I’ve recently finished reading “A Billion Wicked Thoughts” by Ogi Ogas PhD. and Sai Gaddam PhD. and I’d have to place it next to The 48 Laws of Power as a seminal work for the Game community. It statistically confirms a lot of Game principles, but at the same time it will challenge more than a few. Highly recommended.
As expected it appears that yesterday’s Women’s Physical Standards post drew a bit of consternation from both sides of the aisle. Women predictably want to cling to what’s always been a useful canard for their victimhood psychology (i.e. men fixate on specific physical perfection) and ‘community’ men, predictably, want to point out that it’s not JUST looks that gets a guy laid. One of the most sacred cows of the Game community is the ‘Game trumps Looks’ debate. Nothing inspires a more heated discourse than when making physical comparisons and drawing conclusions from observable events and behaviors in this regard. But that’s not what I was getting at in yesterday’s post.
Oh, I’ll get to that in time, but what I was driving at in that topic was dispelling the popularized notion (as lamented by the Body Shop’s and many more positive body image ad campaigns) that men have some twisted, media-fueled physical ideal that women can’t possibly attain and that, statistically, it’s really women who have a far more rigid standard for male beauty than they’ll ever publicly admit. Understandably this makes guys squirm for the same reason it makes women squirm; trying to live up to a rigid physical standard.
On the flip side of that coin, I’m fully aware that there are a host of other factors that influence a woman’s overall attraction for a man, (the classics of status, power, affluence, Game, and Alpha dominance come to mind) but I was comparing the isolated physical standards for both genders. I also understand that attraction doesn’t happen in a vacuum, however, raw physical arousal – the precursor to a more protracted degree of attraction – often does. George Clooney and Johnny Depp are sex symbols, but Bill Gates (younger, richer and more powerful than either of them) is not. Women’s chances of marrying any of them is infinitesimal, however, when women fantasize about sex, it’s with the good looking guys, because all they’re thinking about is sex from an arousal perspective.
Now, all that makes for a good response in the comments thread, but I wouldn’t have composed any of this into a fresh post had it not been for another related issue I’ve been recently debating. And this is the issue of how easy-access contemporary pornography has become the greatest catalyst in changing the inter-gender landscape since birth-control and the sexual revolution.
Has high quality ubiquitous porn changed Generation Y men? This may seem like a stretch, but in the same way that women want to cling to the idea that men harbor impossibly high physical standards, the comparative argument holds that women also apply this template to the influence of pornography on men’s sexual appetites. Feminine-centric porn complaints generally lump all porn into the same stereotypical profile. By ignoring the overwhelming variety of porn that any given man may “consume”, the sympathetic reader (mostly concerned women and their white knight sycophantic men) are left to presume “porn” means the unattainable, blonde hair, blue eyed, perky-boobed, perfect bodied girl in nothing but high heels and ready to take the money shot in her mouth. Porn hating women love this caricature of porn because, in this characterization, it’s just as unattainable for them to live up to as it is for most men to actually experience. Needless to say the latent purpose of maintaining this opinion is ensuring a position of sexual selection based on feminine-centric criteria. Biomechanics are a bitch, and reducing the threat of sexual competitors provably outperforming them by example (in porn) is increasingly more imperative as access to the “performances” become more easily available. The logic is one of ignorance is bliss; the less exposure a man has to sexual variety the more valuable her sexual agency becomes to him.
All one need do is look at the sex category sections of any free video porn site (Pornhub, Red Tube, Tube 8, etc.) to see what a parody this really is. Porn’s not just the 80’s standard blonde and brunette in a threesome with some random guy rented from the VHS store. It’s amateurs, asians, lesbians, interracial, orgy, fatties, skinnys, matures, teens, etc. Just name the body type, sex act, racial profile, age, hair color, etc. and there is a pornographic niche for it (Rule 34). Considering the sheer amount of sexual variety available for a myriad of preferences, women bemoaning their inability to “live up to” porn star requirements is ludicrous and indicative of their complete lack of understanding the male sex dynamic. As I stated in yesterday’s post, name the niche and there’s a fan-group ready to bang you.
