The True Romantics

When watching this video, or any similar to it, notice how you feel physically before you hit play and then compare it to how you feel after viewing it. Is your heart rate elevated? Did you get a little fight-or-flight adrenal rush? We laugh to relieve the visceral anxiety we feel for this chump, but think of seeing this in terms of transferring this guy’s stress level to yourself. We know the ship is going to sink before we watch, but we feel, by order of degrees, what this guy is feeling by association to the point that it prompts a chemical response in us. Why?

Is it that through some psychologically evolved mechanism we’ve learned to protect ourselves in similar situations in our primal past? Think about what a man would have to believe in order to overcome that mechanism and place himself in a position of public ridicule that ALL depended on the woman’s response. This woman is mediocre at best – I’d rate her about an HB 5 – and this guy proposes to her in what he undoubtedly believes is a grand chivalric gesture. I’m sure he genuinely believed she’d appreciate his ‘vulnerability’ and create a cherished memory for them both as they gracefully age in their marriage. I doubt either of them will ever forget it now.

In some of the comments they were saying it was a set up, but what’s the point of that? Who’s benefiting from it?

And even if it was contrived, the real lesson being taught is from the ‘audience’ around them. People still want to believe that it was authentic. It’s still a pretty useful illustration of a beta mindset. How many guys like this want to believe that a woman will appreciate his romanticism? It is men who are the real romantics. It’s men who are the imaginative ones when it comes to romance, and all in an effort to provide a woman with the romantic experiences she says she wants. Romance is what Men perceive it to be for women.

Women do not appreciate planned, romantic gestures. I’m sure this guy thought he was being brilliant by noticing how she cuts a cupcake – “girls like it when guys pay attention to the little things, ‘other guys’ don’t listen to women, I’ll show her I’m unique,..” What most men and all women don’t understand is that the things a woman finds romantic are rarely ever planned. Your sweaty t-shirt is more romantic to her than any candlelit evening. It’s the things you don’t think would ever be romantic that stick with her. In the same way you cannot negotiate genuine desire, likewise you cannot engineer genuine romance.

The problem with planned romanticism is that it’s pregnant with an obligation to be appreciated. Men can be romantic, just not the way women say how they expect it. Like pretty much anything else women say, it’s not what they really want, but a man can’t be told what that is, he has to figure it out for himself, otherwise it isn’t genuine. For the high value Man, romance is an effortless and unthinking gesture.

Buffers

Rejection

Rejection is better than Regret.

Sifting through some of my past posts on the SoSuave forum it hit me; over 90% of what I advocate there can be reduced to overcoming a fear of rejection. 90% of the dilemmas AFCs and rAFCs find themselves in, and a majority of men’s concerns, with the opposite sex find their roots in the methods and means they use to reduce their exposure to female rejection. These are buffers meant to reduce the potential for this rejection of intimacy. Men of course aren’t the only ones who use buffers – women have their share as well – but I think it would be much more productive for guys to recognize this propensity in themselves and see the methods they use, and often ego-invest in their personal psychologies, to buffer themselves against rejection.

Virtually every common problem guys deal with finds its basis in these buffers:
LDRs – Long Distance Relationships. The AFC will entertain an LDR because it was based on a previous acceptance of intimacy and being no longer convenient (due to distance) the guy will cling to the “relationship” because it’s a buffer against potential rejection from new women instead of accepting the relationship as being finished and maturely re-entering the dating pool. It’s a perceived “sure thing”, even if only rarely rewarding.

Playing Friends – Usually after an LJBF rejection where the perception is the potential love interest “might” later become an intimate with time and qualification. No matter how misguided, the time and effort spent by an AFC in proving himself as the would-be “perfect boyfriend” is a buffer against further rejection by new potential females, which is then further compounded by a moralistic sense of duty to be an actual Friend to his LJBF girl. In essence, his buffer against further rejection is his misplaced dedication to the LJBF girl. Another variation of this is the Cap’n-Save-A-Ho dynamic.

Emails, IMs and Texts – I should also add lengthy phone conversations to this list as well, but really any technology that seemingly increases communication serves as a buffer (for both genders) the more it limits interpersonal communication. In the AFC case, the rationalization is that it keeps him in constant contact with his sex interest (which in and of itself is a mistake), but only serves as a buffer against her rejection. The latent perception being that it’s easier to read a rejection (or hear one) than to potentially be rejected in person. A lot of guys will counter this with how Texts and IM’s are just how this generation plies its Game. The difference I’d argue is that when digital communication becomes your preferred method of interacting with women, it’s a buffer.

Facebook & Online Dating – This one should be fairly obvious for the same reasons as above – Online dating is perhaps the best buffer ever conceived – particularly for less than physically ideal women. In fact it’s so effective that businesses can be built upon the common insecurities and fear of rejection of both sexes.

Objectification of Gender – This might be less obvious, but both sexes tend to objectify the other. Naturally when we think of this, the popularized notion is that men objectify women as sex objects, but women have a tendency to objectify men as “success objects” for the same reason. It is easier to accept rejection from an object than it is to take it from a living, breathing, human being. This is why we refer to intersexual communication as a “game.” We “score” or we get “shot down” not personally or emotionally rejected; the buffer is in the language and mental approach.

