these stages then it was all the confirmation of process any Beta required. But still I had no plan. It felt like a plan, but it never quite played out as a plan once that plan came together.

Serial monogamy with a ONEitis girlfriend seemed like a plan. That’s what the imperative had always reinforced and it seemed logical. Man, did I ever hate the guys who had the capacity (ability) to entertain multiple women concurrently. How could the women so enthralled by these ‘players’ not see their deviation from the ‘official’ approved script of the feminine imperative? Didn’t they know they were wrong in their deviation? Why did women reward them with sex and intimacy, and why did they do so without the prerequisite steps laid out and approved by the imperative’s teachings? The FI had always taught me women were to be treated with default respect – as gender equals, as rationally acting an independent agent as my(equal)self. Could they not rationally conclude, as I did, that they themselves were rewarding the very Men who deviated from the plan that the imperative had set before all of us?

I didn’t realize it at the time, but what I failed to consider is that women’s innate Hypergamy was in conflict with the plan of the feminine imperative. Later in life, the male offspring of the feminine imperative (Betas) would come to realize the true plan of the imperative, and the supporting, provisioning role it conditions them for in raising other men’s genetic legacies, or their own, less than optimal ones. Either by self-realization or self-actualization men, even the most beta men, usually come to realize the plan of the imperative. For some it’s a sad realization, too late to really do much of anything but moderate the impact the plan had. For others, it might be freeing in a post-divorce separation from not just their wives but the plan the imperative convinced them of. And still for others, it’s the relief of having sidestepped the consequences of a life-impacting ideology.

Making a Plan

There’s a clever Jewish saying that goes, “Man plans, God laughs.” It’s kind of endearing in a patrician way, but it really amounts to another saying by the world’s most famous Beta, “Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.” Or in other words, ‘it is what it is’ and you never really had any influence over the circumstances that have led to your present conditions.

I used to believe this. I used to think that having a plan was more or less irrelevant, because ultimately you’re really never in control of what happens to you. My Mother used to give me grief about being “obsessed” with bodybuilding and staying in shape. She’d say, “you never know what tomorrow will bring, you could get cancer or hit by a bus, and then all that fussing over your body will be a waste.” I remember telling her yes, but this is how I want to look now, I wont care about it in a casket.

Those were always some interesting conversations, but the fact of the matter is I really had no plan for myself of my own creation.

Failing to Plan

Failing to plan is planning to fail. My Marine buddies like this line. In the military I’m sure it was a great mantra, but how many of us allow things to happen to ourselves as the result of not having and sticking to a plan? I’m not saying we ever have a complete control over our circumstances, but when we don’t have a plan the plans of others influence the consequences of our own conditions. As I illustrated above, when a young man has no plan the feminine imperative is already there with its own – ready to fill that void for its own purposes, ready to convince that young man that its plan was really his own concept.

One thing I’ve always advised the high school forum readers on the Sosuave forums is to plan for success when they sarge a girl they like. So many of these young Men get so absorbed in the mechanics and anxieties of asking a girl out, or maneuvering to become intimate with her that they don’t plan for success. I tell them to expect success, so plan for that eventuality, and there’s a foundational reason for this.

Suddenly a girl agrees to go out with him and he has no plan for a date. What this telegraphs to her is she’s agreed to a date, agreed to potential intimacy, agreed to a hypergamic assessment, with a guy who hasn’t thought past the getting a date part. His lack of a plan revealed his Beta essence – he wasn’t expecting to succeed, she detects this on a limbic level, and the context, the frame, of the date becomes one of working back from a Beta presupposition.

An Alpha mindset expects success. One of the key tenets of Game is irrational self-confidence, and while this is a core element of Game, its successful application hinges upon follow through – and follow through requires a plan. Whether that plan is about a PUA on an insta-date after a successful sarge or that plan is about banging the wife you reserved your virginity for on your honeymoon night, the conditionality is the same – Alphas already know what they want and have a concrete plan of where they want to go.

Confidence

One of the more frequent questions I’m asked on the SS forums is,

“Rollo, I understand confidence is the most attractive aspect about men for women, how do I develop confidence?”

Confidence is an interesting concept, not just in it’s application with women, but in a meta-life sense. Confidence has been elevated to this mystical realm so we read,..”The reason you fail is because you don’t believe in yourself enough.” This is a very similar mechanic to the ‘Just Be Yourself‘ line of reasoning. It’s something people say when they don’t know what else to say – “aww man you just need to be confident with her, that’s what the bitchez want, just look at any PoF profile, confidence, confidence, confidence,…” What they’re not explaining is that confidence is derived from past successes and the inherent knowledge that you can repeat those successes again.

I understand the frustation; women say just be yourself, guys say just be confident, both imply some nebulous quality that only those in the know really have a grasp of. I’ve addressed the JBY principle before, but how do you get this confidence women declare is so important in their list of demands?

Confidence is derived from options.

When you know you can repeat your past successes, or you have the resources to repeat concurrent successes already available to you, you have confidence. This is the code women are asking for when they claim to want confidence: “I want a man who has the presence of a man that other men want to be and other women want to fuck.”

The great irony of this is that the male confidence women want, that exceeds a woman’s deserving of that confidence, will always be considered conceit. Why? Because that confidence conflicts with the plan of the feminine imperative. It’s sexy as hell, but it represents too great a Threat to the feminine imperative.

As I stated in my Plate Theory series, it’s much easier to have an ‘I don’t give a fuck’ attitude when you really don’t give a fuck. If you maintain a presence of non-exclusivity with women, and down to each individual woman, the straightjacket of the plan of the feminine imperative begins to loosen. Included in YOUR plan is a sampling, and filtration of, women who have a genuine desire to be with you. Not a mitigated desire, not an obligated desire, but a genuine desire to associate themselves with the potential you represent, confidently, prospectively and sexually. It doesn’t seem like filtration or vetting in this sense that you’re cognitively looking for the perfect mate – the perfect mate presents herself to you.

Too many guys think they can’t spin multiple plates. They think it MUST mean they MUST banging every available woman at their disposal and wanton sex is the ultimate goal. This is the distortion my critics hope to attach to Plate Theory,..

“Rollo says to fuck anything that moves, that’s outrageous!”

No, but the concept of non-exclusivity does fundamentally disagree with the plan of the feminine imperative, which is why the FI and its agents rely upon those distortions to maintain the imperative’s social dominance.

If you have the confidence that comes from having succeeded at a task with predictable regularity in the past, you can say with a reasonable expectation that you are confident to repeat that task in the future. In the context of a career, a sport, a particular social engagement, or maybe a talent or skill we all stand up and applaud that individual’s confidence – they make it look easy. Say you’re confident with women, say you’ve had success in the past with them, and you are a player, even when you are a devoted husband of many supportive years, make this declaration and you are a deluded, typical male.

