feminized men

State Control

Reader, constrainedlocus had an interesting thought in the Anger Bias essay comment thread:

“The point is that a feminine-primary social order readily makes this nature a useful tool in dismissing what would otherwise be valid, but uncomfortable Red Pill truth. This anger bias mechanism is a tool for message control.”

What I find interesting is that, from my own personal observations of men in both marriage and long-term relationships, is that this dismissal happens readily and frequently at the micro level in sexual relationships as well. It’s impossible for men not to notice the hypocrisy.

A man need not experience the trivialization of his anger from “the sisterhood” response in the media, in the corporate setting, or even while at a party with other couples.

I think it now common for a wife or long-term girlfriend to assume a certain privilege or “authority” to express and direct her own anger, indignation and outrage rather freely and loudly – whenever she wishes – toward her male companion, without much consequence.

But should her male companion ever lose his composure, raise his voice in anger toward here, then this is either considered “verbal abuse”, an uncalled for overreaction, or his complaint is simply trivialized, ridiculed or disqualified by her, much like she would belittle the tantrum of her own young child.

Who has not witnessed wives scold their husbands in public at a restaurant or at a park like little children for his getting angry at her attitude or behavior? “Don’t you EVER raise your voice at me, mister!”.

I realize this is all about a man’s frame in the relationship.
I know that it is a weak man who tolerates this, while a wise man just ignores or nexts it.

Indeed, it is all about control.

But I still find it fascinating the confidence level with which so many women feel they can just scoff and ridicule the anger of men in relationships overtly, while unilaterally assuming the validity and overriding importance of their own anger whenever convenient for them.

It’s seems like an added bolt-on power up of feminist triumphalism.

Even among ourselves, we men are not supposed to show such angry emotions, at risk of verbal abuse or a humiliating well-deserved fucking beat down. Us dudes are to be these rational Vulcans walking around and doing shit, deleting emotion commands from our code. Because the thought is this: allowing someone else’s behavior to determine your feelings and emotional response is regarded as a sign of male weakness.
Anger should be expressed infrequently, and when expressed, done decisively and with brevity and action.

I think a lot of dudes recovering from blue pill conditioning struggle with this immensely, and are not sure what to do when their anger and frustration is openly minimized, trivialized or negated by their wife or LTR.

In a feminine-primary social order men are expected to show exactly this emotional restraint out of fear for being considered a typical, angry bully for any marginal display of aggressiveness. Yet, men are simultaneously conditioned to be emotionally expressive, emotionally available, in order to be ‘fully actualized’ human beings. They’re taught that strength is weakness and weakness is strength, and that vulnerability and emotionalism makes them whole persons.

Then the narrative changes again as per the needs of the Feminine Imperative. Men who are agreeable and show humility are punished with a removal of women’s sexual interest in them, while more conventionally masculine men, more Alpha, potentially more aggressive men who display outward signs of it – the emotions they’re taught to repress – are more commonly rewarded with women’s sexual interests.

When you have a social structure based on a calculated duplicity and confusion of purpose is it any wonder we see a generation of frustrated Betas with a perceived potential for violence? We’re supposed to delete emotional commands, but also to be more emotionally available and in touch (whatever the fuck that means) with our emotions. What it really comes down to is men are socialized to be automatons whose emotional connection should only apply to those emotions that benefit and complement with the Feminine Imperative and repress the emotions that frighten or potentially threaten the Feminine Imperative. In other words, to become more like women is to become a more perfected ‘man’ by today’s metric.

Blank-slate Feminism

We presently live in a feminine-primary social order that wants to convince us that egalitarian equalism is the normative presumption between men and women. The blank-slate idea is that men are the functional equivalents of women, but, for all the social constructivism, men need to train, learn, be conditioned to constrain the aspects of themselves that conflict with their identities becoming more like women in their emotional nature. If boys and men can be conditioned (or medically treated) to repress every evolved aspect of their maleness that conflicts with aligning with the feminine they can be trained to be ostensibly more ‘equal’ beings. In this mindset, for a man to become more ‘equal’ he must be more feminine.

The normative belief is that boys and men are simply unperfected women, but the subtext to this is that men and women, binary genders, are (or ought to be) functional equivalents. This too is based on the (I believe flawed) Jungian theory of anima and animus; that no matter the sex, every ‘person’ has some counterbalancing elements of male and female nature to them. I believe this is a flawed theory for the simple fact that men and women have never been functional equals from an evolutionary standpoint and modern science is disproving Jung’s (often metaphysical) presumptions with neurological and hormonal (and the functional behaviors that derive from either sex’s innate structures) understanding that didn’t exist in Jung’s time.

I’ve dug into why I have a problem with Jung in the past, but the point I’m making is that, in Jung, the Feminine Imperative and 2nd and 3rd wave feminist agendas have had an incestuous affair with his theories and conflating overwhelmingly disproven blank-slate equalism. This conflation of flawed theory has been the foundation for normalizing the social feminization of boys and men for almost a century now.

With this equalist presumption as a point of origin, the first step is to condition boys for emotional control.

State Control

Emotions have an evolutionary purpose in men and women. We can trace the manifested behaviors of emotional response to survival-specific functions. Oxytocin, for instance, predisposes human beings to feelings of trust and nurturing which primarily affects women most. The effects of testosterone, which men produce 12-17 times the amount that women do, are well known and masculinize the human body. These are just some basic hormonal differences, but the function behind the effects of those hormones (as well as men and women neurological structure) is where we run into conflict with the Feminine Imperative.

For millennia, boys and men have been taught to control their emotive states. This practice in control isn’t something that sprang up a few hundred years ago, we’re talking ancient cultures teaching their young men to resist losing their rational state-control over to an emotionalism that had a potential to get a man into some serious trouble. In some respects this self-control has been a necessary part of men’s upbringing, but also because men and women experience emotional states differently as a result of evolved biological differences. Women tend to process negative emotions differently than men. This processing isn’t due to some socially constructed acculturation, it is the result of the differences in men and women’s mental firmware. This is also a primary reason why making an emotional impact on a woman, positive or negative, is a source of stimulation for them. Men’s arousal may be founded on visual cues, but women are wired for emotional cues.

Likewise, men’s emotive states run a different gamut than that of women. As I mentioned in the Anger Bias essay, men are less predisposed to emotional states that women believe are beneficial in their own experience. In a feminine-correct social state, where women’s experiences define the norm, and in a social constructivist perspective, this amounts to a ‘repression’ of emotions. The idea is that an overly masculine acculturation of boys leads them to holding back the emotions that women tend to build their lives around. The real truth is that men process emotions, and prioritize the expression of those emotions, much more as a result of our own mental firmware than social repression.

That’s not to say there isn’t some social influence over teaching men to learn self-control over those emotions. As I just mentioned, young men have been taught for millennia to have state control by each other, their mentors and their peers, but since the time of the sexual revolution and the rise of a feminine primary social order this state control has been turned into a net negative.

So, in a sense, young men of the last 4-5 generations are caught between pleasing two masters. To be considered the ‘equal’ that feminine-primary egalitarianism would have them be they must first get in touch with their emotions. However, the only emotions they are taught are valid are those that make them more alike and identifying with women; nurturing, crying, expressing vulnerability, etc., essentially anything not characteristic of conventional masculinity. This of course has the effect of women subconsciously perceiving them as they would other women, and not potential intimates. Essentially, this aligning with women’s experience of emotion desexualizes men.

Yet, on the other hand, men are expected to repress their emotions in terms of having a state control that appeals to women’s Hypergamous need for security. Thus, the emotions that might better serve men in a survivalist utility are exactly those which feminine-correct society considers negative or ‘toxic’ and therefore must be controlled. The problem inherent in all of this is that it is feminine-primacy that is defining what men’s experience of emotion is acceptable despite it being the cause of so much of women’s frustration with men.

As the saying goes, women get the men they deserve and the emotive, masculine-confused men of today are simply the result of a social order that’s standardized the female experience as the definition of what blank-slate equalism should be for both sexes – but really as a means of social control for women whose experience is defined by an unsolvable need for certain security.

None of this is to say men ought not to express themselves emotionally or avoid being artists and poets or whatever in favor of some uninspired stoicism, but it is to say that Red Pill aware men should also be aware of the feminine-primary influences informing their expectations of expressing any or no emotion. That may seem like a drawn out way of saying ‘own your emotions’, but it’s my belief that for men to reclaim conventional masculinity it will require them to honestly assess why and how they choose to express or control their emotional states based on their own definition of what is correct from a male perspective, not the female perspective.

Family Integrity

As most of my readers know I have my third book in the Rational Male series coming up soon (very soon, promise). When I began this new book I had an initial working title – The Rational Male, The Red Pill – however, as I progressed I shifted this to Positive Masculinity. I spoke briefly about this in my last two interviews, but there came a point in my compiling, writing and editing where I’d taken a different path in the purpose of the new book. Where I had wanted to explain and / or defend the initial, intersexual, definition of what the term ‘Red Pill‘ has increasingly been distorted away from, I found myself leaning more into expressing ways in which this Red Pill awareness could benefit men’s lives in many ways in and apart from intersexual dynamics.

I’d hit on this in my Red Pill Parenting series from a couple years ago and I knew I wanted to revisit and make that series a prominent part of the book. As it sits now, it accounts for a full quarter of the book’s content, but as I moved into my writing more I decided that the best way to really define ‘The Red Pill” as I know it was to go into the various ways men might benefit from redefining masculinity for themselves in a conventional, Red Pill aware sense.

When I finished the parenting section I realized that I was really laying out general, if not prescriptive, ideas for ways men might better raise their sons and daughters in a feminine-primary social order that’s determined to condition them. My purpose with both the series and section was to equip fathers with Red Pill aware considerations in making their sons and daughters Red Pill aware themselves in order to challenge a world that increasingly wants to convince us that fathers’ influence is superfluous or dangerous.

