The Myth of the Lonely Old Man

Is loneliness a disease that necessitates a cure? If men could be made to believe so, think of the potential profit to be made from, and the potential for manipulation of, men. The real test for a man is how he lives with himself, alone. Precious few men ever truly allow themselves to be alone and learn real independence and self-reliance. The vast majority of guys (see Betas), particularly in western culture, tend to transition from mother to wife with little or no intermission between. For the most part they subscribe to the feminine imperative, becoming serial monogamists going from LTR to LTR until they ‘settle’ without ever having learned and matured into how to interact as an adult.

The fear of loneliness is entirely too exaggerated in modern western romanticism. The popularized fear-mythology of becoming the “lonely old man who never loved” is the new ‘old maid’ myth made popular in an era when a woman’s worth was dependent upon her marital status and (at least now) equally as false a premise. But in our brave new ‘Generation AFC’, men (who’ve become women) are repackaged and shamed into believing this horse-shit as part & parcel of feminized gender role reversal. And thus we get Speed Dating and eHarmony and a host of other “conveniences” to pacify the insecurities that this reversal instills.

I’m going to suggest that most AFCs, most feminized, conditioned males, LIKE and embrace the lonely old man myth because it is a Buffer against potential rejection. Does that sound like a stretch? It shouldn’t. When used from a feminized perspective this myth is most certainly a ‘shaming’ social convention with the latent function of getting men to commit to a feminine frame – “you better change yourself soon, or your soulmate might pass you by and you’ll be lonely and desolate in your old age”. That’s the feminized use of the myth, however, the internalized AFC use of the myth is a Buffer. This then becomes his rationale for settling for a substandard LTR or marriage.

It’s really a triple whammy. There is the feminine reinforced fear of solitude. Then, the self-reinforced expectation of maturity or “doing the right thing”. And finally the use of it as a convenient retreat from rejection or potential rejection; and this is what I’m getting at when I refer to it as a Buffer.

Case example: I have a friend who is trapped in a passionless marriage with a woman, who’s set the frame from day one. He’d like to come off as dominant with his male friends, but it’s clear to most of our friends that his wife runs the marriage framing. Prior to meeting this girl our friend was a serial monogamist branch swinger. The LTR girl he’d been with prior to her ran the show in much the same way for almost 5 years. When he was finally freeing himself from her (with a bit of my own help), he started to see the value of being single and independent and began dating non-exclusively for about a 3 month period. After meeting his now wife he gradually tried to find suitable ways to withdraw and become exclusive. Knowing what our reaction would be, he began searching for all kinds of rationale to effect this – and settled on the myth of the lonely old man.

His story was the classic one where a guy shakes off his old ways of thinking about women and dating, and almost unplugs from the Matrix, but fails to kill his inner AFC and slides back into his old Beta mentality once he’d secured another ‘soulmate’. Here was a guy who’d spent more than half of his 20s in a miserable LTR who managed to briefly unplug for about 3 months before latching onto another ONEitis. Yet his reasoning was “I’m tired of the dating games. I need to settle down. I don’t want to be lonely when I’m 60.” This from a guy who’d only ever been single for 3 months of his life. It was his Buffer. Of course now he’s resentful and pensive about his marriage and lives life vicariously through his single friends, while at the same time self-righteously scolds them for still being single.

The Myth of the Lonely Old Man is a Buffer against rejection. It’s hiding in (settling for) relationships they’re told they must constantly work to perfect, because of the fear of potential rejection. In fact, they’re pre-set in this idea while still single – they see it as a valid reason and a desirable goal; get married quick, before it’s too late. What’s worse is that the rationale is unassailable. The foundation of the myth is associated with maturity, and who’s going to tell you not to be more mature? This is how we get the Peter Pan social convention women like to trot out; “He’ll never grow up!” The problem is that this lack of maturity is only paired with a Man’s willingness to commit or not to commit to their long term provisioning goals.

Don’t buy into the powder-puff idea that if you don’t find your mythological soulmate ONE by the time you’re 30 and ASAP you’ll tempt fate and risk a life of quiet desperation. This contrivance only serves the interests of women who’s imperative it is to enjoy their party years in their 20′s with as many Alphas as they can attract and have a stable Nice Guy who’s petrified he’ll live a life of loneliness and desperation waiting for them at 28-30 to marry and ensure their long term security.

Don’t buy this lie. The man who is comfortable with himself and confident in his true independence is the one that women will want to be associated with and to share in it. How you handle being alone and what you do with the opportunities that freedom allows is the real measure of a man. If you’re single and 50 you STILL have options if you’re only brave enough to explore them. I know divorced men in their 50s who’re dating mid 30s women right now and I know men in their 60s who’ve been trapped and emotionally blackmailed by their wives for 30 years. Mariage is no insulation from the sexual marketplace.

“We’ll do it Live!”

Just letting everyone here know that (against my better judgement) I will be on SoSuave’s first ever live internet broadcast, Saturday, September 10th at 3pm EST.

We’ll be discussing the most popular topics from that forum as well as taking live video calls and text questions from whoever wants to join in. We want as much participation from you guys as possible so don’t be afraid to make your voices heard and hopefully bring the community a little closer.

Check out the link and don’t forget to click on the “RSVP” button at the bottom of the page because I think you have to be a registered user of VOLKE to join in the discussion. If you guys have any question you can ask me in the comments section of this thread or hit up Thundermaverick at SoSuave since he’s the show’s host.

http://www.vokle.com/series/15038-sosuave-dot-net-live

PS: Questions about my relation to Brett Favre will be summarily dismissed.

