Filibuster

ThirtyzDude from the SoSuave forum has just recently seen the light of pragmatism with regards to Spinning Plates. For me, one of the best things about the newly Unplugged is reading their fresh perspective of women’s behaviors in their, now, Game-aware context. Sometimes their fresh observations come as a jolt to their system. They realize, with some measure of shock, that the behaviors and rationales they’ve been conditioned to take for granted on for so long are actually strategies to insure the best hypergamic result for women.

Other times, their observations are truly revelatory,..

I’ve been noticing an interesting trend with many of these women: the ones that are willing to have sex within 3-6 dates typically don’t talk about it – when it happens it happens. When they talk about sex a lot, and try to convince me that they really like sex, it often doesn’t happen. They begin to make excuses, they say they want me but they don’t want to do anything they regret. My thoughts when this happens: wtf?

I partially covered this dynamic in the now infamous Wait For It? post:

If  she’s perceiving your value as as high as it should be, she wont hesitate longer than a few dates to become sexual – and she certainly wont tell you she’s making you wait. Hypergamy doesn’t afford a woman much waiting time with a Man she sees as superior stock.

One of the more frustrating situations I often encounter comes from guys who’ve been OVERTLY told that they’re being made to wait for sex until some circumstance or criteria is met for the woman. The standard filibuster (or loss-leader as the case may be) usually comes with the reasoning that she “needs to feel comfortable” before she has sex with a guy. Even more distressing is the guy who was getting laid, only to be told the same thing by an existing girlfriend. If you find yourself in either of these situation there are a couple of things to bear in mind.

Filibustering

If you find yourself at 2am with a woman you want to bang or, God forbid, a group of women who want to go out for pizza or tacos (usually to sober up) after dancing at the club, understand, you’re being filibustered. When a woman has minty fresh breath and is one drink in, you’ll be getting laid, however, you will not be having sex with a woman when she’s full of pizza, coming down from a buzz and her breath smells like garlic.

I can remember a time in my twenties when I had a policy of never taking a woman I wanted to bang out for dinner. This was partially due to me being broke most of the time, but also because I found that the girls who suggested such-and-such restaurant as a date venue were never up for sex that night. These were typically the girls who “wanted to know I wanted them for more than just sex.” If you ever hear a woman utter that sentence, know that it’s a prime example of a filibuster. It sounds like prudence – she wants to vet you for boyfriend status – but the truth is she’s putting you off while she waits to see what her other 3rd (or 4th or 5th) party options might develop into.

Women with a high interest level wont confuse you, but if she’s not thoroughly convinced of your status a woman will generally default to some form of filibuster. This goes back to the medium being the message for women, however, for men, one of the more confusing strategies of hypergamy is the female filibuster because it appears to promise a future reward if a guy is patient enough to wait for it.

Girls don’t talk about the sex that they’re going to have – they talk about the sex they’re not going to have.

ThirtyzDude makes an astute filibuster observation in his post; the more a woman talks about sex and tries to convince you of how much she likes sex, the less likely she is to actually want to have sex – with you. There’s a certain self-convincing that goes along with this for women who’ve already assessed for themselves that they will not be fucking you. The necessity to convince themselves, and you, that they are in fact sexual conflicts with the subliminal assessment that they don’t want to bang you.

Like ThirtzyDude I discovered that the women who were going to be sexual (DTF) didn’t feel the need to prove to themselves, and me by proxy, that they liked sex. This isn’t to say the DTF women didn’t talk dirty or act flirty, but their sexual interest was communicated by covert innuendo, never overt declarations. In other words the sale was assumed and we could progress on to verbal foreplay, not brinksmanship.

There’s a trite cliché that guys like to assume about women; a woman knows within five minutes of meeting you if she’ll bang you. I don’t necessarily agree with this notion, but I do think that a woman knows within five minutes of meeting you if she WONT bang you. You’ll often see this played out when women insert casual filibusters into conversation about having a boyfriend (boyfriend disclaimer) with guys who’ve too blatantly telegraphed their over-interest in becoming intimate with her. Attraction is not a choice, but too many guys think that it could be if they were convincing enough.

Generally, women who enjoy sex don’t go about advertising it, they just do it. I’ve stated before, a woman who wants to fuck you will find a way to fuck you. That may seem like a simple matter of logistics, but a woman who wants to bang you will find ways to fuck you that include self-rationalization, denial and lies of omission in order to bang you when her interest level is such that she’s motivated.