But confidence is what chicks dig Rollo,..WTF?

It’s not the confidence, it’s the plan. YOUR plan. It’s easy to give illustrations about men having date plans beyond the approaching her, but this is only one example of the overall planning a man must have in his life. Alphas plan. That may be cognitively or not, but their confidence is evolved from a sense of others, of other women recognizing their unspoken plan.

The reason that Frame is the first Iron Rule of Tomassi is that it relies so much upon a man having such a concrete plan that he will exclude others, even potential mates from it if situation warrants it. A Man’s plan needs to supersede his desire for sex, but also includes using sex to effect it.

Full stop.

“My God Rollo, are you suggesting that sex be an inclusive part of a Man’s plan even if he has no intention of long term commitment to her?”

In terms of a plan, yes. That may seem immoral or dehumanizing of me, but stop and think about it. Is it any more immoral or dehumanizing than the plan of the feminine imperative on a personal scale? What about a global, legalistic scale?

Is it beyond the pale of hypergamy?

Begin with the Ending in Mind

But we’re better than that right? We’re the nobel, chivalrous, honorable sex. It’s our commission to ensure that women fall in line because they know not what is right for themselves. (insert Arthurian prose here)

That’s nice prose, but hardly a plan. For all of the control and guidance women really seek (a nice way to say dominance) in a man, it really comes down to the direction of his vision. Is she confident in you? The biggest meta-shit test you will ever face as a Man is in replacing the plan of the feminine imperative with your own. How audacious! How cocky! How dare you?!

Begin with the ending in mind. As per the first Iron Rule of Tomassi, she enters your frame, she enters your reality, she is the curious actor, she is the inquisitive  one, she explores the world you create for her, it’s your friends, family and cohorts she encounters. If you feel the reverse is true in your LTR, you’ve enter her reality, and the narrative, the question of whose plan is in effect is answered for you.

Build a Better Beta

For women, nothing is both as frightening and arousing than a Man aware of his own value.

[In light of Aunt Giggles recently going off her meds and clamoring for her weekend bender of attention, I’ve decided to re-post this from December of 2011. Considering the hostility lobbed at the manosphere lately I thought it was quite prophetic.]

________________________________________________

I got a metric ton of feedback with regards to my Mrs. Doubtfire post and the notion of Game being co-opted to serve the feminine imperative. This sparked an interesting exchange on more than a few blogs and forums. All of this led me to do a bit of research into how Game principles, not necessarily Game in practice, is being subverted to address feminine-centric mandates. Even the idea of ‘false flag‘ blogging in the manosphere has been suggested as a means to more effectively establish a male-specific popular perspective that might be considered more legitimate.

The problem intrinsic to all of that is that masculinity is now so ridiculed and delegitimized in our feminine-centric reality that any (lame) attempts at subterfuge only make the manosphere look even more like the boys club in the treehouse shooting spitwads at the “mature” girls below. It’s going to come off as game-playing and juvenile, and only serve to make any legitimate point or appeals to logic appear self-serving. That said, I do understand the necessity to be covert in expressing the principles behind Game from a pro-masculine perspective. Men blogging in the manosphere, whether it’s Game theory, PUA, MRA or MGTOW, all assume a horrible risk for publicly expressing their views that a proponent of feminism would rarely need to consider. Professionally, personally, and to an extent, even physically, manosphere bloggers paint a big target on themselves that very few people would sympathize with their being damaged for their outspokenness. If it looks like patriarchy, it’s OK to set their home on fire, and a feminized world of angry women and their identifier mangina sycophants will line up with torches to do so.

Building a Better Beta

None of this is really even a concern for the proponents of a fem-centric culture; they can rest comfortably in a self-affirming, social echo chamber without any real fear of persecution or risk to their career or reputations. However, the utility of exploiting Game in theory (not in practice) to better serve that female centrism hasn’t gone unnoticed. This has given rise to what might be called “sanitized Game” – take the primary elements of Game to build a better Beta. With such an overwhelming social undercurrent for men to ‘Man-Up’ today it’s really simple pragmatism to reinterpret Game to serve the expectations and entitlements inherent in fem-centrism. Thus we see Game concepts being co-opted by social conservatives, so-called female manosphere sympathizers and christo-religious revisionists all blogging in disclaimered agreement with Game principles insofar as it serves their particular delusion. What they fail to recognize is that, for all of their efforts to contort Game into their personal agenda’s boxes, they’re still living in and fostering a feminine-centric imperative. If there’s a definition of the Matrix, this is it.

I would argue that most, if not all, are unaware that this is the latent purpose they’re serving. The overarching  point is to create a more acceptable man for a female defined goal, NOT to truly empower any man. There is no feminine opposite to this; there is no counter effort to make women more acceptable to men – in fact this is actively resisted and cast as a form of slavish subservience. This is the extent of the feminine reality; it’s so instaurating that men, with the aid of  “concerned women”, will spend lifetimes seeking ways to better qualify themselves for feminine approval. That’s the better Beta they hope to create. One who will Man-Up and be the Alpha as situations and use would warrant, but Beta enough to be subservient to the feminine imperative. They seek a man to be proud of, one who’s association reflects a statement of their own quality, yet one they still have implicit control over.

Whether the reasonings are moral, entitlement or ‘honor bound’ in nature the end result is still feminine primacy. The sales pitch is one of manning up to benefit yourself, but the latent purpose is one of better qualifying for normalized feminine acceptance. What they cannot reconcile is that the same benefits that are inherent in becoming more Alpha (however you choose to define that) are the same traits that threaten his necessary position of subservience as a Beta. This is precisely why ‘real’ Game, and truly unplugging, cannot be sanitized. This social element wants to keep you plugged in; more Alpha, more confidence, more awareness, is a threat to fem-centrism. It’s great that all this Game stuff has finally got you standing up for yourself, but remember who’s got the vagina.

The Evolution of Game

In the beginning, Game was about little more than racking up lay-counts. For some guys this will never change; you can’t ignore the purely seductionist intent of the origins of Game. Game was (is) for getting laid, and along with that now comes a sort of stigma of the Player. It’s against the interests of the feminine imperative that a man might conceivably have some kind of secret, learned system that bypasses her (mythological) feminine intuitions and natural reservations. That’s a power that men have sought for millennia. Some might realize it to a degree through power, fame or fortune, but to distribute this figurative ability en masse would be a power shift that would put women at men’s mercy. With great power, should come great responsibility. This is the fear that Game represents to the feminine – even the concept of men ‘understanding’ women’s natures must necessarily be ridiculed and shamed even in the attempt. When women are knowable they lose the power of their only actionable agency over men.

