MGTOW

The Nature of Power

From Truth to Power:

Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances. Real Power is the degree to which we control the directions of our lives.

Are women attracted to Power? Yes. Why? Because a man who has it is in control of his own circumstances (to the best of his ability). People need to be reminded of this because we tend to think of power as some tyrannical dominance over others. Sometimes power is exercised as such, but that’s not what defines real power.

There exist a set of Beta men who hold this idea because it fits into their self-loathing binary understanding of intersexual dynamics. On my Incels post comment thread there’s a conversation with a 25year old guy who considers himself an Incel and his self-awareness is one that he’s hopeless to be anything else. He believes he has no power and therefore nothing a woman would ever want from a man. As he persists in this belief he’s not wrong.

I’m proud of my commentariat for giving this guy some kind of hope and inspiration, but according to the Black Pilled set all they’re doing is setting him up for failure and disappointment. Because if he attempts to empower himself he’d just be making himself a more efficient pussy-beggar and or/setting himself up for more failure. The game is rigged so stop playing it, right? And even if he had the kind of access to women he wished for ‘the juice isn’t worth the squeeze’ is the circular logic, and he’d only be a failure from within a success – or something like that.

The old saying goes, ‘Everything is about sex, except sex; sex is about power’. But what is ‘power‘? The degree to which a person has control over circumstances that would otherwise govern their lives. But power is always measured by how it fits into a particular context, so in this instance that power is a control over sexual experience, gratification and ultimately reproduction. And really, this is the basis of how Hypergamy has become the socialized, prime-directive that is gynocentrism. What is the latent purpose of a feminine-primary social order? Empowering women to unilaterally control their reproductive circumstances and then as much of their own lives as follows that imperative.

Power is one aspect of attraction (sometimes arousal) for women. I would also say, by this definition, that power is an aspect of a man being Alpha, but it isn’t the only aspect. I can point to a lot of men who have no real power, influence, affluence or even social proof who nonetheless pull women and have women pull him because they have a look that fit a woman’s sexual ideal and/or had an Alpha mindset. I have been that guy.

Power is not a prerequisite for being Alpha, but the appearance of, the potential for, power certainly is. Remember, women are hardwired to seek out competency in men as part of their innate need for security in all its forms. This is why I make the distinction between power being ‘attractive’ to a woman (in the long term Beta Need side of Hypergamy) and not always an element in arousal – though when paired with an arousing man power is intoxicating for women sexually.

The appearance of, or potential for, real power in a man represents competency in his capacity to control the circumstances that would dictate the terms of his life. If a woman is to ultimately pair monogamously with a man, his access to power will ultimately dictate the terms of her life while paired with that man. So it follows that power would be a selected-for aspected of female attraction.

This is probably pretty remedial. “Duh, chicks dig power Rollo.”

Power is a part of that Alpha ideal, but the question to ask is why is power attractive to a woman? This is where militant MGTOWs and Black Pill nihilists show their colors. Most will say it’s because they want control or some parasitic association with a powerful man to further their own ends. In essence it’s about a need to control their circumstances by using a male proxy to exercise their own self-serving plans. It’s all very melodramatic until you pick apart the latent purposes of female power.

From an evolutionary perspective, what these guys think is “power” is really just social dominance, preselection and a good physique. That’s why they’re obsessed with the “Chad” archetype that bullied them in high school. That guy seems “powerful” and made a lasting impression on them because he effortlessly got women and reminds them of what they’re not. Whether or not the guy is genuinely ‘powerful’ in the sense that he’s in control of his own destiny is irrelevant – he has the appearance of what these guys think power should look like and he’s rewarded with pussy for it.

So, what to do? Do the same shit feminists do; change the game and try to convince everyone that they are the real deal and the world that they figured out (really constructed) on their own is the ‘real’ game everyone ought to be playing. Unless you’re Thundercock the Barbarian, which you never are, all you’re doing is trying to be like him, which amounts to you accruing ‘power’, (however they define it) no matter how self-interested you think you are, with the sole purpose of giving it away to a woman – which she will use to more completely own you, because, that’s “just how women are.”

Feminists do the same thing from their own base of interest. They cannot compete for Darwinistic reproductive success with women whose SMV outclasses their own.

Solution: Change the game to suit their lesser capacity to compete; embrace fat-positivity, shame men for their innate sexual choices and expressions, disqualify hot women by disempowering and stigmatizing their strengths. Ban Grid Girls, cheerleaders on TV and remove the swimsuits from Miss America.

