Pushing Forwards Back

 

 

Recently I’ve been sifting through the comments at the Chateau and some other blogs regarding the Kristen Stewart dust up about her “infidelity” with Rob Pattinson in favor of a married, 41 y.o. movie director. The PMs barraged my inbox for a week. Alright, alright, you got me, I’ll give you my take,..

I was loathe to even broach the topic considering the yeasty pop-culture discharge that Twilight-Moms are rutting in after this “devastating bombshell shocker!” 12 dead in an Aurora theater? That’s terrible, but a 22 year old HB 6 cheating on Edward for an older established movie director? That’s fucking news. Once women make an emotional connection with a narrative, it’s a very tall order to get women to make the separation of fantasy from reality.

Needless to say, I’m hearing the manufactured indignation in real life. It’s spreading amongst social circles, on talk radio topics – even my daughter’s 14 y.o. friends are dropping their 2¢ about how worldly and knowledgable they are as to why ‘Bella’ would cheat on ‘Edward’. As I wrote in Indignation, from a very early age girls / women have a psychological need for something beyond the mundane life that their security need drives them to. Kristen Stewart is an excellent example of this conflict because she represents a strata of woman who, minus her celebrity, is very mundane herself. Put her in an evening dress and maybe she cleans up to an HB7 on the Tomassi scale. She’s not a stunner, but then, that’s why she’s the perfect Lego brick to play Bella; socccer moms and tweens can see past her as a place holder into which they can cast themselves in her role.

But hypergamy doesn’t care about the social conventions and ‘IRL’ romantic expectations of Twilightees. Hypergamy demands optimization in terms of excitement, long-term security and Alpha dominance relative to a woman’s capacity and opportunity to maximize them all.

Lost in the midst of all this we have 26 year old Edward Rob Pattinson experiencing his WTF? moment. While he’s ostensibly a good looking guy and a Contextual Alpha, the lesson to be learned here is one which may confuse red-pill noobs. Why the fuck would Stewart ‘cheat’ on a guy who’s adored and desired by millions of women? Because hypergamy doesn’t care.

When a woman’s self-perceived SMV exceeds the degree to which she perceives is the SMV of the man she’s with, this is the point at which she will seek out (or be open to the advances of) an Alpha she believes exceeds her own SMV.

If that sounds counterproductive, just remember this dynamic relies primarily upon a woman’s self-perceptions and is predicated upon her acknowledging the phase of life in which she finds herself in according to the SMP. In the age of social media, women now have an ubiquitous source of ego inflation available to them like never before. This contributes to women’s overblown sense of worth and entitlement in a way society has never experienced.

Going Feral

The Kristen Stewart affair is really an illustration of a much broader dynamic however. Recently on the SoSuave forum member Backbreaker related a story about a friend who’d gone through much of the same thing (albeit to a more mundane degree) poor Rob Pattinson has just experienced. The thread is extremely long and well debated, but the plot summary is really one of an unfortunate guy on the receiving end of his girlfriend’s hypergamic optimization. His friend was traded for another, better option. From a life perspective, he’d failed to keep pace with this girl’s hypergamic imperative and was thus selected-out by it.

As I wrote in Navigating the SMP there is a particular window of opportunity for women whilst in their prime SMV years (22-24) that less and less women want to consciously recognize – or at least they aren’t encouraged to recognize thanks to feminized social conventions, and the ego-fuel of social media. Precious few women are self-aware of the hypergamic impulses their subconscious is driven by, and thus their behaviors are manifestations of.

When women get to be 25-29 there is a limbic, subliminal understanding that her window of hypergamic opportunity is closing. A woman’s hindbrain knows on an animalistic level that her period of maximally optimizing her hypergamy is closing, thus the motivation to pair off monogamously with the best provisioning male begins to take priority over fucking the best genetic (most sexually arousing) males she was happy to pair off with in her prime (22-24).

In Backbreaker’s, our subject woman is merely a common illustration of this process. So, in this respect, and strictly for purpose of example, I can understand Backbreaker’s line of reasoning. Young men need to be aware of the ruthlessness and callousness of this feral, evolutionary process. As a Man, you do in fact need to keep pace with the hypergamic imperative that WILL rear its ugly head when the moment and opportunity of a better hypergamic prospect present itself. Sometimes, even a woman’s perceptual prospect of a better optimized hypergamy is enough to set the process in motion. A woman’s hypergamic urgency declines as she comes to accept her diminished capacity to optimize hypergamy, but as a Man, the need to prove yourself will always be an aspect of your relationship with a woman.

If there’s fault to be found it’s not in women’s seeming duplicity about her ‘feelings’ versus her hypergamy-motivated actions; the real fault is in young Men believing in pollyanna fantasies about true love, soul-mates and feminized romance porn in favor of the harsh realities of hypergamy.

Ethical wonks will want to have their say, “She’s a slut! She’s a hypocrite! Perfidious woman! Have you no honor? Men are made of different stuff, we’re the moral cement that holds society together, unlike you amoral weaklings.” No one gets mad when wolves on the tundra tear the throat from a caribou. No one calls them evil for messily devouring the carcass; they’re just doing what nature has embedded into their instincts to do.

“But human’s aren’t wolves Rollo, we have freewill, you wouldn’t understand because you’re not as morally attuned as I am.”