Game has evolved into much more than just a set of replicable behaviors for PUAs to ply their craft and get laid. Somewhere along the way a man wondered why these behavior provoked the responses they do in women. What were the core elements that these behaviors and attitudes were operating on in women? Game is still about getting laid, but it’s progressed beyond just the practical. Game is really a catch-all term now for lack of a better one. It’s moved on to the theory, the principle and the psychology that makes us better Men, and makes women knowable. It’s very important that the vision you have of being a “better Man” originates with YOU, not with the idealisms of a plugged in moralist or women so fearful of your new awareness that they’ll make concerted efforts to supplant it with what makes you a better servant of their insecure imperative. Resist the idea of becoming a better Beta in girl-world and focus on being that Alpha Man as you define it.

It’s Their Game

george-3

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/why-do-girls-date/5154ae1878c90a511200016b

As glad as I am to see George from 3rd Millenium Man grab the manopshere colors and go to the front lines, I’ll admit I’m a little disappointed with this. Roosh has predicted 2013 will be the year the manosphere goes mainstream, but my concern is less about the exposure and more about the representation. The MSM is the feminine imperative.

I understand the host here is contracted to the Huff-Po so the context begins in terms of what entertains women’s need for indignation. No indignation, no audience. George is hamstrung from the outset: we have the ubiquitous 50+, “I’m ok with the beta provider I married after fucking my spell of bad boys and learned my lesson so you gals should learn from my mistakes” woman (aka the Aunt Giggles, Kay Hymowitz archetype). Next we have the prerequisite “clinical psychologist” who looks like one of the mothers on Dance Moms, and rattles off the feel good humanist psychology truisms clichéd in the 1990’s. After that we have Nathan the self-identified White Knight who’s only purpose is to bolster both women’s feeble positions to better identify with any woman in the hopes that she might be watching and, God willing, anonymously seek him out to potentially hook up with him for being such a team player.

That’s a tough cast to work with so I will commend George on his effort, however, his dropping the ball here is less about his grasp of red-pill wisdom (I know and read his blog regularly), and more about the context that the MSM will allow the manosphere to be represented in. Learn this now red-pill literati before you venture into the MSM – the feminine imperative will gladly make you the red meat for the indignation that sells their advertising to women.

As I said, Roosh predicts that the manosphere will surface in the MSM this year, and I will concur, the manosphere will come to the attention of the greater whole of western society, but don’t think for minute it will be for the positive. With any luck it will reach out to a few blue pill men ready to realize the truth, but my trepidation is about the overall image the manosphere will be molded to by the Feminine Imperative. Men are simply not allowed to have any legitimate insight into intergender dynamics – as I’m sure George is realizing now. In girl-world, women are the sole arbiters of relationship wisdoms – men are simply foils for their legitimacy, even in the best of pretenses.

I don’t write too much specifically about the manosphere with good reason – the ‘enlightenment’ is still evolving. As I’ve been quoted many times before, unplugging guys from the Matrix is dirty work. It’s triage, and the greater majority of men aren’t ready or even in a mental position to be unplugged when you’re in a personal, one-on-one context. So when you extrapolate that to a larger context it’s easy to see how the feminine imperative will readily use men’s default lack of legitimacy for its own purpose. The greatest Threat to the Feminine Imperative is men becoming self-aware of their own sexual market value and the dissemination of information about how the imperative uses this lack of awareness to perpetuate itself.

The first recourse to prevent this is male-specific ridicule and derision for even attempting to explain the social constructs of the feminine imperative.

In a large public forum like this Huff-Po video we don’t see the underlying feminine social urgency and anxiety about men becoming aware of the mechanisms of the feminine imperative because for decades women’s unknowability has become synonymous with the feminine mystique. So it’s made laughable by default that any man would have a legitimate understanding of women – they are just unknowable, so men’s perspectives and insight about the psychology of women starts from a position of ridicule, even when it patronizingly agrees with women’s perspectives.

But underneath the Dance Mom psychological snark, underneath the accusatory tones 50+ woman uses to burn interview time, underneath the attempts at hopeful beta white knight feminine identification, even in the overall context the host uses to broach the topic, red pill men can see the nervous tension of the possibility of the rational exposure of the underpinnings of the feminine imperative.

When you’re in an isolated social setting, it’s a dangerous topic to venture into – like religion or politics – but you can make an effort without too much social repercussion. You can speak red pill truth and endure the wrath of women (who’ll likely fuck you after the fact) and white knights, but you’ll make a point. You may even open the eyes of a few men. However, the larger, meta-scale feminine narrative will use and distort your red pill awareness to make advertisers rich.

Women sustain themselves on indignation and nothing stimulates that better than a man who publicly declares he knows how women think. The Atlantic has made a very profitable business model for a dying form of media based solely upon this feminine-satisfying indignation. This host, the Huff-Po, are simply following the model. So yes, Roosh is right, the manosphere will go mainstream this year, to the overwhelming adulation of the media that’s discovered this type of feminine imperative indignation is extremely profitable.

Show and Tell

*scroll slowly

 

Elle

Imagine you’re at a casual bar and grill. Not a club with pulsing music and overdone HB7’s, but a cool place to hang out and bullshit with friends. There’s a good bar, good food, maybe pool tables and you’re with your regular social circle, but there’s also other groups of people in their own social circles. Very casual, nothing pretentious, you’re in your element and open to the potential for meeting a new girl.

Then this girl is introduced to you by a mutual girl-friend:

girl_1a

Her name is Elle and she’s pretty down to earth, but has a “fun side” to her personality. She wants to shoot pool with you, and after a just a short while you number close closer her. After your 2nd date you f-close and wake up in the morning to what she looks like in a different environment:

girl_1b

Still, not bad. She looks good sans makeup, and helps you get past the morning breath. Minus the make up she loses maybe an SMV point.

Rilee

You meet Rilee at dance club while sarging with four of your boys. She’s hot – body’s tight, has a great smile, flirtatious and while she gives off IOIs you can read with ease you still need tight game since she’s an HB8.5 in a club full of mid 7’s:

Rilee1

Rilee also has a “fun side” but she’s more direct about it than sweet little Elle. While you don’t get a same night lay (SNL) you do get after it on your first ‘real date’. And in the morning you see the ‘real’ Rilee:

Rilee2

You’re beginning to wonder if she had a fake ID to get in the club, and now you’re on the hook for statutory rape. It’s all good though. Also not bad, but she loses maybe 1-2 points considering her first impression.

