dating

Pro Revenge

Several years ago I wrote the essay Rejection and Revenge. Eventually this piece found its way into my third book Positive Masculinity, but I had considered it for inclusion in the first book because it covered a core principle I had discussed on the SoSuave forums years prior. A desire for revenge is something innate to the human experience. Most higher-order animals have some rudimentary sense of what’s fair. Even dogs have a sense of fairness and can experience some form of jealousy. The study of altruism in animals, to say nothing of humans, is a complex affair. However, somewhere along the evolutionary path a species did better if they cooperated and had some investment in promoting the survival of their kin.

That leads to an innate understanding of fairness and unfairness. Human’s add ethics and morality to this equation, but the root is the same; on some level of consciousness we make comparisons, and from them we evaluate what is equitable according to our own interests. It serves a species’ survival interests to evolve pattern recognition and make reasoned judgments about those patterns.

Collectivists will argue that this dynamic is proof of a need for an idealized egalitarianism to promote the greater good, while selfish gene individualists will argue that it’s evidence of unconditioned self-concern for one’s own survival. Either way, human beings are very motivated by the emotional response to a perceived injustice – so much so that we will raise those feelings to metaphysical significance. Even our gods rage over injustice; Revenge is mine sayeth the Lord. A tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye might make the whole world blind, but it’s the foundation of our evolved sense of fairness.

And why wouldn’t fairness be so impactful for us? Our lizard brains associate that imbalance with a threat to our survival, our wellbeing and our reproductive efforts. Our limbic system detects some unfairness – usually via our peripheral awareness – we get a squirt of some hormonal cocktail into our system, and now we can’t shake this feeling that we ought to feel jealous or suspicious of someone or some environmental condition where we’re getting the short end of the stick. We are literally wired (and piped) for making judgement calls. Even when those judgement calls prove unfounded, and maybe detrimental to us, to err on one side or the other of that innate judgmentalism served our ancestors well enough to get us to where we are now.

It’s easy to consider this evaluating, judgmental nature in terms of simplistic right or wrong choices. Right being what ever benefits the individual in equal measure to another, wrong being whatever thoughts or behaviors conceal the interests of individual self-concern. The Seven Deadly Sins are all fundamentally about this evolved fairness equation. Greed might be a benefit to the individual – and their kin by association – but to our limbic evaluation it’s unfair to the greater, necessitous whole of society. Ergo, greed becomes a sin, and social conventions like do unto others as you would have done unto you becomes a counterbalance to the unfairness. However, most of the choices we make in life are not simple right vs. wrong equations. Some of the greatest stories ever told by humans are about right vs. right and wrong vs. wrong (or maybe less wrong) choices. While dogs may feel jealousy, and chimps may give a banana to another who didn’t get one, they’re rarely confronted with the nuances of justice that humans have to consider.

Why We Love Revenge

When we attach this innate sense of fairness to biological imperatives things get dicey. The purview of my work is intersexual dynamics, so I’ll be focusing on that imperative here. But remember that concepts like fairness, jealousy, revenge, rivalry and the indignation that accompany these and more are not just limited to solving one’s reproductive problem. That said, human beings love revenge. We fantasize about it. We write epics about revenge. Some invest their lives in creating fictions to find some psychological catharsis for an injustice they will never actually resolve in their lifetime. I would argue that humans enjoy the chemical cocktail, and associated emotions, that stem from a desire for revenge.

To be clear, I’m not talking about some ephemeral sense of justice. This is root-level, squirt of adrenaline, desire to balance a perceived or actual unfairness that threatens the individual’s (or associated group) survival or propagation. I’ve written extensively about women’s innate need for Indignation and the associated chemical-emotional response they derive from it. Primarily I believe this need stems from the way women (neurologically) prioritize and process emotion, but it also serves as a confirmation of their Hypergamous filtering. No indignation is more satisfying for women than the feelings they derive from thwarting the sexual efforts of a false-Alpha male. This indignation response, and the good feels that reinforce it, serves to aid (sometimes trick) women’s sexual selection imperatives and avoid their existential fear. Ultimately, what’s fair for women is whatever serves the Sisterhood’s Hypergamous best interests.

For men, and particularly the young men of this new order generation, revenge fantasies hold a similar, indignant appeal. As we’ve systematically feminized the males of the last 4 generations, we’ve also conditioned them to prioritize the same emotional responses we would expect in women. As I’m fond of saying, we raise boys as defective girls who then become parodies of defective women. Part of this conditioning is training young men to identify with the female experience, but also to want to become a part of that experience. The female experience is always the “correct” experience. So it follows that the prioritization of emotion as a peak experience is something this generation of men have internalized. Feels before reals. A common lament of women and feminized men today is that if men could be more expressive in their emotions (the emotions women are comfortable with) then the world would be a better place. Thinking and feeling like a woman makes for a better “man“, right? That’s today’s gynocentric logic.

But indignation (the result of inherent unfairness) based on reproductive imperatives works very differently in men. Men’s evolved existential fear is based on ensuring his own paternity. Determining that a child is a man’s actual genetic progeny has been an imperative evolution has embedded in men’s mental firmware. Until DNA testing arrived men had relatively no empirical way to determine if he was a cuckold (a female mating strategy) and his parental investment and evolutionary imperative had been wasted. Thus, indignation, prompted men to create social conventions to provide at least the semblance of socially enforced parental certainty. The deal is, if a man is to invest his reproductive potential in a woman and their children she should be bound by social expectations that the child is his genetic progeny. It’s only fair.

But, life’s not fair. And men and women’s reproductive strategies are inherently adversarial, so what constitutes justice in the sexual marketplace is often defined by the gender with the most social power at the time. In every age prior to the Sexual Revolution that was men, now it’s women.

Men innately process emotion, particularly negative emotion, differently than women. Again, this is how evolution wired men, but the social dictates of this time go to great lengths to condition men to believe that the way they process emotion is “incorrect”. Their natural proclivities make them bad humans when their innate way of being emotional conflicts with the “correct” female way of experiencing emotion they were taught. As a result of this conflict we have recent generations of men who seek the same indignation rush women have an innate attraction to. However, these young men get their endorphin rush from revenge scenarios that align with their innate imperatives – exposing paternity fraud, cuckoldry and exposing the duplicity of women’s innate mating strategies.

Comeuppance

Revenge is an expanding topic of interest for average frustrated young men. Closing in on almost a million subscribers, the Reddit sub-forum r/prorevenge is one of the fastest growing topics on the platform today. I was only made aware of the sub after doing some research on the popularity of tags for YouTube videos. ‘Pro Revenge’ is a Black Pill (and MGTOW) sweetheart tag for what I referred to as the Doom Pill in my video Red Meat for the Red Pill. The Pro Revenge concept is simple; guys in the forum relate stories about how ‘deserving’ people got their comeuppance. Justice or Karma is served up to cheaters, scammers, liars, thieves and other assorted attempts to offend our innately human sense of fairness. To be fair, all Pro Revenge topics are not about cheating or duplicitous women – there are loads of stories about bad employers, plagiarists and Success Porn gurus – but real-world revenge stories about women’s duplicity being thwarted by a smart Red Pill guy or just blind circumstance are clearly the most popular themes.