It was from this point that I’d made a connection; what I was doing was laying out a much-needed reckoning of sorts with regard to what conventional, positive masculinity might mean to future generations of Red Pill aware men. Since my time on the SoSuave forums and the inception of this blog I’ve used the term positive masculinity. I’ve even had a category for it on my side bar since I began too. From the time I began writing I’ve always felt a need to vindicate positive, conventional masculinity and separate it from the deliberately distorted “toxic” masculinity that the Village of the Feminine Imperative would have us believe is endemic today.

In Vulnerability I described this deliberate, but calculated, confusion thusly:

For the greater part of men’s upbringing and socialization they are taught that a conventional masculine identity is in fact a fundamentally male weakness that only women have a unique ‘cure’ for. It’s a widely accepted manosphere fact that over the past 60 or so years, conventional masculinity has become a point of ridicule, an anachronism, and every media form from then to now has made a concerted effort to parody and disqualify that masculinity. Men are portrayed as buffoons for attempting to accomplish female-specific roles, but also as “ridiculous men” for playing the conventional ‘macho’ role of masculinity. In both instances, the problems their inadequate maleness creates are only solved by the application of uniquely female talents and intuition.

Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing.

Women who lack any living experience of the male condition have the calculated temerity to define for men what they should consider manhood – from a feminine-primary context. This is why men’s preconception of vulnerability being a sign of strength is fundamentally flawed. Their concept of vulnerability stems from a feminine pretext.

Masculinity and vulnerability are defined by a female-correct concept of what should best serve the Feminine Imperative. That feminine defined masculinity (tough-guy ridiculousness) feeds the need for defining vulnerability as a strength – roll over, show your belly and capitulate to that feminine definition of masculinity – and the cycle perpetuates itself.

From my very earliest writing I’ve always seen a need to correct this intentionally distorted perception of masculinity with true, evolved, biologically and psychologically inherited aspects of conventional masculinity.

As you may guess this isn’t an easy an task when a Red Pill man must fight against many different varieties of this masculine distortion. We live in an age where any expression of conventional masculinity is conflated with bullying or ‘hyper-masculinity‘. The Blue Pill teaches that inherent strength ought not to be considered “masculine”, if a boy acts in a conventionally masculine way he’s to be sedated, and boys as young as four can decide their gender to the extent that doctors are chemically altering their physiologies to block hormones and transition them into (binary) girls.

To the Blue Pill Village, a definition of masculinity is either something very obscure, subjective and arbitrary or it’s something extraordinarily dangerous, ridiculous and toxic. As I said, even the most marginal displays of anything conventionally masculine are exaggerated as some barbaric hazing ritual or smacks of hyper, over the top displays of machismo. With so much spite arrayed against masculinity, and with such an arbitrary lack of guidance in whatever might pass for a form of masculinity that feminine-primary society might ever find acceptable, is there anything positive about the masculine at all?

There is only one conclusion we can come to after so much writing on the wall – there is a war on conventional masculinity that’s been going on in progressive western societies for generations now.

I found it very hard to describe what exactly a Positive Masculinity  might mean to Red Pill aware men. One of the more insidious ways that Blue Pill conditioning effectively neuters masculinity is in the recruiting of men to effect their own emasculation. Usually these men themselves have had no real guidance in, or embrace of, conventional masculinity precisely because this Blue Pill conditioning has robbed them of maturing into an understanding of it. Blue Pill fathers raise Blue Pill sons and the process repeats, but in that process is the insurance that Blue Pill sons are denied an education in what it means to be a man.

Thus, we get masculine apologists like The Good Man Project who think ‘real’ masculinity can be found in an egalitarian parity between men and women – rather than our evolved, complementary gender roles. This is a manifestation of years of gender-loathing indoctrination. If men would just apologize for their maleness and all the negative aspects that it’s characterized and defined by, all can be made well. These are the Nice Guys who are accused of using their niceness as a ploy to win over women’s sexual favor. These are the male feminists, who never acknowledge that they are, but who still place the “divinity of the feminine” above their own self-loathed gender identity.

Next we get the men who are all made of honorable intent. These are the guys for whom a rational, firm, no-nonsense appeal to a woman’s reason should be enough to not only convince her of his quality, but he expects her attraction to be based on it. These are largely Red Pill aware men who still hope that old books virtue is something they might parlay into some form of attraction with women.

These tend to be the long game kind of men. When a guy is given to aspirations of virtuousness-as-game they’re generally cut from Beta cloth. I’m very familiar with this from my younger days. I too believed in the Boy Scout 12 point law: a scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. In and of themselves these are noble aspirations, and ones that an old books / old social contract rightly endorsed. The problem is that none of them translate into an ounce of arousal for women.

Dean Abbot tweeted this recently:

I would argue that since the rise of our feminine-primary social order and the dissolution of the family in terms of conventional (and evolved) gender roles, even with a family, men have little idea of the impact their influence makes. As I’ve written before, women fundamentally lack the capacity to ever appreciate the sacrifices men make to facilitate a woman’s reality. Few, if any, women understand just how their lives are made possible by the ceaseless efforts men make directly or indirectly to ensure their safety, provisioning, security, ambitions and support. This is only exacerbated in a social order that entitles, coddles and overemphasizes women as the gender whose imperatives define our social context.

Family isn’t what defines men’s virtue or integrity, ideally it ought to be a result of it. However, I tend not to deal in “what ought to be” on this blog, I deal in what is. The fact remains that Virtue is only valued and estimated by men on an individual basis.

“There is no such thing as moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

A lot of well-meaning Red Pill aware men want the old order, old books noble aspects of men to have a reinvigorated worth today. As we make Red Pill awareness applicable in a broader perspective in men’s lives we get to an impasse over what a ‘legitimate’ use of that knowledge ought to be. I believe we get a couple of extreme positions in this respect. I touched on this in The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill:

Game-aware women – the ones who have been forcibly exhausted of all pretense of maintaining the illusion that Game is a lie – feel as though it’s owed to them, in their concession of Game’s reality, that Men should use Game to women’s benefit. Even to the last effort women still cling to the tools of a feminized acculturation;

“Yeah, OK, you got us, Game is really what women want, hypergamy is the law of womankind, but now it’s your responsibility that you use it for the better benefit of society by molding a new breed of improved Betas to accommodate fem-centric monogamy. You owe us our security for having admitted to the grand illusion that’s kept you in thrall for so long.”

It’s an indictment of Game-aware women, and sympathizing men, that they should feel a need to delineate some aspects of Game into good camps (pro woman, pro feminized monogamy) and bad camps (manipulative, polygynous, male-centered). Even in the admission of the truth that Game has enlightened Men of, the feminine imperative still seeks to categorize the application of Game to its own end. That Men might have some means of access to their own sexual strategy is too terrible a Threat; Game must be colored good or bad as it concerns the imperatives of women and a fem-centric societal norm.

I think it’s important that we not allow ourselves to fall into a similar trap with regards delineating what is appropriate use of the Red Pill advantage we have. This isn’t an endorsement for or against ethics in the Red Pill – I’ve already written that post – but it is to emphasize that I think objectivity should precede any pretense to what may or may not be on or off limits in Game or Red Pill awareness.

The Red Pill Moralist

On one end of the spectrum we get men who’ve accepted Red Pill awareness and the truths it presents as a guiding influence to varying degrees. I think it’s a mistake to think the Red Pill moralists are always an ‘Old Married Guy’ who wants to justify his decision to ‘do the right thing’ (no matter how disastrous his personal outcome may be). There are an increasing number of younger idealists who believe the Red Pill aware man has a civic duty to use that awareness in an ethical way that promotes the reinstitution of the conventional family. That may be a noble cause, but I don’t think it should be a straightjacket for Red Pill objectivity.

For the Red Pill Moralist, proper application of the Red Pill is to use that knowledge to vet women for a marriage suitability and a prospective family. With full knowledge of the inherent downsides and liability risks of modern marriage, the moralist takes it as his masculine duty now for the future to still assume the “sucker’s bet”. Needless to say this masculine social-sacrificial position seems more like men running back to the plantation of marriage for unresolved Blue Pill rationales, but I would argue that in a post-Red Pill awareness the belief is that a strong, dominant Red Pill aware Frame control can make the difference to offset the overwhelming risks. The core notion is that reestablishing the conventional family as a man’s civic duty warrants the almost certain prospect of a man’s own detriment.

The moralists have a tendency to disdain or moralize any other application of Red Pill awareness that would facilitate a self-serving or hedonistic purpose. Usually this comes after their living their own lives hedonistically, but also because they were “awakened while married” or just post-horrible divorce. This mirrors a Trad-Con position of encouraging men to “Man-Up” and volunteer for their own fleecing and disdaining the trappings of anything that doesn’t serve women’s imperatives for their own lives – but again as a kind of self-imposed noble duty of masculinity.

This is the flip-side of moralist’s position might be the self-serving use of the Red Pill solely for individual pleasure or gain. This is characterized by the PUA, Game-is-all, guy whose only purpose ends with himself. To the moralist, this use of Red Pill awareness is furthering the destruction of a family archetype that seems to be a solution to societal decay. The Rational Male comment threads are no stranger to the debates of PUAs whose pass or fail, Alpha or Beta benchmark for success rides on what would likely be considered sitting poolside while the world burns.

The last hurdle most men still refuse to get over is that they want women to meet them half way because, despite their Red Pill awareness, they still believe in egalitarian equalism. The most intelligent men still think that women use the same operating system that men do. They don’t, and that’s why these otherwise great men fail with regard to their approach to women. They believe women have the functional capacity to understand men’s motives as if they were any rational being’s motives and agree and comply with them. They simply do not, but unlearning the programming that women should have the capacity to reach some mutually acceptable bargain between men and women’s sexual imperatives is something intelligent men can’t seem to factor.