Operative Social Conventions

Often I’ll be in the middle of some socio-psychological tear on a particular topic when I’ll come to a dead halt because I play my own devil’s advocate while I’m typing and reasoning aloud, and have to review and edit the paragraphs I’ve spent the last 2 hours constructing because I’d failed to consider how others might interpret my intent, or I’d overlooked some element and had to go back and address that issue, or at the very least have a source ready to cite for the most predictable rebuttals. Needless to say it’s an arduous process, however I’ve found that starting topics in regards to certain theories and ideas I have to see what their intent will be read as helps me greatly. So with this in mind I’m presenting a particular section of my work here to see what the consensus is on what I’ve come to call Operative Social Conventions. I had originally titled the section Feminine Operative Social Conventions, and I may still go back to that, but after you read this you’ll see how these conventions (or contrivances) need Men to play along with them for them to exist in the first place, or so I’ve reasoned.

Operative Social Conventions

In the ‘community’ we’ve become all too familiar with a standard set of problems that are commonly asked of us for advice – “Should I date younger/older women with/without children?””what about women with money/career?”etc. for example. So often are we petitioned for our take on these dilemas that we have a tendency to repeat back a standard reply for them. I count myself among those who do this as well. I’m very prone to see the forest for the trees so to speak and fire back with my stand by reply of Spin More Plates, or NEXT. And while these response are novel to those reading them for the first time (and hopefully having their eyes opened for the first time too), I’d come to realize that I was guilty of not seeing the forest with regards to why certain topics are more frequently reoccurring problems for the Beta-AFC and the aspiring Game student alike. For the most part, Plate Theory covers a multitude of AFC sins, but my concern was with understanding why these questions come up so often and what their root cause is. To this effect I’ve attempted to ‘distill’ down the symptoms (i.e. the commonly related problems) to the motivation behind them (i.e. the disease rather than the symptoms). This led me to a new theory of Operative Social Conventions.

I’ve posted on this blog and in more forum threads than I care to recall about these conventions before, but never really explored the idea in depth. Essentially all of the symptoms of these conventions are manifested as the frequent problems guys come up with, but the disease is the latent purpose of these conventions. For every guy asking if it’s a good idea to date a single mother or an older woman, there’s a single mother or older woman perpetuating the convention in order to best ensure her capacity to secure a man capable of provisioning for her. I wont ramble off into the bio-psychological aspect of why this is such an all important drive for women (and men in some cases), instead I’ll focus on certain conventions, the way they operate and their latent operative function.

Shame
Perhaps the easiest and most recognizable form of social convention is shame. Not only this, but it is also the most easily employable and the most widely accepted – not just by women of all ages and descriptions, but also by popular culture and the media.

Examples:
“Men should date women their own age.”
“Men shouldn’t be so ‘shallow’ as to put off single mothers as viable long term mates.”
“Men have ‘fragile egos’ that need constant affirmation in an almost infantile respect.”
“Men feel threatened by ‘successful’ women.”

As well as being popularized myths, all of these are subtle (and not so subtle) manipulations of shame. Each is an operative social convention that places a man into a position of having to live up to an idealized standard that simultaneously raises the standard for a woman, thus placing her into a better position of sexual selection and in some instances, leveling the perceived playing-field with regard to the feminine competition dynamic (i.e single moms, older and professional women ought to be just as sexually marketable as the younger women men biologically prefer).

The ‘Shallow’ effect – The useful myth of superficiality.

I’m mentioning this as an aside to the Shame methodology since it appears to me to be the root of the Shame operative. In all of the above examples (or symptoms) the burden of expectation that is placed on a man comes with the threat of being perceived as “Shallow” or superficial. In otherwords, the very questioning of whether or not a man ought to date a single mother comes with the veiled threat of having women (mothers or not) tar the questioning man with being ‘superficial’. This ‘Shallow’ effect is so pervasive in so many AFCs, young and old, that I’ve counseled that it becomes an automatic default defense. Even under conditions of complete anonymity, the Shallow Effect becomes so ego-invested in their personality that even the potential of being perceived as “shallow” is subconsciously avoided. This is a major obstacle in transitioning from AFC to positive masculinity. AFCs all initially laugh at PUA technique (C&F, Peacocking, Neg Hits, etc.) because they carry the potential of being perceived as ‘shallow’. The truth of the matter is that individually we are only as superficial as our own self-perceprtions allow, but the Shallow Effect is a useful convention so long as it keeps men doubting their ingenuousness and self-validity as a trade for women’s intimacy.

Selection Position Insurance
Examples:
Women are ‘allowed’ to understand men, but women must necessarily ALWAYS be a mystery to men.

Getting “lucky” with a woman when referring to sex.

Selection position insuring methodologies revolve around fomenting the Scarcity Mentality in men. If the value can be inflated, the value can be increased, thus ensuring a controlling frame. This convention holds fast to the Feminine Mystique or Female Intuition mythology. So long as women remain ‘uknowable’ there becomes less motivation to try to understand them. In fact this convention actively discourages any attempt to understand the feminine to the point that men have adopted it and parrot it back without being cognizant of it. This is exactly the reason why guys will ridicule men seeking understanding of women when they search it out in “how to get girls” books, DVDs, PUA seminars or on the internet. It’s also why men who profess to ‘know’ how women operate are ridiculed; it’s a perfect paradox – to attempt to understand the feminine OR to profess to know the feminine is not only laughable, but it places a man into the Shallow Effect in either case.

Social Escape Clauses – A woman’s prerogative
Examples:
Women always have the prerogative to change their minds. Men must be resolute.

Proactive and Reactive Pseudo-Friendship Rejections:
LJBF rejections – “I already have a boyfriend” or “I’m not interested in a relationship right now” rejections.