The popularity of young men experiencing revenge either in fantasy or vicariously through others is becoming a very lucrative profit model for agile YouTube channel hosts as well as Lifestyle Coaches. When I consider the ceaseless hunger for Red Meat topics in the Black Pill, MGTOW or just the Manosphere in general the source of that hunger always comes back to the emotional rush attendant to indignation. When a woman “gets hers” because her mating or empowerment strategy was foiled, men get a sense of righteous indignation; particularly guys who enjoy commiserating in their shared sense of powerlessness. And that commiseration has never been easier or more organized than in our new order technological world. Pro Revenge is just one of many innovations that cater to men’s desire to see things put straight and experience the endorphin rush that comes with it. It feels good to see “justice” served.

Of course, women turned the revenge fantasy into various art forms long ago. Carrie Underwood sings openly about vandalizing and destroying a cheating (now ex) lover’s expensive four-wheel drive truck and countless commiserating women (even today) can recite the lyrics verbatim. In a gynocentric social order, destruction of personal property is entirely acceptable if the perpetrator is a woman who discovered her duplicitous lover was not the man her Hypergamous instincts believed him to be. Women’s existential fear meets justice. And women and feminine-sympathetic men all nod in agreement. Essentially, Pro Revenge has been a thing for women for ages. Courtesy of centuries of bastardized Chivalry and the romantic ideal we just accept it more because Beta men reinforce it as a form of Game. Thus, we have women manufacturing their own indignation in fiction and daytime talk shows that expose an incorrigible pickup artist getting his comeuppance and confirm women’s Hypergamous intuitions. And yet, even this openly embraced double standard only serves as fuel for the Pro Revenge instincts of more young men today.

For all the hopelessness and despondency the information age has brought to men and women it’s also revealed the evolved motives beneath our want for what we think is justice. The Doom Pill is becoming the logical extension of this nihilism and the players in the Hustle Economy are now perfecting ways to profit from it. Exploiting the Gender War for fun and profit has never been easier – because this new generation of men and women enjoy the indignation derive from it so much they become oblivious to their own exploitation.

The Mystery of the Red Dress

Today’s quote is from the Biography of Steve Jobs. I did read the book in its entirety in 2010, but recently had this bit sent to me from a reader as an example of ‘How an Alpha should treat a Gold-digger‘. Mmm? No.

As an example of “alpha behavior” or an illustration of equal justice I can see why this incident might be construed as such, but there’s a much more valuable lesson to be learned in this exchange. The incident took place between Steve Jobs and singer Joan Baez, a woman who Jobs eventually had a relationship with.

In 1982, Jobs was introduced to Joan Baez by her sister Mimi Farina. He was 27 and she was 41. “It turned into a serious relationship between two accidental friends who became lovers,” said Jobs. Some of his friends believed that one thing that drew Jobs to Baez was the fact that she used to date Bob Dylan. “Steve loved that connection to Dylan,” said Jobs’ college friend Elizabeth Holmes.” The relationship fizzled out when it became clear that Jobs wanted children and Baez did not. 

Rolling Stone, 2011

Using a Red Pill Lens on this situation, we see a few apparent truths. The age difference was definitely a factor, but Jobs was well-known for what was called his “Reality Distortion Bubble“. In effect Steve Jobs had an intrinsic understanding of himself as his Mental Point of Origin. A lot of Type-A personalities have this in common – they innately make themselves the first thought they have in virtually all decisions they make. For some this can border on sociopathy, but most people we consider successes or geniuses had this sense of self as their starting point. Let me make this clear, you don’t have to be a sociopath or a solipsist to make yourself your Mental Point of Origin, but that is where these states begin.

Practically every very wealthy man I’ve ever worked for, or with, had himself in mind before a thought was give to anyone else’s consideration in his decision making process; family, spouse, employees, friends, we’re subordinate to his Mental Point of Origin. For most the process would start and end with themselves and their interests. These were the sociopaths. For a few that process started with themselves and ended with the consideration of others, but the process was a pragmatic one that facilitated a maintaining of power balance. As I’ve said in the past, I’m a proponent of enlightened self interest: I cannot help others until I help myself. Nor can I help others as effectively as when I help myself first. It’s not that you ought to become a selfish prick – you should think of the interests of others – but only after you’ve considered yourself in the scope of your own interests and how your interests facilitate the interests of others.

Now that this is settled, let me say that by this metric, Steve Jobs was none of this. According to the people he worked with, his family and friends, Jobs had all the characteristics of a solipsist. Yes, men can be solipsists too, though it’s more of a learned process rather than the innate proclivity women have to be solipsistic. From a business perspective, from a single-minded determination perspective, Jobs was certainly an Alpha. His mindset was that of an Alpha. His relationship history, however, was grossly influenced by Blue Pill idealism. One commonality you’ll find among men we consider great innovators, inventors, discoverers and entrepreneurial geniuses is they are almost invariably Blue Pill idealists with respect to their romantic lives. Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are two current examples of this commonality. Argue their greatness if you like, their personal lives are classic examples of what happens to the Nerd, the autist, the high IQ guy, who’s afforded the money and success to live out their Blue Pill fueled impression of what a relationship with a woman should be like. And predatory women, with the savvy to understand (and have the patience for) the nature of Beta men, make these guys their bread and butter.

“There’s a beautiful red dress there that would be perfect for you.”

I’m not sure I would describe Jobs as an autist, or being on the Asperger’s spectrum, but he was certainly on the sociopath spectrum. Try not to conflate ‘sociopath’ with something negative in this instance. Sociopathic behaviors and character attributes can equally be attractive survival traits as they are evidence of megalomaniacal tyranny. Sociopathy is really by order of degree. Jobs most certainly began and ended his thinking with himself in mind.

My Red Pill Lens read on this is as follows: Something in Steve Job’s subconscious was testing Joan Baez for genuine desire.

I’m fairly certain most of my readers will understand the ovulatory shift implications of a red dress being the item in mention here, but there is a method to Job’s madness in this.

“I said to myself, far out, I’m with one of the world’s richest men and he wants me to have this beautiful dress.”

Joan doesn’t get it from the start here. She presumes that a rich man would want to purchase her affections via the transaction of a gift. Not uncommon for even 41 year old women, and yes, her thinking here is exactly the solipsistic mental point of origin women have a natural default for. Indignant guys will call her a Gold Digger, which is accurate, but moreover you have to look at the process here. She presumes that rich men buy expensive gifts for the women they’re interested in. But in typical Jobs fashion Steve flips the script without knowing that’s what he’s doing.

When they get to the store Steve points out the dress and says, “You oughta buy it.” She looked a little surprised, said she couldn’t really afford it, he said nothing and they left.

“Wouldn’t you think if someone (a rich man) had talked like that the whole evening they were going to buy it for you?”

It would be easy to dismiss this part as default female entitlement, but remember this was 1982, and while women (particularly attractive and famous women) did expect things from well-to-do men, the entitlement levels weren’t anything like they are now. I think she was genuinely confused. She really didn’t get it.

“The mystery of the Red Dress is in your hands. I felt a bit strange about it.”

He would giver her computers, but not a dress, and when he brought her flowers he would be sure to say they were leftover from an event in the office.

“He was both romantic, and afraid to be romantic.”