Zarina

You meet Zarina at local gig your friend’s band is playing at. She’s kind of a wild child, also has a “fun side”, but requires minimal game. Two hours after the show she’s dry humping you in the car. Logistics don’t work out for a SNL, but the Saturday night after the gig she’s riding you to glory:

Zarina1

Zarina doesn’t spend the night so you never get a look at her in the morning, but you happen to run into her coming out of the local Game Stop with the most recent version of Halo:

Zarina2

Woah,..if she hadn’t been wearing the same shirt she wore (briefly) on that Saturday you wouldn’t have know it was the same girl. This is easily a 2 point conversion.

Anikka

Anikka is a rare beauty you met in Estonia while you were writing pick-up guides for guys looking to get laid abroad. She was a difficult notch – no fast times at DC high with Anikka, you had to work your Game for every contingency with her. You learned her language just for the privilege to turn her out.

Anikka1

Your efforts would not go unrewarded, Anikka is indeed a rare talent and you discover her “fun side” after investing more game than you ever thought was within you. After a night of Retzina wine and unmatched sex you awaken to Anikka who has just hung up the phone with her mother after telling her of your impending wedding arrangements:

Anikka2

Yaaagh,..a solid 2-3 point drop!

If you’d like to learn about all these girl’s (and more) “fun side” head on over to this link.

Granted I’m having some much needed fun with this, but the grain of seriousness in it is understanding the bigger picture of how what our perceptions of women are when our familiarity with them isn’t what it was when you met them. Next to posts about the importance of men’s looks and what the definition of Alpha should be, defining what constitutes the qualities an HB9 should have is the most contentious. I’m not saying that (most) of these women are particularly homely sans makeup, but there is a marked drop in SMV potential.

I understand the “well duh? Rollo” factor here, but do you see the woman behind the foundation and mascara when you’re deciding whether she’s worth your tightest Game? Bear in mind, these women are porn stars, would you think they were capable of being so if you saw them with little or no make up eating a burrito supreme at Taco Bell?

Hail to the V

I’m not sure if Mark Minter had plans to submit his essay of a comment on Hypergamy Synthesis to Return of Kings or some other manosphere collective blog, but I felt it was too important a post to allow it to slip into the obscurity of a mere comment thread. Yes, it’s long, but it has to be and it’s well worth the read. Set aside half an hour to read it through in one go. It’s really not as cerebral as you might expect and very ‘illuminating’ to say the least.

In several posts and on various other blogger’s comment threads I’ve debated that the social paradigms of chivalry and feminism are cultural engineerings of the feminine imperative. I delved into the history of chivalry in The Feminine Imperative – Circa 1300 and made my best attempt to outline the history of chivalry, the feminine bastardization of it and how it was the cultural parallel and precursor to feminism. Naturally the more romantic leaning of my critics chose to keep their noses in their holy books and epic poems rather than take the time to consider the historical underpinnings of what we now consider chivalry and monogamous romantic love.

So it pleases me beyond what I think Mark will appreciate to have him provide such an in depth and insightful detailing of the history of courtly love and how it influences our social consciousness, our gender expectations, even the frustrations we experience in today’s gender landscape.

________________________________________________

I continue to explore the concepts of things I learned at this blog. I am bouncing around sporadically from idea to idea and am having trouble staying focused on any one idea. But I keep getting pulled as much as being due to any lack of mental discipline.

I was searching for a study about the lack of congruence and dissonance between physical indicators of arousal in women and their mental perception of arousal. The whole Testosterone thing drving women’s sexual choices.

I was actually searching for “Chimpanzee Porn” because the article I was looking for used it. The researcher had imposed the sound of Bobono monkeys over the visuals of Chimpanzees having sex because they were more “vocal” during sex and the researcher noted that women display measured physical arousal even though they didn’t recognize being aroused.

And one of links in the search phrase I was using came back with this imbedded in the text:

“Cultural historians believe that romantic love was created sometime in the 14th century”.

Google is the most wonderful thing ever created by men. How this linked got included with a search phrase on “Chimpanzee Porn” is a particularly unique result that would prove it relevant only to my particular “Googling” habits. But I guess Sergei felt I needed to see it. And I did.

OK, we moved down this line of thought at some point on Rational Male a few months ago in the discussion of the beginnings of “chivalry”, so I bit on the link that came up.

The link stated that the idea of “Romantic Love” was created by troubadours in verses by the idea of “Courtly Love” that arose in its beginnings the the end of the 12th century. So I started going back,back,back,back, back (-Chris Berman) and I found this:

http://kalpen.myweb.uga.edu/Capellanus.pdf

The book is important. The foreword by John Jay Perry was written in 1941. The title of this book is “The Art of Courtly Love” but it is actually a Victorian Era title imposed on the work that has several other different titles as a function of the era when the translation was performed, country where the translator lived, and particular social attitudes prevalent when and where the translator produced the translation. I think the “Romantic Era” was when these ideas of “courtly love” finally percolated up into mainstream thought, well, actually women’s mainstream thought, and defined love as we believe it be today, or at least defined it as women wish that definition to be imposed on men.

The title I generally use is “Treatise on Love”. Andreas Capellenus was the Chaplain of Countess Marie, and the preface goes into all of this history and I don’t want to get it into it. Read it.

It is the seminal work on the subject and there is no earlier work by a European. There is reference to Ibn Hazm, an Islamic writer from Spain, who began to define the idea of “love” in Islamic cultures. It went through a series of other writers in the 13th century and orally communicated through verse and song during the 14th century and made its way into the consciousness of western thought from the 14th century on.

The key thing is that these Troubadours were not some “traveling band” singing for their supper. Maybe later, but at this time, they were major nobles, from both the nobility and the higher noble classes. The first major one referenced was Duke William of Aquitaine, who was Marie’s grandfather. These were important people of the time. This would maybe be like, God forbid, Senator Harry Reid, breaking into a song after dinner about the importance of passing spending bills to ease the particular issues about the “sequester” that are key issues to Democrats or Ben Bernake letting loose about the Quantitative Easing. Ok, maybe not exactly.

The issue at the time, was that, as the historians state, that “Love as we know it did not exist. Marriage was as much as about land and politics as anything else”. It was said you “Married a fiefdom and a wife got thrown in the bargain”. Imagine a time where firelight and sunlight were practically the only light, when people rarely traveled more than 12 miles from their place of birth, when nothing, and I mean nothing, changed. The major cathedral built in Nimes took 38 generations to complete. The skyline never changed, towns remained the same. There were no books. None. All knowledge was conveyed orally and generally died with a person. The only cultural conditioning was what you got by watching the people you saw. And you saw very few people. Even at the peasant level, most marriages were the tossing together of two available young people, and that was that. But particularly at the noble level, all marriages were entirely based on practical considerations and nothing to do with “love” as we know it.