Yes, human’s aren’t wolves, and we do in fact exercise a great measure of freewill, but for all of that, presumptively righteous, self-guided refusal of determinism we are still subject to the same feral instincts. Our natural state is not one of self-control, so why are we shocked at the environment that sets the frame for us to even have any concept of what control even means? Evo-psych, hypergamy, natural instinct isn’t deterministic, it is probablistic.

We ignore at our peril the evolutionary results that directed us to the conditions we find ourselves in. When it doesn’t serve our purpose we call it weakness or moral turpitude; but when it does, that feral energy, that righteous anger, that sweaty bloodlust we evolved in the wilderness so long ago that helped us run down a caribou ourselves, that instinct we call courage or determination and we put angels wings on it in appreciation.

Backbreaker took a lot of heat for his assessment of his friend’s ‘progress’ in life. The title of the thread, “If you aren’t going forward, you are going backwards” set the tone for the discussion. In a sense he faults his friend for the demise of his relationship due to his lack of progress or ambition, but this doesn’t come from malice or ill intent. Rather he uses the scenario (not unlike the Stewart affair) to make the point that a Man must continually grow and become more than he is in order to survive and thrive. The distinction that men need to make is the difference between success motivated by the need for pussy, and an abundance of pussy that is the by-product of a man’s success.

Hypergamy doesn’t care about your moral interpretations. Hypergamy doesn’t care about your personal motivations to achieve and become more than you started with, it only cares about what you are. If that makes you feel slighted or morally indignant, go read War Brides. Yeah, that’s some really fucked up hypergamy right there, but the question isn’t whether it’s moral or not, the question is ‘what do you plan to do about it?’

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 Meaning of Sacrifice

Take a deep breath and check your heart-rate before you hit play gentlemen (and ladies), you’re in for a ride.  In general I don’t necessarily promote nor disparage the MRA movement, but after watching this video I can better understand the contempt behind the groundswell. However, my point in posting this wasn’t to trigger any MRA outrage (The Spearhead and A Voice for Men has that covered), rather it was prompted by Rational Reader Dan’s comment in my 16 Years On post:

Rollo, you mention that men make a sacrifice of their desire for sexual variety and their sex life in general, when he marries.

But you are forgetting that for many men, marriage *is* the only or most feasible way to have a regular sex life. one-night-stands, flings, FWB’s, casual relationships – these are not for every guy. Most men dont get the opportunity to be promiscuous. Most men are simply not built for the going out in the jungle and hunting…physically or mentally.

I dont want marriage. I dont even want a committed relationship at this stage But I feel compelled to consider commitment and marriage because of my sexual / intimate needs. I am sure many mediocre young men are in the same boat as me. But you havent considered them here. You’re talking from the perspective of a man who is atleast relatively attractive and can sexually attract women with reasonable ease.

Forgive me Dan, I’m not trying to run you up the flagpole here. My assumption is that Dan hasn’t read Appreciation or Women In Love in their entirety. There’s much more to men’s sacrifices than just a trade off between a regular piece of ass and the potential for more varied sexual experiences. The predictable, feminized reflexive response is to presume that men would fixate on how their sacrifices would impact their sexual strategies, but sexual opportunism is only a single sacrifice among many. The feminine imperative would like nothing better than to have both men and women presume that men’s only concern is about the legs that might have been spread for them had they not opted for marriage, but there’s a lot more to men’s sacrifices.

As illustrated in this video, career, relationships, family, education, and the overarching threat of losing all of his investments in a no-fault divorce are all very real risks men tend not to consider and women would rather they not. A lot of men lament losing half (or more) of their financial assets, but what gets lost in that is the personal investments necessary to establish those assets. Those investments required a sacrifice of time, effort, emotion, determination, etc. and all whilst maintaining an intimate relationship with a woman who cannot appreciate in-full the totality of those sacrifices – because she never experienced them from a male perspective. Men’s sacrifices are only appreciated through the filter of women’s expectations and perceived benefit.

At 46 years old, I have no doubt that Charles Bruce had well over half a lifetime of personal investment into himself, his wife, their family and extended families. For most Men, and manosphere readers in particular, the initial response to Mr. Bruce’s dilemma is one of (understandable) blind rage at the feminized system. As hard as it is, I’m going to ask that readers look past this anger and see the conditions, investments and sacrifices Bruce made that makes his story so tragic.

BRIFFAULT’S LAW

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

In other words, hypergamy doesn’t care about Relational Equity. It’s one set of conditions to consider this in terms of how your girlfriend might’ve cheated on you in spite of all your best efforts to invest in your relationship and play by the “rules”, but it’s entirely another when you consider fallacy of Relational Equity in terms of a life long, expected, entitled, commitment. Charles Bruce is on the sharp end of women’s inability to appreciate men’s sacrifices.

If you’ve ever wonder why no male hormonal contraceptive has ever been developed or marketed since the sexual revolution, look no further than Briffault’s Law. For all the bleating about equalism and gender equality of the past 60 years, women have effectively organized and fought like cornered animals to keep the power of controlling the family unit out of the hands of men.

I’ve read studies documenting men’s most productive, creative, endeavors being attempted and/or achieved in the years before they married; innovations, academic degrees, scientific discoveries, great masterpieces of art. etc. Then, a precipitous drop off in what we are meant to assume is ambition and motivation occurs after marriage. Roissy has more than a few links to these articles, but my impression of these studies is less about the neutering effects of marriage (i.e. the responsibilities of settling down) and more about the lack of opportunity inherent in maintaining a committed monogamy and addressing the sacrifices a man must make to advance his interests. Missing opportunities to get laid with new and varied women pales in life-importance when you consider the sacrifices a man makes in having to turn down opportunities that would advance his (and possibly society’s) better interest. Women are the Dream Killers because they cannot appreciate men’s sacrifices.