In Moral to the Manosphere I wrote this:

If you choose to derive your personal value from some esoteric sense of what sex ‘should’ mean, more power to you, but I find it’s a much healthier position to accept a balance between our carnal natures and our higher aspirations. It’s not one or the other. It’s OK to want to fuck just for the sake of fucking – it doesn’t have to be some source of existential meaning. If you think it means something more, then that’s your own subjective perspective – even in marriage there’s ‘maintenance sex’ and there’s memorable, significant sex – but it’s a mistake to think that the totality of the physical act must be of some cosmic significance.

It is as equally unhealthy to convince oneself that self-repressions are virtues as it is to think that unfettered indulgences are freedoms. There is a balance.

While I do think that whatever becomes the Red Pill family unit needs to have some structure similar to that of conventional gender roles, I think it’s important to understand that the new Red Pill ‘family’ will live or die by men’s capacity to accept and apply their awareness of intersexual dynamics. This is one very important difference between an idealized, pre-sexual revolution family and what will evolve in a post-feminist social awareness.

Pickup, Game, really the use of any aspect of Red Pill awareness that isn’t bent to the reconstitution of what I assume would be a Red Pill family unit, is an illegitimate use in the moralist perspective. I think this also goes too far in that Red Pill awareness shouldn’t be limited to what anyone might consider a pro-social purpose for it. Much of what I go into in the parenting section of the new book centers strongly on a man, a father, a husband applying his broader understanding of intersexual dynamics to create a better marriage and family for himself; but I think it needs to be said that all of that Red Pill awareness comes to those men courtesy of the hedonists who wanted to simply crack the code of how to get laid. Too much of either will lead to an imbalance.

Submission

When I was talking with Anthony Johnson last week we came upon a topic I’m not sure I’ve adequately detailed before. That is the topic of submission in a relationship. One of the more hotly debated subjects I hear and read coming from evangelical Christian women is about a wife’s duty to submit herself to her husband. Anyone who’s familiar with my take on the state of the mainstream church and how feminism and feminine-primary doctrines have assimilated it can also understand why the topic of a wife submitting to her husband rubs many of them the wrong way.

My intent here isn’t dig into something that would be more aptly covered by Dalrock’s blog, but I begin my analysis of women submitting to men in a Biblical context because a wife’s submission to her husband, or in other cases a male family member, is something fundamental to Abrahamic religions. In the interests of social control women were simply told that it was God’s will that she submit to her husband and that was that. Granted, there were some stipulations to that submission for the man involved, but essentially the doctrine was one that placed a man and men’s decisions above that of a woman.

Naturally, Christian feminists and the Feminine Imperative the pervades the modern church (even amongst the men) want to dance around or prequalify this ‘commandment’ such as it is. It’s a very testy subject for a pastor or a speaker to consider because it risks alienating women in the church who for the better parts of their lives have been raised on the narrative of Fempowerment and equalism. It’s my belief that this part of doctrine is so troublesome due to the socialized want of an ideal equalism between men and women in the church.

From a male perspective, and for all of the secular influence of feminism in the church, men in the church have largely become men women simply aren’t comfortable submitting to. Issues of the church aside, women in general are ’empowered’ today to believe they can be self-sufficient and self-satisfied without any male influence. When we combine this ideology of female self-sufficiency with the sad (and ridiculed) state of what passes for masculine identity it’s easy to see that the 80% Beta men in society aren’t men any woman’s hindbrain is going to register as someone she can submit herself to.

When a woman submits herself to a man it reinforces the idea that her doing so is imparting him with something of value. Very few women can completely submit themselves to a man’s authority. I overheard a conversation between a mother and her adult daughter once. They were discussing the details about how and why she decided to marry her father. The adult daughter was dating and Mom was offering her matronly wisdom. In the course of the conversation it was apparent to me that although she’d been married for almost 25 years Mom was an Alpha Widow. What she said to her daughter was interesting, she said, “I love your Dad very much, but there are parts of me he will never know.”

What she was saying is that, although her husband was a great guy, he wasn’t the guy who she could totally submit herself to. After 25 years of marriage she knew that he would never be the man to make her feel comfortable in total trust, but also he would never know the sides of her she keeps reserved (usually sexual) because he’s not the kind of man who can bring it out in her.

Much of the modern divorce-porn (Eat, Pray, Love) narrative centers on exactly this dissatisfaction in women. The hope that’s sold to women is that it’s not too late to divorce your boring husband and fly off to the Bahamas to meet the kind of guy whom she can completely submit herself to. Even if it’s never the case that she takes action on the fantasy the popularity of that fantasy speaks volumes about the state of women and their submitting to men.

In the manosphere we have a maxim that states women hunger after a dominant masculine man. It’s a Red Pill tenet that it’s exactly this masculine dominance that women want to submit themselves to. It’s a large part of what contributes to the tingle effect of women’s arousal, but masculine, confident dominance also stimulates the desire to submit herself to a man who will know how to take care of her and any potential kids. Just as there are two primary aspects of women’s Hypergamous filter, so too does masculine dominance attract and arouse both the short term sexual and long term provisioning aspects.

Why do women hate anal?

This was a question I saw posted on the Ask the Red Pill sub-forum on Reddit recently. Of course, you get the troll answers to it, but I stopped or a minute to consider why it was a woman would be so resistant to have anal sex with a guy. Some guys stated that their girlfriends were into it and obviously anal sex is a very popular niche in pornography. So it wasn’t so much that women hate anal as it is they only consider it with certain men.

Anal is about total submission to a man. It is all about his pleasure and her discomfort in the act. If that man isn’t 100% an ideal dominant Alpha to her, her sexual interest is mitigated by order of degrees. Her genuine desire to initiate sex, and her imaginativeness in sex, will be the metric by which you can judge where she perceives your sexual market value to be. It’s my belief that women’s sexual hesitancy with a man is inversely proportional to her subconscious appraisal of his sexual market value.

Women’s hindbrains will not allow them to submit totally to a man it perceives is less than Hypergamously optimal. Anal is one thing, but does she swallow, is she averse to your fluids (sperm and saliva), does she initiate, does she flirt with you, or is sex something you have to negotiate, make appeals to her comfort (mental satisfaction) or some non-sexual qualification? I got into this topic in Saving the Best, but was she a wild and fun lay back in her college days yet lack-luster in bed with her husband?

Submission by a woman to a man is a reflection of her hindbrain acknowledgement of that man’s SMV. I also explored this in detail in SMV Ratios & Attachment. The greater the disparity in SMV between a couple the more or less likely a woman is to partially or totally submit herself to him. In a modern equalist perspective men and women are conditioned to believe that all-is-one and men and women are no greater or lesser than another in all respects. The idea is that an SMV ratio of 1:1 makes for an ideal relationship. Naturally, I disagree with that assessment, but what equalists don’t like to consider is that there are categoric differences between men and women and one of those differences is that women want to submit to a worthy man’s direction and influence. This is an intrinsic gender difference that not only defines an individual personal relationship between women, but also on a larger societal scale. There are many sociological studies of “egalitarian” cultures where the populations still opt for gender normative roles. And even in sexually fluid relationships there is always a dominant and submissive partner.

It’s my belief that women can instinctively determine a man’s SMV within moments of meeting him. There’s an old saying that a woman knows within five minutes of meeting a guy if she’ll sleep with him. I disagree. I would say that a woman knows if she wont sleep with a man within five minutes of meeting him. That’s the key. Preselection and some other variables help, but her hindbrain knows the external cues and triggers. The more a man must sell himself as a potential sex partner is inversely related to a woman’s hindbrains instinctual uncertainty of his potential to satisfy her Hypergamy. In a nutshell, this is how women’s sexual filtering processes work in sexual selection.

Nature & Nurture

A man’s value to a woman is derived from both an evolved sensitivity to arousal cues, but is also influenced by her acculturation to perceive a man as attractive. Evolved cues are generally what women’s mental firmware make them physically respond to in arousal. It bears repeating here that arousal is not the same thing as attraction. The two sides of Hypergamy are looking for different (sometimes conflicting) aspects in a man. The first is short-term sexual, good breeding potential in a man. Ovulatory shift, visceral arousal and sexual urgency is what defines this side of Hypergamy. Submission comes easy for the right candidate in this sense, and it’s submission born of necessity. If a sexual partner’s investment is something she knows will be fleeting, there’s less to be concerned with in submitting to him and enjoying the experience.

On the other hand, there is also a learned aspect to attraction. There are learned social cues, status markers, cultural cues that imply a good potential for provisioning and parental investment. All this builds up to the attraction side of Hypergamy. For years the manosphere has raised awareness of the fact that women’s provisional side of Hypergamy is largely accounted for by social influences, a larger educational base, and programs that essential transfer men’s resources to women. We can add to this the break down of the conventional family and the disenfranchisement of men’s participation in it while still making them accountable to it and we can see how women’s primary focus in Hypergamy leans heavily to the side of short-term breeding opportunities (Alpha Fucks).

As such the short-term necessity for submission becomes something a woman sexualizes and conflates with that side of Hypergamy. There’s been an ongoing debate for years now about how a man earning less than his spouse is a recipe for divorce. Even though women have their provisioning needs met in various ways, the want, the expectation, is that a man’s long-term value is directly connected to his earnings, status and to a lesser degree his education. Since Hypergamy always seeks a better-than arrangement with regards to SMV, a woman’s capacity to submit herself to a man is bound by what she believes is her better-than due. That isn’t to say a man who excels in the Alpha Fucks side of things can’t maintain a woman’s complete submission to him. Good sex is still good sex, and it’s a strong glue for an otherwise imbalanced relationship, but when a woman bemoans the lack of any ‘good’ men to marry her, it’s this expectation by which she judges an acceptable man. Is he someone she can submit to.