Default female victimhood

Escape clause conventions always offer an OUT to a woman and absolve her of, or dramatically reduce her responsibility for personal accountability by means of social reinforcement. A stripper can complain of her self-degradation by men, but be completely blameless for her decisions to do so by virtue of her social conditions, that are, again, the perceived result of a male controlled society. The Feminine Prerogative has been an accepted social norm since the early Renaissance and the advent of ‘courtly love’. Like the Position Insurance convention, this serves to ensure that the ‘mysterious woman’ is validated in her arbitrariness by socially plausible reinforcement. The opposite of this convention is enforced for men, they must be resolute while accepting that a woman “has the right to change her mind.” This, and the cart-carrot of a woman’s intimacy as a reward, is exactly why it is socially acceptable for a man to wait hours for a woman to prepare/show for a date and the kiss of death for a man to be more than 5-10 minutes late. He must be punctual, she is afforded leniency.

I don’t think I need to go into too much detail regarding the LJBF (“lets just be friends”) esacpe clause as it’s been done to death, and aI have plans for a future post on it, but I will add that the LJBF esacpe is perhaps the single most useful convention ever conceived by women. The LJBF rejection has classically ensured that a woman can reject a man yet still maintain his previous attention. It also puts the responsibility for the rejection back on his shoulders since, should he decline the ‘offer of friendship’, he is then responsible for entertaining this friendship. This of course has the potential to backfire on women these days since the standard AFC will accept an LJBF rejection in the mistaken hopes of ‘proving’ himself worthy of her intimacy by being the perfect ‘surrogate boyfriend’ – fulfilling all her attention and loyalty prerequisites with no expectation of reciprocating her own intimacy. The LJBF rejection also serves as an ego preservation for her in that having offered the false olive branch of ‘friendship’ to him in her rejection she also can sleep that night knowing that she (and any of her peers) wont think any less of herself. After all, she offered to be friends, right? She is excused from any feelings of personal guilt or any responsibilities for his feelings if she still wants to remain amiable with him.

Sexual Competition Sabotage
Examples:
“She’s a ‘slut’ – he’s a ‘fag’” and the sub-communications in the terminology.

Catty remarks, gossip, feminine communication methodologies

This convention is the reputation destroyer and it’s easy to observe this in the field. Since it also serves a woman attention needs, it is among the most socially acceptable and widely flaunted, however the foundations and latent purpose of this convention takes some consideration to understand. When women employ gossip it comes natural since it is an emotional form of communication (men have a far lower propensity to use gossip), but the purpose of it is meant to disqualifiy a potential sexual competitior. In terms of female to female gossip this satisfies the attention need, but when men are brought into the salaciousness it becomes a qualification tool. By saying a woman is a “slut”, the sub-communication is, “she sleeps with a lot of guys and is therefore inelligible as a candidate deserving of a man’s long term provisioning capacity, due to her obvious inability to remain loyal to any one, individual male.” This then becomes the ultimate weapon in influencing a man’s (long term) sexual selection.

I’ll also add that this breeding sabotage isn’t limited to just women though. What’s the first thing most men are apt to say about another, anonymous, extremely attractive male? “He’s probably a fag.” Men have learned this convention from women, they sexually disqualify a man in the most complete way possible; “this guy might be as attractive as a GQ model, but he would never breed with a woman and is therefore disqualified as a suitor for your intimacy.”

Gender Role Redefinition
Examples:
Masculinity is ridiculous and/or negative with the potential for violent extremes.

“Men should get in touch with their feminine sides.” – Identification as false attraction.

Although I have a few more conventions in mind, I’ll finish this post with this, the most obvious and most discussed convention. There’s no shortage of articles dedicated to this convention, so I wont rehash what’s been stated. Instead, I should point out the latent purpose behind the popularity and mass cultural acceptance of this, the most damaging convention. The function behind this convention could be androgeny as an idealized state, or a power struggle to redefine masculine and feminine attributes, or even to ensure women as the primary selectors in mating. All of those can be argued and are valid, especially considering how prone to accepting and perpetuating this convention is among men today, but I think the deeper purpose, the real latent function is a sexual selection process.

It’s the man who remains in touch with his masculine side, the guy who, despite all of pop-culture denigrating and ridiculing his gender and the very aspects that make it a necessary, positive strength of human society, will endure and steadfastly resist the influences that want to turn it into something it was never intended; it’s this guy and his confidence that women all over the world find irresistable. He embodies the masculine arousal that their feminine has been seeking and they can’t explain it. This is the ultimate meta-shit test in sexual selection – to discover or learn what it is to be postively masculine and remain so in a world that constantly berates his gender, that tells him he’s poisoned by his testosterone while confirming the same masculine attributes as a positive for women. It’s the guy who understands that it’s gender differences, not androgynous similarities, that make us strong. It’s the Man who can see that the sexes were meant to be complimentary, not adversarial, who passes this shit test. Gender redefinition, as a social convention, serves as an Alpha filtering mechanism.

Rooting through garbage

HELP! I fucked up big time and I want her back! How do I get her back?

Easily one of the most common questions I’ve fielded at SoSuave over the past 7 years has been some variation of “how do I get her back?” It’s common for a reason; at some stage of life every guy believes that rejection is worse than regret. Lord knows I tried to recover an old lover or two in my own past. Whether due to infidelity on her part, your own or a regression back beta after initiating an LTR, there is one Iron Rule you should always refer back to:

Iron Rule of Tomassi #7
It is always time and effort better spent developing new, fresh, prospective women than it will ever be in attempting to reconstruct a failed relationship. Never root through the trash once the garbage has been dragged to the curb. You get messy, your neighbors see you do it, and what you thought was worth digging for is never as valuable as you thought it was.