When a woman, and in particular one whom you’ve yet to bang, overtly explicates how much she enjoys sex, in essence she’s playing a slut by proxy. The strategy is to convince men she’s just as sexual as the women she doesn’t feel comfortable competing against. She can’t, or wont, match a “slut” by playing her game in real life, but she can allude to her alleged sexuality safely behind a filibuster. The real conflict arises when it comes time to have sex and her bluff is called.

Think Like a Woman

Men perceive female interpretive reflexiveness in a male context. Women perceive male interpretive awareness in a female context.

Those are two $10 psychological ways of saying men instinctively think women will respond to their approaches (irrespective of Game prowess) on male terms. In other words, they expect women will respond in a rational manner similar to how they as men would. To be sure, this is a result of decades of gender equalist conditioning, but you can’t lay the dynamic entirely at the feet of equalism. Guy’s first order is to think deductively when constructing their mental schemas about how best to solve the problem of getting their sexual imperatives met (usually Beta Game). The disconnect comes when they presume that women are their gender equals and as such will react to their ‘game’ in a similar, reasoned fashion.

JDELA, from the SoSuave forum laments an understanding that comes from imposing a male perspective onto women’s perspectives. Case in point:

If a Neg hit works, not only does it show there’s a lack of self esteem and mental balance, but also the relationship will fail.

From a male perspective, this would make complete and rational sense. If a man were to Neg you or another man, the most rational response would be to interpret that as disrespect and to take offense. In truth, guy’s Neg each other all the time in the form of ‘giving his buddys some shit’ about something. Men do this as a form of unity building, but our inclination to rib each other stops there.

Now lets say that the guy getting Negged, not only accepts it, but becomes intrigued and friendly with the guy negging him. Would you have any respect for either one of them? Probably not. You’d say the guy doing the Negging was being an asshole (see AMOGing)  and the guy getting Negged suffered from a”lack of self-esteem.”

What you’re doing is casting what you’d expect a woman’s response to be in the male perspective. The most common complaint read on any dating site (SoSuave to Love Shack) comes from guys who are dumbfounded that women consistently opt for the Bad Boy Alpha Jerk instead of him and his Nice, loyal, respectful, dependable self. As bourn out by the experiences and observations of women’s behavior from countless millions of men for centuries, what we as men would expect to be the most logical, rational and pragmatic choice of action women could make is rarely proven by the ones they do make.

Don’t get lost in the details; this isn’t a debate about whether or not Negs work or the frequency with which women opt for a Bad Boy. It has everything to do with the fact that men base most of their actions, their beliefs, their personal investments, etc. upon deductive reasoning and predictable outcomes from what they believe is reliable information. So when all you ever hear from women is that they “want a guy with a good heart” or someone sensitive, respectful, humorous, etc. on down the list it would be cause for some considerable confusion when women consistently overlook guys like this in favor of one who is the opposite of her stated desires. Either the data is flawed, our interpretation of it is flawed, or the one relating it is flawed – and probably all three.

So in light of such a consistent conflict of purpose, we have to conclude that what women say and what women do are often at odds with each other. Negs work on women. There’s certainly an art to, and it’s not a one-size-fits-all, but they do work with enough consistency that you can generally predict an outcome. So the question is this: do the vast majority of women suffer from a lack of self-esteem or are we expecting them to act as men would?

It’s very easy to write off the women who’d opt for the Bad Boy as low-quality, but what do you do when your hi-quality woman does the same? You can shoot an arrow, paint the target around it, and get a bullseye every time, but you can’t ignore the incongruency. Breaking out of this plugged-in beta mindset that convinces men that women will react the same as they would is one of the most important transitions of taking the red pill.

The irony of this male-centric preconception is that even in instances where plugged-in men would agree that you “can’t treat a lady like that” the interaction is still colored by the assumption of a male interpretive perspective on the part of a woman. For plugged-in men this comes as an instinctual reflex – it’s one of many – that was part of his life’s conditioning.

Think Like a Woman

As I stated prior, unlearning what you know about women and your equalist mental preposition is usually one of the more difficult aspects of unplugging. Abandoning your old ways of interacting with women involves a very real risk of rejection, but keep in mind that relearning the reality of the differences in mental process between yourself and a prospective woman will make that transition easier.