Although the equalist boilerplate would have us believe that house-husbands are sexy and perfectly viable, the stats show that women don’t want to submit themselves to a man who earns less than her, is less educated and whose status is below what she believes her own is. If that sounds like a power struggle you’re not to far off. Equalism teaches women to resist submitting themselves, much less ever doing anything for men. Even the word “submission” sounds like slavery, but in spite of all that there is a root level desire to willingly submit themselves to a worthy man. Romance literature is rife with exactly this submission as its main formula.

“Hell Yes!”

When I was speaking with Anthony last week I answered a question regarding how men might determine the genuine desire of women they’re engaging. I mentioned the “Hell yes!” dynamic as one way. I believe it was Mark Manson who said whenever you propose a date or a drink or some other interaction with a woman the answer you’re wanting to hear from her is “Hell yes!” Whatever the proposition you make with a woman you want her to say “Hell yes I do!” Unsolicited enthusiasm is a very good sign from a woman, and one that can help you determine her genuine desire as well as her capacity to submit to you.

When you get this response from a woman it feels like it’s magic. It’s active anticipation and a real drive to submit. When I go into issues that deal with a man maintaining Frame much of that comes from a woman’s genuine desire to submit to that man’s authority. A woman’s got to submit in order to enter a man’s reality.

If we use the “Hell yes” response as the upper end of a woman’s interest, what follows from there is, by order of degrees, lesser interest. From the “Hell yes” on down any hesitancy on a woman’s part is lesser capacity to submit, all down to “Hell no”. It’s those in between degrees of interest that trip men up. They make poor decisions due to a woman’s Luke-warm desire. They keep driving at spiking interest, calibrating and then reassessing a woman that had only marginal desire for them. In itself this isn’t a bad thing, most PUA Game centers on this process, but it all has a purpose of arriving at a woman’s submission to Frame.

 

We’ll Do It Live – 21 Convention

 

I did about a two and a half hour interview with Anthony Johnson today. Anthony is the organizer of the 21 Convention and is really a great guy who’s unafraid to get into the nuts and bolts of the Red Pill. We covered a lot of topics and questions in this talk so rather than give you an outline I’ll just say listen here or download (available on iTunes soon).

Let me know what you think. I’ll be covering the questions I didn’t get to in a forthcoming post.

Blue Pill Conditioning and Equalism

Rational reader Playdontpay had a very poignant comment in last week’s thread:

I’ll stick with the “boner test”. Women are only playthings anyway!
Do I enjoy fucking her? After sex is she good feminine company? This is all I need to know, if shit goes sideways I’ll just get another one.

She’s only going to lie and present a fictional version of herself based on what she thinks you’re looking for anyways. Women don’t do real self improvement they just convince themselves that they already are “better” because if she can’t convince herself it will be more difficult for her to sell it to you.

She will rewrite her sexual history and “because she’s a different person now”, well, that’s the way she has always been. Stop taking them so seriously, how are you going to vet a Machiavellian liar that’s been learning game from the age of 12?

His perspective on women is exactly why I tell men to avoid marriage altogether even though I’ve had a fantastic marriage myself for over 20 years. A lot of my haters, and more than a few supporters often get hung up on this.

Most of the criticism I get for writing what I do and still maintaining a good relationship with Mrs. T comes from men who cannot wrap their heads around the very simple, accepted truths described in this approach towards women. They think there must be something more to it. They think in their preconditioned equalist mindset that women are wired for the same introspection and development that men are. So, naturally, the easy presumption is that any self respecting woman would never put up with a Red Pill man’s outlook and approach, because they believe the blank slate lie.

If an egalitarian ideal between men and women were tenable I’d completely agree, but it isn’t. So, in order to protect their ego investments, the rationale follows that any woman who falls for a Red Pill man must, by definition, be lacking in self esteem, self respect, low quality, etc. They believe that because anything else destroys their equalist fantasy world. This stems from a much deeper, root level, ego-investment in egalitarianism and I think this is a perspective a lot of Red Pill aware men have a tough time with to say nothing of men still plugged into the Blue Pill world view.

If you’ve read me for any length of time you’ll know I’m rarely prescriptive in my writing. I’ve always been of the belief that men need to find ways to utilize Red Pill awareness of intersexual dynamics for themselves on an individual basis. However, I will say that there are certain general aspects of that awareness and how to put it into something applicable in a man’s life that seem self-evident to me. First and foremost among these generalities is that in killing your inner Beta and disabusing oneself of his Blue Pill conditioning, a man needs to understand that the foundational belief that informed and defined his Blue Pill existence is equalism. The presumption that an idealized, blank-slate egalitarian state between the sexes is both possible and desirable informs all Blue Pill beliefs that follow it.

This equalist presumption often forms the mental point of origin for most Blue Pill men. Ostensibly, this mental prioritization of some equal state between the sexes is what most Blue Pill guys will tell you attracts women. This notion is also fundamental to Blue Pill guys’ drive for identifying their own psyches with the feminine and forms the basis of Beta Game.

Transitioning this early equalist ideology to a sexual strategy is a simple, deductive process for men. Little boys are raised on feminine primacy memes and the narrative of Fempowerment, all the while being conditioned to believe that, beyond some insignificant biology, boys and girls are identical beings with the same potential and proficiencies. It’s gotten to the point where this process is normalized and pushed to the backgrounds of most people’s consciousness. We’ll raise boys in feminine-primary educational standards, we’ll teach them they’re the same as girls, but we’ll also teach them they’re defective for not aligning themselves with girls, for not getting in touch with their feminine sides.

I’m fleshing this process out a bit here because unlearning this equalist’s mental point of origin is a key transition in a man’s unplugging. Often the hardest part of killing the Beta and accepting Red Pill awareness is replacing equalism with oneself as a mental point of origin. This is a hard step for most guys because it requires he shift his opinion of himself and risk being called a selfish asshole. Remember, anything that would disagree with or challenge the idea of intersexual egalitarianism will always be equated with misogyny, intolerance, tyranny, etc. Questioning the validity of equalism (however it’s applied) will always be countered with a  binary extreme.

This is exactly why Playdontpay’s comment appears so outrageous and self-indulgent to anyone not Red Pill aware. HIs pragmatism will be conflated with anger.

Interghangeability

Anonymous Reader posits:

Rollo
…men who cannot wrap their heads around the very simple, accepted truths you describe about your approach towards women. They think there must be something more to it.

Often because they’ve been told since they were toddlers that there is “more to it”, also known as the Blue Pill.

They think in their preconditioned equalist mindset that women are wired for the same introspection and development that men are.

Exactly so and very important. The feminist fallacy of “interchangeable” leads to this. The mental habit some men have of projecting themselves onto others, believing “Well, I’m like this, so everyone else must be also” leads to this. It is extremely frustrating to encounter female behavior that is so obviously stupid it is like catching someone peeing in the kitchen sink.

Many betaized men will put up with bad behavior for far too long, then have a major blowout of anger and expect behavioral change. That doesn’t work with toddlers or dogs or women. Constant, low key, correction does work. Neuroplasticity points to a “why”; daily reiteration of a desired habit works better than once per week, etc.

It’s important to recognize the difference between real introspection and brooding or ruminating, too. Some women will brood over wrongs done but not connect that up with their own behavior. That’s not introspection. That’s not “failure analysis”. That’s rewiring neural pathways to perpetual resentment.

It is extremely difficult for an equalist, betaized man to accept the fact that women want and need to be dominated, because they for sure would hate and resent that. It is even worse for the churchgoing men, because the equalist chant from the conservative feminists in churches is almost always slathered with a layer of “sisterly love”.

What Anon is driving at here is my second point in Blue Pill and Red Pill men understanding the depth of their conditioning. Equalism and feminism depend on interchangeability. In order for little girls to grow up to be anything they want to be there must be an agreed upon “level playing field” from a socio-sexual point of view. This means that if little girls want to grow up to become football players and little boys want to grow up to be prima ballerinas there (at least ostensibly) must be an agreed upon equalist environment in which this can happen.

The egalitarian ideal the Blue Pill conditions us to believe is possible presumes there is a mutually agreeable state of intersexual equality. In reality this state is entirely contradictory to our evolved sexual strategies and our biological realities, but in theory, an egalitarian ideal can only exist in an environment that is deemed equal by both men and women. If such a state were possible, if evolved influences of our biological realities for both sexes were non-factors, then this state would also presume a mutual interchangeability between the sexes.

The combination of our equalist conditioning and this interchangeability is the root of much of the dysfunction we see between men and women today. Because we are taught all-is-one, because we presume we’re all the same except for the plumbing, there is also a presumption of uniformity of purpose between the sexes. Equalism is really just the religion of the Feminine Imperative, but it hides behind this feminine-primary advertising that men and women are playing by a mutually agreed upon set of rules, striving for mutually agreed (Blue Pill) goals and all in spite of our natural predilection or any competitiveness. No other social condition in the history of mankind could place women in a more socially controlling position than Hypergamy excused by equalism.

In such a state women can mandate their unilateral control over Hypergamy, but there is one downside – men expect a mutual interchangeability. Blue Pill men actually expect women to play by that mutuality of purpose. That’s the interchange. Women will still ensure that optimizing Hypergamy is the prime directive, and they’ll hide behind equalism to keep men in check and absolve themselves of the worst of their predations in doing so, but men still expect women to feel as men do. Blue Pill men believe that women can and will love them in an idealized way that runs contrary to their Hypergamous opportunism. Why? Because they were conditioned to believe, from a very early age, that interchangeability exists between men and women.

The difference between men and women’s concepts of love is a prime example of this equalist interchangeability fallacy. Men’s concept of love is rooted in idealism; love for the sake of love. This is a result of men’s outward looking idealism and existential experience being male. Women’s concept of love is rooted in opportunism. This is a result of natural solipsism and the need to optimize Hypergamy. It is intrinsic and inward looking and based on security and ensuring survival. When we introduce a condition of egalitarian equalism to men and women only one of these concepts can be the mutually correct concept. Both can exist in a natural state of complementarity between the sexes, but if all-is-one, there can only be one concept of love that decides for both sexes.

