physical attractiveness

The Pareto Principle

Pareto

An interesting side discussion was started in what proved to be a very popular post thread for The War Brides of Europe, and rather than let it disappear beneath a thousand-plus comments I thought I’d pick up on an old post I’ve had in my drafts for a while now.

One of the foundational ideas of Red Pill awareness from the earliest PUA years has been the 80/20 concept – 80% of women want to have sex and / or pair off with the top 20% of men. This has been a fast and loosely defined in terms of subjective sexual market value (SMV) between men and women and the ratio of disparity between those valuations.

In intersexual terms, this 80/20 rule finds its roots in the economic theory known as the Pareto Principle: “80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients.” While I’m not sure the principle is directly translatable, it mirror the general rule of Hypergamy and women’s innate drive to optimize their sexual strategy with who they perceive as the top tier 20% (Alphas) men are fucking the 80% lion’s share of women. Many a despondent Beta picks up on the principle and uses this to justify his failures to connect with women.

I’m of the opinion that the 80/20 rule is often abused to justify men’s failures or successes with women (more often failure), however the fundamental notion is both observable and easily verifiable in-field as well as statistically. It is however important to keep in mind that the 80/20 rule as it applies to Hypergamy is often bastardized in its inverse. The presumption goes that if 80% of women want to have sex with the top 20% of men it should necessarily mean that the top 20% of men are fucking 80% of women. Many a despondent Beta picking up on this dynamic will use this assumption to disqualify himself from Game or give up in futility. More on this later.

As a point of reference, it’s important to remember that Hypergamy doesn’t seek its own level with regard to SMV comparisons. Rather, Hypergamy is always seeking a socio-sexual pairing that is a ‘better than’ exchange for a woman’s own, realistically comparative, SMV. And as I’ve mentioned previously, Hypergamy is always pragmatic about establishing that ‘better than’ SMV exchange with men’s.

While the Red Pill’s expanded definition of Hypergamy encompasses far more than just ‘marrying up‘, the 80/20 sexual selection process is simple enough that even Aunt Giggles in her heyday could illustrate it:

hypergamy-in-a-pic

As you might guess the fundaments of basic Hypergamy are easy to understand, so the tendency is to oversimplify the complexities that really define Hypergamy and how the 80/20 basics play out. And lastly, it’s important to bear in mind the dual nature of women’s Hypergamous filtering, impulses and attendant emotional investments – the 80/20 dynamic applies to both the Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks aspects of Hypergamy, however the characteristics that would optimize the former tend to come at the expense of the latter (and vice versa).

All that said, the 80/20 principle is fairly simple; a majority of women across the broadest SMV spectrum (80%) will always want for a ‘better than’ pairing (both sexual and provisional) than their own comparative SMV.

If the underlying mechanics of Hypergamy-inspired desire were only about a 1 or 2 step difference in SMV the distribution ratio wouldn’t be 80/20. As sophomoric as it is the above graph is relatively accurate: an SMV 3 woman is desirous of an SMV 8 or above man as representative of a Hypergamously optimal pairing (sex and/or provisioning).

For the 80/20 rule to hold true we’re looking at a comparative difference of 5 steps in SMV. Now, granted, this is on the extreme end of the spectrum, and it should also be noted that SMV is also a question of context and based on a woman’s ‘filtering’ perception of a man’s SMV being legitimate. However, this doesn’t alter the ‘better than’ merited pragmatism of Hypergamy.

Whether or not a woman is actually capable of this optimization isn’t relative to understanding the principle. Indeed, with the expansion of instant communication, social emphasis of women’s empowerment and esteem, and the influence social media exercises over the female ego, an SMV 3 woman of today might likely believe she is in fact deserving of a man 5 steps above her own (a good example). But for purposes of understanding how the Pareto principle applies to intersexual dynamics we must focus on the latent purposes for it to exist.

Common Errors

The easiest (or most convenient) mistake to make about this dynamic is to presume that the consolidation of Hypergamy (locking down a man 5 to 1 steps higher in SMV in monogamy) defines the 80/20 rule. Remember, this principle is about desire and women’s expected (entitled?) satisfaction of it, not the actual consolidation (LTR) of that Hypergamous ideal.

In the prior thread the conversation centered on the mistaken idea that the Pareto Principle is not universal or is only observed in some systems, but not in human sexuality. To which I’d argue that in no other system is this principle more evident than intersexual dynamics – and not just among humans but countless other species. It’s unflattering to the disguise in which the Feminine Imperative would put it in, but, whether realizable or not, the 80/20 rule practically defines female desire.

The second mistake it to presume the inverse: that 20% of men actually get 80% of women. Usually this gets trotted out as an equal-for-equal argument that presumes, again, that desire should necessarily translate into consolidation. Betas and lower SMV men do get laid and pair off with women for any number of reasons, but the principle isn’t about who’s actually fucking who. Rather, it’s about who has more access to sexually available women based on their SMV valuation. Nice Guys may finish last, but they do finish eventually – whether they finish ‘well’ is a thought for another post.

A third common mistake, made mostly by women, presumes the goal-state outcome of intersexual dynamics should be to arrive at a monogamous state. This is the consolidation of a female sexual strategy, and because we live in a feminine-primary social order, that committed, monogamous end to women’s sexual strategy is perceived as the socially “correct” goal. At no point is men’s imperative interests (sexual or life-rewarding) a priority, if it’s considered at all, in the Hypergamous equation. In the absence (or disregard) of men’s conflicting interests the Feminine Imperative substitutes what best fits its own interests as the socially ‘appropriate’ goals for men. Then it qualifies ‘manhood’ according to its proxy interests for men, so that any man not measuring up to them are not considered truly ‘men’ by its definition.