And the major church writers the time, just skewered women. The preface named several, and while I can’t find actual text of the writers specific to women, Bernard de Morlaix, John of Salisbury, I can find overall references to what they said about morality in general. They were a group that very much about self control. And it was thought that due to the “wickedness” of women, it was probably superior to remain a virgin. And thus the idea of the “celibate” priest was born. He could not be “godly”, and should be suspect, if he allowed himself to come under the temptation of women.These guys were definitely the “Red Pill” writers of the time. The general idea was not so much that sex was bad, but women were so bad, and sex was lure, the hook, so they damned sex as a means to keep men from getting ensnared in the traps and wickedness that women lay for men. And the thought has a little bit of merit, I must say.

So, think about this. The men in power at the time, saw some of the stuff we see, and they gave a huge “thumbs down” on women. Huge.

Now, heading into the second 500 years of Christianity, throw a “rubbing elbows” with Moslems in Spain, and this idea of “love” starts to percolate about, sort of this “counter-culture” idea of the time. It did not exist at all before in European culture, this idea of “soul mates” and “intertwined” spirits and “the ennobling qualities of love”, love as the be all and end all, the very reason to live.

And it was made up.

By women. Duh?

So there were moments, during this period 1170-1250 were in certain places the women got control. It the case of this Marie, she got control of this region “Troyes” in southern France when her son was named to be noble over the region and he was 11 years old. So she accompanied him down there and was the defacto “regent” during his “minority”. Her husband became King while she was down there. So this was a woman of major influence. And her sister was married to someone that also became King of someplace else. Their mother had been both Queen of France and then Queen of England after she divorced the King of France. This was a powerful woman who got what she wanted. And two of the chief architects of “love” were her two daughters, who married extremely high status men.

The same thing happened at the same time in about 3 other major places in the area, and these women, began to “flirt: with idea of “Courtly Love”. Flirt maybe is a little weak of word. But the general idea of most writers about the theme is that they “Proposed it as countervailing religion or thought to Christianity.” Christianity had so vilified women during the past 200 years, and this “love” stuff was really one of the first “feminisms”.

And near I am can tell, it was literally the birth of the Feminine Imperative. At least, the birth of the version that we know today.

The general idea was this.

“Women are the love. Women give praise to men and the power of that praise is the driving motivator of men. All good things that men do are only done in the true spirit of love to earn the right to the love that the woman confers to the men. Women define what is good. Women confer status on men by allowing them to receive the love they receive from women as a result of high character and accomplishment”.

Sound familiar.

So that was why some “Sir Goodguy” white knight would tie the scarf of the woman around his neck during some contest. It was his sign to her that he was doing this brave dead for her love and his recognition that she saw him as good and worthy.

They actually created these things called “The Court of Love”. And these men and women, and you can imagine the men in those courts were the 12th or 13th century equivalents of Manginas, would literally “rule” on love. They would debate questions, actions, and then determine is an act was good or bad and then that further defined “love”. Remember again, this was not idle chit chat after dinner. These were the major movers and shakers of the time. This was the court that would go on to exert cultural and intellectual control over Europe until 1914. And really even later than that. For nearly 1000 years, the French held sway in everything and Paris was the center of the world. Except at this time, this part of France, the south was the big deal.

One example I saw was letter written by a man that said, he and a woman were having heated discussion of two points, (1) Can true love exists in a marriage. (2) Can there be jealousy between the married partners. The Countess, the Queen of Love, at that time wrote back and said “No, love cannot exist in a marriage. Love is freely given and asks for nothing in return. Marriage is a contract of duties. So there is no love in a marriage. And Jealousy is a prerequisite of love and since only lovers could be jealous and since married people were not lovers, then their could be no jealousy in a marriage. ” And that was that. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Love had issued a ruling. And its weight was everything.

And needless to say, it was a mighty convenient development for women that were traded off into marriage as pawns attached to land. So it conferred the key power of social definition and the final say of what is good in men, and good in society, and that women should and will be the definers, and the arbiters, and the judges of all of that.

The translators, and this particular author John Jay Parry, mention that was nothing particularly distinguishing about Andreas Capellanus that would make it seem like he was the person to end up as this great literary figure that wrote a work that is “One of those capital works that explain the thought of a great epoch, which explain the secret of a civilization”. Parry said often, some of the prose was different in style and “meter”, such that it seemed “dictated” to him.

And frankly I am sure the whole book was “dictated” to him. That he was, in fact, as chaplain, the mouthpiece of these women, and his position as Chaplain allowed the viewpoints expressed to be accepted in a way that a work created and made public by women, given what it expresses, would have viewed more critically by readers. Keep in mind that it was written in Latin, and only those who were either Clerics or the nobility could read the thing. What wasn’t literally dictated, was more or less, transcribed thought, and he knew that Marie was final “editor” in the content. And his position, both as Chaplain, and his very livelihood, depending on her being happy with the finished product.

So let me make an analogy, and step just a little bit in time. Things are little muddled today cultural to make a similar one from a very current example.

Consider Hugh Hefner. And consider his show called Playboy After Dark. This was a time of much “friction”, the early 60s. Civil rights and racism are extreme issues. Sexual “freedom” is coming about. The “rights” of just about everyone are much talked about. The setting which was sort of this contrived “salon” from Paris. The set looked like a large living room in a swanky spiffy Playboy bachelor pad. All these “cool”, meaning avante guarde, “open minded”, intellectually superior, artistically superior, liberal people are just hanging out, having a spiffy party. Hef does more for civil rights in a minute than 50 writers do in 10 years by having Sammy Davis Jr on the show. Hef did more for women’s liberation by having a “guest” on the show to talk about it and the camera sees Hef nodding approval, than 50 screeching female professors could ever do.

So then that “cool” boy, that wants to be like Hef, all through the 60s and the 70s, the “cool boy” believes in Equal Rights, Racism, Feminism and this idea of “gender” and “race” being a culturally imposed concept. And that “cool” boy does it exactly because it is “artistically and culturally superior” than the conservative ideas of the time. So then imagine how pervasive both of those viewpoints on Racism and Sexism are today and how “religious” both have become in such a short time, historically. All of us have experienced the reaction of people to our Red Pill beliefs that border on religious arguments. And some of the biggest fighters of what we propose are men. So a philosophy can quickly move from the fringe and become core if the “right” people get behind it and push it.

