Beta Bucks

Zeroed Out

Last week I introduced a new concept in what most men can expect at some point in their lives. This is the idea of being Zeroed Out – basically men having most of a lifetime of status, financial equity, reputation, professional & educational growth, emotional investment and other metrics of men’s life equity being erased. I wanted to detail this a bit more here now as I think much of this concept gets easily misconstrued for men.

I think it ought to be part of any Red Pill aware man’s understanding that at many points in our lives we will be confronted with the prospects of having to rebuild ourselves. Failure, rejection and disappointment will happen for you, that’s just part of a man’s life, and it’s easy to rattle off platitudes about how many times you get back up being the measure of a man. But what I’m saying is there will be times when total reconstruction of your life will be a necessity.

You will be zeroed out at some point, and how you handle this is a much different situation than any temporary setback. This zeroing out is made all the more difficult when you confront the fact that what you believed to be so valuable, the equity you were told was what others would measure you by, was all part of your Blue Pill conditioning. At that point you need to understand that there is most definitely a hope for a better remake of yourself based on truths that were learned in the hardest way.

As I mentioned last week, it’s really easy to think of this as male victimhood or that a guy is complaining about his lot in life. Empathy, especially amongst men, has always been in short supply. I’ve learned the hard way never to bring up how sick I am, how bad my job is or how little sleep I got the night before in the company of 3 or more men – because I guarantee you that one has cancer, the other works in raw sewage and the last one’s an incurable insomniac. As men, our masculinity has classically been about how well we accept and adapt to adversity, so like I said, just mentioning a guy would be Zeroed Out at some stage in his life sounds like I’m saying “menz gots it so tough”. We’re supposed to take it on the chin and come back for more.

Guys will even get competitive with each other about how hard they’ve had it and how well they adapted to a bad situation. Others just don’t want to hear about another guy’s misfortunes, and others still will just say that men are living their lives wrong if a he bases his sense of self on the opinions of others – and women in particular.

The first two are simple to address. Men are in a general state of competition with each other even if this is only ever recognized as something going on in the social background. It doesn’t necessarily have to be vicious competition; even friendly rivalries are still rivalries.

It stands to reason that men will certainly be sympathetic with one another depending on circumstance, but that competitive nature is still something winners and losers instinctually understand. Out-group men will understand this state much more distinctly than in-group men (kin affiliation is an evolved survival adaptation), but even within that in-group there will still exist male dominance hierarchies. How those hierarchies are established is contextual to societal and environmental influences, but that they exist at all is often something our feminine-primary social order would like men to sweep under the carpet for themselves.

Qualifying Value

Competition is one thing, however, the idea that a man might base his life’s expectations, and his metric of success or failure, on external qualifiers is something I’d like to explore here. Social influences, family influences and men’s (often conditioned) subconscious understanding of how he can best effect intimacy and reproduction with women according to what he perceives are their expectations of him is a point of contention. If men feel Zeroed Out at various points in life, is that ‘zeroing’ just the effect of a man having built his personal integrity and equity on a foundation of Blue Pill sand?

MGTOWs are invited to correct me here, but as I understand it, this is a primary tenet of men going their own way – a rejection of women’s qualifying men’s personal worth based on their Hypergamous standards. I get that, but I would argue that there’s more to a man’s sense of self-worth than any qualifier womankind might place on him.

It’s no secret that Red Pill aware men need to understand the Game that they’re a part of and should indeed reestimate their personal worth based on this cutting away of oneself from their prior Blue Pill deceptions. This is why I believe every man who unplugs himself from his old ideals is, by order of degree, going his own way, but where he decides to go with it and how he decides to create value in himself according his new understanding is what’s at issue. Even in creating and building a new sense of self-worth there is still the potential of men becoming subject to losing that value irrespective of how he believes it should be measured.

I can imagine that whether or not a divorced man is ‘woke’ and living by his own terms, losing custody of and influence in the lives of his children can be something of a zeroing out for him. There are aspects of what we hold as our own personal worth that can be zeroed out no matter by what metric we think we should be evaluating it by. As I’ve always said, a woman should only ever be a complement to a man’s life, never the focus of it, but regardless, we still have intrinsic value that can be erased and it doesn’t alter the fact that women, family, career peers, etc. will be affected by it.

That said, it’s just an easy cop out to just say “Well, what you thought should be valued by others really isn’t, and because you thought it was, when you lose it you lose everything.”

III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority

Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.

This is the third commandment from Roissy’s 16 Commandments of Poon. It has relevance here because it’s illustrative of how a majority of men think about prioritizing what metric to build their personal equity on. As Red Pill aware men it’s too easy to get upset at plugged in men who are blind to some of the simplest Red Pill principles. It’s easy to lose sight of the fact that most men are still Blue Pill and will fight you just for suggesting they might be wrong about the reality they find themselves in. They need that comfort even if they fail to see it will potentially be their undoing.

More importantly, we need to remember that the suicide rates I quoted in last week’s essay are based on men who built their own personal value on what their Blue Pill conditioning embedded into their psyches for a lifetime. That’s what we’re up against, and until more men come to unplugging this sad fact will continue. This is the gravity we’re faced with as Red Pill aware men trying to help other guys unplug. It’s not just about how a guy can get himself laid better; it might be about saving his life.

As I was saying in the last post, my brother in-law killed himself because he was convinced for a lifetime that by sacrificing every ambition and ‘doing the right thing’ he would be appreciated for it all. The Blue Pill quite literally killed him. He was convinced that he couldn’t live without his ONEitis of whom he’d made the “center of his existence”. Remove that center and he ceased to exist. Tragically though, his was only one story that mirrored countless more men’s. We live in a very dangerous age for men. The Blue Pill is even more of a liability today than it was in times past, because we live in an era that encourages men going all-in in their life’s investment in that conditioning.

Seeing that men build their sense of self-worth on this false ideology is obvious. And yes, we should make ourselves our own Mental Point of Origin, but more important is realizing that our lives depend on Killing the Beta and discarding the idealistic hope that our personal equity ought to be measured by a Blue Pill metric. One reason I take umbrage with Purple Pill hack ‘life coaches’ is because this is the dangerous value system they can never let go of and encourage other men to readopt.

Men will find themselves Zeroed Out at various stages of their lives, but if those guys are still mired in a belief set that the Blue Pill has convinced him is the only legitimate way of valuing himself he’s positioned to become another suicide statistic. And the real tragedy is that its this false evaluation that will lead most men to it – all the while he hears ‘atta boys’ and positivity thinking mantras from others who really don’t know what else to say.

Men and Suicide

Before I launch in here today I need to confess that this post has been in my drafts folder for a while now. As most of my readers are aware I’ve known two personal friends who’ve taken their own lives as a result of having their Blue Pill conditioned beliefs set them on a path to self destruction. One of the more important parts of my charter when I started writing was to reach the men who were at their wits’ end in figuring out how to deal with their personal, romantic or married lives that had until then been directed by what their Blue Pill acculturation and their understanding of intersexual dynamics were molded to be. Since I started and stopped and then restarted this topic again there have been a few recent developments in my perspective on men taking their own lives as a result of the Blue Pill’s influence on them.

All of this really began about two months ago while I was engaging in a debate (or what passes for debate) on Twitter with a very unsympathetic woman who thought she’d set me straight about why it is men choose to take their own lives at a far greater rate than women. As it stands today, men are statistically between 4 and 5 times more likely than women to kill themselves. For most Red Pill aware men this is a fairly well known stat and one that gets quoted often enough when women trot out their own stats about abuse or whatever issue they think it is that MRA are ‘confused’ about. They usually get owned when this sort of back and forth goes down, but I’m always drawn to the comparative issues women think are equitable to that of men losing their lives.

Men’s disposability is also nothing new to the manosphere. Sperm is cheap, eggs are scarce and men are expected to sacrifice their lives for the security and betterment of women even in the most patriarchal of prior social orders. It’s always interesting to me that issues of mandatory male conscription into the military (potential death) and the unignorable high male suicide rates are something women still won’t accept as being a pretty raw deal for men. Women’s innate solipsism will still compel women to find some “yeah, but;…” rationalization for men’s disposability. Whenever I bring something like this up the reflexive presumption is that I’m bemoaning men’s victim status for being disposable. However, it’s impossible to discuss male disposability without such a connotation. My issues isn’t one of seeking some equitable disposability for women, but rather it’s drawing attention to the way women react and rationalize away their own part in that disposability.

True Powerlessness

I covered a lot of this in Chivalry vs. Altruism, so I won’t belabor that here, but I will point out the inherent power imbalance in this disposability. I’ve stated in the past that true power is not the control we can exert over the lives of others, but rather the extent to which we have control over the direction of our own lives. When we discuss issues of power between men and women the real, ultimate, loss of that control is in the context of our deaths.

There is no greater powerlessness for men than a lack of control over our own disposability.

Again, this isn’t some cry of victimhood for men – I happen to believe there’s an evolved component in the male psychological firmware that actually predisposes us to sacrificing ourselves in lieu of the security of our women and children. That’s not so much altruism as it is an inborn subroutine for protecting women that triggers in life-threatening situations. When a mass shooter opens fire indiscriminately at a crowd of people it is the men, not the women, who instinctively put their bodies between that gun and women or children, even the one’s they don’t personally know.

In the bigger scope of things, men will always be more disposable than women, and on some level of consciousness women’s hindbrains instinctively understand this. As such, women’s conscious process must find ways to reconcile this understanding in order for them to move on from men’s sacrifices. Sometimes this can manifest in the War Brides phenomenon, but I would argue that in today’s social learning environment of mass media, instant gratification of women’ solipsism and feminine-primary social order, this reconciliation takes some even uglier turns. Today, women have become very efficient in consoling each other’s solipsistic rationalizing of men’s sacrifices. In this environment of default female victimization and presumed oppression even men’s ultimate sacrifice, men’s ultimate powerlessness in their own deaths, cannot ever be consciously or unconsciously acknowledged in a state of fempowerment.