Women’s innate Hypergamous nature ensures a distributive model for desire that aligns with the Pareto Principle – even if the overall result of women settling for less than optimal Hypergamy appears to contradict it. Again, it’s important to remember that women’s Hypergamous desires are often not reflected by the outcome of those desires.

Want is not have

The concept that a woman’s Hypergamous imperative wouldn’t be a mutual goal between the sexes is an alien thought to most women.  Much in the same way that men idealistically want to believe women mutually share their concept of love for love’s sake (and free from the conditions of their Burden of Performance), women are mistaken in believing men’s sexual strategy is synonymous with the female strategy and shares a mutual end. By way of feminine solipsism and a social order that only considers women’s imperatives as legitimate, collective feminine social consciousness rarely gives men’s imperatives an afterthought – and then only when they become problematic to the Feminine Imperative.

Women subconsciously reinforce the feminine-correct goal state of LTR monogamy by a continuous, autonomous, expectation of its fulfillment – even when that fulfillment creates cognitive dissonance with their short term vs. long term sexual strategy. It’s part of women’s Hypergamous firmware to do so because it ensures (or tries to) their subconscious need for parental investment and long term security / provisioning.

What women necessarily must disregard is that their own sexual strategy choices are determined by the want to pair with a mate who exceeds her own SMV. Thus, the Pareto principle applies.

In Open Hypergamy I made mention that there is a social transitioning taking place among women where revealing the uglier side of Hypergamy is becoming more acceptable. The degree of comfort with which women have in revealing the machinations of Hypergamy is proportional to their capacity to play the 80/20 game well enough to consolidate on a 20th percentile man (or his closest approximation). For women still uncomfortable with openly embracing the uglier side of Hypergamy concealing the truth about the 80/20 becomes a practical priority. You will find in the future that many of the conflicts you read between Strong Independent Women® of differing social or moral perspectives will be based in their degree of comfort in openly relating the machinations of Hypergamy.

Women for whom keeping the 80/20 rule concealed from men’s popular consciousness (women with less capacity to compete intrasexually) can ill afford to have men aware of their own SMV and how it affects their long term sexual strategy. High value Red Pill aware men have the leisure to exploit Hypergamy and low value Red Pill men aware of their Hypergamous role risk denying women of the resources to provision them in the long term.

The Male Side of the Principle

Way back in the Peak Hypergamy post Hollenhund got me thinking about how the Hypergamous  aspect of the Pareto Principle can become men’s primary source of frustration and apathy:

I have to COMPLETELY OVERCOME all my handicaps to the point where I am BETTER than 80% of men at least.

I have to have my shit together better than the vast majority of men. I’m having a hard enough time just getting to be AVERAGE, but what I need to do in order to have any kind of sex life and get ANY of my sexual needs met AT ALL is be better than the vast majority of guys out there.

So, in other words, you’ll end up killing yourself anyway, but you’ll do it the slow way, by making sure you’ll end up an exhausted wretch with an ulcer, high blood pressure and similar health problems? Because that’s what you’re basically saying there.

I tend to think of how men confront the challenge of their performance burden is a parallel to their understanding of the 80/20 rule. On some level of consciousness men either possess some evolved instinct for it, or they develop some learned understanding of their own role in relation to how the 80/20 dynamic applies to them.

I think much of what frustrates men about assessing their own SMV in a Blue Pill mindset comes from an instinctual understanding of the 80/20 rule and reconciling it with what they’re being socialized to believe women ought to evaluate them for. Before any Game, before any Red Pill awareness, men’s first deductive impression is to classify themselves into SMV respective “leagues“, and women who would or wouldn’t be sexually accessible according to those leagues.

Ironically, even men’s Blue Pill league evaluations fail to account for women’s 1-5 SMV step over evaluation of their own SMV. The equalist agenda teaches men that their leagues should be based on a like-for-like parallel, when Hypergamy really demands men’s SMV be well above that of women.

This of course gets distorted once men begin to become Red Pill aware and over-exaggerate the abstract concept of Alpha and how it applies to themselves. In a way they fall victim to believing they must become an Alpha parody in order to measure up to women’s apex fallacy impression of a top 20% man.

Needless to say Red Pill awareness and applied Game will reveal the truth about the 80/20 rule. Initially it seems like a horribly unjust set of conditions for an ‘average’ man, but the rule is still based on the fundamental biological and psychological underpinnings of Hypergamy, and therefore open to exploits for a Red Pill aware man.

Quality Assurances

Web

In the above example (h/t Young Patriarch) we can see the comparison between a naturalistic, Hypergamous socio-sexual order contrasted with an idealized socio-sexual structure. The Sexual Freedom model mirrors the 80/20 rule, while the Regulated model is representative of an idealized structure designed with the intent to evenly justify pairings according to a distributive monogamy.

As I mentioned earlier, men have an instinctual understanding about how the 80/20 Pareto Principle applies to women’s Hypergamy. And while Game is a modern contingency for it I would argue that the cross-culture concept of a monogamous marriage between men and women was a broader contingency designed not just to counter women’s Pareto-centered sexual strategy, but to ensure a greater majority of (lesser SMV) men had the opportunity to pass on their genetic heritage.