Idealization of Gender – This is the myth of the “Quality Woman.” The buffer operates in perceived self-limitations based on a search for an ideal mate. Thus a tendency to fixate on one woman (ONEitis) or one type of woman (a gender Archetype) develops. By limiting to, and/or fixating on one woman (or type) the potential for rejection decreases, while insuring that any real rejection will come only from what will later be deemed non-qualified women. Rejection = ‘Low Quality Woman’ and is thus disqualified. This works in a similar fashion to the objectification buffer in that the woman delivering the rejection is reduced to an object.

Scarcity Mentality – The “Take What I Can Get and Be Glad I Got It” mentality acts as a buffer in that it works opposite of the Idealization buffer. Deprivation is motivation, and by sticking with the “sure thing” as the “only thing”, the potential for new rejection is then eliminated.

Older Women, Younger Women – I should also include certain body types in this category as well, but the buffer is in certain types of women being less likely to reject a man due to their personal circumstances. The Cougar dynamic debate has been done into irrelevancy, but the buffer is that older women, acting in accordance with their conditions, will be more inclined to accept the advances of younger men. In the same vein, very young girls will be more apt to accept the advances of older men due to naiveté and fat women are easier to become intimate with due to sexual deprivation. This isn’t rocket science, but an internalized preference for particular women develop by associating that particular type of woman with the minimization for potential rejection.

Leagues – This is the opposite of a “high standards” buffer which could be grouped with Scarcity. There is the woman some guys actually fear because she is perceived to be so much more socially valuable than the AFC. Think of the HB9+ corporate director who runs marathons, travels a lot, has good friends, dresses well, etc, etc, etc. The AFC tells himself “wow is she out of my league I would just get shot down because I would need to possess A, B & C to be her social status equal for her to even be interested”.  Ergo, the idea of Leagues is a useful rationalization buffer against rejection.

Pornography I realize this will draw some fire from the masturbation / no-masturbation set, but porn (as men use it) is a Buffer against rejection. Porn doesn’t talk back, porn doesn’t need a few drinks to loosen up nor does porn require any social skills to produce rewards. It’s convenient, immediate, sexual release that requires nothing more than a PC and an internet connection (or a magazine if you prefer the analog means). We can argue the obsessive-compulsive aspect of it, or the “my GF and I enjoy porn together” reasoning, but for the single guy the root reasoning is its facility as a Buffer. I should also add that it’s this very facility that makes women hate it (when they do). Porn gives a guy his reward for free; a reward that should be her single best agency is rendered valueless when a man can get off to an infinite variety of sexual experience at the click of a mouse. It’s unlimited access to unlimited sexual availability without the stress of learning methods to earn it as a reward.

These are really just a few notable examples, but once you become aware of how buffers manifest you’ll begin to see how and why they are useful against rejection. Buffers are generally the paths of least rejection that become ego-invested “preferences.” Buffers aren’t so much about those “preference” as they are about the motivations behind them.

At this point you might be thinking, “well, what the hell, I don’t want to feel rejection, why not employ buffers against it?” The main reason for embracing rejection is that rejection is better than regret. Scan back through this short list of buffers; how many of these have become greater, longer term problems for you than a briefly painful rejection would’ve been? Buffers also have a tendency to compound upon themselves in that one tends to dovetail into another, or more, until you no longer realize that they were originally rejection prevention methodologies and gradually become associated with your genuine personality. After a long enough period, these buffer become “just how I am.”

Lastly, experience teaches harsh, but it teaches best. Rejection, real, raw, in your face rejection stings like a bitch. It must be something so intolerable that human beings will devise countless social and psychological constructs in order to avoid it. However, there is no better teacher than getting burned by the stove. As a Man, you are going to face rejection in far more facets of your life than just dealing with a woman. The buffers you learn in one aspect of your life will be just as encumbering when they’re transferred to another aspect of your life. All of these buffers listed, and many more, become indicators of how you confidently deal with adversity. Some make you look like a beta-herb pussy, others are subtle and nagging parts of an internalized personality, but dependence upon them incrementally reveals your real character to a woman. Are you Alpha enough to take a rejection on the chin, smile and confidently come back for more? Or will you run, will you block yourself, will you hide with convenient buffers?

Imagination

A woman’s imagination is the single most useful tool in your Game arsenal. Every technique, every casual response, every gesture, intimation and subcommunication hinges on stimulating her imagination. Competition anxiety relies on it. DHV relies on it. Sexual tension (gina tingles) relies on it. Call it “Caffeinating the Hamster” if you will, but stimulating a woman’s imaginings is the single most potent talent you can learn in any context of a relationship (LTR, STR, ONS, Plate Spinning.)

This is the single greatest failing of average frustrated chumps; they vomit out everything about themselves, divulging the full truth of themselves to women in the mistaken belief that women desire that truth as a basis for qualifying for their intimacy. Learn this now: Women NEVER want full disclosure. Nothing is more self-satisfying for a woman than to think she’s figured a Man out based solely on her mythical feminine intuition (i.e. imagination).