This end part is Baez’s last attempt to explain why an ‘eccentric‘ rich man wouldn’t buy her a dress he thought she’d look good in. I’m often asked how to go about vetting a woman for a long term relationship, and I’ve written essays about how most men simply never actually have the luxury of holding (much less developing) standards by which to ‘vet‘ a woman’s commitment-worthiness. Most men are not rich men, most men are Betas. Fewer still have the sense of self-value, or the access to so many optional women, as to presume to test a woman’s interest in him in any meaningful sense. Steve Jobs was not a necessitous man, he had, or could easily realize options when he wanted to. But even though he was idealistic in a Blue Pill conditioned sense, his subconscious wanted something it couldn’t buy – genuine desire from Joan Baez.

It’s easy to dismiss the Red Dress Incident as just another quirky personality flaw of a borderline sociopath who didn’t have the Game or the social intelligence to know he was offending or turning off a girl he kind of liked. Indeed, Joan tries to insert her own pop-culture psychoanalysis of Steve in the end; He was afraid to be the romantic she just knew he wanted to be. I expect this kind of rationalization from women who miss out on a once-in-a-lifetime chance to optimize Hypergamy. But what if Steve wasn’t afraid? What if it was a form of his shit testing Joan to determine her genuine desire for him?

As I said, most men don’t have the luxury to shit test women at all. For low SMV men, which is to say most men, the thought of experimenting with testing a woman for desire, much less long term suitability is never a consideration. Most guys can’t believe their luck that a woman actually expressed interest in him because they’ve lacked romantic options for most of their lives. So to consciously experiment with determining honest signals from a woman seems like tempting fate. The Thirst is such that most men would do damn near anything not to screw things up with a girl who’s showing interest in him. Just be thankful your ship’s finally come in, right?

I’ll add again here that most women, particularly in this social media era, are well aware that most men will never vet them for anything beyond baseline arousal and sexual availability. Thirst serves the Feminine Imperative very well, but what about men who are Blue Pill idealists, that can actually afford the options? Men for whom money and access are no object, but still persist in the fairytale the Blue Pill told them was possible?

What I see happening here is Jobs’ request for Baez to buy the dress for herself was a test of her genuine desire for him. Steve could’ve easily bought her the dress, even the whole store, but that wasn’t the point. What Steve wanted was for her to want to please him. His expressing a like for the dress was his subconscious testing her desire to please him.

“I think you’d look good in this; It’s perfect for you” isn’t an offer, it’s a request. Will you sacrifice something to please me? 41 year old Joan Baez, could’ve afforded the dress. Hell, Ralph Lauren would have probably given it to her. But she expected Steve to buy it for her; that was her expectation then and it was the source of her confusion right up to Jobs’ biography interview. Her affinity for Jobs was transactional, not based in genuine desire. She failed the test.

Whether subconsciously or by design Steve wanted what most well-conditioned Blue Pill men want today: a genuine connection with a woman based on genuine (preferably unmitigated) desire. The Desire Dynamic is synonymous with The Rational Male. You cannot negotiate genuine desire is a foundational principle of both my work and all Red Pill awareness that follows from it. Steve’s ego wouldn’t allow him to negotiate for Joan’s real desire. His Mental Point of Origin and marginally sociopathic nature wouldn’t conceive it. But consciously or unconsciously he would test her (and other women he was involved with) for her desire to please him.

What is Your Red Dress?

It’s a cliché now for wealthy men to test women’s true interest in them. “Does she love me for me or because of my money/fame/status?” is a Blue Pill fantasy script for Beta men. This has been the plot of many popular stories and movies for centuries now (Coming to America with Eddie Murphy), but it’s a cliché because it accurately describes men’s subconscious coming to terms with women’s mating strategies and opportunistic concept of love. Women don’t fall in love with who a man is, they fall in love with what that man is. If a woman ever falls in love with who a man is it’s only after loving him for what he is first.

That’s some real cognitive dissonance a man has to confront in his life. The indignation that dissonance produces is very much the Red Meat most low SMV men love to wallow in, and commiserate in.

“She doesn’t love me! She loves what I can afford her! She’s a Gold Digger, I knew it!”

We love having women’s duplicity confirmed for us as men. It means we dodged a bullet by not investing in, and wasting our reproductive potential with, a woman who would be a bad bet for our future paternity. It provides the same chemical exhilaration and relief women feel when they think they’ve figured out a man’s “true” nature (Alpha Cad/Beta Dad). In the same way women get off on the indignation of discovering of men’s attempts to deceive women’s existential fear of false signals, so to do low SMV men get off on the indignation of discovering a woman only wants him for his money – not the real him.

What our subconscious truly wants is a pairing with a woman who has a genuine desire for us. Hot, unmitigated, Darwinistic monkey-sex is usually the manifestation of that genuine desire, but there are many more nuanced ways our male psyches will try to determine it. In past essays I’ve had men and women run me up the flagpole for suggesting a man never buy lingerie for his girlfriend or wife.

“How’s she supposed to know what I like if I don’t buy it for her?”
“I love getting something sexy from my man, sucks to be you.”

These, and more like them, are usually efforts in remaining self-ignorant of never having experienced genuine desire from a woman. If a woman has genuine desire for you she will be interested enough in you, and have the desire enough, to know how to please you without you explaining it to her. Genuine, organic desire is the foundation of all healthy relationships between men and women. Women who have genuine, unobligated desire for a man don’t ask him if they can go to Vegas for a girl’s weekend – her desire is for her man. Plates don’t require an active ‘spinning‘ on your part when she has real desire to be part of that man’s life. Women will eagerly share a worthy Alpha (rather than be saddled to a faithful Beta) if she has genuine desire for him.

…and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.

Genesis 3:16

When a woman has genuine desire for a man she Just Gets It when he suggests that a Red Dress would be “perfect for her” and she buys it, borrows it or steals it to wear it for him.

If Steve Jobs had purchased the Red Dress for Joan Baez, every time she wore it she would be wearing it for her, not for him. Something inside Steve knew this, and something in you does too.

The Red Pill Monthly – Frame

If youtube isn’t your thing you can get the audio archive here.

 

I managed to get some time with Niko once again yesterday. He was kind enough to stay up late and get a talk in for another installment of our semi-regular podcast The Red Pill Monthly (more like bi-monthly recently).

I really liked this one because we delved into some new stuff about Frame and the importance of establishing and maintaining a solid sense of self and purpose in all aspects of a man’s life, but focusing on the interpersonal and intersexual importance of Frame.

The concept of Frame is not my original idea, it’s actually derived from interpersonal psychology. However, way back in my early days at SoSuave I made the connection to the psychological principle and what PUAs of the time were advocating as a means to control in seduction. I begin my Iron Rules of Tomassi with Frame because I’ve always felt that everything else in seduction, and life in general, hinges upon the realities we create for ourselves.

The pop-cultural term for it today is ‘mindset’, but I feel the concept of Frame extends beyond what’s generally a retreading of The Power of Positive Thinking that’s being promoted as mindset now. It certainly plays a part in the entirety of holding Frame, but the overall establishment of Frame with a woman, with other men, with your family or with your employer requires an art that extends past just how one thinks of himself.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #1

Frame is everything. Always be aware of the subconscious balance of who’s frame in which you are operating. Always control the Frame, but resist giving the impression that you are. 