So then imagine the same thing back in 1200, the “cool” boy, the son of the nobles, that reads latin, has a little bit of education, he thinks the Catholic church is a bunch of sticks in the mud. He is literally built, wired, for sex, to want women. And this idea of “love” makes absolute sense to him, or at least he wants it to make sense, because the top of line, highest status women, those noble women in that area between Barcelona and maybe, Bologna, were all giving approval to those men that bought into it. So by saying “I believe in Love” or “I am in Love’s army”, or “I am a soldier of love”, what he is saying is “I’m cool, man. Please like me.”

And just like today, any guy that goes against Feminism or attacks the behavior of women is shunned. I hurl some attack on women in comments to an article, and some woman comes back with “Oh, I be you just get you tons”. So in 1200, It is “No ‘Love”, then no ‘love’”, you were ostracized by women, at least the cool French Chicks who were the celebs of the day.

And so it takes hold, and as Feminism has co-opted the church, today’s women have imposed their viewpoint on church acceptance of divorce, premarital sex, with the whole idea of the “magic vagina” of women compelling those men into better behavior and better performance, and the woman has the right and the duty to punish him for failure to live up to the love that the woman has given him as a gift that he must continue to earn, the same thing happens with “love”. It co-opts the Catholic church of the day, and throughout the 13th and 14th centuries, “love” creeps into the morality and consciousness of the people at the time. The “love” thing is dominating the “court” and is leaks into the church in the relationship of accomplices that they first and second estate have which each other. It catches on and becomes the dominant aspect of the culture and women are “rehabilited”, seize control, and never let go. They have the “authority” because they have the “morality”, and they drive the course of society by controlling what is “moral” and what is “honorable”. And what constitutes both, from that point forward, are generally what is in the best interest of women, given their situation, given the time.

So why is this important to us?

First, the whole idea of “Courtly Love” was entirely hypergamistic. Entirely. The Capellanus book has as the heart of the second part, 9 dialogues. These dialogues define the Feminine Imperative.

Keep in mind, at this time, there might have been maybe 500 books floating around in total. And this is the only one on this topic available for a 100 years. The only other referenced work before this was Ovid “The Art of Love” and most scholars really see Ovid as more of a satire on the “treatises” written during his day, and not as a REFERENCE MANUAL that people today, including myself (pre-Red Pill) , see it.

I took it as “how to” book. And what it should be titled is “How to be a AFC Beta”. Also keep in mind that books were so rare, that everything thing was relayed as an oral tradition. Even as late at 1513, Luther said he had been a priest for 3 years before he ever even saw a Bible. And that’s the effing bible.

So here you are somewhere in 1200, and this major Noble dude guy, or high status babe, gets up and starts talking or singing about this new “love” thing, and everyone is nodding and agreeing. And if they don’t nod and agree, then they don’t get to be in the group, they’re fired. The High Status women turn on them, and they are ostracized.

So in the 9 dialogues, there are a series of conversations that men of one of three statuses would have with a women of one of the same three statuses. Those statuses being “commoner, noble, high noble”. And these dialogues set the ground work, the rules, of what both men and women of all three classes should, do, feel, and think about “love”. And “love” is only between those classes. Peasants don’t love. They need to stay on the farm and work it. They have no time for “love”. And love is only between people that aren’t married.

And there you go right there, with anachronistic thought. You probably thought, single people. No. Single people weren’t dating and marrying. No way. That was decided by someone else. You were probably going to be part of some arranged marriage. “Love” was between married people, at least married women and a man, but not married to each other. You can already see the way hypergamy is influencing the idea of “love”. Girl gets pawned off as a 14 year old or 15 year old as part of some arrangement between older family members. She probably didn’t like her husband very much, given what we know about women today. And he probably didn’t like her much either. I am sure there were just as many men when they first saw there “betrothed” thought, “Oh fuck, you have got to be shitting me. I have to marry this bitch?”

And in these dialogues, pure hypergamy is enforced and codified. The dialogues enforced class, at least enforced it for men. Men could try and love “up”, but most likely they couldn’t unless they displayed such extreme good character that their character was better than all of the available men in the class of the woman he was “hitting on”. But it also set a nice set of rules for women “move up”. But the women were the ones, in every case, to judge the men, the determine that even though the women were “moving” up, they still were to ones to say “OK, I’ll take you You are worthy of my love”.

And then it also codified acceptance for women to be able to “cheat” on their husbands. “Courtly Love” was only between people that were not married. They got around the 10 commandments, by stipulating that the true lover never asks for sex in return for his love. He loves merely for the purity of his love. And that the whole endeavor was supposed to remain entirely secret. That if it became public, then the “love” was dead. Over. At best he got a kiss, maybe an embrace. Gentlemen in the army of “love” never tell. And Gentlemen never demand sex. Which of course, all of this was bullshit. But since “Courtly Love” was “love” for “love”‘s sake then those husbands couldn’t get jealous, and nobody loves their husband anyway. So it gave a socially acceptable way for this woman that had this beta forced on her by marriage, then get out their and have exposure to the alphas that she truly wanted. And it gave her a social means to circumvent the church. And since everyone, at least everyone who mattered, was married to someone they didn’t like, then it was an early version of “Don’t ask; don’t tell”.

This also forms the basis of monogamy, as we know it, codified by women, in that the definition of it truly benefits women. “The true lover that truly loves only loves the one. He cannot love two. The sight of other women do not affect him because he has true love for his true love.” Notice that there are a lot of “he” and ‘his” words used. The book asserts that those men that would want sex with lots of women and have passion for someone other than “the one” under the guise of love is an an “ass”, mule, dressed up in the finest livery, but still an “ass”.

Schopenhauer said “Love! If you would have thought it up, your fellows would have thought you daft. The mere idea that because a woman allows you her favors, that you should support her for life.”

Well, it was thought up, by these women in the south of France, and it curled around and snaked its way into the current consciousness of people like it was something that people have done since the dawn of men. And it wasn’t.

When you read Capellanus’ statement of what “love” is, it is the seminal definition, the very “jump street”, the Genesis of the codification of “OneItis”. And when you read the dialogues, and then this list of the “Rules of Love” which is the part of the book that is most public, you see the fingerprint of the Feminine Imperative.

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/rules_of_love.html

I think at some point in my reading, someone had described Capellanus as being very “Copernican”,as in Copernicus, and astrology, threatening the religion and the concept of the world.

I say we use him again in a Copernican manner, as the very argument that the Feminine Imperative is an entirely contrived ideal.