This is an interesting quote from a man citing Briffaults Law:

“Men love women, but I truly believe that women are incapable of what we men call love. “Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends.” How many women are willing to die for their husbands, friends, country, or comrades in arms? Damn few, if any.

Yet it is commonly expected of men (made compulsory under certain circumstances). How many men continue on in their marriages, supporting their family and their wife, while the wife is making their life a living hell? Far too many. How many men choose their wives over their parents and siblings? Most.

Women do not behave like this. Men take out large insurance policies so their wives and children will be well taken care of should they die. Even if the wife is making (nearly) as much money as the husband, she will not have insurance. She sees no reason to reduce her current ability to spend to take care of others after she is dead. She could care less what happens to the husband, and doesn’t want the husband to be able to spend money on some young bimbo, after she dies. The life insurance gender statistics are well known, and widely available. None of this should be a shocking revelation. When my second wife died, her mandatory insurance (free) provided by her teacher’s union covered her funeral expenses. It would have made life much easier if her insurance had paid the over $350,000 my life insurance would have paid.

When does the expectation of mutual benefit in marriage go seriously wrong in the west? It goes wrong as soon as the “I Dos” are said, or very shortly thereafter. Why is this so? Because you, the man have just entered into a contract with the state where you have promised that you will provide everything to your bride, and where the bride has promised nothing. By the way, the full weight of the law and public opinion will support her stripping you of every thing you have, including your children, and most of what you will ever make in the future, when (not if) she decides to dump you.

Hence, once you enter into the contract you have nothing left to offer her. Everything you have, or will have, is already hers.

Seem like a harsh statement? I thought so too, the first time I heard it, during an argument with my first wife towards the end of our marriage. She asked me the eternal female question, “What do you do for me?” (i.e. what benefit do I get from associating with you?) I responded, “I pay all your expenses. I feed, clothe, and house you. And, I am paying for your college tuition.” She told me that all the money I earned was her money and that if she let me have any of it that was pure charity on her part, so I was doing nothing for her. I thought this was unduly harsh.

The divorce courts showed me that it was pretty much just a statement of fact. The wife has it all, and can make her part of the marriage contract, the portion where she is to provide you with companionship, comfort, loyalty, sex, etc., null and void at any time while keeping everything you have/had/will ever have. She has no need to associate with you further once you are married.

To be a married man entais a sacrifice of such utter powerlessness, on so many levels, that no woman will ever comprehend, much less appreciate.

Flashes of Alpha

I was about 26 when I was in the waning days of dealing with the neurotic hell that was the BPD woman I had become psychologically ensnared with for almost 3 years at that time. I was sitting in her dorm room wondering just what the hell had happened to the sexualized, happy, and indifferent Alpha junior-rockstar I had been just a few years prior. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I’d gone from idealistic teenager, to organic Alpha, to a defeated, needy beta on a dangerously close slide into omega-tude. Some part of me knew what I needed to do, and as my living situation gradually began to deteriorate the very real prospect of cutting myself loose from who I believed was my “soul mate” only made my depression worse. However, that same part of me was also pissed off.

That relationship was defined by my sickly childish beta mentality combined with the insane co-dependent ravings of a psychotically jealous BPD girl. For her, my character was to be beta, so on the rare occasion I had the temerity to actually get pissed off it was a real call for alarm with her. For a brief moment I had flashed Alpha and that was always a shock since it was so out of character. From the time I was 17 until I was 24 that Alpha was who I was in a more or less natural sense, but after years of my BPD’s constant barrage of insecurity, and my endless attempts to ‘perfect myself’ in order to cure her neurotic jealousy, I was apologetic for any outburst of Alpha no matter how just and righteous my reasons for being so were.

Roissy and a few other manosphere notables have written about how flashes of anger and semi-justifiable bouts of indignation can be a powerful form of demonstrating higher value (DHV). Sometimes these burst are in fact genuine and/or unprompted responses to a situation. These Flashes of Alpha serve as source of stimulus, a shock, to a woman’s regulated, routine perceptions of a man. Semiconsciously checking out another woman, Freudian slips, provoked and unprovoked aggressive responses are all intrinsic examples of these Alpha flashes. It’s a man’s internal Alpha refusing to be restrained by all the social doctrines and conditioning of the feminine imperative.

Unbeknownst to me at the time I was shocking my BPD in a similar fashion back then.

For all of the on again, off again sexual insanity present in that relationship, the occasional flash of Alpha served to spark what had devolved into self-shamed episodes of frigidity dotted with incidents of porn-worthy sexual highs. At that time I didn’t have the fortitude of mind to think that tapping that Alpha energy full-time would make anything better – actually I bought my Matrix conditioning that Alpha was misogyny and to be avoided for fear of offending women’s sensibilities – but I found that when I expressed concern as to where I was going in life, my BPD interpreted this as a threat of losing me (the parasitic host). Just my contemplation of mustering the balls to leave her was both Alpha-exciting for her and cause for hysteric panic at the fear of losing me.