While I had this debate it occurred to me that even men’s suicides could never be attributed to anything less than their own ‘male egos’ by women, thus making them victims of their conditioning into “toxic” masculinity. Essentially, women were arguing that men would put a noose around their necks because they were socially conditioned to do so. Their suicide rate was attributable to their self-pity and inability to be ‘real men’ as some nebulous toxic masculinity had predefined for them. I thought this was kind of ironic when you compare this reasoning to the narrative shift away from ‘toxic’ masculinity to masculinity itself is toxic. This is really a stupid argument when you consider that it’s just another social convention used to absolve women of the guilt associated with men’s sacrifices. Men are hardwired for self sacrifice, but likewise women had need to evolved psychological adaptations to help them clear the red from their life’s ledger in this respect.

So, in the end, it helps if women can fall back on social conventions that put the associated guilt of men’s sacrifices back on the men themselves. Chivalry and traditional masculinity are fine when they serve the Feminine Imperative, but if a man actually gets killed or kills himself as part of that, well, that’s on him then. And this is what I was beginning with in this debate; there will always be a desire for absolution of women’s guilt or complicity in the deaths of men. I should also add that in terms of war and men being drafted women regularly default to the same asinine presumption that if women were running the world that there would be no wars. I won’t dignify that with any deeper analysis than to say that this too is one more (feeble) way of looking for absolution in the sacrifices men make to facilitate women’s reality.

Suicide Solution

That still left the question, why do men take their own lives in such alarmingly high numbers compared to women? I had to do a bit of research on this, but the demographics for male suicide today show some patterns. 7 in 10 suicides are men (majority white) between the ages of 45 and 65. As expected from gynocentric media, the primary reason always cited is men’s so called stubbornness in seeking out psychiatric help before they attempt suicide – again absolving women’s influence of any complicity – but ignoring what would motivate men, and this demographic in particular, to suicide. Again, there’s no attempt to understand the underlying reasons for male suicide, only a stereotypically easy ‘male-stupid’ answer to absolve women’s complicity in it.

There’s a lot to consider and be sensitive of when it comes to male suicide, but I’m going to speculate about a few reasons here coming from a Red Pill perspective. At no other time in western history has there ever been a generation of more purposeless men. From an evolved psychological perspective, men need a function. We are innate idealists. We look outward at the world and like to imagine what could be possible. I believe there is also an innate part of our evolved mental firmware that predisposes us to problem solving and improvisation, and much of that comes as an adaptation to women’s own innate need for men who can display cues of competency.

In Competency I made the case for women’s attraction to men displaying signals of competency, confidence, mastery and creative intelligence as a selected-for survival adaptation. In short, our competency in life, whether stemming from physical prowess, social dominance or creative intelligence is integrally linked with our reproductive success as well as overall life success.

However, at no other time in history has men’s competency been so devalued and so debased; other than perhaps in terms of physical prowess and accommodating the short term (Alpha Fucks) breeding imperatives of women. At no other time in (western) history has the equity in what a man can provide or create or solve been so implicitly unnecessary or superfluous to women. When we consider the rates of college enrollment and graduation of women compared to that of men, when we consider the practical problems that men used to solve, our utility has never been less needed – or at least that’s the zeitgeist of today.

We read about how men need to accept this new social reality – that our need for purpose and function is no longer needed or as valued – and we need to change our headspace about it as if it were something men might simply turn off. This is the result of equalist beliefs that anything gender-specific is something learned rather than the innate firmware we were born with. But we cannot simply change our minds about needing a function. We evolved to be problem solvers, women talk, men do, but now we are expected to accept that men are obsolete.

Loss of Utility

In Relational Equity I made a case for men investing too much of their egos into what intrinsic (and extrinsic) value they believe their respective women ought to appreciate about themselves. Under the old books, old social contract this equity may have had some conditional value to women, but as a buffer against Hypergamy today there is very little a man might consider value-added equity (unless it’s exceedingly rare or exceedingly valued) as a hedge against Hypergamy. Before any defeatist critics tell me how not all women are like that, yes, I get it, there are a lot of variables to consider here, but the equation and the reality doesn’t change – relational equity, overall, is no insurance against Hypergamy. It is also no insurance against women’s security and providership needs being met by resources that come from outside that relationship. I’m not considering this because I’m trying to depress any man, but it is vitally necessary to consider when we look at reasons why 45-65 year old men are predisposed to higher rates of suicide and higher rates of alcoholism and opioid abuse.

I would argue that a major contributing factor to high male suicide rates finds its origins in men’s need for purpose, function and accomplishment during this phase of life. Every day I read an article about how men my own age are dropping out of social discourse. I mentioned a Boston Globe article about just this phenomenon in Male Control. In some respects I can understand that despite the unprecedented connectivity we enjoy today men really don’t seek out bonds with other men. This is primarily due to the fact that men need a common purpose in order to form these bonds. Again, this is just how we’re wired. Women intentionally schedule time to simply interact with their same-sex friends just for the sake of communicating and enjoying the act of communicating. Men need function or a common purpose to come together. We need an activity or a problem to solve and then we communicate and form bonds.

Women talk, men do. This is a well studied fact; our brains and, by extension, social networks largely center on purpose and function. Now, lets presume that in spite of having literally all the information in the world at our finger tips we remove all need for the utility that men are wired to provide to not just women, but the larger scope of Society. We get a generation of men on the outside looking in. Only the most creative, resourceful and motivated of men can really utilize, much less master, all that this information has to offer him. And even a portion of those men can really see past the antipathy of their supposed obsolescence to do something truly meaningful or masterful. As the saying goes, most men live lives of quiet desperation, but in the modern era these men are demonstrably useless. And I mean that in a functional sense; once a Beta man has been wrung of his utility to women, he ceases to be able to convince his hindbrain that he can build, improvise or solve things.

Once a man is stripped of his usefulness, once it’s made clear that all of the equity he believed would support his relationship has been erased after so long, men will still resort to practical, deductive solutions. That solution may be suicide when weighed with the prospect of having to rebuild himself in a new context; and even if he did would he just be building a new ‘him’ based on his old belief set?

When my brother in-law committed suicide it seemed to me at the time to be the most logical end he would come to. He was a man very steeped in Blue Pill ideals, but he was also a man who prided himself on what he could do – and if he didn’t know how to do something he was always a fast learner. He literally built his life, and expectations of a future life, around the relational equity he believed defined him as a man. He was very invested in the old books, old social contract that rooted a man’s attractiveness and quality in what it was he could do. What he built for himself and his wife defined his identity.

All of that 20+ years of building equity and an identity based on it was erased for him in the space of about six months. But it was more than the 20 years he’d been saving, building, solving and refining, it was a perceived future he believed would be lived out for the rest of his life that got erased.

To me, at that time, his suicide made absolutely perfect sense from a male-deductive logic perspective. What didn’t make sense was all of the endless rationalizations I heard from his family, friends, his kids, his Ex (my now widowed sister in-law) about why they thought he went through with it when it was plain for anyone who wanted to confront the truth to see. A lot of these rationales were almost verbatim the same that the article I linked used. “If only men would reach out when they have suicidal thoughts”, any and every rationale that might absolve his Ex of the guilt, and still more that were meant to console her (he must’ve been mental ill) though in the end she really didn’t need it.

My brother in-law made a practical decision not an emotional one, and while I wouldn’t presume to say that a guy’s emotional state isn’t very influential in his suicide, how he comes to the decision is very much attributable to men’s deductive nature. He showed no outward signs of emotional distress. In fact, right up to his hanging himself he was in very good spirits and seemingly accepting of the fact that the wife he lived his life for was going to be leaving him soon. He was very matter of fact in a way that men are when they’ve resolved something for themselves. When a guy seems to be taking things in stride we don’t want to create a problem where we see none.

When we look in this context at the high rate of male suicide in this age demographic we begin to see how men come to this decision. Everything they’ve built up to 45-65 years of age is now debased, devalued or simply erased. All of the value and equity they’ve committed their lives to – doing the right thing according to their Blue Pill conditioning – is as if it never mattered. So they’re confronted with a choice, rebuild themselves (hopefully in a new Red Pill aware paradigm), reconstruct a new life and tough it out, or, simply, pragmatically erase themselves.

Personally, I’ve had at least two occasions where I’ve been confronted with rebuilding myself. It’s a tough prospect, make no mistake, especially when you’re Red Pill aware and understand the reality behind having to rebuild a life from scratch after so much investment in plans and projects you truly believed in when you made them. My father had to confront this rebuilding too at around 55 years of age, but rather than rebuild or kill himself I watched him slowly decay into a man I never knew could exist as my dad.

Zeroed Out

I apologize if this topic is a bit of a downer, but I think it ought to be part of any Red Pill aware man’s understanding that at many points in our lives we will be confronted with the prospects of having to rebuild ourselves. Failure, rejection and disappointment will happen for you, that’s just part of a man’s life, and it’s easy to rattle off platitudes about how many times you get back up being the measure of a man. But what I’m saying is there will be times when total reconstruction of your life will be a necessity.

You will be zeroed out at some point, and how you handle this is a much different situation than any temporary setback. This zeroing out is made all the more difficult when you confront the fact that what you believed to be so valuable, the equity you were told was what others would measure you by, was all part of your Blue Pill conditioning. At that point you need to understand that there is most definitely a hope for a better remake of yourself based on truths that were learned in the hardest way.

To end this I’m going to quote the comment of a man I met when I spoke at the 21 Convention in September. I won’t use his name, but after we talked he confessed that he was the commenter here. He’d made the trip to the convention to meet me face to face, to thank me for my work and gave me permission to use his example in a post. I won’t quote it entirely, but you can read the whole thing here. His situation is an example of, and inspiration for, everything I’ve illuminated in this essay

After a long marriage I divorced the mother of my children. A couple of years later, after some casual dating, I met a woman I would come to describe as my soulmate. I got married young – but this time, with all my infinite wisdom gained over the years – I was finally wise enough to pick a woman I was super compatible with.

We were together for a few years and even lived together. Things started out great and it was mostly smooth sailing until we moved in together – at which time I slowly allowed myself to be betaized in a slow motion, excruciating painful way.