Even if you could go back to where you were, any relationship you might have with an ex will be colored by all of the issues that led up to the breakup. In other words, you know what the end result of those issues has been. It will always be the 800 pound. gorilla in the room in any future relationship. As I elaborated in the Desire Dynamic, healthy relationships are founded on genuine mutual desire, not a list of negotiated terms and obligations, and this is, by definition, exactly what any post-breakup relationship necessitates. You or she may promise to never do something again, you may promise to “rebuild the trust”, you may promise to be someone else, but you cannot promise to accept that the issues leading up to the breakup don’t have the potential to dissolve it again. The doubt is there. You may be married for 30 years, but there will always be that one time when you two broke up, or she fucked that other guy, and everything you think you’ve built with her over the years will always be compromised by that doubt of her desire.

You will never escape her impression that you were so optionless you had to beg her to rekindle her intimacy with you.

The Feminine Mystique

Perhaps the single most useful tool women have possessed for centuries is their unknowablity. I made that word up, but it’s applicable; women of all generations for hundreds of years have cultivated this sense of being unknowable, random or in worse case fickle or ambiguous. This is the feminine mystique and it goes hand in hand with the feminine prerogative – a woman always reserves the right to change her mind – and the (mythical) feminine intuition – “a woman just knows.” While a Man can never be respected for anything less than being forthright and resolute – say what you mean, mean what you say – women are rewarded and reinforced by society for being elusive and, dare I say, seemingly irrational. In fact, if done with the right art, it’s exactly this elusiveness that makes her both desirable and intolerably frustrating. However, to pull this off she must be (or seem to be) unknowable, and encourage all of male society to believe so.

The feminine mystique appeals to the feminine psyche for the same reasons ‘chick crack’ works so well in PUA technique. It appeals to the same ‘secret power’ dynamic that makes meta-physical associations so attractive (religion, superstition, intuition, etc.) One need look no further than women’s innate love of gossip to understand; There’s power in secrets for women. It’s hardly a surprise that connections with witchcraft have been associated with the feminine for so long. In an historically male dominated culture it follows that the power of secrecy and mysticism would need to be cultivated into the feminine as a resource for influencing the men in control of it. Sometimes that may have ended with a woman burned at the stake, but more often it was a means to becoming the ‘power behind the throne’ by degrees, and depending upon the status of the man she could enchant.

Combine that mysticism with sexuality, and you’ve got the feminine mystique – the most useful tool the feminine imperative possesses in it’s quest for optimal hypergamy.

The feminine mystique permeates inter-gender communication. On every forum response, on every blog comment, on every facebook post and in any article ever written by women with a personal, feminine investment in the subject, there is a residue of recognizing the feminine mystique. When a woman retorts to an observation of  female behavior that betrays female intent, the standard misdirection is ALWAYS saturated in the unknowable, unpredictably capricious, feminine mystique. The first (and second) rule of Fight Club for the feminine imperative is to protect the mystery of the female – and the sisterhood has no mercy for those who would betray that. To quote Roissy, the closer you get to truth the louder women screech.

For years I’ve striven to breakdown confusion and common problems by observing behavior. Women are human beings with the same basic motivations that men are subject to with some greater or lesser variation in their reasoning and methodologies. The point being is that women are every bit as subject to being as mundane or as extraordinary as men are, but the difference is that men don’t enjoy a masculine mystique. With rare exceptions, we don’t generally cultivate this sense of mystery because we’re not rewarded for it to the degree women are – and honestly, we haven’t needed to. But for a woman, if she can cultivate this mystique, her attentions become a reward unto themselves for the guy who is ‘lucky’ enough to tame her. Rest assured, when you think a woman is crazy, she’s crazy like a fox; she’s crazy with a reason. Women are every bit as calculating as men, in fact more so I’d argue because they have the mystique to hide a multitude of sins behind. They’re not irrational, they’re calculated – you just have to develop an ability to read a woman’s actions and behaviors and see the latent purpose behind them.

In contemporary times, men are far too ready to write off women as irrational agents. Even Freud was fooled by the hysterics of women’s responses and wrote them off as largely incapable, random and duplicitous to their own interests. I can’t begin to tell you how frustrating it is to hear an elderly man say “women, I guess we’ll never really understand them, huh?” How many times have you been asked by a friend, “so, did ya get lucky with Kristy last night?” We don’t think much of this passing question, but it’s framed in such a way that men autonomously perpetuate the myth of this mystique. It’s not luck that gets you laid. I understand that circumstance and being the right guy at the right time most certainly plays a part, but that’s not the operative here. However, if we feel as though we got lucky, we won the lottery, or walked away with a rare and valuable PRIZE, it doesn’t help us to understand what it is we did correctly in a given instance. Not only that, it perpetuates women as the mysterious prize-givers and ensures they maintain an indirectly primary power role in embodying the prize that is feared to be lost. You were lucky to have gotten sex with this mysterious woman so it must be something rare and valuable indeed.

The feminine mystique discourages questioning the process or the motives involved in inter-gender relations; men are just happy to have had the chance of experiencing the unkowable woman they scarcely understand. When mixed with sexual deprivation, the lucky fate element makes the sex that much more absorbing. It’s this luck precognition for men and fostered by women that leads to the scarcity mentality and often (but not exclusively) ONEitis in men. It serve the feminine if men willingly adopt the feminine mystique mindset with regards to their intimacy. Sexuality is a woman’s first, best agency and any social mechanism that contributes to the value of it will always be encouraged.