I can remember the day I discovered she’d been fucking some new guy at the college she attended. I lost my fucking mind. There I was, a beta with the patience of Job, content in the amniotic bath of the feminine Matrix conditioning that told me I was doing everything by the rules when she finally copped to the truth. She didn’t tell me outright, I had to discover it by way of her making it so obvious that I couldn’t ignore the truth. Then, Mr. Self-Control who’d tried for so long to allay the fears that he’d be his BPDs loyal boyfriend, Mr. Self-Control who’d endured years of neurotic accusations of even looking sideways at another woman, that guy put his fist through the bathroom wall while she was still in the shower.

I didn’t even think about it. It wasn’t some bravado or some dramatic attempt to convince her, myself or anyone else about how badass I wanted to be – it just happened. I don’t know how else to explain it, but the old Alpha flashed, and at that point her first inclination was to want to fuck me. She made a lame attempt to put on the black lingerie she knew I liked, but I knew she’d fucked this other guy in. The Alpha flashed again. More gina tingles. Then it dawned on me that just a day earlier I had shook hands with the same guy after she’d introduced me to him as one of her classmates. The Alpha was back.

Alpha Shock

I think what a lot of men experience in Matrix-defined relationships has a lot to do with this cycle of Alpha shocks. By way of pre-established beta frame abdication or by a progressive slide into beta supplication, guy’s girlfriends and wives ease into an normalcy where their man is not living up to be the Alpha they’d hoped for, or later realized they truly needed in their relationship. So when that LTR begins to decay and the very real prospect of divorce or breakup is looming, these sporadic flashes of Alpha (really flares of frustration and anger) serve to make a woman pause in her hypergamic assessment of him. For all the seeming discernment women claim to require is necessary to become sexual with a man, that hypergamic sense of discernement is far more pronounced for women to leave a man whom they’ve already established a sense of security with.

There is a greater need for certainty in a woman’s decision to leave a man than there ever will be for her to fuck a man for the first time.

I’ve posed the question to women before, what’s the best sexual experience you’ve had; after a date-night where your man spared no trouble or expense to make a “romantic evening” for you, or was it the make-up sex after you’ve had a blow out fight, just a hair’s breadth from him walking out of your life forever? Every one has said the make-up sex was best – some conceived children as a result of it.

Those flashes of Alpha are cyclic. Women thrive on indignation to be sure, but it’s the uncertainty in their hypergamic doubt that makes it exciting and the mundane beta security sufferable. A lot of what men construe as Drama Queen behavior is the direct result of this beta-Alpha-beta cycle. The more stable, healthy relationship follows an Alpha-beta-Alpha frame where the man maintains his Alpha presence, with just an occasional beta episode to “prove he’s human”.

16 Years On

On July 20th my wife and I celebrate our 16th wedding anniversary. It’s no secret to my readers that I have a very good marriage and I’m constantly asked what my ‘secret’ is for keeping things positive, or the Oprah classic, “what do you do to ‘Keep It Fresh™‘?’. The manosphere is littered with stories of guys and their divorces contrasted against the stories of single guy’s decaying LTRs or dealing with recovering from them. I try not to make a habit of personalizing things that gloss myself, but when I do just understand it’s more from a sense of being a wild card. Guys with successful marriages (a dubious term at best) don’t really have the motivation to come to forums like the manosphere and share their insights. Why bother if that area of one’s life is more or less taken care of? So in light of this, I’ll share a few things I’ve learned in the last 16 years that make for a good marriage from my perspective.

Let me begin by giving you all some background; Mrs. Tomassi is my first marriage and Bebé Tomassi is my one and only daughter. As I’ve said before, by society’s current standards I’m a freak. I’m a freak in that I met my wife and we dated for 8 months (non-exclusively for 4) before I proposed to her. I was 28 when we married. After 2 years being married we decided to have one child – by design. My wife expected me to be a Man and I in turn expected her to be a Woman. I did not knock her up and then marry her. She was not a single mother, nor did she have excess baggage from previous relationships.

This is important to know, because when I relate stuff like this I often get the “well, you did everything right” response, when in fact every bit of what I enjoy with my wife today is due to me doing much more wrong. I had to unlearn what 26 or so years of feminized and emasculated teachings had taught me up to that point. Admittedly unaware, I had come across a unique situation – a woman who actually wanted a Man to be a Man, and in all honesty I was completely unprepared for it. I was an AFC (really a recovering AFC by that point due to a psychotic  relationship prior to all this) and there was no community back then to inform me otherwise. I had read some of Dr. Warren Farrell’s books, but that was the extent of my own self-understanding with regard to my own gender conditioning.

Being the Driver

Now I had come across a woman who on our first date insisted that I drive HER car. My truck was a piece of shit of course , but after years of this gender equalism brainwashing, a woman, upfront, wanted me to take control. Since then I’ve always been the driver (with the exception of her driving us home after I had my wisdom teeth pulled). This was symbolic of how the next 16 years would play out.

Mrs. Tomassi is no push-over and she most certainly gives me shit tests even to this day. In fact I’ve described marriage as one life long shit test and I still hold to that, but from the begining she expected me to be positively masculine – to be the decider, to be the initiator, to have the ideas and to confidently execute them. Even in my worst failures, the fact that I attempted honestly was more important than the outcome. This may not have been the case in the short term, but in the long term is where you can see the appreciation in the behavior. We compliment each other in our understanding of our gender roles.