The concept of “frame” is yet another ephemeral idea that had need of a term in the very beginnings of the great masculine awakening that’s become the ‘community’. If memory serves I think it may have been Mystery who first picked up on what’s really a very rudimentary and well established psychological principle. In psych terms, frame is an often subconscious, mutually acknowledged personal narrative under which auspices people will be influenced. One’s capacity for personal decisions, choices for well-being, emotional investments, religious beliefs and political persuasions (amongst many others) are all influenced and biased by the psychological narrative ‘framework’ under which we are most apt to accept as normalcy.

Rather than go into too much depth here I’ll just encourage you to listen to the podcast and we’ll have an open comments thread about Frame. I think it’s good to review some older principles, not just for the benefit of newly Red Pill aware men, but also because I think it’s good to reconsider these ‘standards’ from a perspective of time and where we are as a Red Pill community today.

Frame, and understanding its importance, is the foundation of dozens of other Red Pill principles and applications. As most of my readers know, I try to avoid specific prescriptive advice. I’m not in the business of telling men how to live their lives with formulaic step-by-step Red Pill templates. The Red Pill isn’t one-size-fits-all and men need to interpret their Red Pill awareness according to their personalities, cultural context, social situations and personal beliefs.

That said, in the coming months I will be offering some more generalized, prescriptive ideas or suggestions as to how I feel men might apply certain Red Pill principles in their lives. The 9 Iron Rules are about as close as I come to prescriptive advice, and while I’m not in the business of making ‘Rational Male Men’, after reviewing them with Niko I think that some generalized advice according to Red Pill awareness might be something in the offing.

So, let me know what you think about this ideas as well as any questions or input you have about Frame once you’ve listened to our talk. It runs about an hour and a half. I’m also toying with the idea of discussing each of the Iron Rules in the coming RPM podcasts. Let me know if that’s something you’d be interested in listening to.

Enjoy!

rollo_t

Are You Experienced?

ontheroad

About three weeks ago I was made aware of an article on the New Republic blog called Bros Before Homes and a few of my followers on Twitter asked me for my take on it then. I did feel it merited more than 140 characters so I figured I’d build a post on it. Honestly, I had more than a couple irons in the fire for blog posts ahead of this, but in hindsight now I’m glad I waited a bit before digging too far in.

I am going to riff on it here, but before I do I’d like to point out that my posting Sugar Babies, before this post was a strategic decision on my part. You’ll understand why a bit later, but keep in mind the general premise of that post – women’s commodification of intimacy dynamic – and the priority of self-importance women place on themselves with regards to what men must pay for and why women believe they’re worth men’s having to pay for it.

I’m asking readers to keep this in mind because Bros Before Homes will contrast starkly next to Sugar Babies.

From the tone of the article you probably won’t need to look up Phoebe Maltz Bovy‘s portfolio to understand her clichéd feminist bias. It’s all of the self-importance and the prerequisite solipsism you’d expect from ‘journalists’ of her stripe, but try to read past the snark she thinks is interesting. Her sarcasm only highlights women’s duplicity with regards to men freeing themselves from the Feminine Imperative and women commodifying their intimate interests in ‘acceptable’ men.

The gist of Bovy’s fabricated angst is how offensively sexist it is for men to prioritize life experience, exploration, self-betterment, hobbies and the virtue signaling she sees inherent in men when they actually go their own way. Men cutting themselves free from the expectations of the Feminine Imperative and a feminine-primary social order always imply the threat of them coming to realize their own value.

It’s also that the very idea of experiences mattering more than things is a way of valorizing the stereotypically masculine. “While men are conditioned to dream big—to see their happiness in terms of adventure and travel, sex and ideas and long nights of hilarity—women are now encouraged to find deep fulfilment in staying home to origami our pants,” she wrote.

Whether women are being encouraged to rid our homes of useless belongings, or urged to shop for new ones, the result is the same: Society continues to associate women with the home and the material, men with the outside and experiences. While the enjoyment of domestic life, of stuff, isn’t inherently negative, it is dismissed precisely because of its associations with the feminine. An orientation towards stuff over experiences, moreover, gets cast either as recklessly materialist or, as Tony perceives it, an impediment to enjoying life. The only constant is that what women prefer, or are imagined to prefer, is thought inferior.

[…]We’re meant to admire the experience-lovers for their indifference to stuff, which implies they’ve got their priorities straight: to live life to the fullest. It’s no coincidence, though, that these experience-lovers are so often male, as it’s a stereotypically male aspiration not to be “tied down”—that is, not to have domestic responsibilities. But these men do have roofs over their heads. The bourgeois life they’re rejecting is simply one they’ve outsourced. After all, Tony hasn’t rejected the material life. He’s just got a woman—his mother—tidying up after him.

Bovy’s presumptions here smack of her reaching for some way to denigrate men’s pragmatically eschewing materialism or being tethered to what would otherwise be considered “grown up” responsibilities and looking for something more personally meaningful for themselves. As with all femosphere journalists you get a bonus 10% on your women’s studies essays if you can find a way to sneak the word’s “sexism” or “misogyny” in a piece.

Bros Before Homes is really nothing novel in the manosphere. MGTOWs have been advocating this reward-for-independence from women for as long as there’s been a movement. What is novel is that this return to a man being his own mental point of origin and prioritizing life experiences as his first priority is a result of an awareness that’s now filtering into the mainstream. It’s very easy to criticize men for being juvenile about foregoing what popular culture would have us believe is preparing ourselves for adulthood, but when this new idealism affects the men women hope will be well-positioned Betas when they’ve reached the end of their Party Years, then there’s cause for concern.

As a side note here, I should also say that it’s interesting to see how fluidly the progress of feminism comes full circle in Bovy’s thought process. She uses the same ambiguous tropes of a regressive society expecting women to resign themselves to domesticity and tidying up after men as if 60+ years of Fempowerment “leveling the playing field” never occurred. This is the same, very tired, cover story that second wave feminism used in the sixties.

The underlying irritation here is that men’s new prioritizing of experiences above materialism is a thorn in the side of women who’ve been given carte blanche to their Hypergamous whims. Bovy cries sexism because she presumes men are unable to engage in all this experience seeking without a support team of mothers and house-bound women, but what really makes her sore is that men doing the seeking reminds women of their natural predilection for materialism and the base of opportunism their concept of love is founded upon.

Bovy’s first mistake is that she’s statistically inaccurate.

The Blue Pill conditioning of the past 60 years has done everything but teach men to “dream big—to see their happiness in terms of adventure and travel, sex and ideas”. That particular conditioning is reserved for women playing along with the Eat, Pray, Love narrative. If anything it’s just the opposite. From education to family to church, men are conditioned for servile Beta-hood and lambasted for not ‘Manning Up’ and being supportive of women’s empowerment at the cost of their own. Conversely, women and womankind have been lifted to unrealistic idealism in pursuing their own interests at the cost of childbearing and monogamous domesticity. Apparently, Bovy’s never read Lean In or even watched a Disney princess movie in the last 50 years.