All of these are adaptive strategies for increasing reproductive success. The problem is nature confounds these efforts over and over again. The idea is to change the rules of the game; to literally control the reality and context in which it’s played in order to make the ones changing it the superior players. Rather than find the cheat codes to play the existing game in ‘God Mode’ the idea is to just rewrite the game to suit their skills.

Ostensibly, the cover story of feminism has always been about some effort to achieve an idealized state of equality between men and women. This has never been the actual case, but even if we were to presume that this equality was tenable it still requires the players to ignore their strengths and weaknesses in playing the existing game and pretend that a new game, based on contrived rules, is now the true game. The problem is they can never get everyone to participate in the new game. The fact remains that we evolved to compete in a naturalistic game and most people instinctively get this reality even when they espouse a belief in the new game.

Beautiful women will aspire to a feminist-contrived norm, but on a root level of consciousness they understand that their beauty and sexuality puts them above their less beautiful sisters. This again is a form of power. It provides them a control advantage over their life circumstances and their hindbrains wont allow any pretense of a level playing field stop them from exercising it.

End Games

The same principle applies to the ends of MGTOW. I’m not even sure what the consensus is as to what an idealized outcome between the genders might be for a MGTOW mindset. Every time I’ve tried to parse out what happens when enough men go MGTOW that society shifts I’m usually met with some equalist future where women ‘come to their senses’ and take responsibility for their own actions. That and crypto currencies seem to be what the future MGTOW utopia looks like.

I’m not being flippant here. I’m genuinely curious as to what the end state of a MGTOW society ought to look like. Feminists seem to think that egalitarian equalism and gender neutrality, and a world where men and women are coequal agents is a future that’s possible. I’ve read the comparisons of feminism with Marxism and it’s not too far off with regard to their stated future hopes. I don’t buy any of it of course. It’s been proven over and over that feminism is a supremacism movement, but I’m interested in what the hopes are for the the cover story of feminism.

I wonder the same about MGTOW. Both MGTOW and feminism are ultimately interested in power – in the respect that power is the control over the individual circumstances that govern our lives. MGTOW make it very clear that dealing with women is an unacceptable risk (by order of degrees) and that until such time as the risks diminish to an acceptable tolerance they’ll simply ‘go their own way’ and avoid potentially dangerous entanglements with women. Sounds perfectly logical in a male deductive logic way, but what does the intended goal-state look like for MGTOW?

I’ve yet to get a clear consensus on this. Most of it seems to be awaiting an expected societal collapse whereafter women ‘come to their senses’ and somehow realize they really need men and voluntarily relinquish the power they hold today in favor of treating men more fairly. I’m doubtful of how realistic this is, but perhaps I’m mistaken in this being the perceived end game. Women of course would see this as being an abdication of their own interests – a surrender of feminism so to speak, but what does an acceptable ‘truce’ between men and women look like to feminists as well as MGTOWs?

I ask these questions because it seems to me that both movements depend on an adversarial state existing between the sexes. What would the inter-gender landscape need to look like for MGTOWs to deal with women or compete with other men? What would that landscape need to look like for feminism to dissolve and relinquish the abusive power it’s established over the lives of men?

Sexual Zoning

sex_zone

Höllenhund brought up an interesting thought a few weeks ago:

This reminds me of something I wanted to ask here in general. The general narrative about MGTOW in the ‘sphere is that they are “avoiding women”. A more general narrative pushed in the mainstream media by Zimbardo, Hymowitz, Milo and other blue/purple pill journalists is that a growing number of young men are avoiding women.

What does “avoiding women” precisely mean in the current socio-cultural context in the West? The word “avoid” entails some sort of active, deliberate, protective measure. My problem with that is that the “avoidance of women”, or a breakaway from women doesn’t look like that at all in practice today, because the social context of male-female interaction has changed completely in the last 2-3 decades.

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

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

In other words, avoidance of women in the old days was an anti-social act of disengagement that was frowned upon. Today, avoidance of women merely means that you’re not expending excess energy and time to do certain things. It’s an “action” with few or no social repercussions – you won’t be socially ostracized or something. But technically it’s not an action. You’re basically “avoiding” women by not hitting the clubs on Saturday night. You’re avoiding them through simple inaction. You can have a full-time job, or go to college, have a social circle, have hobbies, buddies etc., basically a normie life, and still “avoid” women.

I thought this was an interesting observation because there is a stark contradiction in how these sexual zones are presented to men by women. From an old books perspective, men are still expected to be the initiators. It is incumbent upon men to be the sex that approaches and expresses intimate interest in women, and men who don’t, or who fail to build themselves into acceptable mates for women are shamed as being perpetual adolescents or just “giving up.” Our feminine-primary social mandate still promotes the expectation that men will prepare for, and initiate with, women.