When we met my wife was dating two very rich men (we were non-exclusive, remember?), I had 2 nickels and a beat up pickup truck to my name. Mrs. Tomassi is a medical professional and the men she’d dated prior were E.R. doctors and specialists; guys making well over $300K annually. They had boats, cars, large homes, status, dispoasable wealth, and yet despite all of that I’m the one she pursued and locked in with (her Mom thought she was insane to marry me at the time). They had it made, but for all that wealth they were still clueless when it came to being Men – they were uncomfortable in their own masculinity. A lot of guys mistakenly believe that having a large bank account is the key to getting women, and while that might help in the short term, in the long term it’s to your own detriment (she’ll end up with half after the divorce) if you don’t ultimately kill the inner AFC and fearlessly embrace the postiveness of your own masculinity.

The Ingredients

There are so many aspects I can detail about what makes for a good marriage, but all of these really boil down to two things, genuine desire and mutual respect. Too many couples become complacent and comfortable in their marriages and this leads to a decline in both of these areas. A certain degree of subtle anxiety and constructive discontent is necessary for a good marriage. That comes off as negative to the plug-ins of the Matrix, but it’s really what makes each partner want to be better for themselves and each other. Taken too far it becomes abusive, but none at all and the marriage becomes stagnant which is equally dangerous. In the right proportion, this anxiety makes for a marriage that retains it’s mutual desire (which is really analogous to Interest Level) and mutual respect.

So how does this anxiety manifest itself? An easy example is staying in shape together. I can honestly say my wife is still hot (if not more so since the boob job). I want to bang my wife as often as humanly possible; how many men married for 10 years can make that statement? My wife is a piece of ass and I see guys eye her all the time. Likewise I’m a bodybuilder and keep myself in peak condition. I get women in their 20’s flirting with me often enough, and this confirms for her and myself that we are both desirable people – this is one example of this anxiety, and we both recognize it and respect each other for it.

There are other ways this anxiety can be applied, for instance C&F (cocky & funny) goes a long way in marriage. Mrs. Tomassi loves just enough C&F attitude from me to reaffirm her perception of my confidence. As I said earlier, marriage is a life long set of shit tests and carefully used C&F is a tool that can be used to diffuse a lot of these before they even happen. Confidence is still the thing that makes a woman want a man, even in marriage. Generally a shit test IS a test of confidence. Prior to marriage, it’s latent purpose is to help a woman determine whether a guy can provide for her long term security. After marriage, a shit test is used to reassure a woman that she married the right guy.

I’ve come to find that Game is even more necessary in marriage than when you’re single – there’s far more at stake when the commitment is intended to be for a lifetime.

I have a lot of rules I pop off with about LTRs & marriage. I emphasize that a man not even become monogamous until he’s 30 and that he shouldn’t consider marriage until his mid 30s. Again, I state this not because I did so myself, but from my side of the fence I can see the huge advantages to doing so now. Marriage should be a last resort, something to be forestalled until a Man, by virtue of years of experience, has the ability to recognize with measurable accuracy, a woman who deserves what he provides her. The PRIZE mentality is essential. A man must be a Prince first, before he can be a King when he marries.

After 16 years of marriage I can honestly say there are no appreciable advantages (outside of raising children) that a man cannot enjoy single that he can married. That’s not meant to be pessimistic, but rather a caution to emphasize how important it is to disabuse yourselves of this AFC, romanticized, marriage-as-goal mentality. It’s also not to say marriage is never worth it – just that marriage is complete advantage for women with negligible, if any, benefit for men. Marriage will either make a man’s life or destroy his life; enter into thinking about it like this and you’ll make a better decision. Is this person deserving of what I provide? Women will NEVER, even in the best of marriages, fully appreciate the sacrifices a man has to make in order to fulfill his commitment of marriage. Entering into a life-long binding commitment of fidelity that offers a man very little appreciable advantage, and knowing the totality of the risk he’s assuming in accepting that sacrifice will never be fully understood or appreciated by the woman he marries. This is why you have put your head into thinking whether she’s deserving of your provisioning, security, confidence, attention, etc. even when it goes against what you think is your kind and good-hearted nature. If you’ve come to a point where in spite of the acknowledged risks you still want to make that commitment, you must be as self-concerned about marriage as you would be in saving your own life.

Pathologizing the Male Sexual Response

Rollo, I just saw the movie ‘Shame’ starring Michael Fassbender and felt the need to recommend it on here.

The main character is addicted to sex, it’s basically the main focus in his life. He is constantly pursuing it one way or another, picking up women he meets in his daily life, getting behind his laptop to engage in internet porn, ordering an escort girl, or just jerking off on the toilet.

He’s good with women, runs pretty solid game. But it’s all superficial, he just knows how to push the right buttons and make their ginas tingle, then fvcks them. He’s unable to establish something like a “connection” with them, fvcking is a purely individual experience for him, just as masturbation. Only, instead of using his right hand, he uses a woman’s body.

It seems as if the guy is empty inside and is trying to fill his inner emptiness by engaging in sexual activities all the time. Of course, it doesn’t get him anywhere, but he can’t help himself. He just keeps repeating his cycle of sexual activities, he’s a slave to it. The moment he would stop doing it, he’d become very uneasy, like a drug addict going through withdrawal.

Fassbender’s portayal of the main character is quite brilliant. Nothing of what I wrote above is being told explicitly, you just deduct it from his actions and body language while the movie lets you be a spectator to the main character’s daily life (so, in fact, you might disagree with certain parts of my analysis of the main character and give a slightly different meaning to his behavior, although I’m sure you’ll agree with it for the most part).