When a man overtly confirms his character, his story, his value, etc. for a woman, the mystery is dispelled and the bio-chemical rush she enjoyed from her imaginings, her suspicions, her self-confirmations about you are GONE. AFCs classically do exactly this on the first date and wonder why they get LJBF’d promptly after it – this is why. Familiarity is anti-seductive. Nothing kills Game, lust and libido like comfortable familiarity. Despite their common bleating filibuster tactics, women don’t want to be comfortable with a potential (or proven) sex partner, they need their imaginations stoked to be excited, aroused and anxious to want sex with a potential partner.

In an LTR there’s an even more critical need to keep prodding that imagination. I would go so far as to say it’s imperative for a healthy relationship, but then you’ll ask, how do you go about that when your LTR GF or wife already knows your story and the familiarity becomes cemented in?

The easy answer is never let it be from the outset – the health of any LTR you might entertain depends and survives on the frame you enter into it with. The foundations of a healthy LTR are laid while you’re single and dating non-exclusively. I’ve yet to meet the guy who’s told me he’s getting more frequent, more intense sex after his LTR / Marriage / Live-in situation was established. The primary reason for this is the relaxation of the competition anxiety that made the urgency of fucking you with lustful abandon in your dating phase an imperative to get you to commit to her frame. And that’s the crux of the matter that so many guys fail in, they surrender the frame BEFORE they commit to an LTR. They believe, (thanks to their Matrix conditioning) that commitment is synonymous with acquiescing to her frame control. Combine this with anti-seductive familiarity and the growing commonness of your own value because of it, and you can see exactly why her sexual interest wanes.

So what do you do to prevent that? First and foremost, understand that whose frame you enter into an LTR sets the foundation of that LTR. If you find yourself buying into an “it’s women’s world and we just live in it” mentality where your default presumption is that commitment means she wins, you lose and that’s just how it is, don’t even consider an LTR. She enters your world, not the other way around.

Secondly, you need to cultivate an element of unpredictability about yourself prior to, and into, an LTR. Always remember POOK’s proverb, Perfect is BORING. Women will cry a river about wanting Mr. Dependable and then go off to fuck Mr. Exciting. In an LTR it’s necessary to be both, but not one at the expense of the other. Too many married men are TERRIFIED to rock the excitement boat with their wives because their sex lives hang in the balance of placating to her and her already preset frame. She must be reminded daily why you’re fun, unpredictable and exciting, not only to her, but other women as well. This requires covertly implying that other women find you desirable. Women crave the chemical rush that comes from suspicion and indignation. If you don’t provide it, they’ll happily get it from tabloids, romance novels, The View, Tyra Banks or otherwise living vicariously through their single girlfriends.

By playfully staying her source of that rush you maintain the position of stimulating her imagination. Married men, who were defeated before they committed, don’t think that elements of Game apply to marriage out of fear of upsetting their wives frame, when in fact C&F and Negs and many other aspects of Game work wonderfully. Just kicking her in the ass or busting her chops, playfully, is sometimes enough to send the message that you’re fearless of her response. You can break her frame with cockiness and the imaginings that come with it.

Breaking from an established, predictable familiarity is often a great way to fire her imagination. Married guys will report how sexual their wives become after they get to the gym and start shaping up after a long layoff (or for the first time). It’s easy to pass this off as looking better makes women more aroused (which is true), but underneath that is the breaking of a pattern. You’re controllable and predictable so long as you’re pudgy and listless – what other woman would want you? But start changing your patterns, get into shape, make more money, get a promotion, improve and demonstrate your higher value in some appreciable way and the imagination and competition anxiety returns.

The Desire Dynamic

How-Sexual-Desire-Works-615x290

You cannot negotiate Desire.

This is a very simple principle that most Men and the vast majority of women are willfully ignorant of. One the most common personal problems I’ve been asked advice for in the past 10 years is some variation of “how do I get her back?” Usually this breaks down into men seeking some methodology to return his relationship to an earlier state where a previously passionate woman couldn’t keep her hands off of him. Six months into a comfortable familiarity and the thrill is gone, but in truth it’s the genuine desire that is gone.

It’s often at this stage that a man will resort to negotiation. Sometimes this can be as subtle as him progressively doing things for her in the hopes that she’ll reciprocate with the same sexual fervor they used to have. Other times a married couple may go to marriage counseling to “resolve their sex issues” and negotiate terms for her sexual compliance. He’ll promise to do the dishes and a load of laundry more often in exchange for her feigned sexual interest in him. Yet, no matter what terms are offered, no matter how great an external effort he makes so deserving of reward, the genuine desire is not there for her. In fact, she feels worse for not having the desire after such efforts were made for her compliance.

Negotiated desire only ever leads to obligated compliance.

This is why her post-negotiation sexual response is often so lackluster and the source of even further frustration on his part. She may be more sexually available to him, but the half-hearted experience is never the same as when they first met when there was no negotiation, just spontaneous desire for each other.