The confusion Blue Pill men have is presuming that men’s idealistic concept is the mutually accepted one. This then wars with women’s natural opportunistic concept; and by extension her intrinsic need to optimize Hypergamy. Of course, I’m under no illusion that equalism is anything more than a social utility to ensure a feminine-primary social order, but this is one illustration of how deeply conditioned equalism is what a majority of men base their intersexual understandings on.

I see this conditioning persist even amongst men I would otherwise think had a firm grasp of Red Pill awareness. As I said, they think in their preconditioned equalist mindset that women are wired for the same introspection and development that men are. They still want to hope in that Blue Pill goal of interchangeability. For all of the Red Pill and self awareness I could credit men of the MRM with, they still cling to this equalist mindset. This Blue Pill ideal of true equality between the sexes ultimately works against their best intentions since it is women who are more perfectly placed to take advantage of this ‘equality’. Once again, you will never achieve Blue Pill idealistic goals with Red Pill awareness. Most men are taught that those Blue Pill goals are worthwhile, but they are carrots proffered by the same builders of the cart who hope to get the mule to pull it.

I have read and heard the words of many otherwise brilliant, otherwise Red Pill aware men who simply cannot unlearn the falsehoods of egalitarian equalism. Nothing’s more frustrating to me than to hear a guy I have a deep respect for parrot back some meme or catchphrase of a feminine-operative social convention, or what he thinks is a funny, gender-deprecating quip that belies his ego-investment in the same equalism he just spent a book’s worth of research to debunk. I see brilliant men like Dr. Jordan Peterson, Dr. Warren Farrell or Steven Pinker, who I would hold up as guys who have a lot figured out, still rattle off the same memes I would expect to see from equalists on Facebook. I find it the height of irony that the same men who would systematically destroy the idea of the blank slate still pander to the hopes and goals of the equalists who built those goals based on a blank slate ideology.

Understanding how your prison is constructed, how it works, who your jailers are, is not the same as understanding how to escape it. It’s interesting how refined our Red Pill Lenses can become yet we still never drill down to the root beliefs that still keep us ignorantly hopeful. It’s time we embrace an ideology of true complementarity between men and women. It’s time we accept that we are not equal and in some circumstances that puts men and women at respective advantages and disadvantages based on what any challenge poses to us. It’s time we threw away the Blue Pill goals that equalism has taught us are ‘correct’ and replace them with realistic ones founded on Red Pill awareness.

Teaching Slaves to Read

Ehintellect had a very enlightening comment in last week’s thread. I’ve edited it for relevant content, but you can read the whole thing here. This touched on an essay topic I’ve been considering since my conversation with Ed Latimore and Mark Baxter:

[I] was at a home party a few years back. Highly successful surgeons, wives, husbands; quickly devolved into quarters, college games. 

My wife loves the parties as she gets compliments and conversation she’d otherwise not get. She’s not plugged into that crowd, and I assume doesn’t want to. In a way, that’s fortunate. There is tremendous value in my marriage, parenting. I’m astonished at the change.

Mrs. Eh’s shit tests continue, but are a whole different breed. Comfort, mostly, and usually because I don’t calibrate enough. Easily dealt with, I’m astonished at the dynamic. I was bar rail with wife, and my erstwhile suicidal, now RP, TRM acquaintance called asking me to celebrate his 2 (!) plate spinning / back at school / ”I know your trick, EhIntellect!” / ”Now I understand the true nature of women.” / “My life has never been better.” life. I was celebrating on the phone with him. Well, yeah, after the 5-10 minute chat, Mrs. Eh. wasn’t too pleased. She started to test about me treating her as a “whore” and my daughter shabbily.

Still upbeat, I kissed her forehead and whispered, “You’re no whore. You’re MY whore.” Well, that didn’t work as intended, she sulked, I got up and said let’s go. Nope she sat and I, dropping her jacket on my chair, wordlessly left out the back. The bar waitress walked her out by the arm 3 minutes later.

I’d have never been able to do that without you guys.

I had a karaoke night planned, for me, so kept on. In a way I “bounced” her to another venue, ran with her happily sprinting with me to the new pub. It’s like the dust up never happened, she was crazy sexual for the rest of the night. That’s what we’re to do right? Spike that test! I wanted to sing, and raised the roof that night. Did I reinforce bad behavior? IMO, no. The test is to be passed, my burden of performance, she holds me tighter, begs me for affection as never before. Sex is plentiful. More frame for me, no snark, much laughter.

Reader SJF comments next:

Your wife’s response to overhearing your conversation is normal operating procedure for women. I’ve been through this scenario and could shed some more light on it.

Sure it is a shit test. Sure it is a comfort test. Doesn’t matter. It’s not about passing a shit test. It’s about using it to your advantage. “You’re no whore. You’re MY whore” was an Agree and Amplify response to the test. Not the best way to accomplish your goals. Your goals here were to mentor your buddy. Not to game your wife–you already have that in hand 

What this situation calls for is to conduct your discussions with men in fight club in private.

What’s going on with your wife in this situation is and INDIGNATION of the SISTERHOOD scenario. (How fucking dare you help another man to implement his strategy to compromise the strategy of the Sisterhood? The Sisterhood’s Social Conventions and their Feminine Imperatives to implement their strategy are more important in a Feminine Supreme Society than you buddy gaining agency).

Your wife on behalf of her and your daughter is affronted by you giving him tactics. (She figures on your part this is you giving her and your daughter and indignity because you are giving this: insult, offend, mortify, provoke, pique, wound, hurt to the Sisterhood Strategy and Imperatives.) You are poking the mother of your children in the ribs with riposte. She protests. She figures it’s not fucking fair.

So this talking red pill to red pill with guys is best kept off the grid and out of sight and earshot.
Now keep in mind this is not abdicating frame any more than a Machiavellian strategist is embarrassed by his tactics being kept secret.

Tyler Durden in fight club would not agree about using overt, rather than covert discussions about blowing up the edifices (buildings, social conventions and imperatives) in society to achieve ends.

And finally Novaseeker adds this most salient comment:

“You should know this stuff, but you shouldn’t know this stuff, if it were up to the Sisterhood. You guys are taking away OUR POWER and I’m going to shit test you about that with some INDIGNATION.”

Yes, it’s because it violates the “Just Get It” principle. It’s fine if a man “just gets it”. It’s not fine if a man has to learn it in order to get it, because in the latter case there is a concern that he doesn’t actually really “get it”, because he isn’t a man who “just gets it”.

More fundamentally, they do not trust themselves to be able to tell the difference between a man who “just gets it” and man who has learned from other men how to “get it”, and they fundamentally do want to distinguish between the two types of men because that is a critical Alpha filter. What you’re doing is sabotaging their filter, which of course will be unwelcome, never mind that they will generally be just as satisfied with a man who learns to get it as they would with a man who just gets it, in practice (as long as the former guy maintains frame and so on properly). So, yes, don’t talk about fight club outside fight club and all that.

Women want a man who ‘just gets it’ but they despise a man who has to be told how to ‘get it’.

This is the first law of the Sisterhood, a man who must be told how to be a man, how to be dominant in his dealings with women, or fluidly, naturally be the Alpha who is in control of his environment(s) isn’t the man for her. If masculinity or the value of social dominance had to be explained to him, he had to make a conscious effort to act contrary to what his ‘true’ nature would otherwise be for women.

Hypergamy always seeks the better-than-deserved situation with men. In the past I’ve discussed how the nature of Hypergamy is such that it cannot wait for a man to realize his potential. Hypergamy looks for the ‘sure thing’. This is why women prefer the romantic attentions (at least as far as long term prospects go) of men who are 5 – 7 years or older than themselves. On a limbic level, women are aware that men’s accrual of sexual market value takes much longer than for women. Men who would be intimately acceptable are the men who are already made-men. There is no (or certainly less) uncertainty for her Hypergamous doubt to resolve for her when that man possesses SMP equity that time has made of him. This is also the root reason women are attracted to men who naturally, effortlessly, display higher value and Amused Mastery, as well as men for whom social proof is socially and organically confirmed for her.

Women’s sexual agency –their only true commodity value to men – is perishable. This then is the nature of women’s very intimate relationship with the Wall; they know on a hindbrain, limbic level and from a very early age that their sexual agency rises quickly and burns out fast. Their peak competitive years in the sexual marketplace (SMP) spans only 10-12 years at best before their younger sisters replace them in the SMP. They know that there will come a point that their capacity to compete in the SMP will diminish.

Every cosmetic ever created, every plastic surgery or implant devised (by men) every fashion trend or clothing style for women has been created with the express purpose of both making a woman appear younger than her actual age and/or to convince her that her sexual agency has an indefinite shelf life. Every social convention for women the Feminine Imperative has ever devised is rooted in the latent purpose of convincing women that their sexual market value ought to be based on some esoteric or intrinsic quality (rather than the biological and evolutionary reality) once they’ve moved past the age of being able to effectively compete intrasexually with their sisters.

They are conditioned to believe the fault in ‘unrealistic beauty standards’ is due to the horrific sexual objectification of men’s base (biological) natures and/or the social constructivist narrative that would have them believe it’s a nebulous ‘society’s’ fault that they are unable to consolidate their Hypergamy once the expiration date for their sexual market value has passed and their younger sisters outcompete them.