Off the Reservation

What worries women is that all the Blue Pill conditioning men have endured for the past several decades might be undone if men were to actually make themselves their mental point of origin. What worries the representatives of the Feminine Imperative is that Betas might see the pragmatism in following the example of men who put themselves first. Men who eschew the trappings of building their lives around the materialism women seek when their looks fade and their need for men’s resource security is a better prospect than having to compete for men with their sisters. When marriage is an easily recognizable sucker’s bet to the point that even Betas can see the sense in avoiding it, that’s when the Feminine Imperative must shift to a new tactic.

Open Hypergamy makes for aware Betas. Men aware of the game they are expected to play must either tamp that understanding down into denial or they simply refuse to play. That refusal can come in many examples, but the reasoning is the same. The deductive, pragmatic response is for men to go their own way and put themselves at the beginning of their thought processes and goals.

The success of women’s sexual strategy depends on ignorant Betas being prepared to meet (or wait for them) at the time at which their need for security is the greatest. This expectation of Betas in Waiting is part of a Hypergamous plan; it is the consolidation of an Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks prioritization (also known as the Sandberg Plan). Bros Before Homes is an offense to this plan.

This then becomes a paradox for the Feminine Imperative. A man’s life experiences are generally a wellspring of attraction if not arousal for a woman. Experience is the source of a genuine Amused Mastery and a man’s self-serving experience is usually a prime indicator of an Alpha mindset. My Red Pill brother Goldmund is a perfect example of how personal, self-asserted, self-initiated experiences can be parlayed into a very effective Game.

Be that as it is, the proposition of any and every Beta going MGTOW in various ways, hitting the open road and regaling women with the stories of their exploits presents a problem to Hypergamy; Hypergamy wants certainty and a well-traveled Beta is still a Beta. Furthermore, living for the experiential implies less investment in Beta men developing skills, status, affluence and the personal equity that make them good prospects for Beta providership when they reach the critical age at which women need their cooperation in fulfilling their Hypergamy. At least, that’s the implied concern for women. Men with a sense to educate themselves from experience are usually all the better for it – even when that experience is a nightmare.

I should add here that prioritizing experience above other consideration needn’t be limited to Bovy’s silly impressions of Jack Kerouac’s On the Road.  What concerns the feminine is that men would devote the lion’s share of their personal efforts on anything unrelated to meeting women’s future or present security needs. It’s not just men wanting to scale Mount Vesuvius, it’s men having any self-import at the expense of women. When men’s ambitions are centered on satisfying themselves  and not about developing equity that’s useful to women, that’s when those men (and those who would encourage it) are shamed for not being an adult. They are shamed for not manning up or growing up to meet the needs of women and thus not living up to “adult responsibilities”.

Responsible Adults

It’s not an accident that society conflates men’s servitude with qualities of adulthood – it’s the design.

As such, women begin to get nervous that their future provisioning and security are their own responsibility. How those needs are met are a discussion for various other threads I’ve written, but the social expectations of men qualifying for ‘manhood’ by assisting women to fulfill their own Hypergamous imperatives are at the root of the “sexist” accusations on Bovy’s part. To her, it’s sexist not to plan one’s life according to women’s ‘correct’ sexual strategy.

Bovy actually shares a lot with contemporary Christianity. Ensaturated by feminine primacy, the modern church has made efforts to convince men that their servitude to women is both an article of faith and a prerequisite for responsible adulthood. In a reversal of traditional faith, men aren’t men until they’ve established themselves as being capable of providing for both themselves, but for women as well. Any man shirking this is shamed for “prolonging is adolescence”. All life priority and preparation is presumed to revolve around supporting a future wife irrespective of her own decisions and the results that come from them. The contemporary church is a Beta production institution as it is, but it’s interesting to see how both Bovy and modern Christianity align on the position of men’s proper roles.

This is an interesting parallel when you consider the lengths to which women have gone to emancipate themselves from (ostensibly) being dependent upon men’s influence and provisioning. Western culture has evolved around the strong independent woman stereotype, yet it’s sexist for men to emancipate themselves from the worst of women’s sexual strategy. Bovy’s perspective relies heavily on the Old Books rules set in the misguided belief that women are still beholden to roles of domesticity and repression in an era of triumphantly embraced Open Hypergamy.

Materialism

As I mentioned in the opening, it’s important that we contrast this concern for Betas leaving the plantation with the blatant soft prostitution of the Sugar Babies dynamic. In the light of women’s naked opportunism, and with that opportunism’s materialistic purpose, it’s easy to see how patently false Bovy’s premise is here.

In an era where we develop successful apps to aid women in setting their price on a basic date, it’s easy to recognize Bovy’s disingenuousness. MGTOW and its Red Pill aware derivatives are really just practical, logical responses of men protecting themselves from an Open Hypergamy women are all too ready to educate them about. The End of Men is also the eventual end of women’s expectations of long term provisioning. If Bros aren’t interested in homes the old social contract is put in jeopardy and Open Hypergamy only serves to expedite this shift. Women at the Epiphany Phase looking for the “equal partner” that Sheryl Sandberg assures her sisters will be waiting for them find that men have declined to play along.

The old joke is that if women would have sex in a cardboard box men would never buy a house. The joke’s played out now because women are happy to fuck an Alpha in much less, and now they’re proud enough to tell Betas all about it.

Secret of the Red Pill

B3FXCT conspiracy

Joker79 from the SoSuave forum relates a common red pill dilemma;

I’m a huge fan of the rational male and I can’t deny that it helped my a lot in these years. I’m spinning plates and I can literally pull out from the crowd the girl I want to bang. I find really amusing though when I challenge some chicks with the uncomfortable truth of the matrix (e.g. their hypergamy, decreasing SMV with age, the feminine mystique and so on). I wonder which is the common (and the worst) reaction you got from your female friends, girlfriend, women you’re meeting daily when you show them that you know the game they’re playing? I usually get “pffff NAWALT” or “you’re a player” or they seems to be butthurt once they realize I turned the table against them… nothing concrete of course because they know I’m right. any meaningful and/or funny experience?

Synergy1 adds the most common response:

I don’t openly discuss the RM and other theories with people, but its funny how a lot of the truths are actually accepted by people. Just the other day I had a discussion on how if you insult a man its funny, but if you mention a fact about women, it’s considered misogyny. The coworkers’ comment was that women are weaker than men are and I responded – why do you hate America. It got some laughs.

Some people get it. These are the same people who have been through divorce and see things for as they are. The younger guys who are still in fairytale land don’t understand or buy into it.

Joker79:

It’s not really discussing openly or starting a conversation about red pill topic, it’s more about observing their behavior when your reaction is different from what chicks expect (e.g. walk away when you’re supposed to beg them to stay, hitting on different chicks when she’s with you and disrespects you and you’re not trying to qualify for her attention at all). More often than not you get either an annoyed reaction (he’s a player) motivated by the discomfort of her knowing that you know her strategy and how to workaround it or a butthurt behavior where she pretends not to care and avoid you (rationalization hamster spinning!)

Think about it this way – you can never tell a woman about the red pill or how Game savvy you are, you can only show her.

Demonstrate, never explicate. While it might be satisfying to overtly crush a woman’s gender perceptions, being overt will always come off like conceit, or bitterness or melancholy.

If your purpose is to alienate and/or correct a woman you have no interest in by pointing out the brutal truths of being Game-aware, that’s certainly your prerogative, but you will never get into a woman’s pants or be more attractive to her by explaining the Game you are engaged in with her (or hope to be).