I could point out that the Regulated model above is very representative of an egalitarian model for monogamy based again on the like-for-like presumption, but Hypergamy being what it naturally is will always confound that ideal. However, I have to also point out that the Regulated ideal has always been a convenient selling tool to keep both men and women ignorant of the uglier, visceral nature of the Hypergamous sexual marketplace.

Marriage as a social adaptation serves (or served) as a negotiated buffer against Hypergamy, but it also serves as a perceived buffer against men’s Burden of Performance that would otherwise necessitate the constant super-achievement that Hollenhund describes above. As a social dynamic marriage was a Beta breeding insurance policy that conveniently enough took root about the time human beings began to adopt a largely agrarian lifestyle.

Today equalism and the fantasy of an idealized, mutually beneficial monogamy based on the Old Set of Books is little more than a contingent workaround for the 80/20 rule reality. As this idealism decays and is replaced by either Red Pill awareness or men learning the harsh realities of modern marriage liability the more we will see a shift away from the Regulated model in favor of a now openly Hypergamous model.

Recently NY Mag had yet another feminist triumphalism article in the same vein as the Atlantic’s End of Men article (apparently 6 years is the period in which the femosphere believes popular awareness of its bullshit memes end). However there was this one salient point that illustrates this shift in monogamy:

In 2009, the proportion of American women who were married dropped below 50 percent. In other words, for the first time in American history, single women (including those who were never married, widowed, divorced, or separated) outnumbered married women. Perhaps even more strikingly, the number of adults younger than 34 who had never married was up to 46 percent, rising 12 percentage points in less than a decade. For women under 30, the likelihood of being married has become astonishingly small: Today, only around 20 percent of Americans are wed by age 29, compared to the nearly 60 percent in 1960.

In the old order of monogamy the mutually beneficial exchange centered on quality assurances, either via polygamy (sexual assurances) or monogamy (provisonal assurances) in a Beta context. These assurances, having been more or less compensated for by men’s willing or unwilling assistance via social and legislative means, are no longer an incentive for women to marry or commit to a long term monogamy, and this is evidenced in almost a decade of statistics that show this decline.

A Wife for Every Beta

In Christian Dread I made mention of Nick Krausers’ appearance on London Real. For a bit more elaboration on this principle cue the video to 5:00 and watch until about 8:33.

A wife for every Beta is the old order negotiated social contract function of committed monogamy. In a state of nature where 80% of men can never be assured of a genetic legacy, most men have no incentive to participate in an organized society. What the Regulated model of sexuality does (albeit inefficiently) is gives Beta males the incentive to cooperate in larger society by establishing monogamy as the predominant social order. And then, as Krauser mentions these societies tend to outperform those based on a Hypergamous, naturalistic socio-sexual structure.

As mentioned this arrangement was based on an exchange of long term security for women for assurances of sexual access and ultimately a genetic legacy. Essentially it was a negotiated compromise of the desire for the Alpha Fucks aspect of Hypergamy for the assurances of a long term Beta Bucks aspect of Hypergamy. By today’s socio-sexual standard this old order arrangement is supplanted with the relatively assured guarantee of satisfying both aspects of Hypergamy at different phases of a woman’s maturity in life. Thus we see the Epiphany Phase, Alpha Widowhood and every variety of schema I outline in Preventive Medicine.

The new, post-sexual revolution order is a model ostensibly based on ‘sexual freedom’, but what this really represents is a return to that naturalistic sexual order based on pre-agrarian, evolutionarily incentivized Hypergamy. We revert back to an open acceptance of the 80/20 realities that, if we’re honest, always informed even a Regulated socio-sexual model of monogamy.

In the new era of Open Hypergamy, women’s only necessitated compromise of her sexual strategy depends on her exaggerated self-impression of her SMV measured against her capacity to lock down an optimal male. This also explains the endless push to create self-confident, self-important ‘independent’ women. Women’s naturalistic predilection for the 80/20 Pareto Principle of sexual selection virtually assures their long term isolation – thus the need for a self-created impression of women’s self-sufficiency.

The Tyranny of Biomechanics

biomechanics

Well, dammit, I had a very insightful article warming up in my drafts folder about Open Cuckoldry (it’s still coming, promise), but I felt compelled to riff on the new Pirelli Tyre calendar photoshoot first. The calendar art is replete with a semi-nude Amy Schumer sipping a pumpkin-spice latte, “tastefully” rendered in greyscale (the calling card of an ‘artiste’ as a opposed to just a ‘photographer’) and the doughy eyed stare of a comedienne who grasps the ludicrous seriousness of how her image will be received and delivered by a feminine-centric society.

I’ll be honest, I don’t much care for Schumer as a comedian or an actress, and if you read here with any regularity I’d expect you don’t either. She characterizes, with triumphantly unwarranted hubris, everything the Feminine Imperative would like generations of women to celebrate as a victory over the evil “Patriarchy” that, by design, is never entirely defeated. In a post-End of Men society, fat, goofy women will be the banner bearers the imperative will have dance on the symbolic corpse of the “Patriarchy” that will never die or be unuseful to it.

The irony here is that Amy’s naked girth is being lauded by the usual media suspects as “brave” and “stunning”. Calling a woman of this physique “stunning” is like telling the retarded kid he actually ran the football back for a real touchdown to win the big game. Perhaps Amy is self-aware enough to realize this, but her participation in her own humiliation tells the bigger story. The fact that she rationalizes her nudes as being “authentic” as opposed to ridiculous verifies this.