A lot gets made about the advantages of ‘thinking like a woman’ in terms of Game. For all the variation of playing the Dandy or adjusting for a more feminine-identification technique, I think it’s very important not to actually become a woman in your mental outlook. Most plugged-in guys are already women in their perspective of gender. When I advocate a better understanding of the feminine mind, know that it’s always in terms of making what I study and profess here into actionable practices. Anticipate outcomes, predict results based on what you know a woman would be thinking; not what any equal and neutral, well-reasoned generic person would. Plugged-in guys avoid this even to the limbic root level of their own mental processing because it rings of sexism; and anything minutely associated with sexism is an automatic sexual disqualifier for men with the scarcity mentalities that fem-centrism has raised in them.

An effective Game-aware man has to accept a base understanding of sexism; sexism in the respective differences that characterize the differences between the sexes. Sexism will be used by you or on you, but you will not be exempted from it. You may have been raised into equalism, but clinging to gender equalism after the fact is simply one more Buffer against rejection, and it’s a buffer most guys have a very tough time recognizing in themselves.

Case Study – The Crazy

From a Rational Reader who shall remain anonymous:

I’m not sure what’s going on lately.

I’ve been in a weird way lately…about ready to jump off a bridge with the stress I’ve been feeling. I just don’t know who else to talk to.

Remember that long thread about the “obsessed girl” I was dating who I thought was “crazy”? I’ve been seeing her again…and it’s been a weird, weird story I can’t even get my head around.

I was honestly convinced she was borderline/insane, based on her murky past and her “unstable behavior”. I was done with her…had completely blown her off and was ready to wipe her out of my life forever. Then some crazy shit happened and we found ourselves forced to sit down and talk with each other about what had been going on.

She tells me that every time SHE came over my house, SHE was telling herself, “I can’t do this any more, I can’t keep seeing him, etc”. She said she saw a really great guy in me but the things I was saying and doing were driving her nuts.

She started rifling off this list of things that I did that drove her crazy/drove her to drink herself stupid…things like:

* Suggesting other women were interested
* Teasing her/negging her
* Staying detached
* Treating her like I didn’t need her/wasn’t that into her (she says, “like a call-girl”)

I’m sitting there thinking…god dammit, this all sounds familiar…Has becoming a “disciple” of all this Game bullshit been sabotaging me with women for years now?? Am I the “crazy one”? Has all of this nonsense just been a defense mechanism I built to deal with my OWN lack of self-worth??

I decided to drop all of the BS…and just give it a chance with this girl, legitimately, for real. No more Don Juan games…just seeing each other for who we really are. I’ll tell you…I’m at full-scale war with myself…and I’ve lost complete perspective over which side of me is “right”.

There’s one side of me that is absolutely in love with this girl. I mean, she is smoking hot, she’s intelligent and insightful (though she has what I’d consider to be “flakey” ideas about stuff), she has good practical skills (runs her own business), she’s VERY physical…more than me even. She does ALL of the good “wifey” things that everyone talks about…she cleans, she cooks (deliciously!), she dresses to impress when we go out together. She even tells me she doesn’t want to “monopolize all of my time” and constantly encourages me to do stuff I want to do.

As I said before, her past is a bit “wild”, but she honestly seems like she’s become more mature and intelligent and is REALLY taking steps to leave all of it behind. Who am I to deny her a chance at redemption??

 

“wild past”

“unstable behavior”

“obsessed”

“crazy”

These are your terms.

Her list of prerequisites to stay with a “crazy” woman:

* Suggesting other women were interested
* Teasing her/negging her
* Staying detached
* Treating her like I didn’t need her/wasn’t that into her (she says, “like a call-girl”)

One would rationally think a ‘normal’ woman would find any of these intolerable, yet there you are. So either she is in fact crazy, finds reward in abuse and lacks sufficient self-worth to NEXT you, OR, you are approaching your LTR (such as it is) from a healthy, self-interested perspective that she actually does respect; in fact so much so that she’ll pursue you in spite of it.

I think what you’re experiencing now is not so much confusion with her as you are in owning your role as being the primary partner in your LTR. This is a VERY tough transition for a former AFC to accept. In truth, I would say that accepting and internalizing a dominant role in an LTR for a nominally beta guy is more difficult than realizing that applying Game actually works in attracting women as well as thriving with them in an LTR/Marriage.

It’s really a second unplugging for guys. The first shock of ‘unplugging’ comes in the actualizing that everything feminized society, everything any woman ever told him about the ‘appropriate’ way to engage with women is almost entirely the opposite of what produces the results he wants. Once he’s become so frustrated by his dating life that he experiments with un-conventional Game and discovers that Negs work, C&F works, Amused Mastery works, etc. there comes a point of disillusionment – and sometimes despair.