Women want a guy who Just Gets It.

She want’s you to ‘get it’ on your own, without having to be told how. That initiative and the experience needed to have had developed it makes you a Man worth competing for. Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ‘the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be. Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shït test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.

Remember what I’ve bolded here, the same applies to you revealing your understanding of Game. As I’ve stated many times, women may think they want the truth, but they never want full disclosure. Women want to play the Game with you, but they want it running covertly in the background, not overtly and in her face. Much of the reason the red pill, Game and the manosphere are vilified by a blue pill public is due to the overt nature of explaining the psychological and sociological mechanisms operating underneath the social conventions, ego-invested beliefs and masks we wear in engaging with the opposite sex.

The red pill strips away a comfortable veneer – we’re supposed to Just Get It, without explaining how we just get it. Men being the more pragmatic and rational sex tend to think that a reasoned approach should be the most practical one. We deduce that women ought to be just as reasonable and can handle the truth – after all the constant repetition of how women and men are the same with different genitals – so to the uninitiated, newly unplugged red pill guy it seems sensible to remove all the pretense and explain all his understanding to a woman he’s interested in.

Play with her, and play with her.

As I’ve explained before, appeals to a woman’s reason will never bear the fruit that hopeful Beta men expect it will. Women don’t want to be told how the Game works (on some limbic level they already know how it works), they want to play the Game with a Man to determine that he knows how the Game works. There is nothing so self-satisfying for a woman than for her to believe she’s figured a Man out using her (mythical) feminine intuition. Understanding this basic tenet of women is one of the most under-appreciated advantages men have in Game.

This is where the ‘Art’ in Pick Up Artist is important. Too many men believe that understanding red pill truths and the underpinnings of Game should be enough to be convincing with women, but that learning isn’t enough. Playing the Game and applying that knowledge with women without revealing an overt understanding of it is an art that must be practiced and developed to the point where adaptation and improvisation become second nature to a man. Men with this understanding are often the ones with the most comfort and facility with women – Amused Mastery is his natural state, because he knows his advantage in not revealing the secret of the red pill to any woman he’s interested in.

Soft Dread

soft-dread

 

In the past I’ve covered in various detail the utility of instilling dread in a woman both pre and post monogamy. It’s been one of the more contentious principles I’ve endorsed, with women tending to revile me for having brought men to the awareness of dread’s uses, and men concurring with, but often hesitant in applying dread for fear of the backlash for having used dread conspicuously.

In Dread Games I made an attempt to clear up the real inevitability of dread in any average relationship. Dread is going to be a factor in any relationship due to the Cardinal Rule of Relationships:

In any relationship, the one with the most power is the one who cares the least.

As Roissy and many legitimate psychologists will tell you, the most secure relationships generally result from about a 1-2 point SMV imbalance favoring the Man in the relationship. In this imbalance, the actual strength  of that secure feminine attachment to the man (both in and out of a monogamous commitment) can be expressed as a soft, or passive form of dread. This expression of dread is still rooted in a woman’s imagination of emotional, physical and provisional loss, but just as the application of that dread is passive, so too is a woman’s progressive realization of that dread.

Soft Dread

Mrs. Tomassi and I were recently talking with a woman of about 49. She’s the ever-present front desk host at our gym and a casual acquaintance and friend. She’s not particularly unattractive for her age, reasonably good shape from a body perspective – I can tell she used to enjoy a lot of male attention in her 20s and maybe 30’s – but now just this side of 50 she’s moved not so much into a regret stage, but rather a hopeful sense of well post-Wall self-remorse. That might sound odd, but she’s at least optimistic about her ‘chances’ of getting with a “good man” in the near future.

She’s quite upfront and honest about the Alpha Bad Boy Jerks she’s dated, married one and then divorced from her past. In fact she’s one of the more lucid women I’ve encountered about her present state and how she came to it. Although she’s the typical result of a hypergamous life prolonged past the “eating her cake too” phase, she owns her mistakes.

Although we generally hit Gold’s at different times, occasionally  the wife and I go together in the mornings. It was on one of these mornings, and our friend at the counter stopped us to say,

“I love you guys, I really do. I see a lot of people pass through here but when I see you both together it gives me hope that I can have a good relationship like you two. You’re such a team, I really hope I can meet a guy I can connect with like that.”

We were on our way out, and she always has something else to say about her personal life so, while I guess I was somewhat flattered, I didn’t pay it much mind. That is until our ride back home when Mrs. Tomassi looked me square in the face and said, “I am so glad I didn’t end up like that!” I was actually kind of surprised at the tone of her voice. “Thank God that’s not me, how horrible to be in that position at her age.” I nodded my head because I knew she was expecting my usually analyzations of post-Wall women and the beds they make. Then, with a hint of a tear in her eye, she gave me one of the best compliments I’ve ever heard from her, “I hope Bebé finds and marries a Man just like you.”

That made me feel really good, and what I’m about to type here sound really shitty. After not a small swell of pride, I thought, while it’s nice to be appreciated in this respect, would this realization have come without the influence of our friend and her state of life?

You see, what I experienced that morning was a sort of de fact association of social proof. Granted, I’m not taking anything away from the love and solidity upon which my marriage and our relationship is founded on, but was I just the right guy in the right place for this realization to come to awareness? What I had just participated in was a form of soft dread. A dread that needs no emphasis or prompting from a Man, simply the occasion for it to come to the surface to be actualized.

When a Man’s status is long established it’s easy to take his qualities for granted by women. It takes another woman’s lack to bring that status into focus for her. In the same vein that women will pre-approve or pre-qualify you for another woman’s intimacy, likewise the personal state of other women will serve as a benchmark of social proof for a Man’s wife or LTR. I realize this has the potential to cut the other way for women who are more well off than others, but the dynamic is real. I’ve written in the past that women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices Men must make to facilitate their feminine reality, but if they ever come close to this appreciation it’s only at the prompting of women outside the relationship who can recognize it in the Men committed to other women.

Progressive Dread

The admittedly very rough graph I created to illustrate the contemporary sexual marketplace (SMP) is almost a manosphere link staple now. However, I’m going to reuse it once more here to illustrate another point:

Print

When I wrote Navigating the SMP it was in response to a need for visualization of how men and women’s respective sexual market value (SMV) differentiate at different phases of their lives. Using this model it’s not too far a stretch to illustrate how dread plays a factor in women’s self, and relational awareness.

At their SMV peak, adjusting for the mean average, women’s potential for experiencing dread is as low as it will be in a lifetime. During this phase the potential for replacing a respective mate (or STR lover) is almost a nonissue. Even in emotionally invested relationships during this phase, the subliminal presence of a basic, unprompted, dread of loss is pushed into unawareness for women.

That dread of loss is replaced with the dread of insecurity as a woman ages toward the Wall. Before I continue here, it’s important to remember that security comes in many different forms – financial, emotional, psychological, spiritual and even self-esteem play a part in the totality of women’s security needs.

During the height of a woman’s SMV, men are scarcely aware of their potential value to a woman in the long term. Men’s recognition of dread is much more heightened when a woman’s SMV is peaking, while his is on a slow ascendency toward his late 20’s and early 30’s. He doesn’t want to miss his “dream girl” and she doesn’t want to sell herself short in the hypergamy gamble she’s playing.