Id vs. Ego

On a subconscious level this is the internal conflict women fight within themselves. The desires of their Ids war with the dictates of what Hypergamy demands of them, knowing all the while that their capacity to consolidate on it is limited to a very short window in their lifetimes. Women’s Egos are then fed on the narrative of the Feminine Imperative that the worries of their Ids, and the crushing doubts that Hypergamy biologically wires into women, are unfounded and they have an almost indefinite timeframe in which to consolidate on the ‘perfect guy’ ; The guy who will satisfy both the Alpha Fucks sexual excitement of Hypergamy with the stable, comforting, dependable security the Beta Bucks side of Hypergamy needs for her long term security. A woman’s Id knows this is a lie, but her Ego is convinced she can wait out her Party Years at least to sample as many ‘bad boys, wrong boys, commitment-phobic boys’ as the Sheryl Sandberg plan for Hypergamy has convinced her Ego she has the time to work her way through.

A woman’s Id is having none of it, beyond enjoying the sexual pleasures of the Alpha men she prefers in her peak sexual market value (SMV) years. Hypergamy demands the complete package, the already-made man. The guy for whom she’s so certain will be the best of both worlds (despite the unbeliveability of it) that it quells her Hypergamous doubt. On a rudimentary level a woman’s Id knows she deserves a better-than-warranted situation with regard to her Hypergamy; it’s the only situation that will ever be truly satisfying to her. Only a man who rates 1-2 degrees above what she feels her own SMV merits (however unrealistic that’s become to her) will be the man she can truly submit herself to.

This is what her Id knows. On some level of consciousness it knows she is choosing a life in which she can either submit herself and entrust her life, body and soul to the long term security of a deserving man (one who rates a full to two steps above her own self-impression), or she will resign herself to her own ‘independence’ and self-reliance with respect to long term security in a life with a man who doesn’t “deserve her” and who she will never submit herself to.

There are many variables that interfere with a woman making this consolidation in her younger years, but the fact remains, the longer a woman delays consolidating on the guy she could comfortably submit herself to the less likely she is to actually do so; and the more likely she is to resign herself to insisting on her own Frame to supply the security she would otherwise get from a man she could’ve submitted herself to.

This is why we see a majority of older women – women who’ve cycled out of the SMP – falling back on the tropes of the Strong Independent Woman® narrative. The truth is they are unlikely to ever lockdown the prefect guy with whom they could comfortably submit to. This is also compounded by her Hypergamous doubt and long term security having to be self-provisioned for a longer and longer period of time. A never-married 40 year old woman will likely have been so necessitous in her own provisioning that she will never allow herself to submit to any man’s Frames for the remainder of her life.

All of this interpersonal back and forth revolves around women’s capacity to attract a suitable man while simultaneously filtering for men’s requisite qualities to satisfy the dual nature of Hypergamy. From an evolutionary perspective, women’s breeding potential cannot afford to be tricked or deceived into her consolidating on a less than optimal man. That’s the paradox of Hypergamy and the prime reason women seek pre-made man (or a man with such overwhelming potential it satisfies Hypergamy). So important is this filtering mechanism that it evolved to be a part of women’s neurological firmware – it’s baked in.

In a larger respect, this filtering is part of the prime directive amongst the collective social influence of the Sisterhood. Women want, and expect, a default, and completely honest, evaluation of a man’s intimate potential in satisfying Hypergamy from her peers as well as the larger social collective of women. Anything that confounds or deliberately confuses the veracity of this Hypergamous assessment about a guy is equitable with deliberately attempting to sabotage a woman’s life. Accurate evaluation of a man’s Hypergamous potential is the highest order for the Sisterhood.

Teaching Slaves to Read

In my interview with Ed Latimore we discussed exactly this dynamic and what Ed said was profound. I paraphrase him here, but the sentiment was, “Men learning Game, men teaching men about the intrinsic psychological and biological natures of women, men making other men Red Pill aware, is like teaching slaves to read in the time of slavery.”

Men becoming aware of the nature of women is a Threat; and that threat is primarily dangerous because it deliberately confounds women’s accurate assessment of a man’s true value in satisfying her Hypergamous doubt. Educating men about Game, about Red Pill awareness, must be prevented on both a personal level and a sociological level if women are to maintain a feminine-primary, feminine-correct and feminine-dominant social order. Thus, we encounter the social situations that Ehintellect and SJF describe in the above comments.

This reminds me of a story I read on the Red Pill Reddit forum about a guy who’s girlfriend discovered my book he’d been reading. She began picking through various sections and, expectedly, got really pissed off at the chapters on SMV (the chart in particular). They both discussed the parts she’d read and she admitted she wanted to read the whole thing, but from what they talked about she confessed that there wasn’t really anything she disagreed with. Her words were, “You men shouldn’t know this stuff!

It wasn’t that she was irritated by the truth in those sections of the book, but rather, her concern was that men might become aware of women’s sexual strategies as laid bare by the SMV sections and chart. Essentially, men teaching men to become Red Pill aware, to unplug them from the Matrix is anathema to women’s long term sexual strategy. Teaching men to Just Get It is a deliberate effort to bypass women’s subconscious and overt filtering processes to evaluate a man’s Hypergamous value.

Furthermore, Red Pill aware men represent an existential threat to women unilaterally making Hypergamous decisions for their lives – a unilateral power women have taken for granted since the unfettering of Hypergamy in the Sexual Revolution – and thus represent a threat to their making a less than optimal choice. Men becoming Red Pill aware, in effect, prioritizes men’s control over the Hypergamous process. That may be only by order of degree, and subjective to men’s real grasp of the Red Pill and their capacity to implement it, but the fear remains. Even a nominal control or increase in control of men over the Hypergamous process must be criminalized, marginalized or shamed to eliminate the threat that a man might convincingly misrepresent himself for a woman’s Hypergamous approval.

This is interesting in light of women’s hubris of embracing Open Hypergamy on a societal, cultural level. It’s not that men would be aware of women’s Hypergamous sexual strategies – this they triumphantly flaunt in very public ways – it’s that men would collude together to deliberately exploit that knowledge to wrest some marginal control over women’s sexual selection process.

Novaseeker’s assessment is correct, this convincing deception centers on men teaching men to passably appear to, if not actually, Just Get It. There’s a maxim in the manosphere that states women are not interested in how a man becomes a man. They are uninterested in the process of a man becoming anything, just that he is. If there is one thing Hypergamy demands to satisfy its inherent doubts is that men be genuine. How they became ‘genuine’ is irrelevant to women, just that they are genuine is enough. This is the conflict between women’s Ids and Egos – that a man might appear to be genuine in his quality is enough, yet not enough. 

The First Female President®

As a matter of policy I’ve always kept this blog’s topics about intersexual dynamics and left direct issues of politics, religion, economics, race, etc. to other blogs. The only time I cross into these issues is when they relate to inter (or intra) sexual dynamics, and usually when I do it makes for some heated discussions about whatever ideology seems to be the most “Red Pill”. In these circumstances I’ve learned (the hard way) that it’s wise to wait and reserve my opinions until all the cards have hit table. With respect to the gender-social landscape of a Trump presidency I think that time might be now.

If you’ve listened to any of my recent interviews over the last year (and American campaign cycle) you’ll understand my take on how I believe Red Pill issues have colored the last campaign. With the first real shot of a female president on the table I could hardly not be asked about what I expected. If you follow me on Twitter you’ll also know I made a prediction that it would be Red Pill issues, from the intersexual perspective, that would be a defining catalyst of the campaign. I was not disappointed.

While I’ve never been an ardent Trump supporter, my political decisions were made for me with the campaign of Hillary Clinton being his opposition. I didn’t vote for Trump, I voted against Hillary, and I don’t think I was alone in that assessment. As far as I’m concerned the jury’s still out on a Trump presidency, so I’ll reserve my skepticism, but one thing I am eminently thankful for is that Hillary was denied the presidency. From a socio-sexual standpoint, and being a Red Pill writer for some time, my analysis of this being a campaign rooted in Red Pill dynamics, those the manosphere has been sussing out for going on 15 years, centered on the fact that Hillary was the Feminine Imperative’s best hope for the First Female President®. I think it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that it wasn’t Hillary herself who was running, but the ideal of the first real hope for a woman in the White House.

As a long-time Red Pill author, the feminine-primacy narrative in her campaign was blatantly obvious to me. Even ‘Obama-the-feminist’ carried the Fempowerment water for her. That was to be expected, but what I found equally predictable was the pro-woman narrative using many of the Social Conventions I’ve detailed for a decade now. Naturally, there were the feminist tropes, but the feminine-primary ‘Village’ couldn’t just pander to women, it needed some outreach to men. So, the predictable appeals to “real manhood”, the Male Catch 22 and the ever-present shaming of conventional masculinity had to follow. Men needed to declare, “I’m with Her”. It was a ham-fisted hope that male Hillary supporters would ostracize other men into supporting her – or at least they might self-police men’s vocal opposition to her.

Again, as expected from the Feminine Imperative, any dissent, any criticism, any doubt or about Hillary (no matter the issue debated) was tantamount to misogyny. This has been the spoken and unspoken presumption of any man who might be critical of anything pro-female for sometime now, but the Bitter Misogynist narrative needed some freshening up to remind women and men about their duty as responsible members of a feminine-primary social order to elect the First Female President®. This played out on a larger scale in the Clinton campaign’s late-game efforts to dig up the endless words Trump might’ve said that proved his misogyny. However, it didn’t matter what Trump did or didn’t say; the fact that any man would oppose the First Female President® made him a misogynist by default.

He versus Her

From my Red Pill perspective, the campaign wasn’t about Hillary and Trump, it was about the Feminine Imperative vs. conventional masculinity. I believe the feminine-primary hope was to definitively defeat all vestiges, all semblances, of conventional masculinity. I’ve written on numerous occasions about feminine-primacy’s efforts to remove men from all aspects of our collective thought, but a Hillary presidency was to be a decisive victory over the mythical Patriarchy and the symbolic defeat of all that is men. Hillary and Trump were mere caricatures, effigies, placeholding representative of the ridiculous extremes we’re meant to presume of women vs. men – Trump, the living image of Patriarchy and Misogyny, Hillary, the pinnacle of exaggerated female empowerment that’s been culminating since the time of the suffragettes.