For the past several decades it’s been a very easy sell for women to characterize porn as degrading women, or setting an impossibly idealized standard of sexual expectation; that is until the rise of digital media and the capacity to empirically track the access to it. A Billion Wicked Thoughts admirably compiles the statistic ‘evidence’, the hard web-trend data of more than a decade, that disproves the idea that porn is ‘one-size-fits-all’. All the self-reporting and biased corollary studies on porn’s influences of the 80’s and 90’s are wiped away in one stroke with the statistically verifiable data of online porn consumption habits – leaving all of us with the question of what were they trying to prove then?
I’ll save the debate on whether porn’s influence is retarding men’s overall maturity by too easily satiating their libido for another thread, but I can’t end this without also pointing out that a great many statistics revealed in this book also contradict more than a few presumed tenets of Game theory. Among those is the same one I’ve just pointed out for women; men have a plethora of sexual tastes and fetishes, not just the “perfect 10”. You simply can’t ignore the statistical variances in men’s appetites for MILFs, Matures, Asians, Big Asses, Chubbys, etc. and come to the conclusion that there is a one-size-fits-all sexual type preference for men. You can argue as to why men opt for these variances, but you can’t argue they don’t opt for them.
“Your charming personality and bulletproof Game won’t make you look any better when your shirt comes off.”
This may come as a shock to the “men have impossibly high beauty standards” gnashing of feminist teeth, but it is in fact women who have a much higher standard for an idealized male physique. For all the endless kvetching from women about men wanting “living barbie dolls”, it’s men who’ve historically displayed much broader interests in female body habitus than women ever have.
You see, men will very readily cater their physical sexual “preferences” in accordance with what has proven sexually successful for them in past experiences. In other words, men tend to return to the same watering hole they found to be plentiful in the past. These preferences of convenience manifest themselves as ‘fetishes’ for men. And you don’t even need all that extensive research to prove this. All one need do is search the vast variety of porn available catering to the physical attributes that men will fetishize. Big boobs, small boobs, big ass, small ass, every hair color of the rainbow, shaved snatch, hairy snatch, teen girls to MILFs and older, tan, pale, ultra-thin to the ubiquitous BBWs (Big Beautiful women). Ladies, name the physical attribute(s), and there’s a fan-group just waiting to bang you. Rule 34 was never more provable than in men’s willingness to fuck damn near any physical demographic of women – just ask the female midgets catering to that fetish of porn.
On the other hand, from a purely physical perspective, it’s women’s idealized masculine form that hasn’t changed in millennia. While there may have been a rubenesque period when men loved the fatties of the 1600′s, no such era ever existed for women’s physical preferences. The classic broad chest, wide shoulders, six-pack abs and squared jaws of greco-roman athleticism are still the idealized male form that has graced EVERY romance novel cover in existence. I’m still waiting for someone to post me a link for a dating site that caters exclusively to women’s fetish of BBMs – average to good looking, fit women specifically looking overweight men. Executive Introductions caters to women seeking affluent, influential men, but women just looking for overweight men, that site doesn’t exist.
Now, with this, don’t think for a moment I’m refuting the prevailing bio-mechanical wisdom that prompts the vast majority of men towards the sexual want of a slender and archetypically sexy woman. That’s hardwired for us, but ladies, stop your bitching about men’s perception of beauty and how unfair it is to be subjectively compared in the physical as a basis for your personal worth. By historical comparison, women’ve got it easy when it comes to physicality. Unless you are an extreme outlier of physical deformity, there’s probably a niche of porn that specifically caters to your body habitus. And in terms of effort, it takes far more sweat and determination for men to build a man’s body into a masculine physical ideal than it will EVER be for women to achieve a form that men wont find sexually appealing to some degree. Try to keep that in mind when you’re complaining about the stress you’re experiencing in contemplating the social implications of getting a boob job or how expensive your next botox injection will be.