Anyway, it’s a pretty raw and engaging movie, and upon viewing it, I realized I have more in common with the main character than I’d like to admit… I suspect many of you would feel the same upon watching it. It also reminded me of Squirrels and the problems he spoke of in many of his posts. Squirrels could be this guy, lol. So if you could relate to the things Squirrels was struggling with, you’ll probably find this movie interesting.

Love to hear your thoughts if you watched it!

One of the most common themes in human storytelling is the quest for meaning in what’s essentially meaninglessness. This story has been retold for centuries in different contexts, but it’s essentially the same plot; the person with the unfillable void inside that prompts them to great acts of creative passion or horrible deeds of self-destruction. It can be a tragedy or a comedy.

Sex addiction is just the meme du jour of this century. Feminization has taken this cliché for its own purposes. Every romantic comedy, every ‘love story’ in the past 50 years, all revolve around men’s inability to fill the hole in their heart that only a special woman can. Literally, everything else in the world is just a cheap, superficial substitute for the inexplicable magical element a woman completes a man with. He literally cannot live without her piece of his puzzle.

Sex addiction is simply the new pathology of the male condition so we make the leap from Pretty Woman and the Hooker with the Heart of Gold in the 80’s to the more sinister sex addict of the new millennium who’s so hopelessly flawed he’ll burn away to hell before he sees the healing light of submitting to the feminine imperative’s medicine.

Women like it because they feel superior in their capacity to control themselves sexually (dubious, yes) in comparison to men, but also because it provides them with a self-righteous sense of pity; “If only men would just see us for our beautiful insides and be less obsessed with our bodies they’d find peace.”

Men like this narrative because it gives them a feeling that as bad as they are, they’re not THAT bad. There’s a self-righteous sense of qualifying to women based on how much better they are in controlling themselves, and again this contributes to their “not-like-other-guys” sense of uniqueness they hope women will recognize, appreciate and want to ƒuck them for. That sex addict in the story can’t make a human ‘connection’ with women, but I can, so fuck me instead.

The fact that a thought about a movie about a ‘sex addicted’ man occurred to someone and was created is proof enough of its cultural relevance for our time. The zeitgeist of this period is evidenced in what we think others will find relevancy in, regardless of any intended purpose. The story wouldn’t exist if the cultural interpretations weren’t already pre-established to make it relevant.

The Cure

One of the more insidious social narratives that the feminine imperative has convinced us of is that the inherent flaw(s) of maleness can only be ‘cured’ by uniquely female means. This is an easy narrative to follow since most modern storytelling (TV, movies, books) revolves around women’s influence being the only solution to men’s moronic, uniquely male, self-inflicted problems.

As with most other social narratives embedded into our collective consciousness, even Beta men pick up this ideology and attempt to use it to their Beta-Game-feminine-identification advantage. Convince men of an innate incompleteness, and sell women’s mystical element, women’s home-spun wisdom, women’s presumptive intuition as the completing factor he’s unable to comprehend he needs due to being a male and therefore ignorant of his deficit. Every romantic story, comedy or tragedy, has revolved around this narrative for centuries. Only recently has it been used as a social tool of feminization, as well as a commercialization of men’s presumptive inherent lack.

Women, on the other hand, are portrayed as self-contained, self-sufficient entities, and even when the story develops upon a woman’s flaws it’s never due to her ‘femaleness’, and the solution to her conflict is usually resolved through the influence of other women. There is rarely, if ever, any contrition that a man might solve a woman’s problems – and when he does, it’s usually through employing feminine means to do so (i.e. he “gets in touch with his feminine side” to resolve the conflict). Feminine primacy needs this narrative to ensure its lasting predominance as a social influence.

The first thing Tiger Woods did after his sexual appetites came to public attention was to commit himself to therapy for his ‘problem’. To the feminine imperative, the male sexual response is a ‘problem’ requiring therapy, medicalization, a cure. There has been no better means to maintaining feminine primacy than to collectively convince society that the effects of testosterone and male sexual response is aberrant social behavior. Men being men is vulgar, lewd and often violent – this is the meme. When men such as Tiger’s first response is to agree with that meme and institutionalize himself, he adds one more affirmation to the feminine social narrative of men’s ‘problem’.

The 5 Stages of Unplugging

I read an article this morning about the 5 stages of grief (confronting death) and how they apply to coming into acceptance of a previously rejected truth. Yes, I know, there’s no end to the ridiculous interpretations of this played-out pop-psych list, but I was curious about how this might apply to an AFC coming to grips with unplugging from the Matrix, so I did a bit of searching and what did I find on my blog roll search but this:

1. Denial – Still Plugged -In: “These game guys are a bunch of clowns, there’s no way this works on women. Women aren’t stupid. What a bunch of misogynists.”

2. Anger – Post-Red Pill: “This is ridiculous! Why should I have to jump through all these hoops for women? I just want to be myself. Why couldn’t I have been a Natural Alpha®? I blame my parents/siblings/teachers/God/liberals/feminists/media/society, maybe George Sodini, Andres Breivik, James Holmes wasn’t so crazy after all.”

3. Bargaining – Unplugged: “Well maybe it does have some good points…but, forget the hot girls, they’re way outta my league. I’ll give it a try if it can help me get around the bases with a plain Jane. Do I have to wear the fuzzy hat and black nail polish?”