This comes from the realization that everything he’s held as a long-loved ego investment about women falls apart. Half his life was spent in the ignorance of believing women were equally as rational, equally shared the same mutual desires, equally as sincere in her words. The idea of duplicity based on her being female, or not understanding the gender differences in how women communicate, was shamefully due to his inability to become more like her. In his plugged in life, any failure, any misstep, was the result of his inability to identify with her more perfectly.

So it comes as no surprise when his eyes are opened to how much he’s invested of himself in these female-primary conventions. This is where most men turn back. It’s too much to bear in the revelation that what he’s believed for so long could be other than what women have told him so he enters a rationalized denial. And of course there is a well established social network ready welcome him back and reward him for his denial.

The Second Unplugging

The second unplugging comes when a Man is forced to come to this power dynamic realization again when entering into an LTR. Most guys who reinvent themselves and accept their masculine primacy role after having been subjected to an egalitarian gender equality doctrine for most of their lives feel strange in owning it in an LTR and/or marriage. It’s really put up or shut up time. Essentially you need to become the Man you sold yourself as when you were spinning plates. Guys who unplug and employ Game are initially mimicking the behaviors that used to be respected and attractive to women. Now they’re considered socially inappropriate or rude at best, borderline abusive at worst under feminine social auspices. Regardless, the results are undeniable.

In an LTR you have to actually be THAT guy, and for a formerly plugged-in AFC, the old mental schema of equality returns. Guilt sets in because he doesn’t feel deserving of the primacy he holds because he still hasn’t let go of that antiquated equalism he thought was valid for so long. He wants to play fair, but what he doesn’t realize is his concept of what is ‘fair’ is still rooted in his plugged-in mindset. It’s at this critical point that most LTRs destruct, because the guy reverts back to his old AFC mental habitus, or the girl settles into the comfort knowing she controls the frame and can dictate the terms of her intimacy as she sees fit.

This is one reason I emphasize a complete internalization of why Game works. I catch all kinds of criticism for being primarily theory based in my approach, but if, and when, you transition to an LTR monogamous commitment, by God you’d better understand why those theories are the bedrock of Game.

This is where you’re at. Your distress is coming from a want to return to a simpler way of dealing with your personal life that really never existed. Bear in mind that the “abusive” behavior your “crazy” girlfriend is complaining about is the same behavior that attracted her to you. If you’re feeling guilt for playing X-Box while she waits on you, then put down the console and do something productive, just understand that feeling of guilt comes from you thinking you need to “play fair” with her in order to keep her. That’s the path to her controlling the frame of the LTR.

Women & Regret

Paradox on the SoSuave forum had an interesting question after reading War Brides:

I’ve seen it mentioned here in passing but I would like to know how women handle regret.

How do they handle decisions that may affect their destiny?

Moments like:

Seeing someone on a train, bus, coffee shop, grocery store but not saying hello when the moment comes.

Meeting someone great at a party but not exchanging numbers.

Not calling back a guy

I have seen low IL changed to high IL but do women generally waver in their interest level all of the time?

The funny thing about regret is, it’s better to regret something you have done, than regret something you haven’t done.

Any observational answer I could offer here is going to have to be adjusted to account for women’s inherent solipsism – everything is about her, and everything confirms her assessments as the default. As such, you have to bear in mind that regret, for women, usually begins from a point of how a missed opportunity could’ve better benefitted themselves. The root of this is grounded in women’s constant, in-born psychological quest for security. Hypergamy, by necessity, makes for solipsistic women in order to best preserve the survival integrity of the species. That’s not to say women can’t sublimate that impulse as necessity dictates, but just as men must sublimate their sexual imperative, women begin at a point of tempering the insecurity that results from hypergamy.

Guilt and Regret

Using hypergamy as a woman’s point of origin, this affects how women process regret. At this point I should note that guilt and regret are not cut from the same vine. You can feel guilty about something you did or didn’t do, as well as feel regret for something you did or didn’t do, but the two are not synonymous. I want to avoid that confusion here from the outset, because guilt is associated with a lingering negativity, while regret comes from different motivations. If you did something you feel guilty about, you probably regret it, but you can regret something you have no feelings of guilt about.

After you finish reading this post check out the ‘Missed Connections’ section on your areas Craig’s List. Read the differences in tone, vernacular and purpose of both men and women lamenting a missed chance at something they hoped might develop. There’s no guilt involved in this wishful thinking, only a regret for not having taken an action.