After detailing the Qualities of the AFC, I feel it’s necessary to illustrate that social conventions aren’t the exclusive realm of the feminine imperative . AFC have their own set of social conventions – those which are commonly practiced and self-reinforced by the Beta mindset. I realize that more than a few of these conventions are going to get under the skin of some readers, however, as you read this, please try to do so objectively. I’m writing this as an observation; it’s not intended to be a personal affront to anyone.
You could simply call AFC Social Conventions AFC ‘rationalizations’, but I think this ignores the socially reinforcing element of these conventions. When I wrote the Qualities of the AFC I outlined the characteristic traits, behaviors and core mental schemas of what are commonly believed to be AFC qualities. This was a brief list to sum up a few root elements in identifying and dealing with a Beta mindset and aid in unplugging an AFC. Social conventions are different in that they are socially reinforced (usually by both genders) rationalizations for behavior. Technically some of the AFC qualities I outlined previously could be considered social conventions as well, but I was attempting to address the symptoms rather than the disease.
I’m going to define a few more examples of what I’m most commonly noticing as AFC mental schemas that are reinforced socially. A strong part of the internalization process of these conventions is that the reason they are socially reinforced is because they’re socially unassailable (or at the very least foolish to do so). In other words the common response to them would be to reinforce them more, rather than challenge them, and this then becomes an integral part of the internalization process.
The Myth of the “Quality” Woman
It seems like all I read about on SoSuave is a never ending quest for a “Quality Woman.” There’s always been plenty of threads asking for clear definitions of what constitutes a “Quality” woman and most conveniently set women up into 2 camps – “Quality Women” and Whores, as if there could be no middle ground or grey area. How easy it becomes to qualify a woman based on her indiscretions (as heinous as they’re perceived to be) for either of these categories. This is binary thinking at its best – on or off, black or white, Quality woman or Whore.
I think the term ‘Quality’ woman is a misnomer. Guys tend to apply this term at their leisure not so much to define what they’d like in a woman (which is actually an idealization), but rather to exclude women with whom they’d really had no chance with in the first place, or mistakenly applied too much effort and too much focus only to be rebuffed. This isn’t to say that there aren’t women who will behave maliciously or indiscriminately, nor am I implying that they ought to be excused out of hand for such. What I am saying is that it’s a very AFC predilection to hold women up to preconceived idealizations and conveniently discount them as being less than “Quality” when you’re unable to predict, much less control their behaviors.
The dangers inherent in this convention is that the AFC (or the even the ‘enlightened man’ subscribing to the convention) then limits himself to only what he perceives as a Quality woman, based on a sour-grapes conditioning. Ergo, they’ll end up with a “Quality” woman by default because she’s the only candidate who would accept him for her intimacy. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy by process of elimination. Taken to its logical conclusion, they shoot the arrow, paint the target around it and call it a bullseye, and after which they feel good for having held to a (misguided) conviction.
So why is this a social convention then? Because it is socially unassailable. Since this convention is rooted to a binary premise, no one would likely challenge it. It would be foolish for me to say “Yes Mr. Chump I think you ought to avoid what you think of as Quality women.” Not only this, but we all get a certain satisfaction from the affirmation that comes from other men confirming our assessment of what category a woman should fit into. Thus it becomes socially reinforced.
Beware of making your necessity a virtue in making a Quality woman your substitute for a ONEitis idealization.