However, from a new books perspective men are, as Höllenhund illustrates, expected to know their place in respect to whatever sexual zone they find themselves in, as well as having an understanding of how they are perceived in the SMP. So, in an asexual zone such as a college campus or the workplace, men are expected to know their SMV and act or not act accordingly. Men not meeting or exceeding what would make for an optimized Hypergamy with women are expected not to initiate or approach. In fact, this expected understanding extends to sexual zones and fosters the avoidance Höllenhund talks about here.

For all of the handwringing from feminine-primary gender pundits about men ‘dropping out’ of life or the SMP, it is this contradiction in atmosphere that promotes the avoidance. Hypergamy, being the prime directive of westernized societies, is figuratively best served when women are in complete and unilateral control of sexual selection. Thus, we see laws and social dictates installed to encourage men to self-select themselves out of the process and make this selection easier for women. Men will be shamed for not initiating and not approaching, but simultaneously be held accountable for as much as hate crimes if they step outside what they are expected to know are their appropriate sexual zones.

Why Millennials Might Be Having Less Sex Than Their Parents

Recently there’s been a spate of articles all attempting to explain why millennials aren’t getting after it in an age when it’s never been easier to hook up. Try as they will, nearly all of the explanations fail to account for how sexual zoning has affected the sexual marketplace today. Millennials have the ‘hook up generation’ reputation, but statistically they’re not doing much fucking.

Noah Patterson, 18, likes to sit in front of several screens simultaneously: a work project, a YouTube clip, a video game. To shut it all down for a date or even a one-night stand seems like a waste. “For an average date, you’re going to spend at least two hours, and in that two hours I won’t be doing something I enjoy,” he said.

It’s not that he doesn’t like women. “I enjoy their companionship, but it’s not a significant part of life,” said Patterson, a Web designer in Bellingham, Washington.

He has never had sex, although he likes porn. “I’d rather be watching YouTube videos and making money.” Sex, he said, is “not going to be something people ask you for on your résumé.”

One aspect that these largely millennial writers themselves seem oblivious to is the complexities of sexual zones that shift constantly for guys. In 2016 hooking up is easy, we’ve got Red Pill awareness and we have instantaneous communication, but what we don’t have are clearly defined sexual zones. Put a guy whose social intelligence is sub par into the wrong zone and it’s understandable that he has better things to occupy himself with that he ‘enjoys’.

This is a common refrain from MGTOWs. It’s usually some variation of  “why should I waste my time trying to untangle some girl’s head just to put myself at risk of a sexual harassment or rape accusation?”

Fred Flange had this comment a few weeks ago:

Co-sign, and this “soft MGTOW” observation ties in nicely with the WashPost’s “no sex please we’re collegiate” article. MGTOW is now socially subsidized and easy to implement: just do nothing! At college, don’t engage in class, or even better, “attend” the lectures on-line. Say no more in class or lab than you must, then leave. Start no convos, you won’t be dragged into any. All of this goes for cubicle workers: in the lunchroom, stare at your phone, or eat at your desk, or if you can, get outside but go alone. No feelings caught, no feelings hurt. Everybody gets nothing, therefore everybody wins.

Eventually you can learn the fine art of disappearance in urban settings: yes you occupy space, but other than someone bumping into you, it is possible to go anywhere without your registering with anyone in the vicinity, not even cops. You can switch it on and off like a light.

One possible corollary to look for: see if the “bros before homes” shaming begins to die down. It should. Because before that you patriamalarkey-preaching Tumblr-inas insisted you wanted that cheesy-bro to go? He’s GONE! Soft MGTOW is the mandated social paradigm, outside of “safe social zones” like public streets, malls, clubs, etc. plus in some workplaces and colleges it’s law. You’re going to complain about men obeying the law?

There’s also no shortage of articles decrying the absence of boys and young men these days too. The frequent bugbear in these always point to guys ‘dropping out’ and playing X-Box all day. From America’s Lost Boys:

Young men, significantly more so than young women, are stuck in life. Research released in May from the Pew Center documented a historic demographic shift: American men aged 18-30 are now statistically more likely to be living with their parents than with a romantic partner. This trend is significant, for one simple reason: Twenty- and thirtysomething men who are living at home, working part-time or not at all, are unlikely to be preparing for marriage. Hurst’s research says that these men are single, unoccupied, and fine with that—because their happiness doesn’t depend on whether they are growing up and living life.