About a month after breaking up with her I fully planned to commit suicide. I wrote a long letter explaining my rationalization and took other affirmative steps towards going through with it. About a week after I wrote the note – with D(eath) Day fast approaching – I took a break from getting my affairs in order to surf the net. I stumbled upon an Ask Reddit thread that was bad mouthing various subreddits. Some feminazi or male feminist mentioned the Red Pill subreddit as an example of a subreddit filled with craziness, and I decided to check what all of the fuss was about. Now

I’m not a religious man, but I will never rule out divine intervention. The timing of finding TRP – by complete coincidence no less – couldn’t have been more fortuitous. I stayed up all night reading the side bar – Rollo’s essays having the deepest effect on me – and everything…just…clicked….Talk about connecting the dots! Wow! It was very much like a come to Jesus moment. It was like divinity revealed secret knowledge to me just when I needed it the most – knowledge that gave me hope and very well may have saved my life. This all went down not really that long ago in actual time – but from where I metaphorically stand now it seems like an eternity.

Stay strong my friends, you can rebuild yourself even in the face of being zeroed out.

The Creep – Part 3

One of the parts of our evolved, human mental firmware is a need to see order in the chaotic. Pattern recognition in humans seems likely to have been a selected-for trait that aided in our survival in the past. Thus, we look for consistencies that help us predict what will likely come to be or to help us plan for eventualities. As such we had a need to categorize things in our environments as well as in other people (members of our tribe vs. the members of a competing tribe for instance). Naturally, we apply this need for familiarity and recognition to other people which is how stereotypes emerged. I feel the term ‘creep’ is one such categorization, but this is really a proxy term for a type of person that conveys a certain feeling we get from them.

There is an instinctual, animal-level recognition we get from other people’s behavior, looks, smells, subcoms, voice intonations, etc. Pattern recognition has been a survival adaptation in human being’s for sometime because it saved our conscious mind from having to perform rote memorization of each of these aspects and forming a definite identity for each and every individual we meet. It saves our brains from having to consciously process large amounts of data without being overwhelmed.

From People are People:

Human beings have an amazing capacity to multi-task, but a real trained focus on multiple sources of stimuli was problematic for us in our evolutionary past. Too much constant stimuli leads to sensory overload and a breakdown in functionality, which then proves fatal if we’re distracted from reacting to a lethal threat. Thus, we evolved psychological mechanisms to push less (though still) important information to the peripheries of our conscious awareness, to afford us a mental acuity on information of more importance.

One of my personal, foundational theories about psychology is that people are intimately aware of their own conditions.

This is a good starting point in clarifying why we feel a need to typify others. Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. So when that predictable behavior changes even marginally, our instinctual perceptions fire off all kinds of warnings. I’m starting off with this today because the last part of the creep story is about men setting off this trigger in women.

I’ve written on several occasions about how women constantly complain about how the stereotypical ‘Nice’ guy can turn into a ‘creep’ when it turns out that all the guy was being nice for was part of his Beta Game of identifying with her in order to get to intimacy. There’s a lot going on in a situation like this, but fundamentally it represents a situation where a woman’s Hypergamous filters are fooled (or not) by a guy misrepresenting himself as one asset to her Hypergamous understanding of him and then his revealing and confirming for her that he expects her to believe he’s something else.

I’ve also written before that nothing is more flattering for a woman to believe that she’s figured out a man by using her mythological feminine intuition. However, there is a flip side to this ego-compliment to women, and that’s when her ‘intuitive’ assessment of a man’s SMV status compared to her (self-perceived) own proves to be false. Nothing is more offensive to a woman than for her to have made an assessment of a guy based on her mythical intuition and then to have it prove inaccurate.

The reason this is so offensive is because women’s Hypergamous optimization with any man is largely dependent on her intuition. Hypergamy and women’s long -term breeding strategy depends on assessing men’s SMV and their utility to her accurately. This is often compounded by women being sold on the infallibility of their feminine intuition – courtesy of a feminine-primary social order – and grossly exaggerated self-perceptions of their own SMV, and the caliber of men they ‘know’ they must deserve. But as with most things human there is also a learned / trained aspect of pattern recognition. Much of this learned side for women is often distorted by our female-important society.

Hypergamy cannot afford to incorrectly assess a man’s status and value. There is only a finite window of optimization while a woman is in her peak desirability in life. So it should come as little surprise that if a man misrepresents himself as something other than what he is – either deliberately or by misunderstanding – women feel an offense on the limbic level. It’s an offense that confirms she’s wasted her very precious time with a Hypergamous dead end. And, needless to say, Game is a form of deliberately tricking a woman’s Hypergamous filtering – at least in the PUA sense, if not an authentic sense – thus, Game is so vehemently disparaged in women and their identifying sympathizers.

When a woman typifies a guy as a creep what she’s responding to is the fallibility of her intuition, but also his efforts to misrepresent himself as something he’s not to her filtering mechanism. I should also add here that concepts like preselection and social proof are extensions of this filtering process. Only in this case it’s women’s collective, social filtering that’s aiding in an individual woman’s selection and optimization process. As such, that collective of women (the Sisterhood Über Alles) needs a type of man to be the representative of the ‘deceiver of Hypergamy’ – enter the Creep.

I’m actually kind of glad I held out for three posts in this series; it allowed for that many more sexual misconduct allegations to come forward in what’s being called a masculine moral panic today. And as I predicted in Male Control, the feminine social narrative has shifted from a type of masculinity being “toxic” to masculinity itself is toxic.

THE FACT IS, IT’S YOU. IT’S MEN. THE SOCIAL ILL THAT WE CAN’T QUITE PUT OUR FINGER ON IS MEN.

This is a quote from a recent article in Esquire. Yes, Esquire, a magazine that used to be an exclusive male space dedicated to men’s higher aspirations and betterment is now a vehicle for this new narrative of male shaming, and gender loathing. That’s to be expected these days – GQ is a similar platform for the Feminine Imperative’s messaging – but what I found interesting in this article was some of the examples of ‘creepiness’ women believe is rampant in American workplace culture. I had thought that with the rise of HR departments’ directives to police male behavior (at the risk of future unemployability) the issues she mentions would be something men would fear – I guess not.

A coworker knew I had a date the night before, so he asked me how it went. He said, “So, did he get lucky?”

Don’t ask about her romantic life. Don’t refer to her sex life. Don’t ask about the quality of the sex she’s having. Don’t comment that she seems like she needs to get laid. Don’t tell her to lock down a guy before she gets too old and decrepit. Don’t reassure her that with tits like hers, she’ll find a guy some day. Don’t relay details of your own marriage and past in order to comment on hers. Don’t make knowing eyes when she mentions she’s going on date number three. Don’t tell her how to behave on a date. Don’t tell her what guys like on a date. Don’t tell her to wear a low-cut shirt on a date. Don’t make any reference to getting lucky, like, ever.

What guy does any of this? How does he know when a female coworker had a date to begin with? There’s a lot that goes along with how a woman comes to a list of Don’ts, but I think this list represents a good illustration of the creep dynamic. The primary concern she has in all of these Don’ts can all be distilled down to a guy beneath her Hypergamous attraction floor presuming a familiar intimacy with her. I find it very hard to believe any of these Don’ts would be actual occurrences, but I’m looking at them through a Red Pill Lens – yes, it’s entirely likely that Blue Pill creeps would in fact resort to some of these comments.

Essentially the entire article is an effort in berating the Beta men women really want nothing to do with.

YOU SHOULD BE AFRAID OF SAYING OR DOING A WRONG THING AND HAVING IT BE INTERPRETED IN EXACTLY THE WAY YOU MEANT IT.

Women want lesser men to be afraid to approach, compliment and engage with them, but the message is wrapped in generalities to imply all men do these things. This message has the potential to throw the Alphas out with the bathwater, so I would predict there’ll be a few related articles that will of course shame men for not ‘manning up’ and approaching women like a “real man” should.

Dangerous Times

All that said, I can easily imagine Beta men, confused about sexual zoning, engaging in exactly the behaviors described here. It is a very dangerous time to be a Blue Pill Beta today. In fact, I’d argue it’s never been more potentially hazardous for guy ignorant of Game and the nature of intersexual dynamics. I find it very ironic that the men who actually understand the potential for some real life-damaging accusations in the workplace or any other off-limits social context, who take the open door, have-a-witness, policy for working with women are being shamed for it by women. This is the environment they created, but they created it in response to a want for absolute control of their Hypergamous choices.

A “creep” can pretty much be anyone a woman (or women) want that guy to be – even guys who were previously attractive with whom they had consensual sex with. That Alpha they didn’t mind oversharing their sex life information with can be the “creep” if he decides to break things off with her. Again, this comes back to unfettered control of women’s Hypergamous choices as well as absolving them of any regrets they may have had that resulted from them.

Edelweiss had an excellent comment in last week’s thread:

From my perspective, the guys most often labeled a “creep” are those with poor social awareness and/or men who those women see as offering no real value to them.

Now in my mid 40’s, I can see things that would never have registered for a 20yr old version of me. I often think “how did I miss this before?”. My focus now is almost entirely on body language. A woman can consistently lie with what she says, but she (anyone really) can’t consistently lie with their body language. Any guy not well versed in reading the various signs of interest, or a lack of, needs to spend some time studying the basics. It seems simple now.

One of the major mistakes I see guys make, is escalating too quickly. Touching, and sexualizing around a woman who isn’t into you, or is unsure of your value, is a great way to be labeled a creep. How many times have you seen a guy double down on an approach that isn’t working, and consequently become known as a “creeper”? A good number of men get into “pursuit” mode, and completely fuck up their chances by being overzealous.

I’ve got to repeat this, it’s never been a more dangerous time for men unaware of Red Pill intersexual dynamics and even basic Game principles. Blue Pill Beta men have been conditioned and acculturated to default to a Beta Game that is the perfect storm for so volatile a time. These guys literally have no idea that what their interacting with women is doing is setting them up for. Simple compliments and treating women with a default respect is becoming a liability for men with poor social awareness, but this is exactly the type of men our social order has developed for the past 4 generations. These Beta ‘creeps’ who should just know better than to try to approach the ‘average’ woman are the result of decades of raising and acculturating boys to hate their masculine nature and confuse their good intentions with some form of Game women might appreciate.

Pook once had a great quote back on the SoSuave Forum. He said,

How do I judge a woman’s character? I see how she treats people who can do nothing for her.
This test has never failed me.

At this point in time I think we are seeing how women treat the men who can do nothing for them.

The Creep – Part 2

Just so we’re clear here, yes, I get that there are a lot of ways to take the term ‘creepy’. In last week’s essay I wanted to dig into what women claim is ‘creepy’ and how this term is really another illustration of ambiguous fem-speak rooted in how a guy makes a woman feel. Furthermore, this feeling is modified by where that man is stationed in her perception of his sexual market value (SMV).

