monogamy

The New Polyandry

About five years ago I wrote a post called You Need Sex. In that essay I asserted a few key points about the importance of a healthy sex life for men. If I’m honest I kind of expected most of the reactions I got from that post and even now it remains one of my more contentious pieces. Even when I was in my Blue Pill youth in the 80s and 90s I’d run across the guys who always wanted to deemphasize sex in some reverse-psychology effort to get women to believe that they were deeper than the guys who just wanted to bang them. These were the guys who’d listen to a girl say something like, “I don’t see why sex is such a big deal to guys” or “Am I just a piece of ass to you?“, they’d take it to heart, and then construct some kind of personalized Game around how they respected women and wanted to really relate with them ‘beyond the sexual’.

That’s exactly what the Blue Pill teaches guys; they should always defer to, empathize with and identify with the feminine. This is Blue Pill conditioning at its most basic. It is a boy/man’s imperative to place women’s existence as more important than his own – and with men’s innate protection instincts for women this Blue Pill training is key to establishing a gynocratic social order.

But guys also have to find some way to set themselves apart from the competition in the Blue Pill sexual marketplace. They have to find someway to make themselves unique in how unlike ‘typical‘ guys they are. The miscalculation is, of course, the belief that the more alike, the more they identify, with (as?) women the likelier a woman would select them for intimacy and reproduction. 

Men are natural problem solvers. It’s part of our evolved firmware to look for solutions to challenges in our environment. This makes us constructive, creative, often innovative and more ready to take risks. It also makes us competitive and that competitiveness extends to the sexual marketplace. So it’s not too much of a stretch to see how Blue Pill conditioned young men might look for creative ways to outdo one another in the ‘female-identification olympics. 

One way this identification competition gets pushed to new heights is in how well a man might better devalue and abase his own sexual strategy to better accommodate that of the woman he believes will appreciate it. Taken to the binary extreme this means finding some way to devalue all men’s sexual natures. What better way to set oneself apart from other guys than to not be a guy? What better way to empathize with the feminine than to tear down the gender women say they despise?

Does all that seem kind of ridiculous? I used to think this way when I was younger. There was a time I might’ve even jumped on the “masculinity is toxic/confusing/outdated/outmoded/ridiculous” train because I truly believed it was the way to a woman’s vagina heart and mind. Even in the 80s and 90s this was a popular misconception. It wasn’t until I’d been through my first bad breakup that I realized the truth. Then I had nothing to lose by making myself more important than the women I was idealizing and behold! The women I wanted, wanted me – sexually to be sure, but they wanted to lock me down in commitment.

In my 20s I had unwittingly shifted from one sexual strategy to another, and I liked the change. It didn’t happen overnight. I had to learn to adopt the attitude, the swagger, the character that would get me laid, but I found that the most important part of playing the game well was putting my own desires well above those of any woman.

Suddenly I discovered I could easily nail the girls I could only jerk off to in my younger years. I can remember the time I first had sex with a girl I thought was the apex of hotness when I was in my teens. She was the best friend of the girlfriend of the drummer in the band I was in then. Both were swimsuit models and I thought I’d finally reached the goal. It wasn’t until after I dumped her to get with a centerfold model that I knew I’d set my sights too low.

Does that sound like a humblebrag? If you’re still held back by a Blue Pill mindset it probably will. I mentioned on a podcast recently that a majority of men will never know sex as anything but a mitigated, compromised transaction. They’ll never know what it’s like to have a woman lust after them. They’ll never experience the dilated eyes of a woman that would give anything to please him in that moment. Not because she’s obligated, but because her ego is validated at the same time her body is aching to have sex with him.

Strategic Pluralism Theory

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

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

from Why Is Muscularity Sexy? Tests of the Fitness Indicator Hypothesis

The latter quote here is a simple outline of Hypergamy, but the first part, Strategic Pluralism Theory is what I want to focus on today because this is where the “sex is no big deal” cop out derives from for men.

The first sexual strategy, the one in which a higher SMV (sexual market value) male can enjoy the sexual experience of many women is a strategy predicated on what our most basic, evolved, biological instinct directs us to. It served ancestral men better to ‘hit it and quit it’ and move on to the next girl as expediently as possible for a variety of reasons. This is also a reason why women’s Hypergamous filtering is a base part of women’s sexual selection process today. The investment cost of becoming pregnant was so high that it became part of women’s evolved firmware to be hypersensitive to reproduction cues as well as parental investment cues (provisioning resources) to ensure survival of herself and her offspring. If you ever wonder why rape is such an existential fear for women you have to understand that this fear is written deep into women’s evolved mental firmware because of men overriding this filtering process by violence.