Now, granted, this article presumes men’s adulthood ought to be measured by his capacity to get involved with a woman, support a family and maintain a steady job. It’s very hard for writers who tackle this topic to pull their heads out of the old books reasonings. Thus, the go-to answer to the question of ‘why do guys drop out?’ is video games. It’s far easier to goof on men as a whole if they can be made to look juvenile, lazy or stupid to the point men not knowing what’s good for them.

It would take a real effort to tackle the larger reasons as to why men drop out, and men like Samuel James (article author) would be forced to acknowledge the disincentives for men to participate in what his old books reasonings tell him is some mutually beneficial arrangement. Those disincentives don’t paint women in a very flattering light, so it’s much easier to dismiss them as garden variety misogyny.

The drop out generation are content with their lot in life because they’ve accepted the realities of a social order that debases men and manhood to being appliances to better serve women’s imperatives. And the risks of investing themselves in a relationship or finding the inner will to become better men for the sake of “growing up” are significant when the rules of engagement and the acceptable sexual zones are constantly changing.

The Damage Done By ‘Mattress Girl’

“Even in less extreme situations, young men are more skeptical of women’s ability or propensity to consent to sex, which some women on campus consider demeaning.

“I find that men are more and more interested in ensuring that I’m consenting before sex, which would seem like a good thing,” Columbia student Dylan Hunzeker said. “But sometimes I don’t necessarily feel that way. Especially when I have to answer a man’s question: ‘are you sure you’re not too drunk?’ Or ‘you want to have sex with me?’ In a sense, it’s annoying and debilitating to be constantly questioned about whether or not I have agency and am a sexual human being.”

“Men are scared of women on campus now, and fear breeds anger and prejudice. Women are frustrated by men, which inspires a lack of desire to collaborate for solutions.”

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

It’s ironic that authors bemoaning the drop out generation of men never acknowledge the other side of the disincentives for men – those generated by a feminine-primary social narrative – the generation of women who remain unmarried well into their middle age. When this is explored, once again, it’s the result of the juvenile, ridiculous men that same narrative has created for itself.

Are You Experienced?

ontheroad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off the Reservation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responsible Adults

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

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

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

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

Materialism

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

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

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

Peak Hypergamy

Peak_Hypergamy

Commenter Divided Line came on with such a strong take on Our Sisters’ Keeper I had to riff on it:

Hypergamy is a given and it’s not going anywhere. But even if women’s sexuality is biologically rooted, their rationalizations for it aren’t possible without a compliant culture. So long as women are the damsels, the victims who are put upon by the cruel and all powerful patriarchy, so long as men are perceived to be powerful and free in a way that they clearly are not nor have ever been, open hypergamy is possible. After all, any guy who points it out or complains about it is branded an embittered loser, a misogynist, a creep, and so on, but I wonder to what degree this will change as red pill awareness spreads and penetrates the mainstream. I mean, how long do we think that men will go on smiling and nodding when it’s increasingly the case that more and more of us can see what bullshit all of this is?

What it makes me think of is Alana Massey’s Dickonomics article.

If you haven’t already read it, she goes on and on about how male attention is abundant and cheap, proving that women are well aware of what men who bother with online dating realized from the start. She recognizes the extreme degree of power this gives her before hamstering it away with this:

“Some will read my gleeful rejections on the many faces I encounter on Tinder as evidence of a disturbing uptick in malevolent, anti-male sentiments among single straight women. It is not. It is evidence of us arriving nearer to gender equilibrium where men can no longer happily judge the clear and abundant photos and carefully crafted profiles of women but become incensed when they take the opportunity to do the same.”

How many times have you seen this? All venality, cruelty, selfishness, indifference, etc is justified, of course, because men have it so good, women have it so bad, blah blah etc. So she can write something like this and the sisterhood will nod their heads and no doubt be able to ignore doubt or second thoughts in regards to their atrocious, destructive, and cruel treatment of the opposite sex. Women, like people who rationalize generally, tend to think in bogus bumper sticker one liners because they provide excuses not to think for themselves. And men, after all, just saunter about in the patriarchal torture dungeon of a society free and powerful, and pluck women from the trees before discarding them like jizz towels, so naturally, why should she consider their complexity as human beings or ever recognize what a rotten, horrible human being she is? They’re free to retaliate against men for women’s imaginary oppression.