The Myth of the Dodged Bullet
In my lifetime I’ve had sex with over 40 women and I never once caught a venereal disease, nor did I get anyone pregnant. I can also point to men I know who contracted Herpes from the only women they’d ever had sex with. The fact of the matter is that you can equally be a rock star and tap hundreds of women without any consequence and you can be a virgin saint and contract a disease on your wedding night. The myth of the dodged bullet is a social convention that’s rooted in the rationalization that monogamy serves the purpose for controlling sexually transmitted diseases and thus fewer partners are more desirable than many. From a statistical standpoint this may seem logical on the surface. Fewer opportunities for sexual intercourse would indeed decrease the risk from a single individual, but unfortunately this isn’t a practical estimate. You’ll also have to base the numbers not only on how many sex partners you and your monogamous partner have had, but also how many prior partners they’ve had and how many those partners had as well and so on exponentially. Despite of all this, the odds that you’ll die from a form of cancer, heart disease, smoking or obesity related diseases, or even an alcohol related traffic fatality far outweigh any risk of dying from a venereal disease in western society. The mortality rate for for contracting gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, herpes and even HIV pale in comparison to many – in some cases more easily preventable – diseases.
Of course, since this is a social convention, I would be grossly negligent and severely lambasted by the public at large for even implying that I’m condoning, much less advocating, that a man explore his options and open his experience up to having sex with multiple partners. Again, this social convention is unassailable. But it sounds like it makes good sense, “boy, am I sure glad I got married/shacked up and didn’t catch a disease, pffew!” It sounds like conviction, when in fact it’s a rationalization for a lack of other realistic options with women or an innability to deal with a fear of rejection from multiple sources. Again, necessity becomes virtue.
Location, Location, Location
Another common contrivance is the presumption that less than desirable (low quality) women will necessarily be found in bars & clubs (or other places of “ill repute”). Thus the chump will only too eagerly avoid these places. This is, yet again, another example of the binary logic of an AFC and completely ignores that A.) women with whom they might make a successful connection with do in fact frequent clubs and B.) less than desirable women can also be met in “alternative” meeting places too (coffee house, university campus, library, Bible study or any number of other “safe places”). However, making approaches in a club are difficult for the inexperienced Game adherent and AFC alike. There’s a lot of competition and a LOT of potential for ‘real time’ rejection for the unprepared. By masking this deficit in game with condemning such places, the AFC thinks he’s killing two birds with one stone – he’s protecting his ego from very real rejection and he’s lauded by “proper” society (see people who go to clubs anyway) for being an upstanding individual for avoid those “dens of iniquity.”
The Myth of ‘Other Guys’
This is perhaps the most dangerous AFC social convention.
We’d all like to think we’re unique and special individuals. It’s a comforting thought, but our uniqueness means nothing if it isn’t appreciated. We’d all like to be beautiful, talented, intelligent and extrordinary in some way to some degree and have others notice these qualities unequivocally. This is the root for the Not Like Other Guys convention. The idea is that the AFC can and will be appreciated in a greater degree for his personal convictions and/or his greater ability to identify with women’s stated prerequisites of a man by comparing himself to the nebulous Other Guys who are perceived not to abide by her stated conditions. The intent is to, in essesence, self-generate social proof for attraction while substituting a real social element with perceived or reported social evidence. The fallacy in this schema is that it’s always better to demonstrate social proof than to explicate it, but this is lost on the AFC subscribing to this convention. This only becomes more compounded by the reinforcement he receives from other AFCs (and really society at large) sharing his desire to outshine the phantom Other Guys. He’s patted on the back and praised by men and women alike for voluntarily molding his personality to better fit a woman’s perceived ideal and told in so many words “oh AFC,..I’m so glad you’re not like Other Guys.”You can’t fault the guy. He genuinely believes his Nice Guy personal conviction and everyone applauds him for it.
In closing I’d argue that 95% of men aren’t even aware that they’re repeating / reinforcing a social convention at all because the convention is so embedded into social consciousness it’s taken for granted. The most effective social conventions are ones in which the subject willingly sublimates his own interests, discourages questioning it, and predisposes that person to encourage and reinforce the convention with others. This is the essence of the Matrix; anything can become normal.
I encounter AFC mentalities all day long in my line of work, and I don’t encounter them strictly from men either. More often than not I find myself in some social/work environment where it’s women fomenting an AFC attitude and it’s men who jokingly play along with them in an attempt to identify with these women in order to qualify for female intimacy. It’s this pop-culture ‘agreeability’ factor that is taken as an unquestioned norm. It’s expected that female-centric social conventions should simply be a matter of fact without any need for critical thought.