It was the school yard, boys-against-girls, battle of the sexes writ large on a geopolitical scale, and the end-game victory of the First Female President® was all but a given certainty. I will admit myself, I thought Hillary had it in the bag. That’s what anyone plugged into the narrative was certain above all doubt would happen. She was supposed to win. On countless female-supremacist blogs the mantra was “Its Her turn” – it wasn’t specifically Hillary’s turn, it was Her turn, it was women’s turn. That was the foregone conclusion and anyone could see it. Even the polls who we’d later wonder “how could they have gotten it so wrong?”, even they just knew it was “her turn”. If you believed TrumpHis‘ would win it was just a sign of your stupidity in the face of such overwhelming surety.

In fact, such was the surety of the First Female President® that companies, social organizations, advertising agencies, publications of every ideological stripe, all banked on Her winning the White House – and all prepared to be ready to welcome the First Female President®. With the surety of a woman president came the surety of an ushering in of a new Era of the Woman. It was simple pragmatism to prepare well in advance for what everyone was convinced would be the zeitgeist of the next 4 (and likely 8) years of the First Female President®. Him winning was inconceivable, so it made sense to get advertising, commercials, corporate policies, special events, preliminary legislation, etc. all in readiness and in line with the coming Era of the Woman. The smart money was ‘being on the right side of history’, especially given the certainty of it and the idiocy you’d be accused of for betting against it.

But then Election Day came, and with it came the inconceivable, the unbelievable. ‘He‘ won, not ‘Her‘.

We were then treated to the tearful videos of young women in disbelief, sure that their efforts to elect Her were wasted and the certainty of their empowerment left in doubt. Their part in ‘history in the making’ was to be denied.

We had the hurriedly written concession speech only after a day or so, such was the hubris there was no need to write a ‘concession’ speech prior. Then came the existential cries of soul-destroying anguish when He was sworn in. And we were introduced to protests of a hostility never before exhibited by the followers of Her. His character was no longer about misogyny so much as it was converted to fascism. A vote for Him was considered a hate-crime, mirroring much of the same fluidity and ambiguity applied to the definitions of ‘rape’ and ‘consent’, before He came along.

With the inconceivable Trump presidency those pre-bought ad campaigns, those forward-thinking companies had to switch the narrative from a feminine-supremacism victory lap to one of ‘we shall overcome’ in spite of the same old sexism we’re supposed to presume is lurking under every male CEO’s desk. You can see this in stark contrast when you look at any of the multi-million dollar Super Bowl commercial spots that are shot a year well in advance of their air-time date. Audi’s commercial being the most glaringly evident of the presupposition of a woman president.

Turning Over Stones

What His victory has really exposed for us as a society is a condition of feminine-primacy I have been writing about for well on 14 years now. When I wrote Fem-Centrism and The Feminine Reality I was attempting to bring to light the ways in which we exist in a feminine-primary social order. I caught a lot of flack for those posts back in the day, but they’ve served as a keystone understanding for many of the social paradigms and the intents of feminization efforts I’ve written about over the years. For several generation we’ve been conditioned to believe “it’s a man’s world” and we accept notions of the evil Patriarchy to be a settled truth. Along comes Rollo Tomassi and he turns over the stones to reveal that it is in fact a feminine-primary social order men serve in – gynocentrism, gynocracy, misandry – and all pretense of ‘Patriarchy’ is really part of one more operative social convention to sell men and women on the idea of female victimhood.

All of that changed on Election Day, 2016. All of the preplanned victory lap celebrations, all the feminist triumphal marches scheduled to follow in the wake of the First Female President®, were converted to protests marches, riots, violence and demonstrations against the prospect that He might potentially remove Her rights. All of the pretense of our feminine-centric, feminine-primary social order being a social undercurrent has been, and will be tossed to the wind now. The Empress has no clothes (often literally), and all she wears is a knitted pink-pussy hat; the new uniform of female supremacism. In the span of one election cycle virtually every premise I asserted about the validity of the Feminine Imperative has been confirmed. But moreover, that imperative, so angered by the denial of the First Female President®, is comfortable in its existence being laid bare.

For years I’ve addressed the comfort women now have in openly acknowledging their Hypergamy. Open Hypergamy and Open Cuckoldry are not just embraced, they’re celebrated among women and among the feminine-primary social order to the point that we make commercials and sitcoms based on women’s sexual strategy. Now that we’ve achieved Peak Hypergamy the final step is casting off all pretense about the designs on Female Supremacism. His victory appears to be the catalyst for this.

The jig is up and the Sisterhood Über Alles has revealed the true nature of the Feminine Imperative. Even the pretense of a desire for ‘equality’ among the sexes is now replaced with a visceral contempt for all things male. More attempts to remove the man from all language is the first initiative in both the military and on campus. No longer does the femosphere feel a need to hide or sweet talk its agenda; the intent isn’t lofty dreams of gender-equality, it is, and always has been Female Supremacism and the complete erasure of anything conventionally male or masculine. If it is male and can be replaced with a female proxy, so be it. If it cannot, its complete destruction is preferred.

The Women’s March on Washington last January was the most glaring confirmation of everything I’ve ever written about the Feminine Imperative. My timing of publishing this post with tomorrow’s Day Without Women international protest is no coincidence and I have no doubt that the embrace of feminine supremacism will offer increasingly more evidence of what I’ve asserted about the Feminine Imperative. Men, Red Pill or otherwise, need to be aware of this embrace of Open Female Supremacism and their complicity in it. The Era of the Woman has now shifted to one of a blatant, naked, power grab that likely would’ve been made all the easier had the First Female President® not been denied “her turn”.

Had Hillary won the presidency I have no doubt we’d still hear platitudes of how feminism is really about ‘equality’, and how it really benefits men too. Instead we have open contempt for all that appears masculine. Even the protests themselves are converted into programs meant to emasculate men. Instead of notions of ‘equality’ we get further atomization between the sexes in the name of Fempowerment. And instead they will openly make masculinity a disease to cure.

In the coming year(s) I predict we’re going to see more of the “women-as-oppressed” in advertising, in our cultural narrative, in or social dialog, because this is what a feminine-primary social order believes will resonate with damn near every demographic. And for those whom it doesn’t, then those who disagree will have to deal with those it does. It would be easy to dismiss all of this as over exaggeration; after all this isn’t really anything new to Red Pill aware men. I’ve been writing about for almost 14 years. What is new is an increased social urgency combined with the denial of the feminine entitlement the Red Pill community has been talking about among individual women for a decade.

It’s as if women everywhere were promised the First Female President® and then had her snatched away by the living embodiment of misogyny they’ve been taught to exaggerate for generations. They were ‘entitled’ to her winning – so much so that they would change the rules of the game in order for that certainty – but He took it away. He stole it, he cheated, he,…did anything but legitimately win it. That is a very BIG hit to the collective ego-investments of a feminine-primary social order. Thus, we will see in the years to come even grander displays of this entitlement, yes, but also the stripping away of all pretense women ever had of coexisting with anything looking like masculinity.

Masculinity is misogyny now. If you thought intersexual Red Pill awareness was derided before, it will be reviled as a hate-crime in the coming era. I once joked that if things kept going the way they were socially, The Rational Male would need to be secretly smuggled to groups of men to read by firelight like Bibles in Mao’s China. I’m not laughing about that these days.

False Equivalencies

equivalencies

One of the more persistent questions I get asked about Hypergamy is if there’s a parallel to it in men. I’ve answered this in several comment threads both here and in other forums, but I’ve never really addressed it in a post. When I was considering this I remembered a couple of comments from manosphere luminaries Deti and Novaseeker who I thought summed up this (often deliberate) misconception. Deti was kind enough to provide me with his own observations which I’m quoting and riffing on here:

It’s often said that men and women are both hypergamous.  This isn’t true.  Both men and women optimize.  But only women are hypergamous.

Hypergamy has become a term of art in the manosphere.  It has a very specific meaning which differs from the meaning social scientists ascribe to it.  In social science it refers specifically and only to marriage relationships.   The term is used to refer to women marrying men who are perceived to be wealthier or of a higher social/economic standing or caste, usually observed in Hindu cultures on the Indian subcontinent but also observed in early American society.  In the United States it’s often referred to as women “marrying up”.   

 F. Roger Devlin, himself having a social science background, appropriated the term in his essay entitled Sexual Utopia in Power when referring to his observation that young single women always seemed to be looking for the best man they can get at any one time, seeking the most attractive man or men for sex.  Devlin observed modern Western women’s propensity to discard one man in favor of a better man, in serial fashion, always doing their best to “move up” and get  a more attractive, better man with each successive discard and pairing.  

Expanding on this, manosphere writers and bloggers noticed that hypergamy operates at a low hum, like a background operating system, in every woman.   It is “satisfied” while she’s with a man of sufficiently high value. But if a man of perceived higher value or greater attractiveness  shows interest, and/or her current man’s value is faltering, that low hum becomes a loud alarm. This can cause her, at the very least, to have feelings of attraction for the new man and feelings of dis-attraction for the current man. This can in many cases cause her to leave the current man for the new higher value, more attractive man. This doesn’t always happen, but it can happen. Hypergamy can operate in any combination – more attractive man showing interest; current man’s attractiveness waning or falling, and anywhere in between. Thus, the manosphere’s use of the term “hypergamy” came into being, to refer to a core aspect of female sexual nature which is unique to women. 

If you do a Google search for the term ‘Hypergamy’ you’ll find The Rational Male and the topic category link for all the posts I’ve ever done on it is the second return you’ll get below the Wikipedia entry for the term. At the risk of a humble-brag, I’m not sure anyone in the ‘sphere has written more extensively on the subject than myself and I think Deti sums up the conflict in definition that both critics and the uninitiated have with their understanding why there is a need for a broader definition of Hypergamy.