But how long will they be able to keep employing these rationalizations and getting away with it if the public dialog changes? And it has already begun to change. I’ve watched it happen over the last year. You see more and more disclaimers in articles which appeal to the you-go-girl crowd. It really does seem as if there is a growing awareness that they are full of shit, or at the very least, that maybe there are moral complexities and obligations that come with female social power, to the degree that they are even willing to recognize that power.

Hypergamy isn’t going anywhere, but since men increasingly are comparing notes now and voicing their criticism of women’s bullshit (at least online), maybe it really isn’t the case that women are going to be able to continue this bullshit with public sanction. Is this wishful thinking?

I’ve made the case in several other blog comment and forum threads, but it’s getting almost too easy to point out women’s overt embrace of Open Hypergamy. There was a time – only 4 short years ago – that I would be run up the flagpole for publishing my observations on the ins and outs of women’s sexual strategy. Women in the blogosphere hated the fact that I was exposing their Game. They didn’t like the idea that I was informing men about the plan women had for them or the part they played, and by informing them it represented a fundamental threat to the long term success (and essentially their long term security) of that plan.

If you’re feeling nostalgic you can skim through the comments of posts like Wait For It? or The Threat:

Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.

[…]

Race to Awareness

Because of women’s relatively short window of peak sexual viability it is imperative that men be as unaware of their slower, but progressively increasing SMV for as long as possible in order for them to achieve the prime directive of female hypergamy; realize the best genetic options and the best provisioning options she has the capacity to attract in that peak window. If Men become aware of their SMV before a woman can consolidate on her options with monogamous commitment her sexual strategy is defeated.

The mistake (and the binary retort) is to think this need for contrivances was concocted in whole as some grand sisterhood conspiracy. This just proves an ignorance of social constructs. For a social contrivance to be such, it necessitates being repeated by society WITHOUT a formal conception – meaning we learn the contrivance from seeing it, internalizing it and repeating it ourselves without forethought. The best social contrivances are inconspicuous and rarely questioned because they’ve been learned without having been formally taught. This is why I think encouraging men NOT to bother trying to understand women is in itself a social convention. Don’t look at that man behind the curtain, just accept it for what it is, enjoy the show, you’re better off that way, the Mighty Oz has spoken.

This is the threat that Game represents to the feminine imperative. Widely shared, objective assessments of Men’s SMV and how it develops is the antithesis of the female sexual strategy. Women’s greatest fear is that they could become the ‘selected’ instead of the ‘selectors’.

Bear in mind I wrote this years before I published Preventive Medicine. This was also only a few years before I formally identified women’s embrace of openly, proudly, flaunting their sexual strategy. I can remember being soundly rebuked by women denying they adhered to anything so callous as an Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks schedule with regard to men.

There was a certain nervous undertone that accompanied their shaming that revealed how protective they were of keeping the plan as ambiguous and secretive as possible from men in general. For every acknowledgement of the biological influences of Ovulatory Shift behaviors by these women there was always an obligatory, “yes, but, people are people, we’re above all that, it’s what’s on the inside that counts, NAWALT” intended to offset the ugliness of it.

Now, the same women who adamantly denied what their functionally opportunistic concept of love represents; the same women who rejected the idea of an Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks sexual strategy openly and triumphantly boast about it. It’s become a source not only of agency, but a proud admission of perceived power on the part of women.

At some point the social impetus behind Open Hypergamy became so blatantly obvious they could no longer deny the truth of it. The Genie was out and it was more advantageous to not only to welcome it, but to brandish and profit from forcing men to accept it. Thus we have Open Hypergamy both subtly and triumphantly waved in our mainstream advertising, our pop-culture, our social media, our music and even the movies we take our kids to enjoy.

To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.
– George Orwell

I expect most of the worst aspects of Open Hypergamy (Overt Hypergamy if you prefer) are fairly obvious to my readers. Even the now the subtle influence in the media and advertising becomes not-so-subtle for men accustomed to seeing things with a Red Pill Lens. We can only shake our heads and hope that so blatant a confession of relishing power in Hypergamy on the part of unaware men will come to light for them.

Divided Line raises a very poignant observation – what’s next? What’s the natural progression?

Hypergamy isn’t going anywhere, but since men increasingly are comparing notes now and voicing their criticism of women’s bullshit (at least online), maybe it really isn’t the case that women are going to be able to continue this bullshit with public sanction. Is this wishful thinking?

I think there is a caveat we have to address here first. With Red Pill awareness it gets very easy to slide down the slippery slope and believe that ‘all women’ will have some equal capacity to enforce the worst of Open Hypergamy on men in general. Yes, in a westernizing context, women have an almost unilaterally state-backed influence on enforcing men’s de facto participation in Hypergamy by order of degree. However, it’s important to remember that men’s willing participation or coercion in it is still (as yet) limited by women’s capacity to attract and involve them.