The Medium is the Message

I hate the term ‘Mixed Signals’ or ‘Mixed Messages’. “I dunno man, she sending me mixed messages” is a common refrain among many a Blue Pill man.

More often than not there’s nothing ‘Mixed’ being communicated, rather it’s a failure (willful or not) to read what a woman is communicating to a man. The average guy tends to ‘get’ exactly what a woman has implied with her words, but it takes practice to read her behavior and then more practice in self-control to apply it to his own interpretation.

When a woman goes from hot to cold and back again, THIS IS the message — she’s got buyers remorse, you’re not her first priority, she’s deliberating between you and what she perceives is a better Hypergamous prospect, you were better looking when she was drunk, etc. — the message isn’t the ‘what ifs’, the message IS her own hesitation and how her behavior manifests it. 10 dates before sex? This IS the message. Canceling dates? Flaking? strong interest to weak interest? This IS the message.

Women with high interest level (IL) wont confuse you. When a woman wants to fuck you she’ll find a way to fuck you. If she’s fluctuating between being into you and then not, put her away for a while and spin other plates. If she sorts it out for herself and pursues you, then you are still playing in your frame and you maintain the value of your attention to her. It’s when you patiently while away your time wondering what the magic formula is that’ll bring her around, that’s when you lean over into her frame. You need her more than she needs you and she will dictate the terms of her attentions.

What most guys think are ‘mixed messages’ or confusing behavior coming from a woman is simply due to their inability (or refusal) to make an accurate interpretation of why she’s behaving in such a manner. Usually this boils down to a guy getting so wrapped up in a girl that he’d rather make concessions for her behavior than see it for what it really is. In other words, it’s far easier to call it ‘mixed messages’ or fall back on the old chestnut of how fickle and random women are, when in fact it’s simply a rationale to keep themselves on the hook, so to speak, because they lack any real, viable, options with other women in their lives. A woman that has a high IL in a guy has no need (and less motivation) to engage in behaviors that would compromise her status with him. Women of all ILs will test a man’s fitness (i.e. shit test), and men will pass or fail accordingly, but a test is more easily recognizable when you consider the context in which they’re delivered.

More often than not women tell the complete truth with their mannerisms and behaviors, they just communicate it in a fashion that men can’t or wont understand. As a behaviorist, I’m a firm believer in the psychological principal that the only way to determine genuine motivation and/or intent is to observe the behavior of an individual. All one need do is compare behavior and the results of it to correlate intent.

A woman will communicate vast wealths of information and truths to a man if he’s only willing to accept her behavior, not exclusively her words, as the benchmark. He must also understand that the truth she betrays in her behavior is often not what he wants to accept.

We get frustrated because women communicate differently than we do. Women communicate covertly, men communicate overtly. Men convey information, women convey feeling. Men prioritize content and information, women prioritize context and feeling when they communicate. One of the great obfuscations fostered by feminization in the last quarter-century is this expectation that women are every bit as rational and inclined to analytical problem solving as men. It’s the result of an equalist mentality that misguides men into believing that women communicate no differently than men. That’s not to discount women learning to be problem solvers in their own right, but it flies in the face how women set about a specifically feminine form of communication. Scientific study after study illustrating the natural capacity women have for exceptionally complex forms of communication (to the point of proving their neural pathways are wired differently) are proudly waved in by a feminized media as proof of women’s innate merits. Yet as men, we’re expected to accept that she “means what she says, and she says what she means.”

More than a few women like to wear this as a badge of some kind of superiority, however it doesn’t necessarily mean that what they communicate is more important, or how they communicate it is more efficient, just that they have a greater capacity to understand nuances of communication better than do men. One of the easiest illustrations of this generational gender switch is to observe the communication methods of the “strong” women the media portray in popular fiction today. How do we know she’s a strong woman? The first cue is she communicates in an overt, information centered, masculine manner.

You don’t need to be psychic to understand women’s covert communication, you need to be observant. This often requires a patience that most men simply don’t have, so they write women off as duplicitous, fickle or conniving if the name fits. Even to the Men that are observant enough, and take the needed mental notes to really see it going on around them, it seems very inefficient and irrational. And why wouldn’t it? We’re Men. Our communications are (generally) information based, deductive and rational, that’s Men’s overt communication. Blunt, to the point, solve the problem and move on to the next. Feminine communication seems insane, it is a highly dysfunctional form of communication….,to be more specific, it’s a childish form of communication. This is what children do! They say one thing and do another. they throw temper tantrums. They react emotionally to everything. Yes, they do. And more often than not, they get what they’re really after — attention. Women are crazy, but it’s a calculated crazy.

Covert communication frustrates us every bit as much as overt communication frustrates women. Our language has no art to it for them, that’s why we seem dumb or simple at best to women. We filter for information to work from, not the subtle details that make communication enjoyable for women. This is the same reason we think of feminine communication as being obfuscating, confusing, even random. The difference is that our confusion and frustration is put to their ultimate use. So long as women remain unknowable, random, irrational creatures that men can’t hope to understand (but can always excuse), they can operate unhindered towards their goals. “Silly boy, you’ll never understand women, just give up” is exactly the M.O. Once you accept this, she’s earned a lifetime of get-out-of-jail-free cards. The myth of the ‘Feminine Mystique’ and a woman’s prerogative (to change her mind) is entirely dependent upon this covert communication.

Now as Men we’ll say, “Evil, immoral, manipulative woman! Shape up and do the right thing, saying one thing then doing another makes you a hypocrite!” and of course this is our rational nature overtly making itself heard and exposing a woman’s covert communication. An appeal to morality, that’ll get her, but,..it doesn’t.