I made an effort to address this in The Hypergamy Conspiracy, but this was some time ago. ‘Hypergamy’ serves well in a much broader capacity, but should the Feminine Imperative find that broader definition threatening to its purpose it will casually dismiss it as illegitimate, because the manosphere appropriated the term. Thus, we’ll see feminine-primary society embrace the larger ideas of Hypergamy (as in the embrace of Open Hypergamy) so long as it’s flattering to, and benefits most, women. Once it gets ugly, then it conveniently denies the legitimacy of the broad definition and it’s strictly about the “women having a tendency to marry up” sociology term.

People confuse “optimization” with “hypergamy“. Both men and women optimize; meaning they want the best they can get, of anything and everything. Men and women optimize everything:  jobs, cars, houses, furniture, friends, even churches. Men and women optimize with each other. But men and women optimize with the opposite sex in different ways, and that’s where the confusion comes in.

Hypergamy in its current iteration in the manosphere means essentially “is attracted only to people who are more attractive than I am”.  Women will be sexually attracted to men who they perceive as “above” them in attractiveness.  They will be somewhat attracted to men who are at their rough SMV level, but that man must bring other things to the table, usually provisioning and commitment, before she will have sex with him. And women are never ever sexually attracted to men who are perceived to be beneath their own SMV level.  

Example:   A woman with SMV = 7 will be sexually attracted to males with SMV of 8 and up.   She will pair with a male 7, if and only if he brings “other things” to the table. She will never be sexually attracted to male 6s on down.  And she will be able to easily get sex with men above her in SMV.  She can occasionally get relationships with male 8s.  She can easily get relationships and sex with male 7s.  Male 6s on down are her orbiters, with whom she’ll never have sex.   

Female critics of the broader definition of Hypergamy often have a (contrived) problem with the distinction between optimization and Hypergamy. And, as Deti explains, a lot of this comes from the fact that women’s sense of their own sexual market value is largely overinflated. Women rate 80 percent of men below average in attractiveness. When you contrast, even loose, statistics like this against the broader idea of Hypergamy you start to see why women would want there to be some analogous kind of Hypergamy for men. Hypergamy in women is founded on three bedrock truths:

  • Persistent doubt that a woman has adequately ‘optimized’ on Hypergamy with any man she has, or will potentially have, consolidated on a long term relationship with.
  • Hypergamy never seeks its own level. Women are always looking for a better-than-equal pairing with men in respect to their own SMV compared to his. When 80% of men are (loosely) agreed to be below average in attractiveness to women, we must consider that this assessment is measured in relation to what women’s Hypergamous doubt might be optimized with in a man.
  • Women’s Hypergamy is based in, and the source of, women’s dualistic sexual strategy. The manosphere euphemism for this is Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks. This shorthand refers to Hypergamy seeking optimization in both short-term-sex breeding potential and (ideally) long-term parental investment, protection and provisioning security potential.

It’s important to review these principles of Hypergamy because, for all the protestations of women wanting an equal comparison, there are no parallels of Hypergamy for men’s sexual strategy.

Deti continues:

Men do not operate like this at all.  And that’s the difference.   Men are not attracted only to women who are above them in SMV. A man can be, and often is, attracted to women above him in SMV, and to women at his SMV level and also to women below him in SMV. What is also different is the level of women he can get and how well his relationships will work out, based on his and her SMV.   

A man will be unable to continue a relationship with a woman above his SMV. He is very sexually attracted to them, and occasionally lucks out and gets sex with one or two; but he can’t sustain a relationship with them. He can get sex from women at his SMV level but only if he goes all in and offers commitment. He can most easily get sex with women below him in SMV, many times no strings attached sex. 

Example: A male 6 will rarely get sex with a 7 but can’t keep anything with her going. He’s not even on the radar of female 8s on up. He can get sex with a female 6 only if he offers commitment and provisioning. He can most easily get sex with female 5s on down. 

And here’s the grand difference: A man is OK with having sex with women at and below his own SMV. In fact, he’ll be happiest in his relationships with women beneath his own SMV – a woman is “meh” about sex with men at her SMV, and she is positively repulsed and sickened at having sex with men below her own SMV. She’ll be happiest in a relationship with a man above her own SMV and she can tolerate a man at her SMV. And she’ll be miserable at best with a man beneath her SMV and will tend to blow up those relationships. 

Men and women both have attraction floors. Men’s attraction floor is below their own SMV.   Women’s attraction floor is either above her own SMV and sometimes at her own SMV, but never beneath it.

I explore the fundamentals of intimate attachments and how SMV status influences it here. That article might be worth reviewing because in it is a lesson about Hypergamy. Again, compare the idea that the most secure attachments between couples are ones where the dominant, man’s, SMV status is roughly 1-2 points above that of the woman’s and contrast that against the fact that women rate 80% of men’s attractiveness as ‘below average’.

Also, keep in mind the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies: For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

The other, minor difference is that men are polygamous, not hypergamous. A man’s imperative is not (necessarily) to get the best woman. It’s to get as many women as possible with as little investment and commitment as possible. If he can do it, he would love to get as many women as possible at and a little below his own SMV, and have sex with as many of them as possible for as long as possible, without committing to or investing in any of them.   That’s spinning plates. Most men don’t do this, because they can’t, because they’re not attractive enough, but that’s a different post.  

A woman’s imperative is to get the best one man she can get for sex and for provisioning.     That’s why you don’t see many women “dating” (i.e. having sex with) several different men at the same time. Women don’t spin plates; they pick the best plate they can and take care of it as best they can. Instead of trying to collect plates, they just change out the plates, one for another, when a bigger, better one comes along.  

This is why the best long term relationship is one in which the man outranks his woman in SMV. He should be at least +1 and preferably +2 in SMV.  This makes both of them happiest in the long run.

On many an occasion I’ve fielded the question, “Well Rollo, if there’s a Feminine Imperative, there must be a Masculine Imperative.” People don’t usually like the answer, but from a strictly evolutionary and biological perspective, the Masculine (or male) Imperative is Unlimited Access to Unlimited Sexuality.

Deti summed this up adequately here, but the more high-minded of my critics will often think the ‘male imperative’ is setting the bar too low for men, but usually this comes from a want of something more than the visceral truth of what motivates us. And I’d agree with this for the most part, if men are to become something more than their base natures would have of them. But using the same reproductive metric I use in describing women’s Hypergamy I’ve also got to recognize that men’s drive for sex has been the incentive for our greatest achievements and our worst proclivities. If we are to be ethical in our judgements we must be amoral in our assessments. Sometimes those assessments will be unflattering for men and women.

The objective issue here is that men’s imperative is not analogous to women’s imperative. When we look at men’s approach to gratifying this imperative we see the stark contrast between women’s Hypergamy and men’s sexual strategy.

False Equivalencies

One of the most predictable responses I expect to hear from women when they chafe at various Red Pill truths is always the first presumption of false equivalencies between the sexes. Whenever I, or any Red Pill man relates some unflattering truth about the nature of women, without fail, the first reflexive response is “well, men do this too, and it’s worse,…” or there’s some other unflattering presumption about the nature of men that’s supposed to provide some counterbalance to the ugly truth about women that’s being related. Feminized men and White Knights will also adopt this tact in order to defend the honor of the Sisterhood so as to have there be no doubt that they ‘aren’t like typical men’ in their identifying with women.

This is to be expected though. The first impulse is to defend against anyone acknowledging that truth by distraction. “Ooh, ooh, men do it too!” is a distraction meant to refocus the intent of objectively (amorally) assessing what is otherwise an unflattering aspect of female nature, behavior and/or the motivators that prompt it. In order to do so we are expected to first presume a co-equal state between men and women, as well as a co-equal state of mutual goals. Thus, for women’s distraction to be effective there must be a presumed state of equivalency between men and women.

As such, we are, by default, expected to accept that if there is a female Hypergamy there must also be a male form of Hypergamy. This is a very useful illustration of the false equivalency principle women rely upon. Deductively it should make sense, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, but only in a mindset and a social order based on egalitarian-equalism is that reaction presumed to be the binary opposite of the original action.

If, as equalism would have us accept, men and women are functional equals, then it follows that there must be a male Hypergamy that is the reaction to women’s (often unflattering) Hypergamy. Women’s innate solipsism only reinforces this presumption because only an action that impacts a woman (positively or negatively) is deemed a legitimate truth to that mindset. I would argue that this is exactly why women’s first reflexive defense (to anything challenging her gender-defined ego-investments) will always be to presume some gender-opposite reaction for men. The belief is that while she can’t deny the proposed truth, at least (she) women aren’t as bad as men. From there the objective is to distract from that uncomfortable truth by indicting (functionally equal) men’s natures.

All of this presumption only functions in a social order that’s based on the idea of egalitarian-equalism between the sexes. When we look at things from a gender-complementarity perspective, and we accept that there are fundamental differences in the innate natures and motivators of men and women, those distractions become less effective. Just as Deti explains for us here, once we accept that men are not co-equal agents with women, we don’t even expect that there would be an equivalent to women’s Hypergamy in men.

The genders are different. We both have strategies for sex and life and fulfillment that are often not analogous to one another. Women only expect that there would be analogies because they presume that a female experience, female goals and contexts that benefit the Feminine Imperative will necessarily be what men mutually agree upon as what’s best for themselves. Only in a state of equalism, ignorant and intolerant of anything not agreed upon by ‘feminine correctness’, is there a presumption that men must have some parallel to the motivators and behaviors that prompt women. Only in a state of solipsism is this the subconscious assumption.

This is something to keep in mind the next time a woman bemoans how unfair double standards are for women. Men are not women, women are not men. Our strategies are often incompatible, or at the very least require a degree of compromise or total acquiescence to coexist in an ostensibly symbiotic relationship between men and women. It is only women (and feminized men) who default to supposing men are their functional equals.