Now before I go much further here, I’ll remind readers that I’m entirely aware that this “groundbreaking” photoshoot of “real” women is little more than a publicity effort, nominally on Pirelli Tyres (are they a British brand?), but mostly for photographer Annie Leibovitz and her feminist triumphalisms (she also shot ‘Woman’ of the Year, Caitlyn Jenner).

Since the inception of this blog I’ve always gotten props for the pictures I select as my lead-ins to what I’m writing. This talent is really the result of my having worked in advertising and brand development for years, and having to be the de facto photographer and photo editor for more than 20 years. Trust me, I get the language of imagery, and it’s not difficult to see the train that Leibovitz is riding here.

At the launch of the calendar on Monday, Leibovitz explained that none of these photographs had been conceived with the male gaze in mind. Williams’s photo was “not a nude but a body study”, she said, while Schumer’s was a comic conceit: “The idea was that she was the only one who had not got the memo about wearing clothes.”

The ‘Male Gaze” card is disingenuous when the stated intent of the shoot is an,…

…arty soft-core ode to pinups produced by the Italian tire manufacturer,…

The Bigger Narrative

There’s a much larger story being sold here than a fat comedienne’s rationalizing her nude form as championing “authenticity” or “realness”. What we’re observing, yet again, is the frustration of women being able to optimize their inherent Hypergamy against what our evolved biology dictates for them.

I’ve written extensively on the conflict between an idealized Equalism and human beings’ evolved predilection for Complementarity. Whenever there is a new ‘outrage’ over “body shaming” or “fat shaming”, with a Red Pill lens we can see what this conflict represents: The frustration women experience, and the anxiety of insecurity they feel when presented with the prospect of not being able to optimize their Hypergamous impulses because simple biology selects them out based on their physicality.

No doubt Leibovitz believes in her rationalization that she’s shooting artful nudes without the mythical ‘male gaze’ in mind, but she knows on a visceral level the form of every nude woman in art throughout history has been rendered with the intent of replicating a beauty that inspires arousal (thus the ode to the pin-up). The simple hard-coded fact of nature is that the form of a semi-nude woman, by order of degree, stimulates the area of the male brain associated with tool use and thereby objectification. On a limbic level, sex with beautiful, arousing women is literally a problem to be solved by the male brain.

Leibovitz gets this. In fact she banks money on instigating the deliberate contradiction that human biology poses to her own (and a larger society’s) ego-investments in blank-slate Equalism. The root of this prefabricated indignation rests in women’s existential doubt of optimizing Hypergamy. That doubt conflicts with the uncertainty of establishing a social order that will force men to act and be influenced by idealized Equalism rather than their evolved biology.

In other words, the latent purpose of this social order is to force men to comply with women’s sexual strategy, irrespective of their evolved sexual arousal cues.

The ostensible want for an ideal Equalism, or a dubious gender parity, is really the cover story for the want of 100% consolidated control over their ability to optimize Hypergamy by literally controlling the sexual selection choices men are able to make for themselves.

Schumer apparently earns the label of “real” because a few rolls around her midsection are on display – because her body is less than perfect by pop culture standards. Would she be any less “real” if she didn’t allow her body to be consumed in this way? Can’t all bodies count as “real”, no matter what they look like and who lives in them and whether or not they choose to show themselves – clothed or naked?

I find it interesting that an out of shape Vin Diesel is ridiculed for his present physique, or that ‘Dad Bods’ are sardonically described as ‘sexy’ while the over-the-shoulder giggles ensue, but what I don’t expect is for these men to be held as a physical ideal in women’s estimate. There are no photographers, male or female, shooting artful nudes of overweight men, normal “real” men of professional accomplishment, or middle linemen for exclusive calendars. Firemen with rippling abs sell very well, but “real” men? Not so much.

However the difference is that men don’t expect women’s choices of what physically arouses them to shift in favor of their physiques based on expected societal shifts. In fact, we don’t even expect women not to laugh at a naked Seth Rogan or Jonah Hill. The automatic impression is to laugh at them because they don’t come close to women’s physical ideal, so the presumption of intent must be humor. Yet we are expected to perceive a naked Amy Schumer as “real’, “authentic”, “brave” and “stunning”, and to do so with genuflection, devoid of laughter and ridicule.

The uncomfortable truth is that women have far higher, far more static and far more stringent physical ideals for men than men will ever have for women when it comes to basic visceral arousal cues. Yes, I understand there are more variables to attraction than just the physical, but we are talking about representing physical ideals in photos and calendars here. Firemen and Sports Illustrated swimsuit models are the standard order for a reason – evolved, practical, efficient biomechanics that have made us what we are today, not pop-culture stereotypes.

T-Rex Wants to Hunt

T-rex doesn’t want to be fed; he wants to hunt. You can’t just suppress sixty-five million years of gut instinct. – Dr. Grant, Jurassic Park

Sexuality, families, and men did not come about because of society. To the contrary, sexuality, families, and men are what made society possible in the first place. – Pook

These are some excellent examples of the conflict I’ve described above here. The Equalism of Annie Leibovitz – the dubious societal idealism that hopes these fundamental, biological underpinnings can be overridden by a self-defined higher order cognitivism – will always lock horns with the T-Rex that represents human biology. Annie and the rest of the prophetesses of gender equality are only, symbolically, trying to feed the T-Rex of evolved gender dynamics in the hopes he’ll stay in the paddock, behave himself and only occasionally put on a good show for the customers.