From a male perspective, and particularly that of an uninitiated beta male, negotiation of desire seems a rational solution to the problem. Men tend to innately rely on deductive reasoning; otherwise known as an “if then” logic stream. The code is often something like this:

I need sex + women have the sex I want + query women about their conditions for sex + meet prerequisites for sex = the sex I want.

Makes sense right? It’s simple economics, but built on a foundation that relies on a woman’s accurate self-evaluations. The genuine desire they used to experience at the outset of their relationship was predicated upon a completely unknown set of variables. Overtly communicating a desire for reciprocal desire creates obligation, and sometimes even ultimatums. Genuine desire is something a person must come to – or be led to – on their own volition. You can force a woman by threat to comply with behaving in a desired manner, but you cannot make her want to behave that way. A prostitute will fuck you for an exchange, it doesn’t mean she wants to.

Whether LTR or a one night stand (ONS) strive for genuine desire in your relationships. Half of the battle is knowing you want to be with a woman who wants to please you, not one who feels obligated to. You will never draw this genuine desire from her by overt means, but you can covertly lead her to this genuine desire. The trick in provoking real desire is in keeping her ignorant of your intent to provoke it. Real desire is created by her thinking it’s something she wants, not something she has to do.

Meta-Game

In the starting of this blog I’ve recently been contemplating the last 6 or so years I’ve spent on SoSuave. Every time I consider the things I’ve written for the ‘community’ I always need to put them into the perspective of where I’ve come from and what I’ve learned in that time. I just reviewed a ‘single-mommy’ story in an other forum thread, one that I learned from almost 20 years ago. I also go into how things were before the advent of the internet occasionally.

I think it’s really hard for a generation of young Men to fully appreciate the progress that guys in their mid-30s, mid-40s and even 50s have made in their respective times. It’s hard for mid 20s and teenage guys to relate to a time before the level of communication we take for granted today. There was no term for an AFC, beta or “herb” in 1995. I didn’t own a cell phone until 2002 and never texted anyone regularly until 2005. When guys in their 30s and 40s now were learning the lessons I relate here, there were no forums, no PUAs (formally anyway), and the phenomenon we call feminization and the ‘Matrix’ was at the peak of it’s influence by virtue alone of no one questioning, let alone being aware of, its influence. We lacked the male-to-male social communication, certainly the global communication, to really bring common experiences together and form ideas from those observations. We were in the dark. Remember, no Tom Leykis, no internet, and the “how to pick up girls” books were what losers ordered by mail from an ad they saw in the back of a Hustler magazine. In fact porn was only accessible by renting it from the back room of a VHS rental store, by magazine or pirating the Spice channel from cable. Good times.

Now lets flash forward to 2011. I can’t go a day without having viagra or porn solicited to me in my email. Porn is now part of the utilities; it’s like hot and cold running water now, but moreover, so is the collected experience of literally a world of men considering the same nagging questions. Thanks to globalized, instant communications, a new generation of Men can collectively consider experiences and observations that were previously left unsaid. Where before there was a stigma of “not being man enough” just in asking questions and seeking relevant advice about women, now it’s been replaced by the ‘community’.

The internet is to Men what the sexual revolution was for women.

The genie is now out of the bottle, and for better or worse the information is liberating. This is the Meta-Game. Lets consider it for a moment: Just last week I added my voice to a chorus of other men from around the world to help out a young man struggling with his AFC problems. I joined guys from Britain, Australia, Spain, Canada, New York, Los Angeles, and anywhere in between. A global collective of Men advised this kid. That’s pretty powerful stuff. This is one world of men advising a young man about his situation with a girl acculturated in a world influenced by women for five decades.

This is the Meta-Masculine pushing back against the Meta-Feminized. We’re now aware that this Feminine Matrix is everywhere, and I think we all can appreciate how encompassing and pervasive it is. I know the LoveShack.orgs of the world are largely the antithesis of the Meta-Masculine. I didn’t say the mountain looked easy to climb. However, just the collectivity of the global community gives me hope. Every time we unplug a guy from the Matrix it’s a group effort. We are the collective fathers these sons never had.

Yes, there’s differences of opinion. The community advocates, Game gurus, and theorists of the world are going to lock horns over priorities, but the bigger pictures is making Men aware. The global collective waking them up is the first and best benefit. It is dirty, filthy, work unplugging Men from the Matrix, but that’s the start.

If I’m optimistic about anything it’s in the hope that the next generation of men will at least have the opportunity to be made aware of the “code” in the Matrix – that simply didn’t exist when I was struggling to unplug myself. By that I mean that a younger generation of men will develop at least a capacity, or at least a sensitivity to acknowledge that certain feminine social conventions exist, and were the gender roles reversed they’d be accused of sexism. I’ve always felt that making these comparisons is the first real step in understanding what the Matrix is. I am far more attentive to the veiled, socially excusable, feminine sexism that we casually pass off in common culture today because I realize the latent function those conventions serve. Like G.I. Joe says, knowing is half the battle.