The first archetype of Strategic Pluralism Theory we could day is the Alpha archetype. This is the guy who has the luxury, by effort or genetic lottery, to pursue what I’d speculate was our ancestors’ pre-agrarian, hunter-gatherer sexual imperative. This is what guys like to call the “Natural” with women. Thanks so any number of intersexual advantages (looks, Game, social proof, preselection) it serves him best to spread the seed and women are only too happy to enjoy him as well. He represents the 20th percentile in the 80/20 Pareto distribution of the sexual marketplace.

This side of Strategic Pluralism Theory reflects the r aspect of the r/K reproductive theory. A lot of well meaning Red Pill theologians seem to think that r/K reproductive selection is only limited to the female side of the equation. I’d also point out that this applies to the male side as well. Hypergamy is women’s evolved sexual strategy, however, I would argue that men’s innate, default sexual strategy is unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. This r strategy is manifested today in our base predilection for pornography. Untempered by societal restraints, Alpha sexual strategy is what men a majority would default to if given the choice. 

More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring.

I’m establishing this perspective to better illustrate the Beta side of Strategic Pluralism Theory. For sake of convenience I’m labeling men who fall into the ‘more attractive men’ category as Alphas. I don’t think this is too much of a stretch for most of my readers, but if you have a problem with this just consider the statistics laid out in the book Dataclysm. A majority of women rate 80-85% of men as “unattractive”. That last 15-20% are our ‘more attractive’ Alphas here.

This then leaves the remaining ‘less attractive men’ as the Beta cohort. 

…the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

This then is the Beta mating strategy and if it sounds like the conventional idea of monogamy you’re not too far off. This is the K side of the r/K selection theory. Before I continue I want to stress that monogamy or non-exclusivity is not a value judgement in this essay. Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks has male sexual strategy implications beyond women’s Hypergamy. I refer to Alpha and Beta as placeholder terms here.

For the Beta side of Strategic Pluralism the reproductive strategy is one that, in part, aligns with one side of Hypergamy. The 80% of ‘less attractive’ men find it necessary to compromise their biological imperative (unlimited access to unlimited sexuality) in order to successfully reproduce. This is the nuts & bolts of what is today being called “enforced monogamy”. While this idea is taken to absurd extremes by critics, the premise is rooted in Strategic Pluralism. Since monogamy serves the largest block of men’s reproductive efforts it follows that it would be the institutionalized standard for ‘civil’ society.

Monogamy is Beta

Monogamy is a social norm, if not an evolutionary norm. A lot has been written about how monogamy in its present incarnation – one man, one woman – is really the result of a post-agrarian social order that optimized the sexual strategy of Beta men. In essence socially-enforced monogamy serves the largest population of Beta males.

However, the tradeoff for women was long term provisioning, protection (in as far as the man was capable) and parental investment – all thing conducive to sustainable futures for women and their children. All that was expected of women was a compromise on the Alpha arousal side of Hypergamy. And naturally, Alpha men and most women found ways to circumvent this socio-sexual adaptation that benefitted women in spite of Beta men. 

Monogamy serves Beta men. Alpha men still get sex, broke or not.

I had the above video passed along to me by a Twitter follower about 2 weeks ago. I think he expected me to take issue with how she was defending ‘gold-diggers’ but, ironically, she unwittingly detailed the basics of Hypergamy and Strategic Pluralism Theory. She’s not wrong. Women’s sexual strategy is optimized in conditions of polygamy and polyandry, while men’s sexual strategy – the Beta sides anyway – is optimized in a condition of socially enforced monogamy. 

What’s really ironic is that this girl discounts what so many men discount when they consider Hypergamy. She couches her total perspective on the Beta Bucks, long-term provisioning side of Hypergamy while conveniently omitting the Alpha Fucks side of Hypergamy. The only consideration she has is for resource transfer – again perpetuating the Beta sex experience – and ignoring the fact that even poor men still get to bang women like her if they’re “hawt’. ‘Monogamy is made to benefit men‘, no it’s made to benefit Beta men; Alpha men solve the reproductive problem irrespective of (in spite of) socially enforced monogamy. ‘Broke men don’t get women‘,…unless they’re hot broke men.