For a positively masculine Man there is no better opportunity to set yourself apart and start to plant the seeds of critical thought into AFCs than when you’re presented with these social situation. I think most men lack the balls to be a firestarter at the risk of being perceived as some caveman, but it’s a good opportunity to truly set yourself apart from ‘other guys’ when you do.
Women would rather share a successful Man than be attached to a faithful loser – Pook
One of the most common things I’m asked on SS is “how do you keep a marriage fresh Rollo?” Among my responses to this is usually how, contrary to the advice column Oprah-standard answer, a good relationship should be effortless. All of this “marriage is a constant work” is bullshit meant to keep a husband in a constant state of qualifying for his wife’s intimacy intended for her long term frame retention. Women in marriage and LTRs want to push past that nagging competition anxiety, they want security, not just financial, but emotional, and the security that comes from a locked in commitment in knowing they are the only source of sex & intimacy for their spouse/partner.
Pre-Commitment to Commitment
One of the reasons sexual frequency declines for women after a romantic commitment is that the urgency of sex that was necessary prior to the commitment is replaced with the agency of sex being a reward / reinforcer within that LTR. In single, uncommitted, non-exclusive life, sex, while being very enjoyable, becomes a proving ground for most women. In essence, it’s the free samples before the buy, and its urgency is fueled not only by (hopefully) genuine attraction, but also the at least subconscious knowing that she is in a sexual marketplace of competition. It’s one of the few times in life when a woman must qualify for a man’s approval. And admittedly, most men are so sex-deprived or so inexperienced early on in life that the sell is usually not a tough one for her. However, on some level of consciousness, even when the sell is virtually assured, she is aware that she could be replaced by a better competitor.
This then is the contrast for committed sexual interaction. The dynamic now shifts from qualification sex to utility sex. Now before anyone jumps to conclusions, yes, sex is still enjoyable, it can still be passionate, and she can definitely want it, but the impetus shifts. Sex is now a tool. In her uncommitted sex life it was a tool for qualification; in her LTR life it’s a tool for compliance. This is pretty obvious, and it may be more or less extreme depending upon the woman’s disposition or how important a particular issue is to her, but make no mistake, there isn’t a woman on the planet who doesn’t take her sexual agency into account when dealing with her LTR / husband. That agency may be more or less valuable – dependent upon her looks, demeanor, sexual availability, etc. – in comparison to the sexual market value of the man she’s paired with.
And this is where the Cardinal Rule of Relationships plays in. This is the constant interplay of vying for who is more dependent upon the other. Women have for the past 50+ years made a concerted effort, and using social conventions, to establish their sexuality as the end-all for men in power. Vagina = Authority and this is what all too many men parrot back and self-reinforce. “Change, do it, sublimate your desires, or there wont be any nookie for you tonight mister!” And on the surface it seems intuitive to ‘keep the peace’ and finish all the things on her honey-do list in the hopes that she’ll recover even a fraction of the desire she had when you were single, childless and getting blow jobs in the car after a date because she couldn’t wait to get home to fuck you.
The Upper Hand
Well LTR gentlemen, I’m here to tell you that, yes, you do in fact have an intrinsic upper hand in this regard if you’re fearless and willing to exercise your power. What I described in the last paragraph seems to be the most intuitive – do what she says = get sex – so it should come as no shock that the answer to it is counterintuitive. You must find ways to, subtly, return back to the state of competition anxiety she had in the beginning. I emphasize subtly, because, as with most everything else female, doing so overtly will be met with hostility, resentment and at best, obligated compliance. To get more (any?) sex, to retain the frame, to inspire more respect in her, you must disengage from her. That doesn’t mean becoming arrogantly aloof, or sulking like a child, or becoming an instant asshole; those are OVERT signs and methods. What is needed is incremental reassertion of yourself as the primary AND that her sexual agency, while still welcomed, is not a motivator for your own decisions.