Women’s Regret

Women’s experience of regret depends upon the degree or intensity of the encounter in relation to their own conditions. I know that sounds like psycho-babble, but let me explain. If, and to what degree, a woman experiences regret in the situations Paradox is describing, these are directly proportional to her self-worth versus the (perceived) value of the encounter.

At the risk of coming off as shallow again, the fat chick who thinks she blew a shot at a Brad Pitt will regret it more than the HB 9 who happened to lose an “average” guy’s phone number. I’m going to catch fire for this I’m sure, but it’s really an autonomous response for human beings to make subconscious comparisons and employ a natural ego preservation. While it’s latent psychological function is to help us learn from experience, generally regret is painful, so our natural response is to defend against it. We tend to regret not capitalizing on situations where the perceived reward value is high. The psychological buffer of course comes in rationalizing the actual value potential of that missed opportunity or minimizing the negative impact of the taken opportunity.

So the debate is really how do women in particular process this reward valuation with regard to men? Again, I’ll say it breaks down to subliminally recognizing their self-worth, modified by social affirmations and then comparing it with the value of the encounter. Even semi-attractive women (HB 6-7) have a subconscious understanding that most intersexual encounters they have are mediated by their frequency – how rare was that opportunity? Meaning if a girl is constantly reinforced with male attention (guys asking her out all the time, social media influences, etc.) the rarity of any one encounter is compared against the frequency with which guys are hitting on her. This is female Plate Theory in action. If you happen to be one among many of the throngs of her suitors she’s less likely to regret not following up with you in relation to the extraordinary (see Alpha) guy she perceives has a higher value than she’s normally used to being rewarded with.

Daddy Issues

I really had no intention of posting a Father’s Day post here. I’m not sure if most guy’s really understand the tragic irony of celebrating motherhood and fatherhood in some organized fashion, but it serves as a poignant highlight of the fem-centric society in which we live. This is lost on most people.

The contrast between mother’s and father’s day is perhaps one of the most easily recognizable evidence of the code in the feminine Matrix. As per the preset dictates of the Matrix, Mom is celebrated, loved and respected by default by virtue of her femaleness; Dad, if not outright vilified and publicly excoriated, is always reminded that he should be living up to the servitude that defines his disposable gender. The game is fixed, but do more Daddy, do more.

For children who blame their social ineptitude and psychological hangups on their mother, there is a certain degree of understandability. It’s difficult to blame a mother since the global impression is that mothering is a supreme effort and sacrifice. If she fails to some degree it’s excusable. For a man to blame his life’s ills on Mom smacks of latent misogyny, but lay the blame at dad’s feet and the whole world wails along in tune with you. A mother failing in her charge is negligent, but often excusable. A man failing as a father is always perceived as selfish and evil.

Matrix Fathers

Have a look at postsecret this week. It’ll all be gone by Sunday so have a look while it lasts. This week’s thread is the usual fare for Father’s Day, a hearty “Fuck You Dad!” or “You’re the reason I’m so fucked up!” interspersed with a couple ‘good dad’ sentiments so as not to entirely degrade the feminized ideal of fatherhood – wouldn’t want to discourage men’s perpetual ‘living up’ to the qualifications set by the feminine imperative. There has to be a little cheese in the maze or else the rat wont perform as desired.

I always see a marked difference in attitude between mother’s day and father’s day, especially now that I’ve been one for 14 years. I was listening to a local talk radio show on the ride home Friday that was opening lines for callers to express their ‘gratitude‘ for their fathers, as they’d done the previously in May for mother’s day. Damn near every caller had the same “fuck you dad!” story about how shitty their lives were because of their father’s influence or his lack thereof. One girl had called in to bleat out her story about how her dad had left her mother 30 years ago and for the last 10 years she’d sent him a father’s day card with a big ‘FU’ on it to tell him she’d never forgive him. Another guy called in to say how horrible his dad was for leaving his mom and how he sends her a father’s day card because he thinks she fulfilled a masculine role for him that he owes some gratitude for.

Father’s Day is a slap in the face for me now – not because my wife and daughter don’t appreciate me as a father, but because it’s become a big “fuck you” Mr. Man. It’s now a reminder (as if we needed a special occasion) that masculinity, even in as positive a light as the Matrix might muster, is devalued and debased, and we ought to just take it like a man and get over it.