The main obstacle for the positive-masculine Meta Game is that a majority of the same men it would serve are the unwitting (or at least willfully ignorant) pawns of the feminized Meta Game. I think its wrong to think of these men – the betas, the AFCs, the naive Alphas – as “recruits” for the feminine imperative. I come to that because it takes an entire feminized society to condition a young man over the course of a lifetime to psychologically ego-invest himself in the feminine Meta Game as a means to achieving his best interests. They need to be raised and trained before the ego-investment becomes self-propagating, at which point only extremely traumatic experiences will open his eyes to that conditioning.

I used the example of a typical rAFC or ‘seeking’ young man asking for advice from the collective at SoSuave. Almost universally the problems they want to solve are themes so tired and so thoroughly covered by the collective of men in the community that we’ll defer them to well-worn advice or rephrase old posts on the same topic. I do this myself, but think about the profundity of that for a moment. Here we have a questioning guy dealing with a problem I dealt with, sometimes, over 20 years ago, and men my senior dealt with 30 or even 40 years ago. The memes haven’t changed much in the past 60 years. I think a common missive is to think that the only reason guys seek out the community is to “get laid more” or “find the secret to getting their dream girl”. While that’s a definite motivator, so many more want solutions to relational problems that have existed in their current form for over half a century now. How do I get her back? Why did I just get LJBFed? Why does she fuck the Jerk, but tell me I’m a such a great guy? Do looks matter? How do I get my LTR to bang me now that we moved in together? There are countless others. Our Meta Game does a great disservice to ‘seekers’ when we dismiss them as just wanting to get their lay numbers up. Of course that’s only the recognizable motivator, but what they’re really searching for, what they’re unaware they’re searching for, is a real, positive, confidence in a masculinity that can rise above the chatter of the invectives of feminized Meta Game.

When I see 5 pages of advice explaining to that noob the reasons he’s in the situation he finds himself in, and instructing him how best to deal with it based on collective experiences while opening his perspective up to consider the greater landscape he’s in, that is the masculine Meta Game pushing back. Think of that; a poor, isolated kid, frustrated by how to approach, how to deal with a LJBF, how to man-up, etc. pits the influence of a world-wide collective of men’s experience against the behaviors and mindset of an individual girl who’s been socialized and acculturated by the feminized imperative. That is the Meta Game.

Schedules of Mating

There are methods and social contrivances women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male’s genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she’s capable of attracting. Ideally the best Man should exemplify both, but rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by an innate need for security, the feminine as a whole had to develop social conventions and methodologies (which change as her environment and personal conditions do) to effect this. Men are not only up against a female genetic imperative, but also centuries long feminine social conventions established and adapted from a time long before human beings could accurately determine genetic origins.

I’ve detailed in many prior threads that mate selection is a psycho-biological function that millennia of evolution has hardwired into both sexes. So internalized and socialized is this process into our collective psyches that we rarely recognize we’re subject to these motivators even when we continually repeat the same behaviors manifested by them (such as having the second kid with the Alpha Bad Boy). So saying that we’re not subject to conditions we’re or are only vaguely aware of is a bit naive.

It’s simple deductive logic to follow that for a species to survive it must provide its offspring with the best possible conditions to ensure its survival – either that or to reproduce in such quantity that it ensures survival. The obvious application of this for women is sharing parental investment with the best possible mate her own genetics allow her to attract and who can provide long term security for her and any potential offspring. Thus women are biologically, psychologically and sociologically the filters of their own reproduction, where as men’s reproductive methodology is to scatter as much of his genetic material as humanly possible to the widest available quantity of sexually available females. He of course has his own criteria for mating selection and determining the best genetic pairing for his reproduction (i.e. she’s gotta be hot), but his criteria is certainly less discriminating than that for women (i.e. no one’s ugly after 2am). This is evidenced in our own hormonal biology; men possess between 12 and17 times the amount of testosterone (the primary hormone in sexual arousal) women do and women produce substantially more estrogen (instrumental in sexual caution) and oxytocin (fostering feelings of security and nurturing) than men.

That stated, both of these methodologies conflict in practice. For a woman to best ensure the survival of her young, a man must necessarily abandon his method of reproduction in favor of her own. This then sets a contradictory imperative for him to pair with a woman who will satisfy his methodology. A male must sacrifice his reproductive schedule to satisfy that of the woman he pairs with. Thus, with so much genetic potential at stake on his part of the risk, he want’s not only to ensure that she is the best possible candidate for breeding (and future breeding), but also to know that his progeny will benefit from both parent’s investment.

Side note: One interesting outcome of this psycho-biological dynamic is men’s ability to spot their own children in a crowd of other children more quickly and with greater acuity than even their mothers. Studies have shown that men have the ability to more quickly and accurately identify their own children in a room full of kids dressed in the same uniforms than the mothers of the child. Again, this stresses the subconscious importance of this genetic trade off.

These are the rudiments of human sexual selection and reproduction. There are many other social, emotional, psychological intricacies that are associated with these fundamentals, but they are the underlying motivations and considerations that subconsciously influence sexual selection.