However, even in the hopes of that a contrived, idealized gender Equalism will ever pull the teeth of the T-Rex, the same evolved need women have for Hypergamous certainty informs the concept of what that ideal “equality” should look like. The T-Rex is women too.

Just Shut the Hell Up

Hello, I’m author Rollo Tomassi.

As one of the 3 ‘R’s of the manosphere, it’s important for me to encourage more men to unplug from the Matrix that is our present feminine-primary social order, but equally important is encouraging more women to sometimes just shut the hell up.

It’s not that men don’t value your thoughts (unsolicited, they often prove our points), it’s just that we don’t value all of them.

The world doesn’t need your opinion on everything. For example, what men should do with their provisioning and catering their lives by ‘Manning Up’ to fit your overblown sense of entitlement after you’ve exhausted your prime fertility window on the Bad Boys and criminals in your 20s. Hush!

Your contrived cries of sexism over the sexiness of who the next popular video game protagonist should be. Zip it!

Whether or not the color of your foundation is called “Sunset Earth” or “Neutral Beige”. Shut Up!

So as a public service I’ve made the following list of things men no longer need to hear women’s opinions on. Please take a moment away from Instagram to jot these down:

  • 50 Shades of Grey
  • Yoga pants
  • The thoroughly disproven 77¢ on the dollar ‘Wage Gap’ lie
  • Giggling about ‘Dad Bods’ being “sexy”
  • Your confusion about where all the good men have gone
  • Fat Acceptance
  • Red Pill Truths
  • ‘Designer cupcakes’ and hand-baked dog treats being examples of ‘female entrepreneurship’
  • Christian patriarchy in an age of feminine assimilation of religion
  • Any sentence that begins with, “As a woman I,…”
  • Pleas for men’s aid in advancing your feminist ideals at the United Nations after claiming not to ‘need’ men
  • Any form of flavored martinis (or boxed wine)
  • 50 Shades of Grey (again)
  • Whether or not your feminine responsibility to engage in traditional Holiday ‘cheer’ is un-feminist
  • And the complete lack of ethics in all forms of journalism

If you can control yourselves and hold back from further expressing your opinions on any of these topics we’ll let you keep weighing in (uh, heh) on important topics like blow job techniques and pole dancing classes for housewives in shape enough to pull it off.

But that’s a huge, big “if”.

Thanks, so much.

Planned Obsolescence

ex-machina

The mainstream loves a salacious story about the sexual misconducts of men. With the recent Ashley Madison data leak the narrative was one of blaming and shaming the overwhelming majority of men who signed up for an account to cheat in their spouses. This has resulted in more than one suicide. A topic of the Man in Demand Q&A session I fielded was how the Red Pill lens isn’t limited to just scoffing at the Blue Pill in popular media, but that it also gives men a sensitivity and awareness to better understand the motivations for social narratives like this.

Red Pill aware men understand that if there is an opportunity to cast blame or doubt on a man over his sexual impulse, or the consequences for allowing it to lead to behavior that conflicts with a feminine-primary social order, shaming will always be the go-to, socially acceptable strategy. Sex will always be a clichéd thumbscrew to gauge men’s personal resolve, and this is a built-in failsafe of control for the Blue Pill’s conditioning of men.

Red Pill men understand the motivating incentives for this “cheating” and that in a westernizing culture, 50%+ of marriages are clinically and practically sexless, it’s not hard to understand the want for a man to find some temporary sexual release in infidelity, porn or delusions of emotional infidelity. It’s also easy to understand how the paradox of commitment would drive such men to suicide.

This is simply one data point of many in a larger Red Pill awareness that indicates some very uncomfortable truths women need to confront; whether single or married, men will actively seek a practical solution to their sexlessness. And it is just this sexual problem solving that will ultimately challenge women’s unilateral, social and personal power over their own Hypergamy. On a limbic level women and the imperative are aware of this challenge. Thus, it’s controlled for by investing in conditioning men to feel guilt or shaming for ever embracing their masculine sexual nature. It’s a threat.

Keep this fact in mind as I explore today’s topic. Women and feminine-primary culture have done an amazing job at commodifying women’s singular, primary agency with men – their physicality and sexual availability. It’s de rigueur in the manosphere to write articles about women reducing themselves to being next to valueless to men beyond their sexual attributes. I’ve written in the past about women’s commodifying love and sex, however recently women are being forced to face the realities of making their sexuality a commodity.

What women, both prominent and insignificant, are coming to realize is that the ultimate plan of feminism (destroying the evolved, complementary family structure of parenting) is really a planned obsolescence for womankind. As I was coming to this realization I found it rather ironic that only 5 years ago we had the likes of Hannah Rosin profiting from the idea that men were (or were becoming) obsolete. Five years later it appears the fear now is that it’s women who will become obsolete in the most literal, commodified sense. That fear is beginning to show.

In the Future Sexbots will Drink Feminist Tears

If you follow me on twitter or you’re even peripherally aware of MSM gender sensationalism in a Red Pill context you’ll know that the topic du jour this week is the coming, realistic, availability of robotic sex partners and the efforts being made to legislate against their development by ‘concerned’ women. Heartiste and many other manosphere writers naturally picked up on this. I particularly enjoyed Milo Yiannopoulos’ piece Sexbots: Why Women Should Worry.

But male sexual appetites are easily satisfied, despite what women will tell you. Blow jobs really aren’t that difficult, and in any case most blokes are fine with a pizza and a wank. For many men, sex is a nice bonus, but it’s not essential. When you introduce a low-cost alternative to women that comes without all the nagging, insecurity and expense, frankly men are going to leap in headfirst.