Personally, when I hear cry-stories like this; the more I hear how crappy fathers perceptions are today only makes me want to be that much better a father to my daughter, and I can’t wait until I’ve got a grandson to help raise as well. That is until the reality sets in. The reality is that the only reason I feel the need to outperform other men in the father department is because a feminized social convention briefly convinced me that it’s my responsibility to compete with other men in a game where the rules are fixed to make better slaves of disposable men. Of course the bar is set so low, and men are so debased, that even the most mediocre of dads can play along too and still get the feeling that they’re marginally qualifying. The social convention plays into the same “not-like-other-guys” identification game most chumps subscribe to in their single years. The desire for uniqueness groundwork is already installed.

After realizing this, I stopped worrying about “being a good dad”. I’m already well beyond the fathering quality non-efforts my own dad embodied, but that’s not the point. A good Father goes about the business of being a father without concern for accolades. For Men, like anything else, it’s not about awards on the wall, but the overall body of work that makes for real accomplishment. A Father is a good father because he can weather an entire world that constantly tells him he’s a worthless shit by virtue of being a Man with a child. He just ‘does’, in spite of a world that will never appreciate his sacrifice and only regard his disposability as expected. And even in death he’ll still be expected to be a good dad.

Double Standards

In a fem-centric society it should really come as no shock that the feminine controls the meta-messaging in its own interests. As in politics and religion, when you are the controlling interest in the framing of any and all discourse, you preset the terms of any debate. Nowhere is this more evident than in women’s precognitive understanding of the infamous Double Standard.

Ask any woman for an example of a Double Standard and you’ll unfailingly get some iteration of the age old chestnut, “men are heroes for banging a lot of women, but women are sluts for banging a lot of men, agh, how unfair,..” This is always an easy, but ironic, target considering the current gender landscape. However, the reason it’s such a cliché is because it’s representative of the fem-centric standard of messaging. Women own the term Double Standard by default; any mention of a Double Standard and women will gleefully presume the term refers to them. Women’s feminine indignation need requires little prompting to satisfy.

With this in mind, it may come as a shock to most that there are far more applicable Double Standards for men than for women. You see, for any illegitimate cause to progress it must always accuse its rivals of the sins it commits itself. Double Standard? Women own it. Unfair judgement based on physical standards? Women own it. This is called ‘sowing disbelief’ – if your premise is weak, assume victimhood. Female default victimhood is nothing novel, however, feminine primary social engineering goes this one better by presupposing any male even hinting about claims to victim status is automatically disqualified from being a man.

The following comparative list was originally meant to be a humorous exposé of ‘true double standards’, but in its comedy it reveals the code in the Matrix. Enjoy!

 

The Enemy is Us

The more I watch this video (h/t to Yohami) the more I’m reminded of this post – Could a Man Have Written This? This is a fantastic indictment of feminism, but it’s only effective because a woman is the one delivering it. In our contemporary fem-centric society only a woman could ever legitimately endorse such a message and be taken remotely serious. Imagine a Man, even the most respected, intellectual scholar, reciting this message verbatim. In today’s social context, the message is completely different if the narrator has a penis. Misogyny is a presumed precondition before any critical thought is applied to the actual content of the message.

In making this observation I was also made aware of a social meta-dynamic. On a micro level, women’s communicative process is more concentrated upon the context of information being processed, in preference to the content (which is men’s innate domain). On the macro, societal level we see this same dynamic framing the our public discourse – fem-centrism demands a feminized preference for the contextual (the feel of the debate) above the critical content or the factual.

Thus, in a greater social arena defined by the fem-centric, a man delivering the same message as Girl Writes What? already feels wrong before the information of that message is processed.

The Scope

Recently I’ve been posting on other blogs & forums that are not specific to the “community” per se and I came back depressed. This, and the articles I’ve read and written freelance recently, plus personally dealing with friends, coworkers, business associates, hell, even church pastors – everywhere, the Matrix is there. It permeates society on so many levels. Little habits to deeply internalized beliefs, it is SO all-consuming. I know, for my readers this is like saying the sky is blue, but it is literally fucking everywhere. Turn on the TV, watch a movie, listen to the radio, surf the internet, talk to a friend, look at a billboard on the drive home, it is all encompassing.

I realize how paranoid and conspiratorial that all comes off as, but sometimes paranoia simply means you have all the facts.