I’m fond of saying no vagina is worth years of regret, yet this is exactly where most men find themselves, because they are either unwilling or unable to rock the vagina boat. They fail to understand that a woman’s imagination is the most powerful tool in the Don Juan toolbox. Now, the deductive and obvious way of stimulating that imagination would be to blurt out and say “look bitch, your pussy’s not made of gold and there are plenty of other girls ready to polish my nob if you don’t straighten up, see?” And this of course is met with either resistance or shame from her. What serves a Man better is to make incremental changes in himself that she will perceive as attractive to other women. Women want to be with Men who other women want to fuck, and other men want to be, but this cuts both ways. The more empowered he becomes, the better physical shape he attains, the more professional achievements he gathers, the more social proof and status he accrues, the more valuable he makes himself, the more anxiety is produce – and this is anxiety she can’t argue with.
One of the first things I tell men trapped in a ‘her-frame’ relationship is to get to the gym, train hard, look better. This has two effects; first it makes her interest in fucking increase, and second it fires up that imagination. “Why is he doing this? He’s really looking better these days, I see it, other women must see it too. Maybe I need to start working out? Gosh those girls at the gym look so much better than me.” She can’t argue with a healthy desire to look better, feel better, and be concerned with your health. Getting in better shape is the easiest, most immediate change you can effect. You may have little influence in getting a promotion at work, but you CAN change your body habitus right now. Women, being the calculating gender, know all too well to hit the gym months prior to a break up – she’s not getting in shape for you, she’s getting ready to hit the ground running with the next guy she’ll be fucking. They know this, so your manifesting the same behavior ‘caffeinates the hamster’ since it hits home for them.
Vagina is not authority
Don’t accept that her sexuality is the authority of the relationship. The better you make yourself the more authority you command, the more you abdicate to her the less authority (and respect) you command. Women need to be told “NO”, in fact they want you to tell them “NO”, especially in light of the 800 pound gorilla in the room – her sexual agency. When a woman controls the LTR frame with her vagina, it’s always going to color your dealings with her. THIS IS NO WAY TO GO THROUGH LIFE. It becomes this ever-present, unspoken understanding that she can ultimately play the pussy card and you’ll comply. And while this may gratify her in the short term, you will lose her respect in the long term. She wants to be told “NO” in spite of you knowing she’s going to hold out on you. This is the ultimate repudiation of her sexual agency – “if he says “NO” with the foreknowledge that you know you wont be getting any, her sexual powers are devalued.” If her sexual agency is called into question it leaves room for doubt and opens the door once again for competition anxiety to creep back in.
As I’ve said before, marriage is no insulation against the sexual marketplace, and no one knows this better than women who can rely on a society that rewards them for recognizing it. Use that to YOUR benefit now. Nothing is as simultaneously fear inspiring and arousing for women as a Man she suspects is self-aware of his own value. This is precisely why a feminized culture must continually confuse him, continually inspire doubt and humiliate him; feminization can’t afford men knowing their true value and potential.
In the end, who cares if you don’t get laid for a week? It’s well worth the price for increasing her respect for you as a commodity, and increasingly, an authority. If you want to maintain that anxiety, you must perpetuate yourself as being a commodity women will compete for, even in the confines of commitment.
In the “community” there’s a lot of want for better terms. One of the major obstacles in the average guy’s path to unplugging is really coming to terms with the ‘terms’ we use. Somewhere on the net I’m sure there’s a glossary of the common acronyms used in the “manosphere” (I hate that term too) outlining the various shorthand we use. Some of these terms have gone mainstream and I’m beginning to see even “legitimate” online journalists use LTR (long term relationship) or ONS (one night stand) somewhat regularly, meaning there’s a common perception that others will already know what they mean.