As a woman ages to the Wall and beyond, and while a Man’s SMV accumulates into his 30’s, the role soft dread plays in the relationship is reversed. As women’s primary physical attraction decays, the subliminal dread of loss, and an ever decreasing ability to recreate her security, increases in her psyche. It may not be on the surface of her awareness, but there will be more reminders of her state with each passing year.

It seems unduly cruel to remind women of this dread; that’s not my intent with today’s post. In fact, just because I’m aware of the subtle reminders of soft dread women experience, I may play my relationship Game with a bit more sensitivity. That being the case, there’s no ignoring the reality of this dynamic and the utility it represents for a man aware of the state of women in various phases of their lives.

When I wrote Navigating the SMP the operative intent behind it was to make men more conscious of the predictability of women’s motives and behaviors at various phases of life – and plan their Game according to the signs they were seeing. In the case of soft dread, this realization may at first come as a hint of appreciation to the Man who’s dutifully persevered through his woman’s dominant frame for most of his LTR  Marriage. It may come as a comfort for a guy who’s unused to sentimental declarations of appreciation, but it’s important to remember the why in that declaration, rather than the who in that declaration.

The Choice of Attraction

choice

This has always been an interesting debate. I think it was  David D’Angelo who coined the phrase, “Attraction is not a choice.” This notion is so popular even red pill carpet baggers like Aunt Sue had to give it wings.

Pandora from SoSuave broke it down thusly:

What is the true nature of attraction? I am often ambivalent about this myself. This is ultimately the root the contention between the so called “AFC”s and the so called “cynical” red pill guys.

Camp 1:
Attraction is a deeply psychological phenomenon that is largely unpredictable. This camp implies that there is no deliberate decision that a woman makes to become attracted to a man. Her decision is made largely within the first few seconds of meeting or noticing you. They claim that whether a girl is into you or not is largely out of your control ( D’ Angelo). This philosophy gives credibility to the people who say money and looks really don’t matter too much. They are just icing on the cake. In all honestly I have seen example of this play out many times in real life. I mean we all know the common phenomenon of a hot girl with a loser boyfriend who sits on the couch all day and plays video games. We all had a girl that just was “attracted to us” no for no apparent reason. There are plenty of examples of successful women going after losers (not marrying, but screwing regularly). These guys are pretty average looking to tell you the truth. These guys are not really even that “alpha”. Kinda like Casino, I know its a movie, but when DeNiro’s wife who had everything was still deeply in love with the scumbag loser pimp who had nada. Many of these guys have self destructive tendencies really, aka bad boys types, emo losers, broke artsy dudes to plain ol average joes. If you ask the female why do you like this guy so much when you could get just abut any other guy… 9 outa 10 times they say ” i dont know, i just do, i wish i didnt”. They have no rational explanation for it. Many times the girl will admit that the guy isnt even attractive or her type thus supporting the view attraction is not a choice and deeply psychological.

Camp 2:
Money, looks, power, and overall dominance will get u women more reliably than anything else. This is the red pill crew. There are a TON of examples of this also. Go to any rock concert, football game or club and you will see this in action. There’s a reason why women want to marry the rocker,doctor, lawyer, CEO, athlete. The catch is by agreeing with this viewpoint you have to agree that the nature of attraction in women is largely logical and deliberate. That women turn off or on their attraction based on status and resources. If you are this camp then how do u explain the examples of hot women going out with loser to average boy friends. Are these truly exceptions to the rule? How do you also explain chicks that dig you for no apparent reason at all (rare but it happens) and we have all had these types of girls once or twice.

This is an important question to answer because i think its the cause of many of the conflicts in the manosphere. Its also a fundamental question for any man. I think the truth is in the middle. I think that both camps are making something that is very complex into a cut and dry matter. For every instance of a chick being attracted to a high status male there is an instance of a chick just being attracted to a regular guys. Im starting to believe attraction is just one of those things that is largely unpredictable and mysterious. This is the whole basis of when women say they just felt or didnt feel any “chemistry”. Its largely mysterious. Like Rollo eludes to, attraction is a chemical thing.

There’s a very clichéd truism from the 80’s that states “a woman knows if she’ll fuck you in the first 5 minutes of meeting you.” I disagree somewhat, I would say a woman knows if she wont fuck you within the first 5 minutes of meeting you.

Attraction is instinctual and predictable, but is it a choice? It really depends upon the conditions of the persons involved. Honestly I think it’s kind of a loaded question because the answer tends to validate the beliefs and ego-investments (also prompted by personal conditions) of the one promoting it.

For the unemployed, chubby guy, believing that attraction is some nebulous, random occurrence gives him hope that, with a bit of Game, he can enjoy sex with the HB 9s that his douchebag “natural” friends are. Similarly, the good looking, affluent guy with a bit of Game is rewarded with sex so often that he attributes his success to his own capacity for ‘creating attraction’ that he presumes a woman is making a choice to be attracted to him.

Choosing Attraction

Like pretty much everything else, attraction is conditional. I wont go so far as to say it’s a choice, but I will say there exist many prompts that can spur attraction when they are congruent with the conditions a woman consciously or subconsciously requires at a given time.

For example, in high school, teenage girls tend to focus their attraction (which is prompted by sexual arousal) on the teenage boys who best display an ideal physicality. Cute face, good body, maybe a slight bit of status with regards to exceptional performance (sports or drama for instance), but generally affluence and personal status aren’t an issue since none of them can expect a high school junior to be the CEO of his own company. Remove money & status from the sexual environment and physical arousal will tend to dominate. Personality and game, play in of course, but to a far lesser (adolescent) degree than when a woman is 19 and in a college environment where potential status, affluence, game and personality begin to take on more importance. Physicality still dominates arousal, but compatibility and future emotional and parental investment potential begins to factor into attraction. As a woman approaches 30-35 her preconditions for attraction and the priority she places on them shifts towards long term security. Physicality, while still important, is compromised in favor of long term security potential.

Now, is she choosing to be attracted to specific characteristics or types of individuals at different phases of her maturity? No, not consciously, but on some level of consciousness we are all aware of our own conditions and what (we believe) is necessary to meet satisfaction of particular deficits we lack. For the 32 year old AFC who’s never done anything different and has waited the better part of his 20’s for the, now 30, HB 8, he thinks his ship’s finally come in and that attraction is indeed some random act of divine kindness – rather than the fact that he now makes the kind of money his dream girl subconsciously realizes is necessary for her (and her offspring’s) long term provisioning.

Predicting Attraction

Human nature being what it is, it’s important for Game aspirants (and those applying Game for other reasons) to understand that Game, inter-gender dynamism and the physical elements of arousal / attraction are Probablistic not Deterministic.

I don’t believe attraction is a conscious choice – no girl says to herself “hmmm,..I think I’ll be attracted to him” – but there are definite, predictable determinants, based upon the personal conditions of the woman, that influence a subconscious state of arousal and attraction. I know those are big $10 words, but try to think of it in terms that a woman doesn’t make a rational choice to be attracted to a guy, but rather is influenced by motivators she’s not fully aware of and makes an emotional association with them and the guy she is attracted to. Accurately determining what those motivators are and manipulating them (within any one Man’s capacity) is the heart of Game. Attraction may not be a choice, but what you do to stimulate the motivators of attraction is a choice – your choice.