I sometimes feel like John the Babtist decrying the truth in the wilderness. Yes, I know modern western culture is a cesspool of feminized Beta-AFCness, but it’s got to be preached. I recently revived a thread on SoSuave about being a positive mentor to young men and I can only think that this is a fantastic idea, because it’s men, not women who’re to blame for the vast majority of where we find ourselves now. I know the MGTOW adherents wont appreciate this, but as much as we’d like to shake our fists at the nebulous feminist movement of 50 some years ago, but just as Girl Writes What? addresses in the video, it was men who really got the ball rolling for them. And it was calculated to be so. The mass feminization of western culture we know now is far more a result of men’s complicitness which evolved into adovocation as a means to women’s sexuality. Your Dad, my Dad, in some cases our Grandfathers, have all contibuted to this, either implicitly or complicitly.

Men like Women

All it takes is one critical thought that doesn’t tow the Matrix approved line on a forum like LoveShack to draw the ire of any woman. That’s to be expected, but what follows is a landslide of sycophantic males, like braying asses, all attempting to qualify themselves to be acceptable, not just to a single woman responding, not just to their generalized feminine sensibilities, but to themselves, in relative anonymity: Meaning they have nothing to really hide and this is their default go-to response.

Far more males (they’re not Men) will vehemently rise to defend the ‘victimized’ woman, without so much as a critical thought as to what’s been said. These men think like women; the content doesn’t matter, only the context. And if that criticism sounds even remotely disparaging of their AFC ego investments it’s met with such a throng of protest and so loud a chorus of a well taught and conditioned shaming response that even a woman with an opposing viewpoint becomes secondary to their need to prove amongst themselves who’s the more acceptable to the feminine norm.

Males have become assimilated by this feminization and are now more emphatic and effective feminists than the original founders of feminism could’ve ever hoped for.

Real Life

I’m also presently dealing with a guy I hired at work and have basically watched an otherwise confident, very good looking guy systematically go through finding a girl online, meeting up with her, moving in with her and buying a dog with her in the span of 3 months. I tried intervention, but of course I got the standard AFC rationales. Now he gets depressed because he’s in over his head, and is complaining about how he gets to the gym religiously and she gets mad because he even hints she get her fat ass to the gym. I recently met her, and at her weight, I simply cannot believe this girl should ever be in a position to dictate anything to my friend. Yet there he is, by his own doing, his own self-convincing and his own innability to see past what people like those on LoveShack are fostering. He’s talented, a good looking guy, bright, ambitious, he’s even a semi-pro club D.J. and now saddled to a woman who is in no way deserving or appreciative of a guy like him.

I’ve got another guy in another dept. who was a former Marine who served 3 tours in Iraq and is an amazingly organized and responsible guy. Alpha as fuck in all respects but one; he too is saddled with an overweight fianceé who barks at him via cell phone while he takes his smoke breaks. I hear them bickering occasionally and all the guy does is attempt to appease her – this former Marine, who war couldn’t bow, is crushed mentally and emotionally by a woman who should never have a position to question him. Why? because he subscribes to the societal fem-centric default mentality when entreating with women.

I have a designer on my team – a gorgeous 24 y.o. blonde – bright, talented, educated – who is like wise stuck with a Beta chump. She’s aware of my writing and I’ve made attempts to advise her on her own situation. Even in light of this, her constant complaint is that guys are indecisive pussies now, guy’s are whipped now, guys allow women to define them now – where are all the Men now?

Comfort Zones

This shit is EVERYWHERE. The pastor at the church I attend will be offering the annual Father’s Day diatribe this Sunday and I’m anticipating the standard fem-religious message that goes along with it. However, more importantly, I’m looking forward to taking a lot of mental notes on his attitudes directed towards gender interaction. I have a good idea of what they’ll be from observing his manner toward his wife (standard religious, male self-deprication, “boy I’m sure glad she took pity on a chump like me” attitude), but I think this might be a good jumping off point for some interaction with him on his blog.

While the feminine defined social landscape is depressing to be sure, I think it’s necessary to branch out into uncharted waters. It’s very easy to type away on my blog or other forums and get an echo-chamber effect. It takes more than that to hone the message. Sure, we get the AFC naysayers here or the unplugging truth seekers presenting an opposite view (even the rare rational female input), but I think in order to stay sharp we need to venture outside our comfort zones to bring the gospel to those still trapped in the Matrix. Where else are they going to get anything more than a juvenile impression of what our “community” is saying?

I have to admit that it frustrates me to no end to have my – what I believe, very well reasoned – ideas lumped into the PUA scam category or have them passed off as misogynous before I’ve completed a valid point. It’s become very easy to pass it off as such, thanks to the same men who’ve essentially done exactly the same thing we’re fighting against; making positive masculinity laughable.