This is because women instinctively know that their sexuality is their first, best agency, and covert communication is the best method to utilize it. Appeals to morality only work in her favor, because all she need do is agree with a Man’s overt assessment of her and suddenly he thinks he’s ‘getting through to her’. As Men, we have become so conditioned by the Feminine Mystique to expect a woman to be duplicitous with us that when she suddenly leans into masculine communication forms and resorts to our own, overt communication method and agrees with us, it seems she’s had an epiphany, or a moment of clarity. “Wow, this one’s really special, ‘high quality’, and seems to get it.” That is, so long as it suits her conditions to do so. When it doesn’t, the Feminine Mystique is there to explain it all away.

Have you ever been in a social setting, maybe a party or something, with a girlfriend or even a woman you may be dating and seemingly out of the blue she says to you privately, “ooh, did you see the dirty look that bitch just gave me?!” You were right there in her physical presence, saw the girl she was talking about, yet didn’t register a thing. Women’s natural preference for covert communication is recognizable by as early as five years old. They prefer to fight in the psychological, whereas boys fight in the physical.

Within their own peer group, little girls fight for dominance with the threat of ostracization from the group. “I wont be your friend anymore if,..” is just as much a threat to a girl as “I’m gonna punch you in the face if,..” is to a boy. This dynamic becomes much more complex as girls enter puberty, adolescence and adulthood, yet they still use the same psychological mode of combat as adults. Their covert way of communicating this using innuendo, body language, appearance, sub-communications, gestures, etc. conveys far more information than our overt, all on the table, way of communicating does. It may seem more efficient to us as Men, but our method doesn’t satisfy the same purpose.

Women enjoy the communication more than the information being transferred. It’s not a problem to be solved, it’s the communication that’s primary. When a chump supplies her with everything all at once we think, yeah, the mystery is gone, he’s not a challenge anymore, why would she be interested? This is true, but the reason that intrigue is gone is because there’s no more potential for stimulating that need for communication or her imagination. Too many men buy into the lie that ‘open communication’ is the key to a good relationship and do an ‘information dump’ believing their wives or girlfriends will appreciate it. In doing so a man denies his woman the satisfaction of communicating in teasing out the information.

Nothing is more self-satisfying for a woman than for her to believe she’s figured a man out by using her mythical ‘feminine intuition’. This intuition is really just a name given to her preferred form of communication.

Lastly, I should add that women are not above using overt communication when it serves their purposes. When a woman comes out and says something in such a fashion so as to leave no margin for misinterpretation, you can bet she’s been pushed to that point out of either fear or sheer exasperation when her covert methods wont work.

“Can’t we just be friends?” is a covert rejection, “Get away from me you creep!!” is an overt rejection. When a woman opts for the overt, rest assured, she’s out of covert ideas and knows she must use men’s form of communication. This is an easy example of this, but when a woman cries on you, screams at you, or issues an ultimatum to you she is self-acknowledging that she is powerless to the point of having to come over to your way of communicating.

Likewise, men can and do master the art of covert communications as well. Great politicians, military generals, businessmen, salesmen to be sure, and of course master pickup artists all use covert communications to achieve their goals. It’s incorrect to think of covert communication as inherently dishonest or amoral, or even in a moral context. It’s a means to an end, just as overt communication is a means to an end, and that end whether decided by men or women is what’s ethical or unethical. The medium is the message.

Identity Crisis

 

 

Below is a response I gave to a guy I was counseling and I thought it sufficiently insightfull to post here in regards to a pretty common topic that comes up here. I think you’ll agree.

 

 Rollo, is it possible to identify with women without compromising yourself?

 

If it is a conscious effort on the guy’s part, no.

 

You bring up a good topic though, obviously when I refer to ‘identifying’ with a woman, this could use some explanation. What exactly is ‘identifying’ with a woman? The root of this word is ‘identity’, meaning who you are and what characteristics, traits and interests constitute your individual personality. ‘Identity’, in a way, is a pretty subjective and esoteric term – kind of like trying to define what art is – it can be argued that ‘identity’ is what you make of it. While at university, my field of specialization in behavioral psychology was personality studies, and I can tell you there are a lot of theories and interpretations of what constitutes identity. However, one article that is agreed upon almost universally is that identity and personality are never static and are malable and changeable by influencing variables and conditions. A very pronounced illustration of this would be soldiers retuning from combat with post traumatic stress disorder, a very identifiable and verifiable form of psychosis. These men are changed individuals and their identities are altered from the time they were subject to the psychological rigors of warfare to returning back to a normalized life. Some have the resiliencne to adjust their personalities back to a somewhat norlamized state, others sadly do not. Yet in each case the change was influenced by conditions and environment.

 

Likewise, most young men are subject to their own set of personal conditions and environments, and their personalities and identities reflect this accordingly. The guy who’s naturally “lucky with the ladies” is going to reflect this in his identity. The young man who doesn’t receive regular female attention for whatever reasons is going to manifest this condition in his identity. The guy who is focused on his own ambitions is going to reflect this in his own personality as well, but for all, when conditions are such that they feel deprived of certain experiences in their own life, this creates a conflict between a former identity and the altering of, or forming of a new one to meet the need for this experience. Couple this with the natural chemical/hormonal deisire for sexual experience and you can see how powerful an influence deprivation becomes.