I’ve seen Jordan Peterson and more than a few notable evo-psych professors make a similar mistake. They deliberately make Hypergamy solely about the Beta Bucks side of a dualistic mating strategy. Mostly this misdirection is due to personal bias or a want to present the feminine in a positive light. But likewise we also tend to see focus of men’s sexual strategy centering on what long term resources a man has to measure his worth by. Historically, women have generally been the losers in a social order based on a monogamy that tries to ensure that the most men (majority Beta) are solving the reproductive problem. Because women lacked the same resource generating capacity of men, because up until 50 years ago women needed men to solve the Beta Bucks side of Hypergamy, monogamy was a at least a workable solution to their own reproductive problem.

In 2018 this is no longer the case. For all of the bleating of women wanting a ‘good man’ once they exit the cock carousel, the reproductive problem they’re trying to solve isn’t founded in the Beta Bucks side of Hypergamy it’s on the Alpha Fucks side. For as much as the women in this video tried to defend their mercenary sexual strategy of being justifiable gold diggers they really didn’t need to. All of the provisioning needs side of Hypergamy is relatively provided for for women in western cultures today.

The monogamous priority – the one that tried to ensure that most Beta men reproduced – that priority has now shifted to a neo-polyandry. This new social mechanic attempts to solve the Alpha Fucks side of the reproductive problem for the largest number of women. Just as patriarchal monogamy attempted to aide men who wouldn’t otherwise reproduce, the new polyandry seeks to ensure that even the lowest SMV women are entitled to breed with an Alpha male of their choosing.

Once all social stigma and religious buffers were removed from Hypergamy (since the Sexual Revolution) it has been a rapid shift from a male-beneficial monogamy that’s been the social norm for millennia to a form of polyandry that benefits the female sexual strategy.

I’ll be continuing this post in the next essay, but before I leave this essay let me reiterate the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies: For one sex’s strategy to be fulfilled the other’s must be compromised or abandoned. Think of this on a sociological meta-scale.

The Talk

the_talk

Softek has had the almost predictable move for The Talk from his current (I believe BPD) “girlfriend”. Just to clarify a few things here before I dig into Softek’s questions I think it’s necessary to define what “The Talk” is. Generally, there comes a point with a  particular plate you’re spinning when a woman believe it’s within her feminine entitlements to force the issue of exclusivity upon a man. I’ve written several foundational posts about non-exclusivity and the reasons men should opt for (Plate Theory) and I’ve also covered The Talk from practical considerations in Ultimatums, but feminized pop-culture has made what essentially amounts to a Frame shift into a life event.

The Talk is literally the defining of a relationship, and in a feminine-primary social order that defining power is presumed to always reside with a woman according to her “needs”. I should also add here that as men have become more feminized and uncomfortable in describing themselves as masculine, the feminine security need for a confirmed relationship status puts these men into the feminine role of initiating The Talk themselves. There are few grosser indications of a Beta / Blue Pill mental point of origin and a self-confirming lack of options than a man negotiating for exclusivity by formalizing it with a feminized relationship event.

What does Negotiated Desire mean for a relationship when a woman has resorted to it?

They’re powerless, yes, they feel helpless, yes.

But what does this mean for their perception of the man they’re trying to Negotiate for?

Ultimatums are declarations of powerlessness. Let me be clear before I get the standard, “you need to be a Man and set boundaries with her” retort – as with all things for men, it is better to demonstrate than to explicate.

However, in this instance, we have a woman issuing the ultimatum and the sense of powerlessness comes into contrast. The very act of having The Talk is a negotiation of desire. The medium is the message. We can separate a woman’s entitlement to an “official” relationship with it, but the fact that a formal talk would be necessary to legitimize it is the message she ignores or hopes you won’t recognize  – it’s a negotiated obligation, not a genuine desire.

Making a euphemism out of this ultimatum by calling The Talk and dancing around the want for a long term security is a form of Buffer for women. And as with all Buffers, the intent is to lessen the impact of rejection by preemptively buffering the seriousness of it should it come to that.

There are a few reasons women will move for something like The Talk. First and foremost is the Hypergamic need for certainty. When a woman presses for exclusivity with a man she tips her hand in the Hypergamic scheme of things. In this instance the root message is twofold – she perceives you as high enough value to seek some kind of exclusive permanency and / or she acknowledges (or is beginning to) that her capacity to attract other prospective men is depreciating. Women with greater sexual market options and a commensurate self-impression rarely push for this relationship formality.