Last week I got linked a Tweet about ‘creeps’ by Roosh (he still hates me). He had a good point, and I paraphrase,

“Creeps are just guys that go from 0-100 in sexualizing a conversation with a woman way too fast. A good PUA knows that slow and steady sexualization works best.”

Take that how you want, but I think this is definitely part of the creep dynamic. There’s a bit more to being creepy than overly fast sexualization (or presumed familiarity); we’ve got to account for a Blue Pill / Beta guy’s lack of social intelligence to understand that taking it slow should be something he knows already. And still, how can we presume this slow and steady sexualization is a proficient form of seduction when we see more Alpha, more immediately arousing men, go from 0-100 themselves and get a same night lay? I’ve done this myself more than a few times back in a time when there was no formal Game to be had. Right guy, right place, right time, and 0-100 is what a woman is hoping will happen. Hypergamy is nothing if not pragmatic.

That said, I am convinced that this over-investment, too quick, too soon is definitely part of the creepy dynamic. I’ve made the call in several prior posts that it’s part of the Beta mindset to want to bypass the arousal and attraction phases of seduction to go directly to rapport. Thus, you get a guy who shares too much way too soon and this itself is creepy for women. It’s a huge telegraphing of that guy’s state of desperation and optionlessness. There’s no mystery left about the guy (assuming the girl even had an initial attraction) and nothing left to figure out. This over-sharing is also a huge red flag to women’s Hypergamous filters; it’s an indication that a guy ‘doesn’t get it’ with regard to how to play the Game with her.

You see, this rush to get to comfort and rapport is usually because that ‘creep’ is anxious to get past the arousal phase, the sexual tension, because he has no clue what to do in that phase. It’s a real source of anxiety for him, and besides, every woman he’s ever asked has said she needed to be comfortable with a guy before she has sex with him (false). Comfort, rapport, familiarity (all of which are anti-seductive) should be where the sex begins to his way of thinking, so again, male deductive logic would follow that getting there quickly would be pragmatic.

When a more Alpha, natural, moves quickly it’s almost always because he’s working with a receptive (proceptive) woman. As I mentioned before, arousal covers for a lot of men’s deficits in Game or feelings of creepery.

The Creeps

As most readers will have probably guessed I’ve timed the release of this series to address the current Hysteria of sexual assault / harassment / rape charges that are  moving like wildfire through Hollywood first, and now through the rest of our pop-culture social strata. While it may be satisfying to see mealy-mouth self-righteous actors and moguls take a fall, it’s important to see the larger social mechanics in play here.

I wrote that essay over a year ago and I’ll say now that I’d never dreamed how prophetic that post would turn out. Criticizing this #MeToo sexual assault hysteria is next to impossible. For the same reasons no one wanted to question the veracity of the UVA fraternity rape hoax that Rolling Stone and Sabrina Erdley perpetrated – no one now wants to question the accusations leveled at the various personalities being conveniently outed for sexual assault/harassment that in some cases occurred 30-40 years ago. We are expected to believe the testimonies of women without question.

This isn’t to say that the celebrities involved didn’t do what their accusers are saying they did, it’s that we are expected to accept that this behavior is endemic in all men, and based on the same principle of believing whatever a woman has to say about it with no afterthought given to its truth or her motives. It’s one thing to presume that whenever a woman comes forward with a rape or assault claim we are expected to presume the man guilty until proven innocent, but we’re rapidly reaching a point where any claim a woman has about a man bears that same weight. When it comes down to ‘he said, she said’, what she said will hold the full weight of the law.

Our Feminine-primary social order is now repurposing this ironclad believability of women – and presumed guilt of men – for every crime a woman ‘feels’ she’s been a victim of at the hands of a man. At the same time we see sexual harassment being defined as something that even a wink from a man can convey, we also see the rapid criminalization of men  who would dare to talk to a woman they don’t already know.

When we combine this overarching presumption of male guilt with the potential crime of men dealing with a woman with the intent of establish intimacy, and then add to it the ever changing definition of what can constitute sexual assault or harassment (and with a uniquely endless statute of limitations), we begin to get a clearer picture of the direction the Feminine Imperative has for men.

I’m sure this all seems very reactionary, but so was the questioning of Sabrina Erdley’s story about a nameless girl who was violently raped on the shattered glass of a broken coffee table by fraternity boys. Once again, I’m not saying sexual assault doesn’t happen, I’m saying that the direction gynocentrism is taking is one in which men ought to lose rights and liberties that only women ought to be the judges of.

Creepiness is a feeling women get from men who lack the social skills to ‘just get it’ that they are or aren’t into them. What this distills down to on a root level is women’s presuming that men should know better than to approach them when they are beneath their Hypergamous attraction floor. It is the criminalization of men not understanding how they fit into women’s sexual strategies. I made a case for this in The Political is Personal. The more men resist the social intents of Hypergamy, the more it will become necessary to legislate men to comply with it.

Feminine-primary social doctrine is an extension of  women’s Hypergamy.

Any deviation from this is on the part of  men is met with a cultural reprisal designed to convince or coerce men to accept their inevitable role in providing those entitlements to women. When those social contingencies fail, or become played out, the Feminine Imperative then appeals to legal legislation to mandate men’s compliance to what amounts to women’s social entitlement to optimized Hypergamy.

We’re rapidly reaching this peak Hypergamous state. As I mentioned in Male Control, since the Las Vegas shooting the narrative of masculinity has shifted. There is no more “toxic” masculinity – it’s masculinity on-whole that is toxic. As Open Hypergamy becomes more institutionalized and made a societal norm by the Feminine Imperative, and as more men become Red Pill aware (by effort or consequences) because of it, the more necessary it will become for a feminine-primary social order to legislate and mandate men comply with it.

In the Zone

Morpheus had a great comment last week that hit on what I went into in Sexual Zoning:

The term “creep” can really lead in a bunch of different directions discussion wise, but I think a really big one is “sexual zones” vs “non-sexual zones”. Increasingly, there are all sorts of places where the default presumption is that women should be “free from” male advances. Work, school, etc. In these zones, the margin for error is very small. Unless you are an objectively visually attractive man with super tight game, the odds of you being perceived as a “creep” are much, much higher. In sexual zones, such as the Friday night bar, your margin for error is higher. The default presumption is men are there to meet women. You still need to have the right social vibe and not come across as a weirdo but you have a little more room to play with.

And from that post:

I would argue that a large majority of men accused of sexual harassment or even just suspected of impropriety are men who’ve found themselves in an environment they believed was an acceptable sexual zone. We are fast approaching a time when all zones will be so arbitrary and ambiguous that every environment with sexual potential will be avoided. This will have the effect of putting women into unilateral control of their own Hypergamy. It will be a state of Sadie Hawkins world – only women will make approaches on men and only those who match her Hypergamous ideal, an ideal fostered and reinforced by a steady diet of social media ego inflation.

A while ago I read this piece about Mike Pence:

“In 2002, Mike Pence told The Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side, either.”

Naturally the media wants to pass this off as some masculine insecurity on Pence’s part. Certainly there’s a religious reason for Pence not wanting to present any perception of impropriety – I’ve know pastor who will never have closed door meetings with women or do counseling for women without their wives present – but there is a practical side to this habit. It prevents the accusations and opportunity for anything like what we’re seeing in the accusation cycling through Hollywood today. But still, shaming the masculine is the first reflex for the mainstream media.

This Atlantic article is an exercise in deliberately not seeing the intersexual writing on the wall. This is the practical contingency for a social order bent on removing men via accusations of sexual misconduct. Yet still, for all of the inherent dangers of a frivolous sexual harassment suit at the disposal of any and every western woman, men are supposed to leave themselves vulnerable to them:

Pence is not the only powerful man in Washington who goes to great lengths to avoid the appearance of impropriety with the opposite sex. An anonymous survey of female Capitol Hill staffers conducted by National Journal in 2015 found that “several female aides reported that they have been barred from staffing their male bosses at evening events, driving alone with their congressman or senator, or even sitting down one-on-one in his office for fear that others would get the wrong impression.” One told the reporter Sarah Mimms that in 12 years working for her previous boss, he “never took a closed door meeting with me. … This made sensitive and strategic discussions extremely difficult.”

This is the social environment feminism and our gynocentric social order has chosen to establish for men and women. Men pragmatically look for ways to guard themselves against allegation, and yet are shamed for that sensibility. It’s gotten (or will get) to the point where old books “decent” behavior is too risky to engage in in the modern workplace. Powerful men must hide behind open doors, and still those men are shamed for being prudent. Why?

We live in a new era where marriage has become disincentivized for men by the risks of capital loss in divorce that overwhelmingly favors women with cash & prizes. Now add to this the increasing ego entitlements of women to high value men. As the prospect of marriage looks less and less like a good deal for men wanting to protect themselves there comes a need for women to create ways to bypass the requirement for marriage to access men’s capital. Enter the era of increasingly more nebulous, acrimonious, accusations of sexual harassment or assault and de facto believability of women’s testimony. Exit the era of frivolous divorce (okay maybe not entirely) and enter the era of more easily accessible capital via frivolous sexual assault lawsuits.

More to come in part 3.

The ‘Creep’ – Part 1

What makes a guy “creepy”?

For almost every woman I polled in researching this essay what makes a guy ‘creepy’ is the inability of a guy to ‘take a hint’.

Most seemed to believe that there was some ‘obvious’ (to them) boundary that ‘creepy’ men always crossed that made them into creeps. If that sounds a lot like my principle of ‘Just Get It’ you’re not too far off. Much of this goes back to women’s innate psychological filtering for optimizing Hypergamy and women expect men to ‘just get’ everything about intersexual dynamics, both positive and negative. However, there is a fundamental difference between what men define as creepy (in a general sense) and what women ‘feel’ is creepy with regards to creepy men. I’ll go into both in this essay, but it’s important to make this distinction because for both men and women there is a peripheral awareness about other people’s behavior that sets off psychological triggers which inform us that something isn’t quite right about that person and to beware of danger.