 

Far too many young men maintain the notion that for them to receive the female intimacy they desire they should necessarily become more like the target of their affection in their own personality. In essence, to mold their own identify to better match the girl they think will best satisfy this need. So we see examples of men compromising their self-interests to better accomodate the interests of the woman they desire to facilitate this need for intimacy (i.e. sex). We all know the old adage women are all too aware of, “Guys will do anything to get laid” and this is certainly not limited to altering their individual identities and even conditions to better facilitate this. It’s all too common an example to see men select a college based on the available women at that college rather than academic merit to fit their own ambitions or even choose a college to better maintain a pre-existing relationship that a woman has chosen and the young man follows. In order to justify these choices he will alter his identity and personality by creating rationales and new mental schema to validate this ‘decision’ for himself. It becomes an ego protection for a decision he, on some level, knows was made for him.

 

This is just one glaring example of this identification, but thousands more subtle ones exist that men (and women) pass off as social mores and contrivances. The guy stuck in the ‘Friend Zone’ who got the LJBF (“lets just be freinds”) line when he attempted to become intimate with his target, will happily listen to her drone on for hours on the phone in order to find out how better to alter himself to fit her conditions for intimate acceptability. He will readily “change his mind” about even his own personal beliefs if it will better fit what he perceives as her criteria for compatibility with her. This is the compromise of identity – to fundamentally and voluntarily alter one’s own personality to achieve the acceptability of another. When we are directly and overtly faced with this sort of challenge to our beliefs we naturally recoil – you are your own person and would resist were your employer or parents to tell you how you should vote (political belief), but when it comes to personality and sexual/intimacy interests, and done voluntarily it’s suprising to see the limits of what men (and to an extent women) will do. Men will entertain the idea that a long distance relationship (LDR) is a desirable arrangement even if intimacy has never occured because the potential of that intimacy is perceived. These same guys will espouse every reasoning they can conceive as to why their “relationship is different” and that they ‘believe’ that “love conquers all” only to come full circle when he or she ‘cheats’ or breaks off the relation and the man comes back to his prior (though he thinks new) understanding that LDRs are in fact a bad prospect. His identity changed and then changed again to accomodate his conditions.

 

However, it’s not that he never truly changed or had the belief in the first place. Were these guys to take a polygraph test at the time they would indeed pass when asked if this was what they actually accepted as truth. Men will do what most deductively solves a problem and in this he is only following the tenants of pragmatism. “I need sex + women have the sex I want + I must discover what women want to give me sex + ask women + women want X = I will do X to get sex and alter my own identity in order to better facilitate X.” It should be this easy, but that’s rarely the case since more often than not women are unaware of what X really is, or X is subject to constant change depending on her own conditions.

 

Now, after all of this, is it possible that a man and a woman may in fact share genuine common interests? Of course. You may indeed find a perfectly beautiful woman that enjoys Nascar or Hockey as much as you. You may find a woman you’re attracted to who genuinely shares your passion for deep sea fishing. It’s not uncommon to share common interests, it’s when you alter your interest to better facilitate a connection that you force it. Making this determination of genuine interests and created interests is the hair that needs splitting. I’ve personally counseled guys who have literally changed careers to be in a better place to proposition a girl they fancied. I know men who’ve moved thousands of miles to live closer to women who’ve never reciprocated their interest in them, yet they continued to attempt to identify themselves with her. I know 65 year old men in 40 year marriages, who even after intimacy was resolved years ago with the woman, are still attempting to identify with their wives because they’ve internalized this identity compromise as a standard means to getting sex from her. Her expectations of him have become his identity and at 65 this mental schema has become so ego-invested that no amount of shedding light on his conditions will ever convince him anything to the opposite.

 

The most ironic thing about this ‘Identity Crisis’ is that the least attractive thing to most women is a man who is willing to compromise any part of his identity to placate to her, much less a wholesale sell out of it. Women are naturally attracted to that masculine independence as it represents a very strong cue of security and the potential to provide that security to her (and any children she may have). Women don’t want a man who’ll “do everything she says” because this sends the message that this man can be bought with even the prospect of a sexual encounter. Why would that indicate anything more than insecurity and a lack of confidence? Women want to be told “No”, and constantly test a man’s resolve to say this to her (i.e. shit testing) in order to affirm that she’s made the right choice (even in marriage) of a guy who’ll put his sexual impulse (knowing full-well how powerful it is with men) on hold to hold fast to his own self-interest, beliefs and ambitions. It covertly communicates to a woman that his goals and determination trump her one power over him – her sexuality. That is the man who is the PRIZE, the ‘great catch’, the male to be competed for with other women.

Beta Game

Before I launch into this proper, let me define a few terms in the fashion that I interpret them. With the popularity of Roissy’s blog and a few notable others, there’s been a new push with regards to using the terms Alpha and Beta (and sometimes Omega) when describing certain classifications of males in modern culture. Allow me to go on record as viewing these ideas as mindsets whereas terms such as AFC or DJ are really states of being. For instance, an Alpha can still be an AFC (called a ‘paper alpha’) with regards to women. A Beta male can still be as wealthy and astute in status as his conditions and fortune have placed him in (often by circumstance). Some states necessitate certain mindsets – a positive masculine state requires an Alpha mindset as a requirement – others do not. Also, don’t make the mistake of associating success (personal and career) with an Alpha mindset. There are plenty of Alphas on hotchickswithdouchebags.com, however that doesn’t necessarily make them well rounded individuals. I tend to think of the ideas Alpha and Beta as subconscious energies or attitudes that manifest themselves in our thoughts, beliefs and actions.