I rarely engage in the “american chicks suck / foreign chicks rule” debates, but one of my best friends is Filipino who’s recently been making frequent trips back to the Philippines to visit family and (still) help out with the recovery effort after the last hurricane. He comes back with stories about how eager all the hottest Filipinas are to do anything sexual with him. He’s not an ugly guy, but by American standards he’s not all that desirable – short, stocky, about 15lbs overweight, well off but not wealthy. But because he’s American and Filipino he’s got status that few guys in P.I. can match. He has what we joke is the ‘Golden Ticket’ (ala Willy Wonka) to Amercia since he’s single. He’s got decent game and he does hook up in the U.S., but he says he doesn’t even have to make an effort in P.I. Women catch wind that he’s American and their legs spread involuntarily.

This is an excellent illustration of how status can influence attraction based upon personal conditions / deficits that prompt it. However, sustaining that attraction after that personal deficit has been satisfied is another post altogether.

The Choice

So in layman’s terms you are saying Attraction is not a conscious choice made by women but one that can be unconsciously evoked by a guy with good game?

Yes, if that particular guy’s Game is what she’s subconsciously lacking. However, it’s all in the ‘read‘ of any given woman. If you read the Art of Seduction by Robert Greene, the first foundation of seduction is to have as full an understanding of your target as possible – this is called ‘reading’ your mark. To the best of your abilities, it’s important to evaluate where she is in her stage of life and pick out areas where she’s in a deficit. You may think this is impossible to do in the short space of sarging a girl at a bar for instance, but once you have a general understanding of the cues to look for it actually becomes second nature. I’ll give you an example.

There’s a woman I know named Julie who I bump into on occasion at promos I do. On first sight I see: she’s attractive, mature (late 30’s early 40’s perhaps), dresses to get attention, she’s thin, bleach blonde, and married (I know from the big diamond ring). After speaking with her for less than 10 minutes I know she’s attracted to me; there are ‘tells’ in her conversation with me, verbal cues that she’s hoping I will pick up on and deliver back covert confirmation of. 10 minutes in and I know she’s in a marriage of convenience with an affluent man, who can take care of her financially, but who’s incapable of meeting her physical deficit, her excitement deficit, her covert communications deficit, etc. If I wanted to seduce her, these would be the areas I would adjust my sarge to emphasize. She’s attracted to me because she sees my potential for satisfying her deficits, and then probes me for confirmation of her suspicions. I tell her I’m married in code-speak, and she chooses not to be attracted to me any longer, or at least not to such a degree that she wants to pursue any more.

Some people would call this being a good judge of character, but essentially the ability to ‘read’ a person (of either gender) is the beginning of good ‘natural game’.

Time’s Up

I got some ‘fresh’ insight from a female Rational Reader:

It’s sometimes annoying, sometimes painful to read this blog, but it gives me clarity.

As a 35 year old rapidly approaching 36 year old unmarried female, it’s makes me cringe to see how snarky guys view the average chick in my demographic.

I hope I don’t have the arrogance attributed to my age group. Perhaps I do about my youthful looks, but then again I have lived cleaned and never been a sun worshipping, druggy slut. I’m different than the average modern day American/Western female.

I genuinely like most men and feel sympathy for them that women CAN be so difficult. I enjoy being feminine and girly and only go thru random periods of wanting to achieve a lot. Pretty happy just being alive. lol

I don’t give it up and am closer to being a virgin based on my limited picky dating habits.

Sure, I would have loved to be married since my 20s, but feel happy I wasn’t like a huge majority of women who rush to get married. If anything, I believe in romantic love too strongly and held on at times when I should’ve let go.

So not every woman in her 30s is a shrill she-devil harpy who wants be your own personal succubus and suck your life force and rape your wallet.

I have 3 very nice guy friends just got engaged over last few months. (Aged 30-39). They didn’t hold these dogmatic views towards women. They moved things ahead in a linear manner and were open to love and hopeful about marriage and kids.

They all met healthy, nice cool chicks in the same age range and got engaged within 1-3 years.

Again, this blog has been an entertaining read, but I take it as seriously as any other entertainment rag out there.
With a grain of salt.

It will excite R. to know that he has many devout acolytes at this point. Ironically, this site is encouraging blind following by unhappy betas instead of grooming strong well adjusted true Alphas.

I’m sure Kate Bolick is crying bitter tears for you as she counts all the licensing and advertising money she’s earning from pandering to your demographic on TV and in The Atlantic.

The difference between contemporary men’s gender doctrines and those of women’s is that women’s tends toward the ultimate end of marriage or at least an LTR commitment. This is the idealized hypergamic goal state; single monogamous union with the best available mating option in terms of breeding and long term provisioning (i.e. pluralistic sexual strategy). Men on the other hand are biologically predisposed to mating with the best available short term option(s) based on physicality and sexual availability. It’s not that men don’t want an idealized monogamy, but our sexual imperative has to be sublimated in order to achieve it.

Between the sexes, these are conflicting breeding methodologies. For one sex to fulfill it’s methodology the other must rescind their own. Thus, in order for one gender to maintain a social dominance in terms of breeding methodologies, the other must be characterized in the negative. This is why men’s polygyny is socially vilified while women’s hypergamy is the accepted norm. Men are then socially predisposed to accept women not only as the sexual filters of society, but the rules makers and the arbiters of that same social and moral acceptability.

Your indignation at this blog or the community on whole is due in large part to this social framework. You see the summation of dating, Game, romance, etc. resulting in the finality of an idealized, hypergamously perfected marriage (the female imperative). The inner conflict you and most women in your demographic have is that the same hypergamy you hope to perfect has become the source of your worst frustrations. The constant, feminine primary entitlements women have been conditioned to expect from idealized Men becomes the means of their worst disillusionments.

The hope was to assert the dominance of the feminine breeding strategy by conditioning and shaming Men into the internalized belief that it was their moral / social responsibility to accommodate the female methodology at the sacrifice of his own. Marriage is the RIGHT thing to do, so sayeth the gate keepers of sexuality, but only on women’s terms and when it conveniently fits into their life’s schedule. Only now that social convention based on feminine hypergamy is running headlong into the realities of biomechanics.

You see, while you may in fact still be sexually attractive at 35, the simple truth is that you are not as attractive as the next generation of 22 year olds arriving on the sexual market every year. Today’s hotties are tomorrow’s clearance rack items. With each passing year you become progressively less able to compete with the newer younger and hotter women becoming available. So, in order to counter this, women are forced to create new social conventions, new gender definitions, etc. in an attempt to level the playing field. Thus we get social dictums celebrating cougars, and myths of women’s new sexual prime (38 to 40? shocking).

Feminization’s worst failings aren’t due to Men awakening (and reacting) to this fresh understanding of feminine primary social dynamics – feminization’s worse fear is women finally acknowledging that hypergamy is painting them into corner within their own social constructs. The hope is to cash out their hypergamous chips before an individual male becomes aware enough to see the Matrix for what it is. Your 3 just-married friends may have managed to pull that off, but not you. And it’s not blogs like this that are hindering that, it’s the inherent flaws built into a feminine primary social structure long ago.

Time’s up.