Men want (and yes, need) sex and will find behavioral and psychological adaptations and workarounds to get it. That may be MGTOW, prostitution, porn or an as yet developed alternative of virtual sex. It may be Red Pill awareness and applied Game, it may be a self-aligning push to pander to the most extreme elements of the Alpha Fucks or Beta Bucks ends of Hypergamy, or it may be upping fame or a false social proof (via personality politicking on social media) that makes for men’s future adaptations.

Peak Hypergamy

I’m not a prognosticator about such things, but I can make logical estimates based on observations. One thing is for certain, and I discussed this with Niko in our talk, intersexual politicking and the condition of women will reach a ‘Peak Hypergamy’ state in the not too distant future. There will indeed come a point when even Blue Pill men will be unable to ignore so gross a power imbalance between the sexes.

There’s been some debate as to whether there’s some socially conscious ‘marriage strike’ in the manosphere for some time, and I think marriage statistics being at an all time low bear much of this out. I don’t think this is the result of some nascent MGTOW awakening, but rather a deductive, peripheral, general awareness men have of Open Hypergamy in our current social order at the moment.

Just as a last aside here, let me state that I am aware of the more militant, absolutists of MGTOW belaboring the idea that ‘the juice aint worth the squeeze’ and the dangers of even approaching a woman risk his being accused of sexual harassment, much less having recreational sex with her leaving a man open to post-sex regret-rape allegation. I get that. It’s part of the ascension toward a ‘Peak Hypergamy’ social state. My question is whether these men would find it worth their while to engage with women if their fears were removed in a post Peak State social order? Some may even live long enough to have to figure that out for themselves.

I think Divided Line is correct – there will come a state when Open Hypergamy’s power consolidation becomes too obvious and the social mechanics the Feminine Imperative has used to ensure that consolidation will be too much for women to maintain as a collective. Then what? What will women rationalize for themselves when they realize their monster has become too much?

I’ll reiterate it again; socially, it didn’t take long for women to transition from a secretive Hypergamy to an open display of it. The same women who called AF/BB the imaginings of misogynous men only 4 years ago are now proudly claiming it as truth (they knew all along) and a means to a power they’ve always had and should openly use.

The social, political and personal stress point of Peak Hypergamy is coming. It may take a bit longer, but there will come a point where even women will be forced to recognize the consequences of legislating their hubris.

Interview with Niko Choski

I did about an hour and a half interview with Niko Choski this weekend. Niko is a great guy and he treated me very well. His podcast is rooted in the MGTOW side of things and as I’ve said before I’m not really an adherent of that lifestyle obviously, but I do understand and appreciate the motivation behind it.

Just to reiterate it again I don’t subscribe to PUA, MRA, MGTOW or any other tenets in full. I have issues with all the various branches of the manophere and I think all of them have something to positively contribute to a better understanding of intersexual dynamics. It’s my take on the MGTOW side of things that the one common thread these guys share is putting themselves as their own mental point of origin,and I go into that a bit in this interview.

Not all MGTOWs are cut from the same cloth. As I understand it Niko puts himself out there to engage women, but his perspective is one of ROI and making himself the primary frame setter when he does. As I stated before, my main concern is men isolating themselves socially and I think that taken to its extreme MGOTW can lead men to a self imposed isolation. Niko and I discussed this a bit too, as well as covering the true forced loneliness groups.

That said I think there’s more Red Pill common ground in the mindset. Yeah, I get that any man’s wife is empowered by the state to essentially be the deciding factor in how that guy will live his life. I’m not advocating for marriage, and certainly not in the hostile social state it’s in today – but you don’t have to marry or even entertain monogamy to engage with women. Regardless of how you go about it, becoming Red Pill aware will necessitate that a man ‘goes his own way’ in some respect. Applying Red Pill knowledge may mean you learn Game or it may mean you simply decided to recuse yourself from it, but that awareness will require you to put yourself first.

So, have a listen and let me know what you think.

 

In other news the Man in Demand conference is down to the last 4 or 5 tickets by my last count. It will sell out soon, so if you’re still on the fence now’s the time to get your reservations set.