Beta Game

Alright now, with this in mind I’d like to propose the idea of Beta Game. Since we’re using the Alpha and Beta terminology here, it’s important to grasp where it comes from. Anyone with even a cursory understanding about animal social hierarchies knows the principal of Alpha and Beta individuals within a social collective. Alphas tend to be the males who exhibit the best genetic characteristics and behavioral skills that put them at the top of the potential breeding pool. In fact Betas are rarely mentioned as such in scientific studies; the Beta term, in PUA lingo is really something of a novelty. Relating these terms to human social interactions, while at times a subjective stretch, isn’t to hard to find parallels in. We can see the similarity, and the applications in long term and short term breeding methodologies that mirror our own.

Like any other Beta animal, alternate methodologies had to be developed in order to facilitate human breeding under the harsh conditions of Alpha competition. In essence, and as found in the wild, Beta males have developed (evolved?) methods which attempt to ‘poach’ potential females from an Alpha’s harem, or at least in this case his perceived, potential harem.

Identification

Beta male game focuses primarily on identifying and assimilating themselves to be more like the women they hope to connect with, but it goes further than this. The methodology dictates that the Beta be perceived as being unique (or at least set apart) from the more “common” Alpha males whom his desired women naturally prefer. This is the beginning of the “not-like-other-guys” mental schema he hopes to evoke in his idealized woman.

Due to his inability to compete with an Alpha competitor in the physical, he must fight a psychological battle on his own terms. This involves convincing his target that her best parental investment should be with him (as per her stated requirements) as he more closely embodies her long term prerequisites. The Beta likens himself to her (and women in general) in an effort to maximize his compatibility and familiarity with her and the feminine.

This identification process is then further reinforced through the feminine social conventions he subscribes to. Feminine society (both beta men and women) rewards him for more closely assimilating its ideal – be more like an archetypal woman; sensitive, empathic, emotional, security-seeking, etc.. And not only this, but take de facto feminine offense when presented with anything to the contrary of a female-positive perspective. Lift women up, become less so they become more, and in reciprocation she’s more apt to breed with the Beta.

That’s the principle, not necessarily the reality. In some ways it’s a Cap’n Save a Ho mentality written on a grand scale. The fallacy in this of course is that like should attract like. They fail to understand that opposites attract, and most women don’t want to marry other women, least of all a carbon copy of herself.

Disqualification

When presented with a competitor of superior status, both sex’s innate, subconscious reaction is to disqualify that competitor from breeding in as expedient a method as possible. For animals this usually involves some kind of courtship performance or outright competitive hostility. And while the same could be said for human beings, our natural social impulse requires we take a bit more tact. “Look at that girl, she must be a slut to wear / act like that”, or “Yeah, he’s pretty good looking, but guys like that are usually fags” are an example of the standard social weapons people use to disqualify their respective sex. Disqualify the competitor on the most base level – question their sexuality. Literally cast doubt on competitor’s sexual fitness to breed with potential mates.

While most men (Alpha or Beta) will make similar attempts to disqualify, the Beta’s methodology ties back into his need for feminine identification in his disqualifying a competitor. Essentially he relies on feminine ways of disqualification by drawing upon his likeness to the women he hopes to emulate (thus furthering potential attraction as he thinks). The competitor may not be gay, but he must be cast as inferior to himself due to his competitor’s inability (or lessened ability) to identify and empathize with his desired female.

With Alpha competitors, the field has already been plowed for him by feminine social conventions, all he need do is plant the seeds. The fact that the Alpha tends to embody the masculine opposite of what he’s embraced also feeds this drive. Women aren’t attracted to the macho tough guy, they want a man who’s kind and thoughtful; a good listener. So the natural recourse is to amplify this disparity – he’s a 1950’s neanderthal throwback, he’s “bitter”, he’s a misogynist, he’s a child in a man’s body with a fragile ego only interested in fucking women and moving on. He’s unlike anything on women’s collective stated list of prerequisites for an acceptable male. He must be ridiculed – as all women ridicule – for his selfish hyper-masculinity.

Furthermore, the Beta needs to make the Alpha seem common, while making himself seem unique. In order to effectively AMOG an Alpha, the Beta has to show his empathy for the feminine, and she must appreciate it or it’s been all for nothing (which it usually is). Not only is this an ego preservation mechanism, but it’s also perceived as a tool for achieving the desired sexual reciprocation / appreciation he desires.

Interpretation

All of this really just scratches the surface of how Beta game has evolved. I’m sure there’ll be more input as to different methods that Betas use to facilitate breeding – sexual fetishes / preferences come to mind. I will add though that all of these methods come back to a common root; the need to breed under the duress of competition. Most of what I’ve gone into here, and primarily the feminine identity association, become ego-invested and internalized over the course of a lifetime. It gets to the point that under the auspices of relative anonymity (like the internet) that the Beta will still cling to his mental model, even in the face of very rational, empirical evidence to the contrary, for no other reason than that a woman, a potential mate with whom he could identify, might read his post and may become attracted to him. The Game is never dropped for him, even in light of proving his errors. Beta game is like the boy who decides to play on the girls team when a boys vs. girls kick ball game is started. He thinks it will endear himself to them, when all it really does is make him another girlfriend to giggle with.

Everyone has a Game in some respect. We don’t live in a vacuum, our ideas about seduction (in whatever form) is influenced and / or learned externally. The validity of that Game may be more or less effective, but at some point a man is going to adapt to a methodology of seduction as per his conditions and environment warrant. Even mPUAs still need to adapt their Game for differing environments – different clubs, types of women, socio-economic levels, countries, etc. – there needs to be adaptation and improvisation. The same applies for Betas, but the disparity is that the Beta tends to think of a one size fits all approach. For all the complaints of worry about the Game community turning into scripted ‘social robots’, it’s actually the Beta who adopts a far more embedded script and is less likely to variate from it. Betas tend to stick with what worked for them, what was reinforced for them, in the past.