Personally, I believe we have evolved a pretty good instinct about what makes us feel unsafe about other people. For people who have some sort of clinical neurosis sometimes all it takes is to listen to that person’s speech or watch their mannerisms. If you meet someone who is drunk, it’s pretty easy to diagnose that person’s state without having to smell their breath. We instinctively get a feeling that this person is not speaking (slurring) or behaving like a sober person would. Drunkenness is an easy illustration of this instinct, but the same goes for true forms of insanity (schizophrenia, paranoia, bipolar disorder). Unless we’re really naive or just ignoring the indicators we can tell when a person is off.

Dementia and Alzheimers are easy diagnoses too. From there though, by degrees of subtlety, we really have to hone our senses to what’s right or wrong about a person’s behavior. What’s more difficult to wrap our heads around is sussing out people who have a better capacity to hide their disorders. Autism, Asperger’s Syndrome or just acute social awkwardness is sometimes manageable and we either accept it as part of their personality or we understand it as a disorder and we (as “normies”) choose to ignore it. This is where the social conditioning of today does us a disservice to some extent.

In our feminine-primary social order of tolerance and acceptance, this innate, often peripheral or unconscious, sense of understanding that something is off about someone is something we are taught we ought to keep sublimated. We don’t want to appear “judgmental” or we’re shamed for actually heeding the messages our instincts are telling us are red flags about people. Conditions and disorders that we used to consider abnormalities in the past are things we’re expected to progressively have more and more empathy for. That isn’t to say that we ought not be sympathetic to a person’s condition, but it is to say that this expectation of acceptance reduces our capacity to listen to what our instinct is telling us about a person. We get conditioned to tuning out our natural instincts about a person who may want to harm or manipulate us.

I mentioned this hindbrain instinct in Gut Check as being one reason we tend to get jealous or possessive of our mates.

Whenever you feel something isn’t quite right in your gut, what this is is your subconscious awareness alerting you to inconsistencies going on around you. We tend to ignore these signs in the thinking that our rational mind ‘knows better’ and things really aren’t what they seem. It’s not as bad as you’re imagining, and you can even feel shame or guilt with yourself for acknowledging that lack of trust. However, it’s just this internal rationalization that keeps us blind to the obvious that our subconscious is trying to warn us about. Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. So when that predictable behavior changes even marginally, our instinctual perceptions fire off all kinds of warnings. Some of which can actually effect us physically.

The dynamic of Mate Guarding is also a behavioral adaptation that evolved to ensure our paternity or parental investment with a mate. Our social order today teaches us that men who feel jealousy, suspect infidelity or are prone to mate guard are by definition “insecure”. This redefining is meant to cover for women’s control of Hypergamy, in the hopes that men will self-police these instincts, but in doing so they become sublimated. So we self-convince that it’s wrong for us to heed what our hindbrain is telling us for our own preservation.

However, when it comes to women’s instincts we exaggerate their importance beyond all realistic measure. Since we prioritize women’s hindbrain perception and feeling above all else, we would never downplay their importance without risking a lot of social fallout and shame. Whereas men’s instincts are signs of ‘insecurity’, women’s instincts (feminine intuition) are raised to a metaphysical level. So when a woman says a guy “creeps her out” or is acting “creepy” we tend to misunderstand what exactly it is her hindbrain is telling her and us. There are two aspects of ‘creepy’ to women:

  • The sense of self-preservation and imminent danger that is associated with a man whom her hindbrain is telling her that there’s something not quite right about. The guy is directly communicating or subcommunicating that he may be a potential threat to her wellbeing. Her intuition is something that is exaggerated beyond all reasonable, realistic perception, but her subconscious only knows what it knows and the social conditioning kicks in to be overly cautious. This may or may not be the actual case, but women evolved to err on the side of over-cautiousness – particularly when it comes to men’s behavioral cues and perceptions of anger.
  • The sense of insult to her capacity to optimize Hypergamy with a suboptimal male makes her “creeped out”. In this sense the “creep” offends her hindbrain’s expectation of reproducing with the best genetic partner her ego believes is really her due. As you’ll see in a moment, when a physically arousing man repeats the same behavior as a less-arousing man the feeling of ‘creep’ is diminished. Much of this has a lot to do with that guy’s sense of congruency between his behavior (sub-communications) and her intuition about his authenticity, but largely the initial ‘hotness’ of one man vs. a less hot one can spell the difference between a “creep” and “awkward-but-cute”. Arousal compensates for a lot of behavioral miscues, but the point is that this sense of ‘creepiness’ is fundamentally based in a woman’s ego-sense of losing direct control of Hypergamy and her capacity to optimize it. What ‘creepy’ distills down to is a woman’s Hypergamous-level revulsion of a man believing he may be someone she would eventually have sex with. Creepy is an insult to Hypergamy.

In both these instances it’s important to consider that we’re talking about both an instinctual dynamic and how it’s been modified by our social order. The following are a few of the most common descriptions of ‘creepy’ I was able to collate for this essay:

Getting in my personal space when I don’t know/barely know you. It’s weird and uncomfortable, and if you’re bigger than me then it can feel quite intimidating.

When I worked in a bar one guy told me I was prettier than anyone else there. But he kept going on about how they weren’t attractive and had nothing to offer as far as looks go. Yeah? Some of those are my dearest friends you’re bashing.

When I make it clear I’m not interested and he keeps trying. It makes me feel uncomfortable and it puts me in a bad position cause there are only so many times you can politely turn someone down.

Over Persistence

It’s an unfortunate but totally predictable response to much of our entertainment, where the storyline involves a man “winning” an initially uninterested woman either by wooing her directly or by performing some great feat. We’ve seen this archetypal story for centuries (since the rise of courtly love). Persistence is always rewarded in Disney Blue Pill fantasies Everyone is the hero of their own story. So if you’re raised on stories like that, of course you don’t take an initial “no” as the final answer. It’s all part of the story. You’re the hero and you want her, so you’ll get her in the end.

Persistence is always a sensitive topic in the ‘sphere. Some guys will tell you that even without Indicators of Interest a woman is only a conversation away from being into you if your Game is good enough to convince her. Others will tell you to balance your efforts and play to your strengths; why bother with a dead end if other opportunities are available? In either case a guy can come off as creepy when he takes this persistence to the extreme. It’s one thing to not “take a hint” from a woman, it’s an order of degree worse when a guy persists in not taking that hint because he’s been taught he’ll be rewarded for persistence.

I have had the “attempts-at-polite-rejection” turn scary (thankfully, the worst it ever got was being slammed into a wall) enough times that as soon as someone doesn’t take “no” for an answer once, I start internally freaking out.

Persistence when a woman has rejected a guy is the top complaint of creepiness. Women expect a guy to ‘just get it’. Social retardation (I mean that in a clinical sense) and Blue Pill conditioning teach a guy to never give up, to believe in some kind of predestination or romantic soul-mate date with fate, and all he needs to do is be persistent and a woman will come to the same romantic-but-logical conclusion.

Women make the mistake of believing all guys understand when they are communicating rejection to them – they very often don’t, and for the same reason they’ve been taught to be zealously persistent. The Blue Pill makes them resistant to this. Blue Pill ‘creeps’ usually respond with either anger or self-pity when they finally realize their predestined girl not only rejects him, but she is scared of him or despises him. So the Nice Guy turns mean and vindictive, or he loses faith in his Blue Pill romanticization and gets despondent. Both are potentially volatile for the Beta.

I think a lot of well-meaning Beta “Nice Guys” come off as creepy simply because they follow a Blue Pill old-books script they believe will be reciprocated by women. Much of this creepiness is the result of their inability to do a realistic assessment of their own SMV. This is a tough bit of insight even for Red Pill aware men, but for Blue Pill guys it’s almost impossible because they are struggling against a social conditioning that constantly tells them what they do and who they are is ‘enough’ – or should be enough for any girl who’s of a quality to appreciate their unique-but-commonness.

In a way it’s a lot like today’s women’s egos being overinflated by social media and our present social narrative to the point that they believe their own SMV is, or should be, enough for any man, but especially men who are well above their own SMV. More than enough actually. So too does the ‘creep’ believe his own pathological self-impression. The problem here is that, for men,  we must be the initiators and with that comes the potential to be taken as an aggressor or harasser.

Where’s my hug?

I think one potentially bad outcome for the ‘creep’ is when he comes across something like a PUA program and watches an ‘instructor’ run through a set and then tries his damnedest to repeat the same behaviors and script with a girl he thinks he may have a chance with. When a PUA presumes familiarity with a woman he doesn’t know, and his internal game is congruent with his delivery, it comes off as authentic and it can (potentially) be endearing. But when a Beta ‘creep’, who’s trying his best to solve his creepiness problem, presumes the same behavior will endear him to a girl – and isn’t congruent, or doesn’t “get it” – he gets even more despondent (or frustrated/aggravated) when all it does is reinforce and enhance his perception of creepiness.

A common Game technique is to presume a familiarity with a woman. When PUA with Game and congruency approaches a woman and says “where’s my hug?” the effect is the polar opposite of when an incongruent Beta delivers the same line. Worse still, the guy risks not just overt rejection and creepiness perception, but he also runs the risk of having his approach considered sexual assault by order of degree. I would argue that a lot of what would otherwise be considered witty banter from a skilled PUA is creepy to women when it comes from a struggling Beta who a woman doesn’t find arousing.

This dynamic also extends to over-sexualizing a conversation with women when no context has been established between the creep and the girl.

I get creeped out by guys who immediately start talking about sexual topics in response to everything you say, every single time you are within communicating distance of each other while you two barely know each other to drop a “hint”. I had a guy that found a way (albeit poorly) to turn everything I said sexual. And whenever I called him out on it and told him to knock it off, I was being a “prude”.

Also, asking personal (sexual) questions or sharing stories of the same, especially if you’re not even casual acquaintances. I know a lot of women who want to be polite but are totally creeped out by this.

What’s fascinating about this sex-conversation creep is that, when the reverse is true, there’s no better indicator that a woman is into having sex with a you. In an upcoming essay I’ll outline our social progression towards a unilateral control of every aspect of the intersexual process by women, but for now consider that when a woman immediately presumes a sexual context in conversation it’s a solid confirmation that you’ve passed (or are passing) her Hypergamous filter. And that’s the fundamental nature of this kind of creepy guy; he presumes an acknowledged state of sexual-ness without having passed this Hypergamous determination. I’ve said in the past that women don’t decide in the first five minutes of meeting a guy if she will have sex with him, rather, she knows if she wont have sex with him.