The Isolationists

isolation

Pandora at Sosuave has a conundrum for us to solve today:

It seems there are two contradictory schools of thought on dating:

1.) You hear from one side of the argument to pursue your interests in life and women will come to you. This is what the MGTOW movement espouses. Im not sure if men can even be totally indifferent to the power of pussy. But some believe the total indifference is the key to a fulfilling love life. I have found that if you are indifferent then you will get nothing and be celibate. This doesn’t sound very good.

2.) The other argument is that you should not be indifferent at all. This school of thought says that dating is purely a numbers game. Its similar to sales. The more women you meet the higher the likely hood of one of these women liking you. The more approaches you do the more lays you get. Simple statistics. This school of thought is the opposite of indifference. This is the way i personally go about dating and i have had mediocre results. This is represented by the NEXTING mentality.

Not sure which one to choose or which one is correct. I do know that i am tired of being a slave to vagina. I do OK but it takes a ton of work to get one mediocre lay. Its not good for your self esteem either. Being rejected or toyed with mentally is unhealthy for your psyche. Most of my friends are also slaves to getting laid. Roosh V made a post about how ” His Boner is his master”.

So is it ” Pursue your interests in life and women will take care of themselves” vs ” Go out and do the field work”..which one will lead to a more fulfilling life?

Before we get down to nuts and bolts here let me address this last part first. There is no such thing as a “fulfilled” life. God forbid you reach fulfillment in life. The human state is one of a perpetuated discontent, and so long as that discontent is constructively pursued, this is a good thing. When anyone presents you with a plan or an abstract for life fulfillment, understand that they are selling you something based on the very human want for a better life.

That said, the rest of the question makes for some interesting debate. I often read a common thread in the manosphere about how men should develop some mental disposition of “outcome independence.” I understand the sentiment and why it would be beneficial for any guy to simply shrug his shoulders and say “either way, yes, no, I’m good with it”, but what this really boils down to is another indirect Buffer against real rejection.

I’ve read some ‘life coaches’ rattle off something similar. The idea is that if you put yourself out there, just by doing so, a woman will appreciate the inherent risk of rejection in your approach and at least give you merit points for trying when she does reject you. It’s a flawed idea because it presumes the women you’d approach would have any capacity to recognize that risk, much less reward the effort. It presumes that women would have that rational insight in the moment and think “well, he must have confidence for just trying to hit on me” and add that to some subconscious list of pros and cons for accepting or rejecting him.

And of course when it comes to light that the majority of women don’t have any concept of the approach-risk appreciation they’re supposed to have, that’s when a guy is told he’s hitting on the wrong kind of woman – they’re not the “quality” women they should be risking themselves with.

So the next deductive step becomes one of insulating oneself against that rejection preemptively. Thus, outcome independence becomes not just a mindset, but also a (misguided) Game strategy. Therein lies the conflict; is outcome independence who you are or is it a strategy disconnected from yourself which you rely on to Buffer rejection?

I touched on this in Vulnerability:

The idea goes that if a man is truly outcome-independent with his being rejected by a woman, the first indicator of that independence is a freedom to be vulnerable with her. The approach then becomes one of “hey, I’m just gonna be my vulnerable self and if you’re not into me then I’m cool with that.”

The hope is that a woman will receive this approach as intended and find something refreshing about it, but the sad truth is that if this were the attraction key its promoters wish it was, every guy ‘just being himself‘ would be swimming in top shelf pussy. This is a central element to Beta Game – the hope that a man’s openness will set him apart from ‘other guys’ – it is common practice for men who believe in the equalist fantasy that women will rise above their feral natures when it comes to attraction, and base their sexual selection on his emotional intelligence.

The fact is that there is no such thing as outcome independence. The very act of your approaching a woman means you have made some effort to arrive at a favorable outcome with her. The fact that you’d believe a woman would even find your vulnerability attractive voids any pretense of outcome independence.

In a larger scope, there is no real outcome independence. Even making the effort to adopt that IDGAF mindset is itself an investment in an outcome. If you were truly indifferent to the outcome of a situation there would be no discussion about it.

Being truly indifferent to whether or not a woman accepts or rejects you implies a disinterest in that woman’s interests in you. There are certainly ways to insulate oneself against a negative outcome, but outcome independence is not Game itself. You will learn more from your failures than from your successes.

With that in mind Pandora raises some interesting propositions here:

1.) You hear from one side of the argument to pursue your interests in life and women will come to you. This is what the MGTOW movement espouses. I’m not sure if men can even be totally indifferent to the power of pussy. But some believe the total indifference is the key to a fulfilling love life. I have found that if you are indifferent then you will get nothing and be celibate. This doesn’t sound very good.