Social Convention
To counter this subconscious dynamic to their own genetic advantage women initiate social conventions and psychological schemas to better facilitate their own breeding methodologies. This is why women always have the “prerogative to change her mind” and the most fickle of behaviors become socially excusable, while men’s behavior is constrained to a higher standard of responsibility to “do the right thing” which is invariably to the advantage of a woman’s reproductive scheme . This is why guys who are ‘Players’, and fathers who abandon mothers to pursue their innate reproduction method are villains, and fathers who selflessly sacrifice themselves financially, emotionally and life decision-wise, often to the benefit of children they didn’t father, are considered social heroes for complying with women’s genetic imperatives.

This is also the root motivation for female-specific social dynamics such as LJBF rejections, women’s propensity for victimhood (as they’ve learned that this engenders ‘savior’ mental schemas for men’s breeding schedules – Cap’n Save a Ho) and even marriage itself.

Good Dads vs Good Genes
The two greatest difficulties for women to overcome in their own methodology is that they are only at a sexually viable peak for a short window of time (generally their 20s) and the fact that the qualities that make a good long term partner (the Good Dad) and the qualities that make for good breeding stock (Good Genes) only rarely manifest themselves in the same male. Provisioning and security potential are fantastic motivators for pairing with a Good Dad, but the same characteristics that make him such are generally a disadvantage when compared with the man who better exemplifies genetic, physical attraction and the risk taking qualities that would imbue her child with a better capacity to adapt to its environment (i.e stronger, faster, more attractive than others to ensure the passing of her own genetic material to future generations). This is the Jerk vs. Nice Guy paradox writ large on an evolutionary scale.

Men and women innately (though unconsciously) understand this dynamic, so in order for a woman to have the best that the Good Dad has to offer while taking advantage of the best that the Good Genes man has, she must invent and constantly modify social conventions to keep the advantage in her biological favor.

Reproductive Schedules
This paradox then necessitates that women (and by default men) must subscribe to short term and long term schedules of mating. Short term schedules facilitate breeding with the Good Genes male, while long term breeding is reserved the Good Dad male. This convention and the psycho-social schemas that accompany it are precisely why women will marry the Nice Guy, stable, loyal, (preferably) doctor and still fuck the pool boy or the cute surfer she met on spring break. In our genetic past, a male with good genes implied an ability to be a good provider, but modern convention has thwarted this, so new social and mental schemas had to be developed for women.

Cheating
For this dynamic and the practicality of enjoying the best of both genetic worlds, women find it necessary to ‘cheat’. This cheating can be done proactively or reactively.

In the reactive model, a woman who has already paired with her long term partner choice, engages in a extramarital or extra-pairing, sexual intercourse with a short term partner (i.e. the cheating wife or girlfriend). That’s not to say this short term opportunity cannot develop into a 2nd, long term mate, but the action of infidelity itself is a method for securing better genetic stock than the committed male provider is capable of supplying.

Proactive cheating is the single Mommy dilema. This form of ‘cheating’ relies on the woman breeding with a Good Genes male, bearing his children and then abandoning him, or having him abandon her, (again through invented social conventions) in order to find a Good Dad male to provide for her and the children of her Good Genes partner to ensure their security.

I want to stress again that (most) women do not have some consciously constructed and recognized master plan to enact this cycle and deliberately trap men into it. Rather, the motivations for this behavior and the accompanying social rationales invented to justify it are an unconscious process. For the most part, women are unaware of this dynamic, but are nonetheless subject to its influence. For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she’s able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring’s survival with the best provisioning partner; this is an evolutionary jackpot.

The Cuckold
On some level of consciousness, men innately sense something is wrong with this situation, though they may not be able to place why they feel it or misunderstand it in the confusion of women’s justifications for it. Or they become frustrated by the social pressures to ‘do the right thing’, are shamed into martyrdom/savior-hood and committed to a feigned responsibility to these conventions. Nevertheless, some see it well enough to steer clear of single mothers, either by prior experience or observing other male cuckolds saddled with the responsibility of raising and providing for – no matter how involved or uninvolved – another man’s successful reproduction efforts with this woman.

Men often fall into the role of the proactive or reactive Cuckold. He will never enjoy the same benefits as his mates short term partner(s) to the same degree, in the way of sexual desire or immediacy of it, while at the same time enduring the social pressures of having to provide for this Good Genes father’s progeny. It could be argued that he may contribute minimally to their welfare, but on some level, whether emotional, physical, financial or educational he will contribute some effort for another man’s genetic stock in exchange for a limited form of sexuality/intimacy from the mother. To some degree, (even if only by his presence) he is sharing the parental investment that should be borne by the short term partner. If nothing else, he contributes the time and effort to her he could be better invested in finding a sexual partner with which he could pursue his own genetic imperative by his own methodology.

However, needless to say, there is no shortage of men sexually deprived enough to ‘see past’ the long term disadvantages, and not only rewarding, but reinforcing a single mother’s bad decisions (bad from his own interest’s POV) with regard to her breeding selections and schedules in exchange for short term sexual gratification. Furthermore, by reinforcing her behavior thusly, he reinforces the social convention for both men and women. It’s important to bear in mind that in this age women are ultimately, soley responsible for the men they choose to mate with (baring rape of course) AND giving birth to their children. Men do bear responsibility for their actions no doubt, but it is ultimately the decision of the female and her judgement that decides her and her children’s fate

Plate Theory

Spin More Plates

Spin more plates.