Another reason for The Talk is that women, on some level of consciousness, seek to alleviate the competition anxiety that comes with making an emotional investment in a man she perceives is 1-2 steps above her own sexual market value. A passive form of Dread almost certainly plays a role in the prompt to formalize an LTR, however, what’s prompting that Dread can range from an emotional investment based on a genuine desire to the pragmatic necessity to settle on a guy who meets her security needs in contrast to her ability to attract a better prospect.

As women enter the Epiphany Phase the need for a Talk becomes more urgent. As a woman’s attractiveness wanes Hypergamy cannot afford uncertainty or the risk of a loss of emotional investment. This is yet one more reason women tend to opt for dutiful Betas during the Epiphany Phase. Unattached higher SMV men entering their peak SMV phase are less inclined to look for or agree to, exclusivity when they have more available sexual options. Blue Pill men, unused to a sudden interest from women, are usually eager to formalize on exclusivity irrespective of a woman’s sexual history or her necessitous reasonings for exclusivity.

Have they lost respect for him? What is Negotiated Desire, on the woman’s part, indicative of in the relationship?

Again, this is somewhat subjective and depends on the man and woman’s conditions. As I mentioned above, the push for exclusivity on her part is prompted from necessity or Hypergamous anxiety. Genuine desire cannot be negotiated and it’s important to consider that this is equally true when it’s women doing the negotiating. Blue Pill conditioning has acculturated generations of women to expect that a man formalizing monogamy with her is not just her right, but that men will understand and accept that it is “the right thing to do” if he want’s to be accounted as a man.

We have an entire fem-centric world of women and men reinforcing this male-shame narrative in every branch of society – from church to popular media, you’re not a “man” if you so much as question your role in an exclusivity founded on a woman’s correct need of it.

This presents an interesting conflict for women. Women want men who just get it, but the necessity of petitioning a man for The Talk in the first place conflicts with the organicness of his understanding of women. Pushy, loud-mouthed, outspoken women raised on the Fempowerment narrative are often the most insecure in respect to this conflict. On one hand the narrative has bred her to expect a man to be her-equal-who’s-better-than-her-equal and ‘man up’ and formalize on his own. On the other hand, when he doesn’t, the anxiety that comes with the countdown to her Wall pushes her to force his compliance or to provide her own security for herself.

Now imagine this scenario with an Empowered Woman® dealing with the Beta in Waiting who represents her only viable LTR option. Yes, she may have lost respect for him, but her situation frustratingly compels her to force the issue of exclusivity with a guy who doesn’t get it.

Is it a sign of a failed relationship?

I don’t have any other experience, so my base assumption is that ALL WOMEN will push for commitment eventually, and want to pressure you into it, and ‘make things official.’

What does this mean for the health of the relationship?

Should it just end?

The necessity of a Talk in the first place puts this assessment into doubt. Women who don’t eventually push for commitment understand the nature of that relationship is temporary or there really is no potential, so there won’t be a Talk. The problem I see with making this formality something overtly public is that it has the opposite effect of qualifying what may be genuine desire without it. When The Talk enters into out popular consciousness it then becomes yet another ‘typical male’ fault.

Men become infantilized for not understanding women’s correctness in wanting a formalized declaration of monogamy. Once that infantilization becomes the accepted truism for women, what might’ve been a very good pairing of a man and a woman based on an organic genuine desire, turns into an obligation on his part to convince her that he’s not a child by living above that truism. The relationship becomes less about the genuine interest between the two and more about satisfying the “official” nature of it among men and women plugged into a Blue Pill social conditioning.

Should it just end at that point? If a man’s first act of a coerced monogamy is his capitulating to what amounts to a socially mandated ultimatum I think the woman he surrendered to will subconsciously lose the respect she had for him while they were “undocumented lovers.”

In a case like Rollo’s, or any other married guy here:

How did it happen? How do you get married without Negotiated Desire?

Is it IMPOSSIBLE, and it’s just a matter of minimizing the degree of Negotiation?

Same with having an official girlfriend. When you COMMIT even on the level of a ‘steady girlfriend,’ isn’t that Negotiating Desire by default?