The reason this is a hurdle for a lot of plugged-in guys is because it seems almost juvenile, like a treehouse club for preteen boys. For me to draw comparisons of an acculturated, feminine social paradigm to the central plot of the Matrix movies, admittedly, on the surface that seems kind of silly. It’s an apt comparison and a useful allegory when you understand the concepts behind it, but for a guy just coming to grasp it while being immersed in a feminine-primary socialization for his whole life, it dosen’t click. And predictably, women invested in that same socialization see the terminology as little more than little boys holed up in their treehouse, throwing rocks at the girls below.
However, like any new developing science or art or technology there is always going to be a need to codify abstract concepts. We lack better terms so we’re forced to create new ones to represent new concepts.
The AFC – average frustrated chump – was coined almost a decade ago with Mystery method. It’s seen a lot of modification over the years, becoming almost synonymous the use of the term Beta (beta male) or Herb (herbivorous male). In fact, although I use it often, I rarely read AFC in PUA blogs, forums or the ‘community’ at large. Regardless of the terminology, the concept is really the crux of the term. Most AFCs, most guys looking in from the outside, can relate to the idea of what an average frustrated chump is – they can identify with it. Once they begin unplugging, the AFC idea comes into better focus and, usually with some discomfort, they realize how that term applies to themselves:
Qualities of an AFC
ONEitis – First and foremost.
Subscribes to feminine idealizations.
Supplication is supportive. To comply with gender equalism she must increase, so he must decrease, regardless of how subtly this is realized.
The Savior Schema –reciprocation of intimacy for problems solved.
The Martyr Schema – the more you sacrifice the more it shows devotion.
The ‘Friends’ Debt – LJBF and the pseudo-friendship as a means to prospective intimacy.
Primarily relies on dating and social skills (or lack thereof) developed during adolescence and early adulthood
A behavioral history that illustrates a mental attitude of ‘serial monogamy’ and the related insecurities that accompany it.
A belief that women infallibly and consciously recognize what they want, and honestly convey this to them, irrespective of behaviors that contradict this. Uses deductive reasoning in determining intent and bases female motivations on statements rather than objectively observing behavior. Believes women’s natural propensity is for rational rather than emotional thought.
Believes in the Identification Myth. The more alike he is, or can make himself, with his idealized female the better able he will be to attract and secure her intimacy. Believes that shared common interests are the ONLY key to attraction and enduring intimacy.
Believes and practices the “not like other guys” doctrine of self-perceived uniqueness, even under the condition of anonymity.
Considers LDRs (long distance relationships) a viable option for prolonged intimacy.
Maintains an internalized belief in the qualifications and characterizations of women that coincide with his ability (or inability) to attract them. Ergo, he self-confirms the “ she’s out of my league” and the “she’s a loose slut” mentalities on-the-fly to reinforce his position for his given conditions.
Harbors irrational (often socially reinforced) fears of long term solitude and alters his mind-set to accommodate or settle for a less than optimal short term relationship – often with life long consequences.
The AFC will confirm a belief in egalitarian equality between the genders without consideration for variance between the genders. Ergo, men make perfectly acceptable feminine models and women make perfectly acceptable masculine models. Due to societal pressures he unconsciously self-confirms androgyny as his goal state.
This is anything but a comprehensive list. There are far more, but my intent here isn’t to provide you with a list of criteria that qualifies an AFC (“you might be a chump if,..”), rather it’s to give you some basic understanding to clarify the term, and round out the idea of what an AFC is. Needless to say these mental schema are some of the impediments to unplugging, or helping another man unplug, from his old way of thinking. As I’m fond of repeating, unplugging chumps from the Matrix is dirty work. Expect to be met with a LOT of resistance, but understanding what dynamics you may harbor yourself or those that a friend might cling to will help you in moving past the years of social conditioning. It’s thankless work, and more often than not you’ll also be facing a constant barrage of shit tests (from both women and feminized men) and ridicule in your efforts. Be prepared for it. Unplugging chumps is triage – save those you can, read last rites to the dying.
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.
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.
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.
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.