4. Depression – Bitter Taste of the Red Pill: “Wow, women really respond to this puffed-up act? And guys spend big bucks on it and wind up with more ass than a toilet seat? And I just joined up for this? The world is sad and so am I…”

5. Acceptance – Game Awareness: “Maybe this IS the way things really work. I guess I should give up the gender relations mythology I’ve been holding onto…hey, what do you think of these negs I came up with?”

6. Jaded* – MGTOW Permutations: “Fuck learning all these rules. Sex isn’t worth it and women aren’t that fun anyway. The last thing I want to do is learn routines or the 5 stages of pickup. There’s too many websites, too much to read, I can’t remember it all much less sort it all out. Who has all that time to go out and chat up women anyway? It’s not like I see any women under 40 at work at my engineering job to practice on. Video games and porn are more fun and more available. I just haffta look good and let the women come to me”

* This is a late addition to the list, hardly original and arguably relevant, but I added it for precautionary measures.

Before I get the predictable howls of “someone did this before you” (h/t Badger) allow me to put my spin on it. I get a ton of PMs from forum members, and read threads about guys with friends or relatives in, or just getting over, horrible relationships and how they’ve tried to unplug them only to run into stiff resistance. Looking at this process to acceptance it’s no wonder why.

So my discussion question for today is this; how did you unplug? Was there some moment of clarity that opened your eyes? Did you go through a process like the one described here? Are you maybe still struggling with a certain phase?

Case Study – Wanted: New Daddy

I love Post Secret. Anytime I have humanitarian doubt about hypergamy or the twinges of sentimental wishes for a kinder, gentler, fem-centrism all I have to do is read the current week’s offerings of anonymous ‘secrets’ and, without fail, all doubt fades away to callous certainties. Ahhh, le sigh...

I’ve delved into the single mother cottage industry topic before, but in light of a recent PM and last week’s Wall discussion I thought I’d entertain this comment:

Wow. I have read some very interesting posts. I need some help and since most of you seem to be honest and not out to hurt anyone, here goes…

The Facts: 29, Female, Divorced mom of two toddlers, works full time, working on building self-esteem, being happier. Not seeking permanent relationship; however, not interested in whoring out.

I have met several men I am interested in and we talk and possibly hang out. What I am scared of is them thinking I am daddy shopping. I also don’t want to be left and laid. I am willing to “buddy up” but I do expect a friendship beyond the sex. How do I approach or have a discussion with a man telling him my time is rare, but still communicate my expectations of casual hangouts and fooling around? I am a woman and yes there are nights where he would need to engage with me in mind blowing sex. There may be a bad day at work where I just need a beer buddy. It is difficult for a woman with self respect to blow and go so thats not my intent.

I tried the honest approach, but never heard from him again. I gave it one more shot (different guy) and time will tell. Ive never been in this type of relationship before. I respect myself too much to engage in a one night stand only. Any ideas?

From what I read ut sounds like I am pretty much screwed. Im not single resulting from some kind of feminist movement crap. I like a guy to challenge me etc. I am a single mom because I am divorced from a bad person (cheater, abusive). I don’t seek a relationship because I know the majority of men don’t want the “baggage” of my babies. Additionally, I don’t want to risk hurting my kids. They are first. I am all they have and in a way they are all I have. All I want is an adult. If it progresses to more so be it. If not then that’s cool too. I don’t want to be viewed as just a piece, that is where the honesty comes in.

A lot of what gets offered for women in her position is usually the standard fare about single mommies and how guys perceive them. Baby-daddy issues, scheduling, substitute father interviewing and how single guys are “supposed” to react to them. All of this is valid of course, but after reading her own take of her own situation, I’m not so sure she’s really aware of (or is in denial of) her own conditions.

This woman is a textbook example of what I call Proactive Infidelity. According to her longer account she’d knocked it out with the Bad Boy (abusive, cheater) who was a “challenge” and got her excited. I’m going to do her the favor of assuming both her children were by him and if one is now 4 y.o. this would mean she was at oldest 24 y.o. when she became pregnant. Now that the Bad Boy has proven himself unreliable in sharing parental investment responsibilities, the guy she does end up in an LTR or marriage with necessarily MUST assume the Bad Boy’s responsibilities and liabilities.

New Daddies and Independent Women®

It’s essential to the single-mother rationale that they convince themselves they aren’t shopping for a “new daddy”. The fem-centrism of today’s social structure already has a long and well established framework ready to enable the most predictable of hamster spins. She’s an “Independent Woman®”, she “makes her own damn money” and ‘walks like da boss, talks like da boss,…” etc. The Independent Woman® brand is one of the most versatile social conventions because it covers so many situations. Blanket rationales like epithets of ‘Misogynist’ or ‘Homophobe’ pale in comparison to the usefulness of the Independent Woman®.

The Independent Woman® is unassailable and any contrary deviation from it leads back to the circular argument of patriarchal men’s selfish oppressions – feminism’s favorite trope. She “don’t need a man”, but she needs a Man. The real tragedy is the desperation apparent in the false pride. The truth is she needs a Man, her children need a Man, in spite of the pretentiousness fem-centrism has conditioned into her. But her decisions have left that Daddy position open to the lowest bidder.