A lot of people get confused when I use this analogy and I thought it prudent to write a post on just what I mean in this regard.

A Man needs to have a lot of simultaneous prospects spinning together. Think of each plate as a separate woman you are pursuing. Some fall off and break, others you may wish to stop spinning altogether and some may not spin as fast as you’d like, but the essence of plate theory is that a man is as confident and valuable as his options. This is the essence of the abundance mindset – confidence is derived from options.

This principle is the key to solving so many of the problems that dog the heels of beta AFCs and recovering AFCs. In fact I would say that this ideology should be the cornerstone to success for a man in many facets of life, not simply attracting and keeping women. A man with options has power, and from these options and this sense of power, a natural sense of confidence will manifest itself. A man without options becomes necessitous and this leads to a lack of confidence and a scarcity mentality. Necessitous men are never free.

The Cardinal Rule of Relationships
In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.

When a man spins more plates, when he has irons in the fire, when he is pursuing multiple women simultaneously, when he has options equally worth exploring, a man will have a natural, subconscious (but not exclusively) understanding that if one prospect does not expand, others very well may. This understanding has manifestations in a man’s behavior that women key on covertly. There are mannerisms and attitudes that a man with options will subconsciously convey to prospective women that they interpret, and give this man a value as a commodity to be competed for with other females.

On various sites in the PUA community, men are taught to emulate this behavior since it is a key element in attraction and interest. Cocky-Funny is one such technique that trains a confidence behavior that (more often than not) essentially masks a deficit of options. In other words, C&F is a natural behavior for men with options that must be compensated for by those who don’t have an apptitude for it. This is why the ‘natural’ Alpha male seems to exude C&F effortlessly while those without the benefit of more plates spinning (or the confidence in the ability of spinning more) struggle with simple things like eye contact or initiating approaches. This is also a fundamental principle in the “I don’t give a fuck” mentality that pervades community technique – it’s much easier to actually not “give a fuck” if you have other prospects going simultaneously.

Shotgun Logic

One very important benefit that Plate Theory provides for a man is that it greatly curbs the propensity for ONEitis both in and out of an LTR.

Outside of an LTR, most guys subscribe to what I call the Sniper mentality. This is the AFC that applies all of his time, effort and resources to patiently waiting out his target, waiting for that perfect opportunity to summon enough courage in the most precise of conditions to take his one shot at the girl, who by then is the focus of his ONEitis. This process can take anywhere from a few weeks to a few years in extreme cases, but all the while he voluntarily sacrifices his most valuable of resource – potential opportunity. The man who subscribes to Plate Theory can more easily avoid this situation as he goes hunting for women with a Shotgun; scattering as much influence across the broadest area possible. While the AFC fishes with a single line and a single hook, the Plate Theorist fishes with a trolling net, selecting the fish worth keeping and tossing back those who aren’t.

Inside an LTR, Plate Theory becomes more specified. The AFC placates and identifies with his partner because the balance has shifted to her advantage since he reinforces her understanding that she is his only source of intimacy. I can’t think of a better recipe for ONEitis since he become progressively more dependent on her as his only source of intimacy. The man that maintains, at the very least, the covert perception of options, either professionally or on an intersexual level (i.e. social proof that other women will compete for him) maintains this power balance. Most successful men have an innate understanding of this and this explains their popular reservations for committing to marriage, In an LTR, Plate Theory becomes a subtle dance of perception and recognizing how your partner interprets understanding a particular man’s options, but regardless, it reduces a guy’s tendency to regress into ONEitis in an LTR from his own self-perception and the confidence int inspires.

Natural Selection

As I illustrated in the fishing net analogy, spinning more plates allows you more opportunity to select from the largest pool of prospective choices and date them or drop them as you see fit. This has two benefits. First, it serves as valuable, though non-committed, experience for learning what a man requires for his own personal satisfaction. Experience teaches harsh, but it teaches best and the breadth of experience serves a man well. Who’s insight is more beneficial, the man who’s sailed the world over or the man who’s never ventured beyond a lake? Secondly, opportunity and options make a man the PRIZE. Rock stars, professional athletes and movie stars aren’t irresistible to women because of their celebrity, but because they blatantly, and with the highest form of social proof, prove they have options that other women will jealously compete for as well as the confidence that this unconscious knowledge naturally manifests itself in them.

What Plate Theory is not

My critics will often take a binary stance in their arguments with this idea citing that “they could never be with more than one woman at a time out of respect for her” or “so I should just lie to her and see other girls on the side?” To which I’d argue that these are feminized social conventions that attempt to thwart a man’s options in order to establish women as the prime selectors in intersexual relations. If it can be conditioned into a boy/man to ‘feel bad’ about seeing more than one woman at a time, it only better serves the female-as-chooser dynamic. To be sure, women are naturally the filters for their own intimacies, but it is essentially men who do the sexual selection. These convention’s latent purpose are designed to put selection of intimacy on a conditional basis that favors women, and as long as men will internalize this women will have a pre-constructed social high-ground.