One of the primary and evolved differences in men and women’s neural firmware is that men are natural and intrinsic problem solvers. I’ve pointed it out in many an essay; men are wired to solve problems with a rudimentary, deductive logic process. It’s one of the reasons we get ourselves into such horribly misled predicaments with women; we expect a binary, A to B to C level of reason with women (reinforced by equalist ideology) and deductively try to solve a sex and intimacy problem with them.

Improvisation and innovation are what we do to live better; one reason men naturally view women as sex objects is literally due to wiring in our brains that predispose us to using tools. So it’s really not much of a stretch to see how men will use this inventiveness to solve a need for sex. And in an intersexual social environment that’s predicated on the commodification of sex, well, you can see how the advancement of sexual substitutes and virtual sexual experiences would be driven by supply and demand.

It’s science fiction at this stage, but the ball is rolling and this is causing the Feminine Imperative to confront uncomfortable possibilities with just the proposition of having a sexual monopoly disrupted be the innovations of men.

Do Robots Dream of Electric Sin?

As might be expected, Dalrock took a shot at this story from a Christian moralistic angle – would sex with a convincing facsimile of a woman qualify as sinning?

InnocentBystanderBoston had a good comment in that thread:

Aside from the purely moral question, there is another risk regarding sexbots. Our economy is built on the expectation that men will be motivated by marriage to produce in excess of their own needs. As we continue to degrade marriage, sexbots will be there to fill the gaps.

…with unilateral divorce law and the accompanying cash and prizes awarded to the female courtesy of judges immersed in the feminist imperative, I think s-xbots pretty much end marriage. If marriage isn’t completely destroyed forever with version 2.0, the s-xbot will most certainly destroy it. And why? The s-xbot will always give you s-x on demand. It will stay at home, faithful to you. It will not spend your money and ruin your credit rating. It will not get a judge to sign a restraining order against you. It can’t divorce you and take cash and prizes. It will never age maintaining its peak SMV forever (if you believe in Rollo’s charts.) So that will pretty much be it for feminism. Without the surplus wealth created by men to subsidize the parasitic nature of feminist centric Marriage 2.0, there can be no feminism. Women are net wealth consumers. Without husbands, there lives will ONLY be in decline. The feminist imperative can NOT allow these s-xbots to be made.

On a rudimentary level feminism has always recognized that women’s only real agency with men is sex. We can see this in the feminine-centric commodification of sex, and we can see this truth in (third wave) feminism’s embrace of sex positivity – but again, only within the confines of a feminine-centric and unilaterally feminine controlled context for that sex to happen in.

The increasingly more accepted Yes Means Yes legalistic checklist that underwrites sexual relations (for what feminists know will always be defined by ambiguous circumstances) is a glaring example of this litigious overreach in an effort to lock down unilateral control of Hypergamy for women. This is the degree of paranoia that the doubt of Hypergamous insecurity inspires in those women less capable of intrasexual competition with their sisters to secure it.

When granted the social facilities to do so, women will always base their personal choices, their personal ideologies, their social order and their legislative doctrines around relieving themselves of Hypergamous doubt and insecurities. In truth, women’s evolved socio-sexual filtering ensures that there is no practical relief from this. There is no 100% assuredness of Hypergamous choice; Hypergamy doubts optimization even after the best of choices, but if given the power, women will build a social order around an attempt to mutually allay that doubt, allay that sexual competition anxiety, and all at men’s expense and disempowerment.

Becoming Obsolete

If you ever need an example of the duplicity with which the Feminine Imperative really aligns itself with equalism, look no further than how that “equality” is expressed with preferring pro-feminine solutions to social problems.

There is a fundamental fear women experience in just the prospect of not having 100% control over their sexual selection, sexual strategy and ultimately optimization of their Hypergamy. Anything that challenges women’s unilateral control of their Hypergamous power – such as prostitution, male hormonal birth control, female viagra, DNA testing for paternity and now sexbots – must be ruthlessly and preemptively legislated against if feminine social primacy is to be maintained. Even the idea of sexbots destroying women’s monopoly on sex, however fantastical, must be eliminated before it becomes a threat.

Kathleen Richardson, a professor at De Montfort University in England, serves as an excellent example of this axiom:

“Sex robots seem to be a growing focus in the robotics industry and the models that they draw on — how they will look, what roles they would play — are very disturbing indeed,” she told the BBC.

She believes that they reinforce traditional stereotypes of women and the view that a relationship need be nothing more than physical.

“We think that the creation of such robots will contribute to detrimental relationships between men and women, adults and children, men and men and women and women,” she said.

I would agree that it is detrimental in these terms, but the fear of losing feminine primacy is evident in just the prospect of sexbots.

The squid ink here is the concern for reinforcing “traditional stereotypes” of women for the almost unanimously male demographic who’d buy a sexual substitute (notice there is no call for creating morbidly obese variants of sexbots). The real fear is that men prefer that stereotype and it would force women to confront the truth that if they don’t accommodate men’s physical and psychological preferences (conventional femininity) they will progressively devalue women’s sexual agency over them by opting for the sexbot.

And that is a very pressing threat to women’s control over Hypergamy.