I get this question a lot and for a lot of hard-line guys, even the best thing a married man (or LTR man) can say will always sound like he found a unicorn. You have to understand in my case the last woman I’d been in a formal LTR with before my wife was the BPD I described in the Two Guitars post. I had no intention of getting into an LTR at the time and for a long while, Mrs. Tomassi was one of four plates I was spinning at the time. All of this was above board and we dated non-exclusively for the first 3-4 months.

I began with a rock solid Frame at this time not because I was focused on establishing it, but because I had three other women in rotation and I was entirely indifferent to any idea of exclusivity with any of them. Of those four, Mrs. T was hottest and funnest in and out of bed so I gravitated to seeing her more regularly. I also appreciated her from the new perspective I had in contrast to the psychotic mess my BPD had been. She expected me to be conventionally masculine and I was already filling that role by default because I had a new outlook on women as a result of all that.

We never had a Talk when it came to exclusivity; she simply said that she didn’t like the thought of me banging other women and asked me if she could be my girlfriend. She literally asked to be part of my world during that brief conversation. I’ve had the Frame from the moment we started non-exclusively to where we are now 20 years later.

I’ll say it again, don’t use my example as some model for your own life, but there needs to be an organic flow to how you enter into any LTR.

It is vital to the health of any LTR that a man establish his frame as the basis of their living together before any formal commitment is recognized. As I stated in the beginning, frame will be fluid and conditions will influence the balance, but the overall theme of your relationship needs to be led and molded by you. Even very influential, professional, intellectualizing women still crave the right man to establish his frame in her life. They may fight it bitterly, but ultimately it’s what will make for the best healthy balance she can achieve. There’s a growing undercurrent of mid-life women questioning and regretting their past decisions to remain single into spinsterhood. And for all their late game rationalizations, the one thing they still simply refuse to accept is acknowledging that a man’s frame, the frame their “fierce independence” wouldn’t allow for, was exactly the salve their egos so desperately wants now later in life.

Gentlemen, you will establish frame in any monogamous relationship you have. You will enter her reality or she will enter yours.

Plate Theory V: Lady’s Game

I had a good amount of response on last Friday’s Plate Theory post asking for a more complete idea of women being natural Plate Theorists, so I thought I’d elaborate on this.

Female Plate Theory

For as often as I’ve mentioned women being natural plate theorists, I don’t think I’ve ever gone into detail about it. I think it’s pretty well established that I completely disagree with idea that women will only fuck one guy at a time. I could outline several women I know from experience in this, but really, observing behavior will bear this out fairly predictably. I will however agree that they are predisposed to, and are socially encouraged to, seek monogamy, but as in all things female the talk rarely matches the behavior. Sexuality is a woman’s first, best agency and even the homeliest woman know this – even when they’re just complaining about other women using it.

The principle that a woman’s first priority is to seek out security is true, and we’d be wise to bear this in mind when evaluating motives for behavior, but their methodology is what’s in question here. There is an understandable confusion for guys in this respect. On one hand women present a constant facade that the fear of being perceived as a slut (i.e. concurrently fucking more than one guy at a time) is primary to their self-respect and respectability. However, this has to be tempered with the desire to experience a variety of men in order to ensure the security/provisioning from the best among them. So in order to facilitate this women must practice a kind of calculated hypocrisy that is socially reinforced by the gender as a whole as well as some men (usually those so optionless as to excuse the behavior in order to get to her sexuality, or guys so conditioned that they overlook it as normal).

It is socially acceptable for a woman to blatantly spin plates.

Does this sound outrageous? While a woman who makes her sexual practices a bit too overt runs the risk of being perceived as a slut (which is dubious in this age as it is), most relatively attractive women covertly have a constant bullpen of starters ready to go to bat at any one time – these are also known as ‘Orbiters’. These are the attention providers, the “maybe” guys. And it makes little difference in terms of available options which she chooses at any given time, the very fact that she has five or six of them pursuing her is enough to boost her sense of self-worth, her social status within her same-gender peers, and give her the confidence to drop any one of her plates at a moments notice for any reason knowing that 2 or 3 more guys (or 20 more on facebook) stand ready to take his place, no questions asked and prepared rationalizations at the ready.