The undeniable, unavoidable truth is that whether or not this is a conscious effort on her part, this is what the next guy, usually the Nice Guy, MUST deal with. Mr. Dependable, Mr. Loyal supporter/provider has no other choice but to assume parental investments that were never his. She bred with the Bad Boy and the Nice Guy raises her children. Any woman who can pull this off hits a bio-evolutionary jackpot.

The good news for her is that there are countlessly reinforced social conventions specifically designed with the latent purpose of making such a Nice Guy (essentially a proactive cuckold) think he’s a martyr and held to be in the highest regard of manhood for “looking past” her situation and “loving her for who she is.” Rest assured she’ll eventually attract a beta so conditioned to forgive her past indiscretions (essentially justifying and rewarding them) in exchange for the sexuality he’s been deprived of for so long. Her marginal intimate acceptance will only affirm his AFC beliefs and his “stepping up” to parent her kids will make him tolerable when he’s not as exciting as the Bad Boy was.

Now all that may sound harsh, but it’s important to understand just how tough a road single mothers have to hoe. If laid out in harsh realistic terms, most women don’t willingly want to be saddled with an AFC marriage of convenience, and neither do they want to be locked in with an abusive Bad Boy, so what do they do?

First, they need to understand where they’re at and how they got to be who they are now. They’ve hit the Wall by default.

Own your indiscretions ladies, own your mistakes. Being a single mother, despite the feminized social conventions, doesn’t make you a hero; it makes you a statistic. As I stated originally, any guy that accepts you intimately MUST deal with you as a single mother. This means he MUST accept your schedule, your children’s schedule, their father’s schedule, both family’s schedules, and the emotional fallout from all this. The feminine imperative has taught you to believe you’re entitled to expecting him to want to be with you (even if this is just as a fuck buddy) in preference to a single, childless, generally younger and more sexually available woman. She’s your competition. And in spite of all this he’s expected to still be the Man, by denying his sexual predilections in favor of your circumstances.

Your fundamental acknowledgment and showing a constant genuine appreciation for the sacrifice he makes to accommodate your past is essential to any LTR you have in the future. I’m not saying that your kids shouldn’t be your first priority – they absolutely should – but it is imperative that you know and demonstrably appreciate ANY guy who’d make the concession to still entertain you intimately after knowing this.

A lot of women love to gnash and wail about how they’ve become undateable after they’ve acquired single-mom status. Actually, no. There’s a whole modern world that’s teeming with AFC providers, with Cap’n Save-a-ho Martyr Mentalities just itching to get at the reverent pussy they missed out on for most of their 20’s and are more than willing to follow the feminine meme and convince themselves that single mommies are just victims of the Jerks they knocked out their kids with.

Daddies & Buffers

Understand, single mommies are another form of Buffers. The deductive logic is that they’re ‘easier’ due the their conditions and the risk of rejection lower (particularly when rejection-phobic or in a dry spell), but the potential long term ramifications are never worth the effort incomparisson to childless women. Rejection is better than regret.

The problem with actualizing your fantasy encounter with a MILF is in the ‘M’ part of the acronym – ‘Mother’ – ergo, a single mommie with all of the very “real world” baggage that goes along with that. I’ve tapped my share of older women when I was in my 20s and I can tell you that the sex was no more or less extrordinary than the younger women (at least in terms of performance) I’ve been with. The only major difference? I never had to worry about 22 year old single girls finding a babysitter for a night or had to be concerned with her making too much noise during sex so as not to wake up her son in the next room. Nor was I concerned about it being “her weekend” to have the kids.

It’s very easy to assume single mothers are victims by default – some are, most aren’t. Trust me, a majority of single mothers are single for a reason – and it’s not always because of their Jerk BFs or deadbeat husbands. The common belief is that MILFs encourage an idea that they are more sexually available; you’ve got to ask yourself, why would they be motivted to be more sexual while single than when they we’re married or in an LTR? They become motivated to be sexual and hit the gym when single, but wouldn’t make the same effort when married, why? Because the guy wasn’t worth it OR because she became comfortable, he lost interest, became fed up, and she’s prompted to be more concerned with all that in order to achieve a long term security with another man that necessitates she do so?

Don’t get me wrong, there are attractive women in their 30s & 40s but these are uncommon exceptions to the rule. The social reinforcement of the MILF fantasy is just a modern extension and evolution of the “she’s still got it” social convention with the latent purpose of leveling the playing field for 30-40 something single mothers unable to sexually compete for the same calibre men with 18-28 y.o. women. The harsh truth is that a beautiful, sexually available, single woman in her mid 20’s is at a decided advantage for sexual selection than a single mother entering her 30’s who’s encumbered with all the responsibilities of being a parent. Schedules of Mating issues aside, even when both women are equally attractive and equally sexually available, the childless woman is still at an advantage because she comes with less liabilities and represents a “fresh start” in comparison.

Women’s sexual value naturally declines as they ages – it serves an older woman’s purpose if she can redefine sexuality as her conditions change through life, and convince herself and society that she’s correct and genuine. Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore may epitomize this fantasy, but in reality, there are thousands of women filling gyms across the country for every Demi Moore convinced that they “still got it” while every year a new crop of 22-24 y.o. hotties commands the attention of the same men they’re competing for. This is just the natural extension of the ‘Have It All” lie that women have been sold for the last 50 years. Men only too eagerly buy this convention as well because it facilitates a Buffer for them and (presumedly) presents an easier route to getting laid. Therefore it is also in their interest that the myth and the Buffer be reinforced.