What were witnessing here is the acknowledgement that shaming men for their inventiveness in resolving their sexual needs isn’t working. Thus the social and legislative power the Feminine Imperative wields has to be invoked. Naturally there will be “think of the children” appeals and the admonishments of dehumanization on the part of men, but the binary truth is that women’s prime commodity (sex) could be reduced to making women obsolete.

The following is an exchange between Vitriol and YaReally from the last post.

“However, the biggest secret they all want to hide is that using money, whether doing something like you described or paying for pussy outright, is the most efficient way to get laid. If your main goal is to get laid as much as possible, does it matter whether you followed some arbitrary rules that some guy posted on the internet along the way? ”

lol brb taking a helicopter to the top of Mount Everest because it’s more efficient than those dumbasses who actually CLIMB it. It DOES matter to men who’s goal isn’t “to get laid as much as possible” but is “to get laid by girls who are legitimately into me, as much as possible”. To each their own.

If we accept the Pareto Principle as a rough guideline, 80% of men are Betas who simply don’t care to, or accept that they don’t have the capacity to, concern themselves with learning how to “get laid with girls who are genuinely into them.” They’ll create every manner of rationale to convince themselves that the girl who solves his sexual thirst is genuinely into him, or he’ll opt for the most available, most feasible, means to resolve that sexual deprivation. The ubiquitousness of free, easily accessible, streaming hi-def pornography is a testament to this dynamic.

Whether the reality of convincing sexbots is ever achieved isn’t really relevant in this equation, the fear of losing primary control of Hypergamy is what’s at stake. We see this fear manifested in criminalizing prostitution and the shame of men seeking sexual release via pornography and Ashley Madison accounts.

Recently I was asked about my take on the legal pushback on the part of women to regulate or outright ban the FDA approval of the female form of Viagra. From the socially acceptable perspective the fear is that the drug might be used as another (more effective) date rape drug. From a Red Pill perspective the fear is, once again, rooted in women’s fear of men circumventing women’s sexual strategy by chemically influencing their arousal process.

It’s one thing to forcibly rape a woman and thereby take control of her Hypergamous choice, but it quite another to prompt her into engaging in sex she is influenced to by some extrinsic means. As such, women’s sexual selection and Hypergamous optimization is effectively mitigated if not removed from the sexual equation by an invention of men. So once again we see the nervous efforts of the Feminine Imperative to ban any prospective attempts by men to exercise even a marginal control over Hypergamy.

Women have access to safe and legal abortion (a Hypergamous control), but a drug that might influence their libido and thus lead them to sexual choices they might no otherwise control and make, even the idea of that innovation needs regulation. Remove women from the sexual selection and arousal process and you make their only value – the value westernized women have systematically established for themselves – effectively obsolete.

That’s not a judgement call. Women tend to conflate their personal, intrinsic value with their sexual market value. However, in the SMP that is predicated upon women’s only value to men being sexual (not as life mates, mothers, or personal worth), the monopoly of sexual leverage becomes toothless.

Post Selection

post-selection

Anonymous Reader on Dalrock’s thread had an interesting observation about women’s (wives’) dumbfounded response to discovering that the Beta chump they believed would be entirely optionless and adrift after they divorced, in fact, had far more SMV capital than her solipsism would allow her to acknowledge:

So, dear Lisa, you (a) had a husband but (b) decided you did not want him anymore and now (c) other women do want him? Whose fault is this, again? Great display of a version of preselection that ought to be called “post selection” (if Rollo or Heartiste or someone else hasn’t already thought of that).

Reminds me of a divorce I saw from a moderate distance a few years ago. Wife got a couple of promotions at her work, while her salesman husband just plodded along with the usual feast or famine of that business. She apparently got “married” to her job, putting in long hours serving the situational alpha men she worked for. Then at home made up for the long hours by showering attention on the kids while stiffarming “whats-his-name”. When he had an affair she was, by all accounts, surprised. When he had a second affair she divorced him. Both were churchgoing, and I agree that she had Bible-based grounds for divorce, there was no question he was cheating. But he wasn’t the roving-eye type for the first 5 to 10 years of marriage, so perhaps a certain lack of something tempted him to cheat? What could it have been?

Familiarity breeds contempt, but it also breeds complacency.

I’ve stated in many prior thread that familiarity, comfort, rapport, vulnerability and security are all anti-seductive attributes when it come to women’s sexual response. I’m not saying those elements aren’t intrinsically good or bad, just that men shouldn’t buy the boilerplate sexual filibustering of women who would have them believe they are in anyway arousal cues for women.

As Roissy’s maxim states – “‘Gina tingles are born in the defensive crouch.”

Iron Rule of Tomassi #3

Any woman who makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex; the sex is NEVER worth the wait.

When a woman makes you wait for sex you are not her highest priority. Sexuality is spontaneous chemical reaction between two parties, not a process of negotiation. It’s sex first, then relationship, not the other way around. A woman who wants to fuck you will find a way to fuck you. She will fly across the country, crawl under barbwire, climb in through your second story bedroom window, fuck the shit out of you and wait patiently inside your closet if your wife comes home early from work – women who want to fuck will find a way to fuck. The girl who tells you she needs to be comfortable and wants a relationship first is the same girl who fucked the hot guy in the foam cannon party in Cancun on spring break just half an hour after meeting him.

If a girl is that into you she’ll have sex with you regardless of ASD or having her friends in the room videotaping it at a frat party. All women can be sluts, you just have to be the right guy to bring it out in them, and this happens before you go back to her place. If you have to plead your case cuddling and spooning on the bed or getting the occasional peck on the cheek at the end of the night, you need to go back to square one and start fresh.