In addition, this practice is socially reinforced by women doing the same thing and the social conventions constructed to excuse the behavior. It’s the unspoken rule of a woman’s prerogative; she can always change her mind. This is a powerful tool for women –  in any situation, if a woman doesn’t choose to be sexual it is necessarily forced (or obligated), even when it’s after the fact. Either the “Jerk” forced her, physically or emotionally, or she had thought she wanted to, but later reconsidered – it makes little difference. In all social situations the default is to side with the feminine, the “weaker sex” – women, from sympathy or empathy, and men, from a desire to eventually become intimate with them. Dalrock expertly describes this convention in his “Don’t hit me, I’m a girl” post.

In either instance, the feminine prerogative is socially reinforced. That’s important to understand because even by my focusing on it here as a male, my motives for doing so become suspect. That’s how embedded this dynamic is – to question it risks ostracization. However, I also understand that for the greater part of women, this plate spinning dynamic isn’t a conscious effort on their part. In fact I’d suggest that it’s so thoroughly recognized that women default to it autonomously. Also, this is a good example of the first principle of power – when you have power, always feign powerlessness.

Free Reign

So, with a firm understanding that their behaviors will for the most part be excused, they are free to practice the feminine form of plate theory unhindered by social reprisal. The feminine plate spinning involves much more than sex though. Remember that attention is the coin of the realm in female society. The capacity to command attention determines self-esteem, peer status, sexual selectivity, and a host of other factors in a woman’s life, so spinning plates becomes more than just a “which guy am I gonna bang tonight” prospect. This dynamic and these factors are what makes women natural plate spinners. Even when a woman has no intention of ever becoming sexual with a “maybe” guy, his attention still has some value to her. It appeals to the long term prospective for security that’s a continuous subroutine running in her hindbrain. This is the rudimentary psychology behind hypergamy.

Now, combine all of this with women’s native language – covert communication – and it’s natural for a man to assume that a woman will only ever become sexual with one guy at a time. This serves the latent purpose of keeping him in a kind of stasis. If he assumes women will only be sexual under the precondition of commitment she is free to spin plates (essentially weighing options) as she pleases and sample at will what she sees as in her hypergamic best interest at the time. If the carrot looks good enough the guy will patiently pull the cart until such time as another, better carrot comes along. Either way he’s in that stasis. If a guy were to see her social and psychological machinations for what they are, he’d never pull the cart – so it serves women best that men think commitment should always be required for intimacy, even in the face of her behavior directly contradicting this.

Plate Wars

Lastly, this social dynamic serves as a very effective weapon for women against each other. As I stated in the last Plate Theory post, competition anxiety between women is something men can exploit for their own plate spinning, but the reason it is useful is because women so readily use it against each other. For a woman to say another is a “slut” translates into an overt betrayal of this unspoken social contrivance. She essentially is saying, “the rules are that women require commitment for sex, but here’s one who’ll never be worthy of any guy’s commitment because she wont play by the rules you suckers think she will.”

She is tacitly disqualified for a man’s commitment and is, at least in the accusing woman’s mind, a reduced threat in this feminine competition. She becomes exposed in the same game they’re all playing and in being so loses attention and therefore status and personal esteem. It seems petty to guys, but it’s really intra-gender warfare. Think of how many times an exceptionally attractive woman, that is completely anonymous to a group of women you happen to be with, berate her based on appearance alone. “She’s must be a tramp if she dressed like that.” These are the same women who’ll berate a man for basing his estimation of a woman on her outer appearance. This is feminine competition anxiety. Ask a woman to name the most attractive female actress they can think of. Odds are it will be a woman (who as a guy you’d never think of) who presents the least threat of this anxiety.

Gentlemen, as I’m fond of saying, women will fuck. They may not fuck you, they may not fuck me, but they will fuck someone. The girl who bangs the hot guy at the foam party in Cancun on Spring Break within 5 minutes of meeting him is the same girl who want’s you to believe that they’ll only fuck one guy at a time and then after commitment. All women are sexual, you just need to be the right guy at the right time for the job.

Plate Theory IV: Goal-State Monogamy

Whenever a guy uninitiated to the concept of spinning plates reads the theory for the first time his first response is usually rejection of it because it conflicts with their monogamy-as-goal mindset. Understand, this is always going to be a tough stretch for any AFC of course, but also the ‘natural’ guy who doesn’t have much trouble attracting women. Monogamy-as-a-goal is a feminine imperative social contrivance, but it also has roots in our natural desire for security, so it makes anything even remotely like plate spinning counterintuitive. The feminine imperative pounds into men’s collective consciousnesses over the course of a lifetime that monogamy will cure loneliness, make them responsible, provide them with a constant supply of sex, and a host of other things that assures them it’s “the right thing to do” and in their own best interest. This then leads the more option-less individuals to develop and practice AFC methods and rationales in accordance with what they believe (and have been told by) women is required of them in order to achieve their monogamous intimacy.