The way to circumvent this dynamic is brutal honesty and a commitment to truthful, non-exclusivity with the plates you’re spinning. If you keep your options above board and are honest with any one girl and yourself about your choice to be non-exclusive, you not only remove the teeth from this convention, but you also reinforce yourself as a man with options (or at least perceived options). Further, critics will offer “well gee, if I did that with any woman she’d push off and dump me” to which I’ll refute – not if you establish this honestly from the outset. Most guys who’ve swallowed the ‘female power’ convention are too afraid or to preconditioned to even consider this as an option for seeing women. Letting a woman know, or covertly perceive, that you wont be exclusive to her pushes your commodity level up and implies options and potential success she’ll compete with other women to be associated with.

Plate Theory is also, most definitely not, a license to be indiscriminate with women. Just because you can spin a plate doesn’t necessarily mean you should spin that plate. Some aren’t worth spinning and a man with options should have no reservation about letting one go for a better one or two. In fact a man ought to be more discriminating in this regard since it affords him the best available from the largest selection.

The Cardinal Rule of Relationships

In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.

This is a foundation of any relationship, not just intersexual ones, but family, business, etc. relationships as well. It is a dynamic that is always in effect. For my own well being and that of my family’s, I need my employer more than he needs me, ergo I get up for work in the morning and work for him. And while I am also a vital part for the uninterrupted continuance of his company and endeavours, he simply needs me less than I need him. Now I could win the lottery tomorrow or he may decide to cut my pay or limit my benefits, or I may complete my Masters Degree and decide that I can do better than to keep myself yoked to his cart indefinitely, thereby, through some condition either initiated by myself or not, I am put into a position of needing him less than he needs me. At this point he is forced into a position of deciding how much I am worth to his ambitions and either part ways with me or negotiate a furtherance of our relationship.

The same plays true for intersexual relationships. Whether you want to base your relationship on ‘power’ or not isn’t the issue; it’s already in play from your first point of attraction. You are acceptable to her for meeting any number of criteria and she meets your own as well. If this weren’t the case you simply would not initiate a mutual relationship. This is the first comparisson we make with another individual – call it ‘sizing up’ if you like – but we make innate (and often unconscious) comparisons about everything and in the case of initial attraction we decide if the the other person is acceptable for our own intimacy. From this point it becomes a cooperative negotiation.

This principle isn’t so much about ‘power’ as it is about control. This might sound like semantics, but it does make a difference. It’s very easy to slip into binary arguments and think that what I mean by the cardinal rule of relationships is that one participant must absolutely rule over the other – a domineering dominant personality to a doormat submissive personality. Control in a healthy relationship passes back and forth as desire and need dictate for each partner. In an unhealthy realationship you have an unbalanced manipulation of this control by a partner.

Although control is never in complete balance, it becomes manipulation when one partner, in essence, blackmails the other with what would otherwise be a behavioral reinforcer for the manipulated partner under healthy circumstances. This happens for a variety of different reasons, but the condition comes about by two ways – the submissive participant becomes conditioned to allow the manipulation to occur and/or the dominant one initiates the manipulation. In either case the rule still holds true – the one who needs the other the least has the most control. Nowhere is this more evident than in interpersonal relationships.

Too many people who I counsel and read my posts (here and elsewhere) assume that this Rule means that I’m advocating the maintaining a position of dominance at the expense of their partners; far from it. I do however advocate that people – young men in particular – develop a better sense of self-worth and a better understanding of their true efficacy in their relationships (assuming you decide to become involved in one). Don’t get me wrong, both sexes are guilty of manipulation; Battered women go back to their abusive boyfriends/husbands and pussy whipped men compromise themselves and their ambitions to better serve their girlfriend’s insecurities. My intent in promoting this Rule is to open the eyes of young men who are already predisposed to devaluing themselves and placing women as the goal of their lives rather than seeing themselves as the PRIZE to be sought after. Compromise is always going to be a part of any relationship, but what’s key is realizing when that compromise becomes the result of manipulation, what is in effect, then developing the confidence to be uncompromising in those situations. This is where a firm understanding of the cardinal rule of relationships becomes essential.

There’s nothing wrong with backing down from an argument you have with your girlfriend, but there is something wrong when you continually compromise yourself in order to ‘keep the peace’ with the understanding that she’ll withhold intimacy as a result of you holding your ground. That is a power play, also known as a ‘shit test’. She initiates it thus becoming the controlling party.

No woman’s intimacy (i.e. sex) is ever worth that compromise because in doing so you devalue your own worth to her. Once this precident is set, she will progressively have less respect for you – exactly opposite of the popular conception that she’ll appreciate your compromising for her and reward you for your “sensitivity”.

And really, what are you compromising in order to achieve? Set in this condition, her intimacy. That isn’t genuine desire or real interest in you, it’s a subtle psychological test (that all too many men are unaware of) meant to determine who needs the other more. There is no more a superior confidence for a man than one with the self-understanding that he will not compromise himself for the recognized manipulations of a woman, and the fortitude to walk away knowing he can and will find a better prospect than her. This is the man who passes the shit test. It’s called ‘enlightened self-interest’ -— I cannot help others until I can help myself — and a principle I wholely endorse.