Again, Game sometimes reinforces the idea that a guy needs to establish a sexual context with a woman from the opening, but the creep doesn’t understand the artistry and nuance that goes along with applying this. My friend, Alan Roger Currie, is a big proponent of straight up, “I wanna fuck you, are you down?” style of direct Game. While I have seen this effective with women it does promote the idea that a guy can simply presume a sexual context with any woman from the outset. And really, when a creep tries to drop ‘hints’ about sex or attempts to get personal information in a blunderingly obvious (but he thinks stealthy) way he’s not employing a direct Game – he’s beating around the bush in the hopes that he’ll pass her sex test.

When a less-than-proficient, less-than-arousing Beta adopts this direct-but-not-directness he runs the risk of being perceived as creepy, or worse, as a harasser. For a mature, socially savvy man, the obvious retort is “well, no guy should presume anything, there needs to be some kind of rapport’, but remember, we’re talking about guys who in large part Don’t Get ItThis should make for a good conversation this week. Let me know your thoughts on what you think constitutes ‘creepiness’ in the comments.

As I was researching and writing on this topic It occurred to me how deep this dynamic really is, so I’ve decided to split it into a series. In part two we’ll go into a bit more of what makes for creepiness in a Hypergamous context.  I’ll also delve into how creepiness has been developed into a feminine-operative social convention.

Riff on This

A week ago I had a reader send me a link to this helpful list of “mother-may-I’s” and feminine-primary etiquette by Nicole Silverberg. Presently I’ve got a very in-depth essay in the works about exactly this shifting of the ‘toxic’ masculinity narrative to one that presumes all forms of masculinity are inherently toxic. However, as a prelude I guess, I think it’s impossible for the manosphere and Red Pill writers to ignore the debacle that was the Harvey Weinstein admissions of chronic sexual harassment with the up and coming starlets who (along with a long list of ‘male feminist’ celebrities) didn’t feel emboldened enough to not keep Harvey’s dirty little not-so-secret until now. This, as I predicted, was then repurposed by the Feminine Imperative to be presumptive proof that all men are prospective sexual harassers with the #metoo viral hashtag.

As I mentioned in Male Control, in the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting the Feminine Imperative took this as an opportunity to change lanes with regard to its gestalt perspective of masculinity. In previous eras, as with this one, the reflexive response to a shooting of this nature is to blame it on the accessibility of firearms in the US. That’s to be expected, but what follows this always-impotent reactions is usually some deep, ostensibly soul-searching, introspective as to the motives of the shooter. And in this the imperative always comes to the ‘angry male’ narrative.

The presumption we’re expected to come to is that it is men’s toxically masculine socialization that makes them all potentially violent. Overwhelmingly it becomes an argument about traditional masculinity and raising boys into men in a laughably clichéd, laughably anachronistic way that is always founded in social constructivism. Yes, the allusions to testosterone being the most volatile chemical on earth gets bandied about, but usually the proponents of the Feminine Imperative rely on the ridiculous lie that boys are being raised in some hyper-masculine tribal order that tells them to “toughen up” and “don’t cry, boys don’t cry”.

However, not to get ahead of myself, in this new shift it’s no longer “toxic” masculinity, it’s masculinity that is toxic. It ought to be interesting to see how the Village eels its way around men’s biological nature to get to some suitably social constructivist rationale for this shift. The difference now is that just being a man makes one a potentially violent criminal – or a potential sexual harasser.

What Weinstein and dozens of other accusation of (usually ‘male feminist’) men following in his wake has reinforced is that masculinity makes us inherently evil. So evil, in fact, that men must be reeducated by the Feminine Imperative to ensure that one’s fellow man (a prospective harasser/rapist/gunslinger) is acting in accordance with the dictates of the Great Masculine Scare of 2017.

The list below, which I intend to riff on, is one of many recent attempts of feminist writers to enlist the aid of sympathetic female-allies men (yes, the ones they say they implicitly distrust) to help police social discourse and intersexual interactions. There are lots of other ‘helpful lists’ like this, and before I dig in I’ll declare that this is a tongue in cheek response to what is really a very serious shift in the popular narrative about perspectives on masculinity.

  • Talk to your friend who is “kind of a creep” at work.

And what exactly would Nicole have us say to our creepy ‘friend’? What is it that makes a guy ‘creepy’? Rarely is ‘creepy’ ever concretely defined by women, but I’d define it as a guy who’s so socially unintelligent and sexually destitute that he’d unwittingly bet his personal life on the very low prospect of a woman responding positively to his ‘creepy’ approaches of her. I could likely write an entire essay about this ‘creepy’ dynamic (likely will), but what ‘creepy’ distills down to is a woman’s Hypergamous-level revulsion of a man believing he may be someone she would eventually have sex with. Creepy is an insult to Hypergamy.

  • Don’t talk over women.

Ah, the old mansplaining chestnut, only this is its newer cousin, men over-modulating women. Men and women communicate differently. We are different creatures and we have our own preferred forms of communication. Women place far more import on context (feeling) in conversation. Yes, this demand is presumptuous in that it presumes anything a woman would say is more important than men’s need to get to the damn point efficiently (we prioritize content/information in conversation). However, a lot of this gripe is about women’s wanting to prioritize their own communication style above that of men’s.

  • If you are asked to be on a panel/team and see that it’s all men, say something. Maybe even refuse the spot!

So, refuse a lucrative position on a work team project with the potential for advancement, greater status and maybe a higher state in the male dominance hierarchy (that attracts all the women who insist on never settling for a less than ‘equal’ pairing) all to appease what passes for women’s moral imperatives? If it ever were all men on the panel in today’s work culture I’d be thanking my cubicle Gods that we’d all get something done and have time to go home to see my wife and kids that evening.

  • When you see another guy talk over a woman, say: “Hey, she was saying something.”

This is the “lets you and him fight” social convention women are all too happy to use when there is absolutely no contingent consequence to themselves. This suggestion already appeals to Blue Pill White Knights who believe that their AMOGing at work will go appreciated and maybe get them laid for championing women at work. Ironically, it’s the ‘creepy’ Betas we’re supposed to say “something” to who are most likely to employ this if they thought it would get them in good standing with women.

On a serious note, all this convention reveals is the solipsistic self-assured certainty that anything a woman might say is, by default, worthy of undivided attention.

  • Learn to read a fucking room.

Most Red Pill aware men already know how to read socially. What this is is an appeal to Betas to know when to shut the fuck up socially.

  • Don’t call women “crazy” in a professional setting.

I would suggest not calling anyone ‘crazy’ in a professional setting, but again the intentional ambiguity of not defining what constitutes ‘professional’ is why this is disingenuous. Can I call a woman crazy if the project team is having drinks after 5 on a Friday?

  • Don’t use your “feminism” as a way to get women to trust you. Show us in your day-to-day life, not in your self-congratulatory social media.

The reason this is chaffing for Nicole is that most of the male-feminist / female-allies are usually facing sexual harassment lawsuits within months of publicly declaring they are male feminists. I get that this is just Nicole venting, but that need to vent comes from knowing that the only reason men say (or even show in their daily lives) they are feminists is because it’s a deductive form of Beta Game.

  • Don’t touch women you don’t know, and honestly, ask yourself why you feel the need to touch women in general.

Good advice, don’t touch women you don’t know; you are giving a woman the keys to your castle by doing so. In today’s workplace women are constantly looking for even a hint of impropriety they can take to HR for the next harassment suit. Better still, refuse to work in situation where just the impression of her advancement depends on your hard work and behavior around her.

Nicole, the Beta need for physical contact is a desperation born from dealing with women who think he’s creepy.

  • Do you feel that any woman on earth owes you something? She doesn’t. Even if you’re like, “Hm, but what about basic respect?” ask yourself if you’ve shown her the same.

There is a constant presupposition on the part of fempowered women to believe that men feel entitled to anything from. The real truth is that it is women who feel entitled to virtually everything in their solipsistic experience – this very extensive list is a prime example of what women believe they are owed from men.  In 2017 no man ever concerns himself with notions of being owed anything (even basic respect) from women. But what confuses men is women constant (Hypergamously incentivized) implications of a transactional nature. If you don’t want men to feel like they are owed your time, concern, respect or attention then don’t present a transactional pretense to your interactions with them.

  • Don’t send pictures of your penis unless she just asked for them.

Never send a woman dick pics, especially if she asks for them. Never send a woman dick pics, even to your wife. In 2017 this is a red herring for women who are planning to file for sexual harassment.

  • If a woman says no to a date, don’t ask her again.

Agreed. Next her, and move on. That said, no guy asks a girl for a date today. They hook up on Tinder or bump into each other at the club. It’s so quaint Nicole still thinks dating works like it did on Happy Days.

  • If a woman has not given an enthusiastic “yes” to sex, back the hell off.

Guys learn this part real easy, what they don’t learn, and what women deliberately keep ambiguous, is that even after “enthusiastic consent” is officially declared, he can still be charged with rape for touching her boobs (or anything else for that matter) the wrong way. Again, control the narrative, control the definition of the language and control what the consequences are and you can control the frame.

  • If a woman is really drunk, she cannot consent to you and she also cannot consent to your buddy who seems to be trying something. Your buddy is your responsibility, so say something and intervene.

Funny how we never see public service announcements stating that women still need consent from drunk men to have sex; but my buddy is not my responsibility, just like driving a drunk woman too hammered to drive home isn’t my responsibility. Good intentions get you put in jail today. If a woman is really drunk is she now ‘owed’ my assistance?

  • If you do the right thing, don’t expect praise or payment or a pat on the back or even a “thank you from that woman”. Congratulations, you were baseline decent.

Oh, trust me, every Red Pill aware reader I’ve ever had has come to realize that women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate anything a man does for her.

  • Involve women in your creative projects, then let them have equal part in them.

Why would a woman deserve being included in any creative project I endeavor in just by virtue of being a woman? Why still would I allow her to have an equal part in a creative project I envisioned? Is it because they are owed that honor for being female?

  • Don’t punish women for witnessing your vulnerability.

But wait, I thought ‘vulnerability was sexy‘? Weakness is strength right?