So understandably when the principle of being non-exclusive is presented to them in a rational way (in stead of a ridiculed way as it’s normally passed off as) it conflicts with this perceived path to happiness in monogamy. The very idea that any man would be better off with more options in this arena of life, or could feasibly and logistically pull it off seems foreign. As a counter to this he makes up rationales as to why it wont work or wont work for him.

Logistics

“I can’t spin plates because I have too little time, I can’t manage more than one without the other finding out, etc.”

If you are indeed spinning plates in a healthy, upfront, non-exclusive way this should never be an issue. There are Game-aware Men with less time than most who manage 4-5 different girls in a week without having them consume all their leisure and business time. I don’t suggest that you go this route per se, because for the better part PUAs rely on a dishonesty in non-exclusivity. However, the reason they are capable of this is because they’ve perfected plate spinning effectively enough to have the plates spin themselves.

Most uninitiated AFCs reason that they MUST, at all costs, apply a constant effort to each and every girl they encounter at risk of losing a “good one.” Besides this being indicative of ‘soul-mate thinking’, what they fear is losing a plate because they are unaccustomed to having the leisure to do so. This is evidence of a scarcity mentality that is a result of their monogamy-as-goal preconditioning. Plate Theory necessitates an attitude of fearlessness – not carelessness, fearlessness. When you’re practicing Plate Theory your plates should call you. You are the PRIZE and the Prince who’s time is valuable and sought after. You should be the object of women’s pursuit. That said, you still have to make an effort to see them and keep the attention you do apply to them valuable, but this must be done with the attitude that if one plate falls you’re confident in your other options or your ability to generate new options.

Personality Type

“I’m just not like that. I don’t want to be considered a playah. I could never do that to a woman. How can anyone be like that?”

This rationale is a common one and not limited just to AFCs. There are plenty of otherwise confident, positively masculine men who’d still think they owe it to women to allow them to set the frame of their relationships without any fear of competition anxiety. Players are men who’re dishonest – they are not spinning plates because they are isolating each plate independent of the other, and this goes back to logistics. Of course you can’t find time for anything else if all you do is try to coordinate each individual story with each plate for fear that they discover each other. The plate spinning Man has no need for this, because he NEVER IMPLIES EXCLUSIVITY TO ANY PLATE. Either they accept this or they’re not a plate to consider. Done in a frank, honest, yet indirect above-table way you will not be a ‘Player’ and you will establish yourself as Man who’s attention is worth competing for.

Women would rather share a successful man than be saddled with a faithful loser. This perfectly sums up Plate Theory vs. Monogamy-as-Goal mindsets. Men in general gravely underestimate the power of female competition anxiety and how useful it really is. As I’ve said before, women are natural plate theorists – they are accustomed from a very early age to mitigate multiple sex-interests, they simply learn how to balance their indirect communications with that anxiety in their own plate spinning. Anxiety in women is good for men. Even when they make no effort to use it or would never consider it if they knew it’s usefulness it is ALWAYS present. Everything a woman does on a daily basis is colored by competition anxiety. Make up, clothing, shoes (God, the SHOES!), indirect communications with men and women, social contrivances, comparing and evaluating dates and possible suitors, EVERYTHING is bourn from this competitive desire to achieve security with the best possible guy and make damn sure the girl next door doesn’t get him first. This anxiety is analogous to men’s consummate fear of rejection and all of the myriad rationales he’ll create and the Buffers he’ll devise to avoid it.

Bear in mind that monogamy is a dictate of the feminine imperative. It is the social contract that the feminine ultimately needs in order to quell a constant desire for security in a very chaotic world. When you are predisposed to monogamy-as-goal thinking, or trying to break yourself of this, understand that this is a tool of the feminine imperative. That’s not to discount the overall merits of monogamy, but it is to make you aware of how it’s acculturated into men as a responsibility to providing monogamy. Men who find themselves in a state of internal conflict about abandoning monogamy-as-goal are really confronting a fundamental shift in their prior conditioning.