The Peacekeepers

Whenever I’m asked for examples of ‘successful marriages’ it’s usually in response to a comment or forum thread breaking down the cost-to-benefits ratio of the travesty that’s become Marriage 2.0. To me, the real irony in these evaluative debates is how often they arise. They come up so often it’s as if these men, in their most rational and prescient minds, are seeking permission from more experienced men to enter into marriage in spite of all the overwhelming downsides to what the institution has become. Even when they’re staring down the gun barrel, guys still want to get married. They want it to work like it’s supposed to.

‘Successful’ and ‘Failed’ Marriages

I’ve made prior posts about my own marriage and how I’ve developed it, but I’m always reluctant to hold myself up as some model for other men to follow because I’m painfully and personally aware of the marriage stories of other men. As good as it sounds, don’t use my marriage as your benchmark.

In fact I think the very idea of a “successful marriage” is a very abused, feel-good Oprah-esque term. ‘Successful’ and ‘Failed’ marriages are Matrix-speak. They’re goal oriented terms for a relational condition that’s constantly in flux. You have to stop thinking of a “successful marriage” in terms of years on the clock. There are people married for 50+ years who are absolutely miserable with each other, and there are couples married for 2 or 3 who have a better love and mutual respect for each other than their parents ever realized themselves after 40 years. Perpetuating a life-long state of misery because it became normalized is a much greater ‘failure’ than divorcing a woman who’s poisonous to your well-being, to say nothing of your family’s. Longevity does not equal ‘success’ in marriage.

Whenever I’m asked for examples of ‘successful marriages’, and particularly when asked by guys seeking to turn their Beta-framed marriage around, I always refer to this inspirational post from Dave in Hawaii. This is my go-to model for both the questioning unmarried man and the desperate beta-married man.

Experimentation

The underlying, root problem most men have with regard to women, intimacy, their relationships, etc. is fear. Fear of rejection, fear of isolation, fear of missing out on or fucking up what they’ve been taught should be their legitimate, socially approved desire. So pervasive is this fear that in trying to avoid the consequences of it, it trumps even the fear of death. I personally know Marines who’ve bravely faced real bullets shot at them, who’ll manically avoid any situation they think their wives or girlfriends would even remotely consider leaving them for. Bullets don’t scare them, but the chance of losing a girlfriend’s intimacy paralyzes them with fear. This is the “Yes Dear” fear.

In order to compensate for that fear men will devise all manner of rationales for their relations, but furthest from their mind would ever be ‘experimenting’ or engaging in risk taking situations with their LTR woman. So influential is that fear that they will never attempt changing their own positions no matter how beneficial it would be to both him and his partner. Guys embodying the peak of confidence in other aspects of their lives would still rather “keep the peace” in the face of a bad situation with their wives than risk that loss (of the ONE or otherwise), and be cast back into uncertain conditions where they may actually grow, but again be subject to real rejection.

Dave in Hawaii’s story I linked is an example of a guy who would’ve otherwise divorced his wife and was already in a “nothing left to lose” situation while married, so he overcame the fear and experimented. That led him to a new reframing of his relationship; one where his wife had a renewed respect for him. The possibility existed that she could have taken such offense to his behavior that she would’ve been prompted to leave him, but her leaving was already a foregone conclusion if he hadn’t initiated something new.

There comes a point in a Man’s life where the fear of experimenting with a potentially disastrous outcome is out weighed by the cost involved in not assuming that risk.

Whether it comes (preferably) before he’s committed to a situation (like marriage) or as a result of the conditions created by that commitment, at some point he realizes the truth that he will only get what he has gotten if keeps doing what he has done. This is the internal debate the ‘peacekeeper’ has to confront – is his peacekeeping so debilitating that he wont experiment with risking a new outcome? If you’re still having this internal dialog you haven’t reached that threshold yet.

In July I’ll have been married for 16 years. Mrs. Tomassi and I have always enjoyed a mature, adult, mutual respect and understanding of each other’s identities and how we relate to each other. I’ve been in LTRs where I was constantly walking on eggshells, nervous that any slight might mean the end of what was really a twisted, adolescent level BPD relationship. You cannot live like that forever; you will break it off, or you will commit suicide. For over 16 years I’ve fearlessly ‘checked out’ other women and ask my wife’s joking opinion about them. And yes, she playfully hits me back by saying some random guy is cute, but my confidence to roll with what we’re both aware is part of the Game only serves to amplify her continued attraction for me. That push-pull is an essential part of my wife’s respect for me. Experimentation and a sense of fearlessness is an intentional foundation of my marriage.