And we reject “love”, as in the definition of it by Capellanus. We see it as the social manipulation that it was to orchestrate the emotions of men, and actions from those emotions, entirely for the benefit of women.

Churchill said “In England, it is permitted unless it is not permitted. In Germany, it is permitted only if it is permitted. In Russia, it is not permitted even if it is permitted. And in France, it is permitted, even when it is not permitted.”

To some degree that combination of all four “permitteds” describes the Feminine Imperative. It is permitted when they want it to be permitted and not permitted when they do not. Even if it is not permitted then it is permitted, if it is in the benefit of women. And especially, it is not permitted even when it is permitted, in the case where it might benefit men at the expense of women.

They only way to put a brunt on the Feminine Imperative is make them pay a cost for their behavior. And the best way for men to do that is the rejection of “love”.

In the words of YaReally, “The manosphere is the new counter-culture”.

We are the new “cool boys”. We are the new “rebels”.

And you need to read Capellanus, and as you read it, to see the manipulation in the pages. Maybe it was adopted because it had social value to blunt the negative behavior or the men of the time and turn it in a constructive direction.

But today it is only something that is used to provide advantage for women. And that advantage is often used at the expense of men, and furthermore, for the punishment of men, the social shaming of men, when women deem the men’s behavior or actions to be at the detriment of women. And they are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner of their verdict. And no one ever challenges them.

And we begin by rejecting unilaterally, out of hand, “love” for the pack of lies it is.

So I say we use our position as influence peddlers, taste makers, of our day and time, and shame men, Mangina men, and White Knights as fools; toadies for women and their “love”. And make no mistake, that whole White Knight shit comes exactly from this book. We all should read “Treatise on Love”, deconstruct it, and expose it for the bullshit sham it is.

I have ranted this in the past. It is time for men to gain an entirely new consciousness, a new awareness, a entirely new set of constructivism abstracts on which to frame their thinking.

The constant whine, complaint, criticism of the manosphere is that is attacks “love”, it makes “love” impossible, it kills “love”.

And I say, no it doesn’t. It exposes the reality of the impossibility of “love” because “love” is entirely a manufactured ideal. And modern Feminism has brought about the recognition of the impossibility of it and rubbed it in the face of men. If you pine for it, it you whine about it, the end of it, the lack of it, then you deny the truth of it.

Modern life is entirely developed as a means to blunt the natural advantages that men have. This “love” is a further handicap, a weight on your shoulders, that limits your ability to use your advantage, physically, mentally, by women exploiting the emotional advantage that women have over men. She only has this advantage if you allow her to have it.

So discard it. It is religion in you that does not work to your advantage.

So yes, “They have a right to do anything that we can’t stop them from doing”.

But we have the capacity and the ability to make them pay for it.

In the end, and my life right now is living proof of this, they need us more than we need them. We want them; they need us. And the things that most women want, they get from us. And without the handicap of “love”, you can make them pay, and pay, and pay, until they fucking cry uncle.

Hypergamy Synthesis

synthesis

After last week’s essay on the idealistic nature of the Quality Woman I had an interesting question arise:

Rollo,

I know you like to divorce humanistic and moralistic variables as much as possible from your blog and I understand why. I would like you to explain this point:

“There would be a contingent of moral absolutists who would declare that it’s men, by virtue of their great moral self-awareness and thus responsibility, who need to enforce controls over the socially destructive nature of hypergamy. Ironically this moral impetus is yet one more control itself to ensure hypergamy works to the benefit of those who subscribe to their moral absolutism.”

I understand you say that hypergamy doesn’t care about moral imperatives but how would the attempt of men to enforce controls over it (which I’m not sure is entirely possible) backfire on those men?

As is my standing rule, I strive for a separation of moralism and rationality on this blog, up to the point where the topic crosses over into a better rational understanding of a particular dynamic by addressing the moral element of it – this is one such an occasion.

What I’m saying is that, in the context of hypergamy, moral absolutism, religiosity, secular appeals to ‘higher self’ ideals,..hell, even white knightery, are all founded in a desire to control hypergamy to better fit their subscriber’s perceived strengths and weaknesses in coping with hypergamy.

I’ve written in several blog posts about how the feminine imperative would ideally strive for a set of controlled environmental conditions that favor’s women’s capacity to optimally satisfy their hypergamic natures (i.e. feminism, feminine-bastardized chivalry, etc). As impossible as this is in a long term sense, the feminine will exhaustively construct social dynamics it thinks change the ‘rules’ to favor hypergamy – lowering the basket to better play the game, etc.

Men given to moral absolute ideals, like blue pill men still plugged in, do something similar in their own mindset, and just like the feminine imperative, find themselves equally disappointed when the Rules don’t change to meet their capacity to play the game. They’ll disqualify women from their definition of ‘quality’ in the same fashion women will disqualify men as ‘misogynists’ when either refuse, deliberately or indifferently, to comply with what their ideal conditions predispose their beliefs for.

Hypergamy isn’t going to change, so if a moralist or a feminist wants to minimize or maximize hypergamy to their benefit, social and psychological schemas need to develop around what serves either the best. This is exactly why white knight beta chumps seek to define what the essence of Alpha should be in terms that best describes themselves. They seek to control hypergamy by redefining hypergamy’s ideal to fit their own description – likewise fem-centrism will seek to redefine masculinity to better fit a hypergamous ideal (Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks in the same, or in two distinct, definitions of a man).

Conditionally necessitous women will seek to redefine for men what men ‘should’ want in an ideal partner by defining female desirability as it pertains to themselves. Thus we get fat acceptance and a refocusing of women’s intrinsic qualities as what men should prefer rather than the male-hypergamic impulse of men to be aroused by women’s physical appeal.

Control and Synthesis

Now, all of that isn’t an indictment of multiple millennias of human social progress, but rather it’s to reveal the base motivator of that progress.

One of the main issues I see for both genders coming to terms with the reality of Hypergamy is this want for applying humanistic / moral variables into the resolution of hypergamic problems.

In other words, hypergamy doesn’t care about your moral imperatives – it exists with equal efficiency both within and without a moral context.

Hypergamy has been a very uncomfortable truth of human existence since long before we had a formal name for the dynamic. Every inter-gender social convention in human history has been an attempt to either marginalize its influence, or in the case of women, misdirect men from the truth of how their hypergamy, directly or indirectly, compels their most intimate decisions. So pervasive is hypergamy that it had to be evolutionarily sublimated into our subconscious/preconscious minds. The conceptual awareness of hypergamy was so disturbing to the human condition that, in our evolved past, humanity literally selected-for people with the ability to psychologically repress the awareness of it. Thus you get dynamics like the War Brides phenomenon, and while moralistically it’s pretty fucked up, both the men and women who benefit from it simply shrug their shoulders and say everything from “it is what it is” to “it all worked out for God’s glory.”