Okay, sorry, I can’t possibly subject my readers to more of this inane list. You get the picture. My point is that lists like this only serve to highlight the new gender landscape that’s been brewing for years now. We now live in the “future is female” years and this is what we can expect from the Feminine Imperative that’s now comfortable in in asserting its true agenda of disempowering, disenfranchising and eradicating men and masculinity from popular discourse.

The War on Paternity

One of the most pressing imperatives human males (really most primates) have evolved is a need for certainty in their own paternity. Up until the last century with the advent of DNA testing it has been an imperative that has really been at the control of any female with whom a man copulates with. Indeed, even today a ‘father’ is really whomever’s name a woman puts on a birth certificate, generally no questions asked (and no information relayed) of that mother by the OBGYN doctors. Prior to the Sexual Revolution and the millennia leading up to it social and religious controls were instituted to keep rampant Hypergamy in check. An argument could be made that, even in a post-agrarian social order, ubiquitous monogamy and marriage were socially mandated as a way to not only control for women’s Hypergamous impulses, but were also the only practical means of control over certifying that a man’s child was of his own genetic line. And even this had its flaws.

Up until the advent of genetic testing the only practical, somewhat assured failsafe for knowing paternity was long term, pair-bonded monogamy and the social conventions that were instituted around it. Men’s sexual strategy (our masculine imperative) is scattershot. Our biology functions such that we can father countless children with each ejaculation and continue to do so well into our later years of life. This strategy is a counterbalance to women’s quality-over-quantity approach to their own sexual strategy. For each environmental obstacle one sex’s reproductive imperatives poses, the other will evolve contingent strategies to compensate for it.

To understand this conflict all we need to consider is the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies – For one sex’s strategy to be fulfilled the other’s must be compromised or abandoned. 

For men, in a social order founded on monogamous pair-bonding, this means abandoning his scattershot sexual strategy and adopting the strategic goals of women’s strategy. What were looking at here for men is exactly the type of evolved contingent strategy I mention above – abandoning his sexual imperative to essentially bet his genetic legacy on one horse, rather than diversifying his odds with, potentially, many sexual opportunities. This is a very important distinction for Red Pill aware men to make with regards to their own sex; opting in for long-term monogamy over a man’s evolved sexual strategy (scattershot) represents adopting a woman’s (ultimate) sexual strategy as his own. This dynamic is defined by what’s called strategic pluralism theory:

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.

If we consider that men are overwhelmingly (80%+) rated as unattractive by women today we begin to see the adaptive logic of strategic pluralism for men. Less opportunity equals less potential to follow a man’s sexual imperative. Solution: invest all your sperm and all your efforts into one long-term bet; reproduction with one or relatively few sexual partners – and if you can build social and moral conventions around this adaptive strategy to reinforce it, so much the better.

If men can compel intrasexually competing men, and women (whose strategy might be compromised by adopting it), to believe that monogamy is a social and moral imperative, then they increase the odds that they’ll successfully circumvent what would otherwise be the natural limitations of their own reproduction.

As you can probably guess, this adaptation for singular parental investment imposed a much higher premium on men’s need for certainty of their own paternity. To be sure, the Alpha Males of most primates have a habit of killing the offspring of any prior Alpha that had access to fertile females in a group prior to his own breeding with them. This infanticide is yet another adaptive insurance that a male primate can be certain that any resources, protection and parental investment he put into any progeny would be of his own paternal line. If it can be assumed that the importance of paternity is a primary, evolved drive in primates, how much more imperative must it be for human males adopting a sexual strategy of singular investment? How much more imperative must it be for women to collectively confuse paternity within a social collective (tribe) and protect against a perceived threat of infanticide or loss of resource provisioning if left on their own?

Even in our march towards ‘civilization’ we find this anti-paternity bias in the killing of male members of a social collective while preserving fertile females for potential breeding purposes. Today we may not be killing the sons of rival clansmen, but we can certainly see the paternity bias in how we regard kin affiliation above out-group affiliation in our personal dealings. Concerns of paternity, for men, evolved to be part of our mental firmware – and certainty of it became of paramount importance.

Strategic pluralism, however, is not without its own counter contingencies. Even within a social and moral environment that restricts Hypergamy, women are still psychologically compelled to optimize their own sexual strategy to its fullest. 8,000 years ago 17 women reproduced for every 1 man – and this was after the advent of agriculture. There’ve been other studies that reduce this number to a 5 to 1 ratio, but still the fact remains that even in a social order that (ostensibly) prioritizes pair-bonded monogamy, women have provably found ways to optimize Hypergamy and confuse paternity to a socially stable degree. Thus, we see counter-adaptations in behavior on the part of men to mate guard, to once again, insure certainty of paternity. Even in the relative stability of monogamy, men’s psychological imperative for paternity supersedes the social environment.

Cuckoldry by Any Other Name

As I’ve mentioned in prior essays, cuckoldry deserves a much broader definition today; one that goes beyond the obvious duplicity of birth fraud. Women have found that by tweaking the social conventions that would limit their own sexual strategy they can circumvent the monogamous side of sexual pluralism socially enforced by men. Thus, we get new feminine-primary social conventions that celebrate, socially reward and positively reinforce men’s acceptance of the parental investment responsibilities of other men who fathered children with a woman they’ve pair-bonded with. Step-dads get the big thumbs up and we rejigger the positive reinforcement to downplay father’s day and replace it with special person’s day.

Now, consider this with respect to the potential for infanticide that a woman’s hindbrain believes men are capable of. That fear of infanticide represents a root-level limbic part of women’s evolved need to optimize Hypergamy and the great potential for loss of having optimized it in her offspring. So imperative is this to the female psyche that it became necessary to socially condition men’s evolved paternity need out of them once women and the Feminine Imperative became the dominant social driver.

On a larger social scale, one that is defined by a post-Sexual Revolution, feminine-primary social order, the answer is simple and total; men must be convinced to completely abandon their biological imperative of parental certainty before they commit to a monogamous relationship with a woman. Socially, we make paper heroes of men who will accept the parental investment responsibilities of a child he didn’t sire. That ‘heroism’ of the guy who accepts his assigned role as a retroactive cuckold is short-lived, but the archetype of that guy who ‘man’s up’ and adopts the children of a single mother is now embedded into our modern folklore.

I would also argue that a large part of the Blue Pill conditioning of men for the past 5 generations can find its roots in women’s need to optimize Hypergamy while ensuring the security that once she does a provider-male will step in to fulfill his role as a dutiful cuckold. In order to achieve this, free from the fear of infanticide, boys and men must be conditioned to unequivocally revoke any need for certainty of their own paternity.

A few years ago I outlined the next step in Open Hypergamy would be transitioning to a state of normalized and accepted Open Cuckoldry. Wrapped into this transition is also the social efforts to normalize a feminine-controlled form of polyamory – one in which primarily a woman is presented with the options and control of exercising both the short-term sexual, and long-term provisional, sides of Hypergamy. Today this is what’s termed a polyamorous relationship with male partners representing Alpha seed and Beta need. In moving from a normalized state of Open Hypergamy to Open Cuckoldry there are a series of social changes that need to occur and find acceptance in the general population of men. One of these changes is a large scale, socialized effort to get men to accept that their biological imperative to ascertain paternity – even the questioning of paternity – be equated with “toxic” masculinity.

The War on Paternity

Increasingly we are seeing a push on the part of the Feminine Imperative to delegitimize the innate need of men to ensure their paternity. It’s actually an aspect of a war that’s been going on since the Sexual Revolution to redefine masculinity and fatherhood. As I mentioned in Positive Masculinity the definition of what makes a father is becoming more and more ambiguous, while fathers become increasingly more superfluous. In order to complete this delegitimization of masculinity men must be convinced that their innate need to know paternity, and the importance they inherently place on it, is something to be ashamed of.

Every social mandate we see today puts the interests of the mother and child well above that of any father. This is why paternity is rarely ever a factor in issues of child support; even for children that a man didn’t father but is held legally liable for. Socially, even religiously, any importance of paternity for men is being systematically erased. From doctors being gagged from informing cuckolded fathers of genetic tests, to limiting their access to DNA tests themselves, to encouraging men to ‘man up’ and marry single mothers as a moral imperative, paternity for men is now some sort of shameful insecurity.

Why would the Feminine Imperative seek to root out what has been a fundamental, evolved, part of men’s mental firmware since the time of our hunter/gatherer beginnings? Because Hypergamy needs security. Hypergamy needs assurances to quell the doubt that a woman has optimized both the Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks aspects of her sexual strategy. I would argue that men’s psychological need for certainties in his paternity is on par with the need women have of certainties in their need for optimizing Hypergamy.

All this war on paternity amounts to is an ensuring that women’s unquestioned, unilateral control over Hypergamy is baked into men on a societal level. Convincing men to abandon any claims on certainty of paternity, and at the same time shaming men who put any importance on it, is an effort on the part of the Feminine Imperative to get men to surrender their sexual strategy by abandoning it wholesale, while praising them for playing a willing role in fulfilling women’s sexual (and life) strategy. Even when that sexual strategy is one where a man acknowledges his lesser sexual market value and seeks to put all his investment into one woman, the push to delegitimize men’s need for paternity circumvents this strategy.

Delegitimizing men’s need for paternity cancels any and every upside that long-term monogamy had for Beta men using this sexual strategy. Thus, a return to a scattershot, some would say ‘less civilized’ sexual strategy becomes the only obvious alternative for men who want parental certainty.

Erasing the importance of paternity for men is literally the last nail in the coffin that is now contemporary marriage. It reduces men to little more than draft animals and livestock for women’s breeding purposes by erasing any claim a man may have to know his children are his own.  Most well-conditioned Blue Pill men adopt this archetype unquestioningly. There are no ‘Fathers’ anymore; all men are interchangeably either breeding stock or simply childcare workers in this new social framework. And boys and young men’s pre-acceptance of this state of men is part of their Blue Pill conditioning.

To fully effect Open Cuckoldry the goal of the Feminine Imperative is to have men define masculinity as accepting parental investment as separate and apart from evolved concerns of paternity.

Male Control

Back in October, 2016 I wrote an essay called Sexual Zoning. In that post I explored the social inconsistencies and potential for (sometimes catastrophic) consequences for men in misunderstanding what were, and what have become, particular zones in which men and women covertly acknowledge the potential for an intersexual connection.