I think for the most part this want for indifference gets pushed to extremes. As I’ve stated many times, a woman should only ever be a complement to a man’s life, never the focus of it. However, that doesn’t mean a complete dissociation from women is healthy. For a woman to be a complement to your life you’ll need interact with, and understand the nature of, women.

Roissy summed this position up well in the 16 Commandments of Poon:

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

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

What this commandment doesn’t presuppose is that there isn’t a woman in a man’s life to be superseded by his mission. It’s not all mission, no woman. The MGTOW branch of the manosphere is made up of a diverse set of guys. From my experience not all MGTOWs are interested in complete indifference to women; most would be happy to have women be interested in them enough to make an effort to associate themselves with them, they just don’t see the point in making a direct effort to make those connections. Others simply resign themselves to isolation and meeting their physical needs with porn or escorts while they ‘enjoy’ life and pursue their own interests absent of women.

There is an inherent problem in this latter MGTOW preference, they build a fortress around themselves:

Law 18: Do Not Build Fortresses to Protect Yourself— Isolation is Dangerous
The world is dangerous and enemies are everywhere— everyone has to protect themselves. A fortress seems the safest. But isolation exposes you to more dangers than it protects you from-it cuts you off from valuable information, it makes you conspicuous and an easy target. Better to circulate among people, find allies, mingle. You are shielded from your enemies by the crowd.

You cannot entirely remove yourself from the Game. You can cede the governance of your participation in intersexual dynamics to whatever or whomever you think may control it, but you cannot recuse yourself from its influences. This is a foundational truth I think some MRAs and the more isolationist MGTOWs believe they can in some way buffer for themselves. They believe that not playing the Game is a preferable situation to “dealing” with the means and efforts necessary to “succeed” with women.

The natural progression then becomes one of self-affirmation in the belief that they’re not ‘dealing’ with women, and any guy who is is little more than a slave doing the bidding of women by even his interest in applying an effort to understand and interact with them. Even the most marginal effort becomes ‘pussy begging’.

16. Dancing Monkey Hate

Hater: Men who run game are just doing the bidding of women. Alphas don’t entertain women.

If you want success with women, you are going to have to entertain them… one way or the other. The same is true of women. Once a woman stops entertaining men with her body, her femininity, and her commitment worthiness by getting fat, old, ugly, bitchy, or single mom-y, she stops having success with men. We are all doing the bidding of our biomechanical overlord, and on our knees to his will we surrender, by force or by choice. You fool yourself if you believe you have some plenary indulgence from this stark reality.
Or: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

The problem with the ‘pussy begging’ rationale becomes one of defining what degree of interest a man ought to have with women. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy; the women who accommodate this level of (dis)interest become ‘quality women’ while those who don’t align with that impression serve as convenient proof of their isolationist belief. The latent rationale becomes one of sour grapes, disdain the things you can’t have while making necessity a virtue. If there is something you want but cannot have, show contempt for it. The less interest you reveal, the more superior you seem.The logic then becomes circular.

The opposite extreme, and one intersexual isolationists like to promote, is that it’s all a numbers game with regards to any “success” with women. If you throw enough spaghetti against the wall something will stick. Isolationists would have us believe that even what sticks is rarely worth the effort (sour grapes), but if you play the game often enough what you get is due more to persistence than any real accuracy of applied Game.

So is it ” Pursue your interests in life and women will take care of themselves” vs ” Go out and do the field work”..which one will lead to a more fulfilling life?

I’d say a measured balance of both. I don’t believe for a moment that any man is functionally indifferent to the influence of women. Men are the True Romantics; we want our idealistic impression of love to be impossibly reciprocated. We look for ways to buffer the frustration of trying to make our concept of love and female acceptance fit women’s when we don’t understand that each sex adheres to separate ideals. Outcome independence, isolationism, are ways some men think they can enforce our ideal as the standard for women.

With the Feminine Imperative in social ascendance women enforce a Hypergamous ideal that imbalances intergender dynamics, but that doesn’t mean men are powerless to effect their own interests and draw women into men’s Frame. The solution isn’t one of ‘taking all your toys and going home’ to wait for women to come around to appreciate men. It’s going to take a learned interaction.

The real pussy begging comes from demanding a woman to come over to your perspective unbidden and unmerited. Make your mission not your woman your imperative, but in that mission be the Man a woman will want to be associated with. I always stress the importance of Frame control – it’s the first Iron Rule of Tomassi – but this presupposes you have command of that frame to begin with. She enters your reality, you don’t enter hers, but you must have a reality a woman wants to enter into before you can maintain it.