Our concepts of romance, tenets of religion, even our innate understanding of gender differences, are all manifestations that reflect the human want to anthropomorphize and exercise control over hypergamy. We want to believe our ‘higher’ selves can rise above the physical demands of hypergamy only to have those moral idealizations reflect hypergamy within that idealized context.

Quality Women

quality_women

Reader Coy expressed a need for illumination on the myth of the Quality woman:

Rollo,
I would really appreciate your thoughts on “the quality woman”. You have touched on the phenomena in many of your previous posts but i really feel my self subconsciously slipping into that binary circle jerk of madonna/whore . A dedicated post would be nice.

I briefly touched on this in AFC Social Conventions:

The Myth of the “Quality” Woman

It seems like all I read about on SoSuave these days is a never ending quest for a “Quality Woman.” There’s threads asking for clear definitions of what constitutes a “Quality” woman and others that conveniently set women up into 2 camps – Quality women and Hors, as if there were no middle ground. How easy it becomes to qualify a woman based on her indiscrretions (as heinous as they’re perceived to be) for either of these catagories. This is binary thinking at its best – on or off, black or white, Quality woman or Hor.

I think the term ‘Quality’ woman is a misnomer. Guys tend to apply this term at their leisure not so much to define what they’d like in a woman (which is actually an idealization), but rather to exclude women with whom they’d really had no chance with in the first place as an ego-preservation method, or mistakenly applied too much effort and too much focus to only to be rebuffed. This isn’t to say that there aren’t women who will behvae maliciously or indiscriminately, nor am I implying that they ought to be excused out of hand for such. What I am saying is that it’s very AFC to hold women up to preconceived idealizations and conveniently discount them as being less than “Quality” when you’re unable to predict, much less control their behaviors.

The dangers inherent in this convention is that the AFC (or the DJ subscribing to the convention) then limits himself to only what he perceives as a Quality woman, based on a sour-grapes conditioning. Ergo, they’ll end up with a “Quality” woman by default because she’s the only candidate who would accept him for her intimacy. It becomes a self-fulfiling prophecy by process of elmination. Taken to its logical conclusion, they shoot the arrow, paint the target around it and call it a bullseye, and after which they’ll feel good for having held to a (misguided) conviction.

So why is this a social convention then? Because it is socially unassailable. Since this convention is rooted to a binary premise, no one would likely challenge it. It would be foolish for me to say “Yes Mr. DJ I think you ought to avoid what you think of as Quality women.” Not only this, but we all get a certain satisfaction from the affirmation that comes from other men confirming our own assessment of what catagory a woman should fit into. Thus it becomes socially reinforced.

Be careful of making a Quality woman your substitute for a ONEitis idealization.

Back when he had a terrestrial radio show Tom Leykis did a topic about this: He had everyday women call in and tell their stories of how they used to be sexually (i.e. slutty) and how they are now. He came up with this after driving past a grade school on his way to the studio and seeing all of the women there waiting for their kids to come out and wondered about what their lives used to be like in their childless 20s. This was a wildly popular topic and the confessions just poured in like all of these women had been waiting for years to come clean anonymously about the sexual past that their husbands would never dream they were capable of. Each of these women sounded proud of themselves, almost nostalgic, as if they were some kind of past accomplishments.

This is why I laugh at the concept of the Quality woman. Don’t misinterpret that as a “women = shit” binary opinion. I mean it in the sense that most guy’s concept of a quality woman is an unrealistic idealization. There’s not a guy in the world who committed to monogamy with a woman who didn’t think she was ‘quality’ when he was with her. Even if she was a clinical neurotic before he hooked up with her, she’s still got “other redeeming qualities” that make her worth the effort. It’s only afterwards when the world he built up around her idealization comes crashing down in flames that she “really wasn’t a Quality Woman.”

Force Fit

The Quality Woman is defined by how well she fits a man’s conditioned ideal. Good Luck Chuck lamented in last week’s Hyenas that after a certain age all women are Alpha Widows, or, progressively lose the idealization of embodying the Quality Woman. While I understand the frustration, there’s an eerily similar tone that men use when they bemoan the lack of Quality Women in the world that echoes women’s when they ask “what happened to all the real men?” The only difference being that in girl-world a woman is entitled to a real man irrespective of her own quality, while a man is less of a Man for his complaints of her lacking those qualities.

I don’t envy the situation monogamy minded men in this era find themselves in. As we become a more and more connected society the indiscretions of a woman’s past will become increasingly more difficult to hide, much less temper. Whereas before, unless a woman had worked in porn, documenting her sexual and/or intimate past may have been an effort best reserved for private investigators. Now it’s as easy as reading her social media footprint archived for all to read.

This is tough on a guy sold on idealistic notions that his virgin bride is awaiting him somewhere in the world. That may be a bit binary for all but the most white knight of guys, but by order of degree, and with a measured prudence, I think it’s important for men to disabuse themselves of finding the virgin slut, who’ll only be his virgin slut.

And while I would never advocate a guy to hurry up and marry those sluts, the problem with this idealization is that men want to force fit the woman who most closely resembles his Quality Woman into that fantasy role. It becomes a psychological feedback loop – connect with a “Quality Woman”, discover her flaws, personal conditions and the decisions she made that resulted in them, then (after attempts at rationalizing them himself) disqualify her from the Quality Woman designation. The cycle comes full circle when her disqualification as a Quality Woman sets the environment for finding his next ‘jewel in the rough’.

The bad news and the good news of this is that, as connectivity and communication among men increases, so too do they realize that the Quality Woman is an impossibility even for the most gracious of women. Thanks to the rise of the manosphere we have a global consortium of men exchanging their individual experiences with women to compare and contrast with their own. The good part is it’s easy to generate a list of red flags to watch out for or read about the consequences men have suffered as a result of their blue pill existences. The bad part is that with that greater understanding comes the realization that even the best of women are still subject to hypergamy, the feminine imperative and the fem-centric environment they find themselves in.

A little bit of knowledge is sometimes dangerous – after a lot of this realization and the discernement that comes from it men are likely to have a very long list of prerequisites and red flags develop. I’m not saying men should surrender to the inevitability of marrying some raging former slut, but I am saying that an important part of unplugging oneself from the Matrix is letting go of the idealization of the Quality Woman. There are a lot of caring and nurturing former sluts, and there are pristine and chaste women only lacking the proper motivation to move them in a direction no one would ever expect of them.