In the bygone Western social system, young people were expected to regularly interact with one another in controlled, regulated environments, in a way that fostered productive, long-term, monogamous, assortative relationships. This was a sort of “holistic” milieu, so to speak, where young people treated one another as potential future partners, sexual and otherwise, in a socially regulated manner, in all cases when they were permitted to interact. This was even the norm in workplaces where both men and women were present. The average man found a girlfriend through his extended family or social circle, because families and social circles were normally large.

What we have today is the complete opposite: “sexual zoning”. Some mixed-sex environments, like the workplace, schools and campuses, are made completely asexual – sterile, so to speak. No sexualized interactions are permitted to take place. This is demanded by law and expected by society. In such environments, you’re supposed to treat members of the opposite sex strictly as colleagues or professionals, non-sexual beings. (Hot men are allowed to get away with more, of course, but that’s another issue.) Other mixed-sex environments, on the other hand, like nightclubs, are expected to be full-on sexual. Everybody there knows that all interactions entail the future possibility of casual sex. It’s basically a meat market. You’re expected to hit on girls, and girls expect to be hit on by attractive men. Socializing in these environments requires action, engagement. If you want to find a partner, either just for sex or something more, you have to go there, you have to have Game etc.

The video I’ve chosen to dissect here is a prime example of how generations of men have been raised to deliberately misunderstand intersexual dynamics and at the same time demonize the conventional masculinity that so much of western culture has been founded upon. To be thorough though, really every culture throughout history has been primarily founded on conventional masculinity and the aspects that contribute to maleness.

Jonathan McIntosh finds an easy mark in the archetypal masculine characters of Harrison Ford, but there’s a very important reason the 80’s icon is so egregious to the men of McIntosh’s generation. Han Solo, Indiana Jones, etc. are all the Alpha male rogues this generation has been taught to love in terms of bravado, but to hate because they ‘always get the girl’; and they get her in such a way that it grates against all that their feminine-primary upbringing led them to believe was just this side of sexual assault.

McIntosh relates that he was part of a generation that idealized Harrison Ford’s most iconic characters, yet now he feels pangs of regret and resentment for having looked up the characters’ archetype. This is a perfect illustration of how conventional masculinity has been reverse engineered by our feminine-primary social order since the Sexual Revolution. I’ve mentioned in many prior essays that while overt masculinity is vilified as the cause of all social evils, it still remains the most arousing aspect of men for women. Boys like McIntosh saw this archetype and made that connection to female attraction, but it took generations of Blue Pill reconditioning to make them feel bad for ever attempting to adopt that bravado into their own personalities.

While growing up the message was the same Blue Pill identifying with the feminine (in fact Beta Game depends on that identification). Play nice, play equal, respect all women by default and never assert yourself too overtly or too crudely lest you risk offending her sensibilities. These are the boys who were raised by family, media and their schooling to expect a rationality that women could be expected to say what they mean and then do what they said. Yet that never seemed to gel when they would deductively see the girls they wanted, the ones who told them they wanted a ‘nice guy’ who respected them, consistently reward the asshole jerk with the intimacy and sex they thought would come to them if they followed what they were told.

In the end, Han Solo and Indiana Jones get the girl and she genuinely desires him – not because this is some odd fantasy of the writer’s imagination, but because this is (was) a standard aspect of women’s genuine attraction to men. The aberration is the idea that the attraction and affair would go any other way. Only in this feminized generation does thousands of years of male-female interaction seem at all unsettling.

So, here we have conventionally masculine archetypes – sometimes rakish, sometimes bold and dutiful – following their own path, making themselves their Mental Point of Origin, and making their mission (not their woman) their priority. Whether it was Captain Kirk, Han Solo or Conan the Barbarian the mental order was always firmly focused on the individual man and his action. Between the time of the Sexual Revolution and 2017, the Feminine Imperative has systematically erased the conventionally masculine archetype; so much so that the gender-loathing men of this generation are either appalled at displays of masculinity or they simply have no frame of reference with which to contrast it with the distorted and blurred ideas of what masculinity should mean to them.

For some ‘men’ the notion of conventional masculinity itself is rejected altogether. It doesn’t mean anything to be a man for this generation, so conventional archetypes of men are offensive.

As a result of these four to five generations of progressively more feminized men we now see the confusion and disgust at conventional masculinity coming from this generation of men. We see a generation of males who have no positive association with their own gender. They become increasingly more isolated because they are convinced that anything that might be gender-exclusive to men alone is, by default, a form of misogyny. There is nothing ‘positive’ about being a man, yet for all of the misconceptions about gender being social constructs, exclusively female organizing of women and fempowerment is still viewed as beneficial; a sign of society ‘evolving’.

I recently read an article in the Boston Globe about middle aged men’s increasing social isolation. I would argue that for all of the raising of awareness about this phenomenon it is primarily generations of men’s inability to interact with other men that is at the root of this isolation. For decades now men have been discouraged from meeting with other men in any formalized fashion. Men are either suspect of misogyny or homosexuality if they get together for the sake of being men. What were seeing now is generations of men who no longer understand how to socially interact with other men.

Furthermore, when this isolation becomes a concern of women, those men are again berated for not interacting with other men in the ways that women do. Women talk, men do, but a feminine-primary social order only approves of one way for men to associate with one another – in the way that women do. Thus, we see the confusion of women that men don’t call each other up to schedule a coffee date for the express reason of conversation. Men and women have different forms of communication, but the socially approved form is only ever from the feminine context. Men interacting “as men do” – in a conventionally masculine way – is always misogynistic. Thus, we see overseers in the locker room, if only symbolically, to regulate what and how men communicate with each other.

The End of Toxic Masculinity

Dalrock had a great quick-hit post recently about how Michael Moore was suggesting that men be required by law to seek their wife or long-term girlfriend’s (or most recent Ex) signed permission to purchase a firearm in the wake of last week’s mass shooting in Vegas.

That this idea would ever be a serious consideration speaks volumes about how masculine gender-loathing has become endemic in western culture. I get that Michael Moore is a self-inflicted cuck, but all I’m seeing in the wake of the Vegas shooting is less about gun control and more about male control.

It’s no longer about categorizing masculinity as “toxic” or “hyper” – that narrative is officially dropped after this shooting. Now, any masculinity is a threat, any expression of conventional masculinity is the true problem. Suggesting that a woman’s oversight and discernment should be necessary for a man to have access to a civil right only further reinforces what I’ve been saying for some time now – only the feminine is ‘correct’ in any social discourse. Only the feminine is legitimate in exercising judgement, educating new generations and deciding which man will breed and which will not.

Think about this; what’s being suggested is that men be denied a civil right that apparently only women should legitimately have. For all the fallacious blathering of women in pink pussy hats about how they think they’re losing rights today, here we have an actual right of men being denied by women, by the Feminine Imperative.

The ‘toxic’ masculinity narrative made a qualitative distinction between a feminine-acceptable form of masculinity and a potentially dangerous form. Needless to say the accepted form always consisted of whatever aspects of masculinity that was immediately beneficial to womankind. ‘Toxic’ masculinity was always characterized as Man Up or Shut Up masculinity:

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

Now, in the Feminine Imperative’s unceasing efforts to Remove the Man a distinction between a useful masculinity and a dangerous masculinity is no longer something that resonates. All masculinity, all aspects, beneficial or detrimental, are to be considered the problem:

That the problem might just be masculinity, plain and simple, is not something we’re eager to countenance. While we might be prepared to apply a little structural analysis to the situation – yes, there is something about men and the way they are conditioned that leads us to this place – we’re unwilling to draw any final conclusions. Masculinity doesn’t kill people; it’s those mysterious toxins that are to blame.

[…]But strip away the so-called toxic aspects of masculinity: the aggression, the violence, the hate, the guns, and what are you left with? Strength, endurance, a woody-scented perfume, a liking for the colour blue? Certainly nothing that need be associated with manhood or maleness. These are simply individual qualities. The only reason to code them as “masculine” is to preserve a social hierarchy that ought to be destroyed.

[…]What would be so terrible about a world in which boys were treated no differently to girls from the day they were born? In which there are no pink/blue codifications to hide behind? In which a man’s anger and aggression were considered every bit as aberrant and unnatural as a woman’s?

The problem we’re facing isn’t toxic masculinity; it’s that masculinity is toxic. It’s time we questioned even its most subtle manifestations.

Going forward this will be the narrative. There will be no distinction between misogyny, masculinity and maleness. What this author, perhaps deliberately, doesn’t want to address is that masculinity and all the associated ways our thinking and our behaviors that manifest from the biological side of our nature aren’t something that can be dissociated from us without killing us or erasing what we were evolved to be. There are no truly positive or negative aspects of masculinity, just as there are no positive or negative aspects of Hypergamy. They just are, and what makes them beneficial or detrimental all depends on the context in which they are applied. That may seem strange coming from the author of a book titled Positive Masculinity but understand that what is positive about masculinity is made so by need and by circumstance.

In a world created in the image of the Feminine Imperative masculinity itself is a horrible evil, until it’s needed to save women from rising floodwaters.

You see, for as much as the imperative would like to remove the ‘man’ from our language, our cultural consciousness, that man will always be needed in spite of the hate directed towards masculinity. This is what a feminine-primary society would have us redefine as some other term, something not unique to a male human being. But conventional, evolved, masculine strength and purpose will always manifest in men who unapologetically embrace it without an afterthought.

In my interview with Craig James we discussed men’s higher order thinking and purpose as well as our vital animal nature. You don’t separate one from the other. This is what the Feminine Imperative would have from men; a unilaterally female controlled utility-based masculinity that saves them from the worst consequences of both their environments and their decisions and simultaneously disappears when inconvenient. We hear women bleating about a lack of Real Men and the disappearance of true grit, and in the next article linked we see efforts to erase men entirely from social influence.

As I told Craig, when I’m in the squat rack I’m glad I have a feral, animal nature. It’s a survival aspect of human evolution. I’m not suggesting with this essay that men will become extinct; on the contrary I think what will help define our new conventional masculinity will largely be determined by how we express it in spite of a world arrayed against Man-kind. An equalist culture based on blank-slate equalism doesn’t see that you don’t separate the animal side of the human being from the high-order side. It is unwilling to accept that we need both; that we benefit and sometimes suffer from both.