The problem most husbands and LTR live-in boyfriends experience in this respect is that there is no opportunity for a fresh start once that pattern of familiarity and comfort has been established and is what’s expected from him.

This principle is easy for us to understand from the man’s side, but what about the woman’s?

Anonymous’ observations here tell a broader story. Dal’s quick-hit post and the article he linked there is well worth the read, but it essentially illustrates a common regret women are forced to acknowledge when they’ve opted out of a relationship, or were opted out of by their men as a result of their protracted dissatisfaction with those women – they simply cannot fathom that the Beta man they cut loose has a sexual market value that other women would not just appreciate, but jump at, far quicker than they imagined.

Considering that 70%+ of all divorces are initiated by women, women opting out is usually the case. If you track along with the time line I presented in Preventive Medicine you can also see that this opt out (first divorce) window usually coincides with the time a man is (should be) experiencing his SMV peak.

After 7 or so years of marriage the familiarity, the routine and the comfort a woman expects from her statistically Beta husband are cemented for her. Reliable, sensible, comforting and responsible make for a great security prospect, but a boring ‘fuck prospect’. Unless that woman is casually, but frequently put into the defensive crouch (via passive dread) that man’s Archetype is set in her mind for her. His behavior is predictable and familiar, and boring to the point that she suspects no woman but her would ‘tolerate’ him.

In fact this perception is reinforced for her, not just by a fem-centric culture, but her husband’s constant self-deprecating praise of how “lucky he is to have a woman like her who’d put up with a guy like him. Haha, LOL.” In spite of all this supplication, women still affirm that man as the unexciting Beta chump who she subconsciously pegs would be entirely optionless in the SMP were (when) he to be re-released back into the wild.

Women want to get with a man that other men want to be, and other women want to fuck.

This is an easy maxim for a woman who’s single, but it takes on new imperatives when that man is fighting against the familiarity and comfort elements that come with long term monogamy and living together. That familiar complacency combined with Hypergamic social expectations makes women doubt that the man they thought other women might compete for has morphed into an optionless schlub only she would have the patience to constantly tolerate.

One of the reasons I advise against men and women shacking up is because the comfort and regularity of that living situation eventually becomes a disincentive for women to maintain a consistent sexual desire and urgency for the man she’s paired with. Women are at their ‘sexual best’ when men keep them at arms reach, and this is primarily due to the anxiety she experiences in the doubt over whether she’ll be able to consolidate on an optimized Hypergamy with that guy.

Post Selection

As Anonymous hints at, there is a form of social proof a ‘released’ man enjoys once he’s been cut from women’s Hypergamous equation. To understand how this works we need to remember that Hypergamy is fundamentally rooted in doubt:

The Abdication Imperative

Hypergamy is rooted in doubt. Hypergamy is an inherently insecure system that constantly tests, assesses, retests and reassesses for optimal reproductive options, long-term provisioning, parental investment, and offspring and personal protection viability in a potential mate. Even under the most secure of prospects hypergamy still doubts. The evolutionary function of this incessant doubt would be a selected-for survival instinct, but the process of hypergamy’s assessment requires too much mental effort to be entirely relegated to women’s subconscious. Social imperatives had to be instituted not only to better facilitate the hypergamous process, but also to reassure the feminine that men were already socially pre-programmed to align with that process.

Dumping a woman is the highest form of social proof for a man.

In no uncertain terms he demonstrates to her that he has the supreme confidence he can find another woman with better prospect than her. Even if this isn’t the pretext of the breakup, this is the message in the medium that she understands; she doesn’t measure up to his expectations.

This then is further compounded by the unconscious knowledge that it should be women who are socially in charge of the sexual selection and approval process. When a man dumps a woman he demonstrably takes that agency away from her.

However, the effectiveness of that social proof for the dumped woman is only proportional to the doubt that he may have been a better, more optimal Hypergamic choice for her. We understand the effectiveness even a fabricated perception of preselection has on women, but depending on the psychological impact a man has, post-selection and the uncertainty of his long term fitness can be so powerful it can create an Alpha Widow of her.

Hypergamous doubt makes women creatures of constant comparison. Thus, when (if) she makes another intimate connection after that breakup, the new guy is held next to the comparison of the previous one. Once that comparison is made, that post-selection value of the previous guy (or lack thereof) becomes reinforced for her.

Starting Over

Women have a biological imperative to restart the Hypergamic process far more rapidly than men when they’re younger and closer to their SMV peak. They have more time to capitalize on it.

However, once they are on the opposite side of the Wall and men are ascending to their own SMV peak, “getting over” the relationship is equated with remarriage because men have the SMV advantage. That previous husband or LTR lover has the power of selection and confirmation she no longer holds as she did in her youth.

Women have far less marketability and prospect to restart that Hypergamic process once this agency exchanges hands with men. They’ve lost on a perceived long-term investment. Thus her brooding fixates on his ease of finding a new mate, with his remarriage being the context of finalizing that break with her.

I should also add that rarely is consideration is given to the incentives and reasons for the breakup whatsoever on her part. Convenient social conventions aid her in thinking she is blameless in the circumstances that led to the split and he is heartless for “getting over’ her at all, much less quickly. We are left to presume that it’s he who should suffer the same or more. He should be pining for her, he should be regretting the split.

It’s far easier for a man to move on with new women when his benchmark for intimacy was set by a sexless marriage to an authoritarian, shaming, shrew. Maybe it’s that thought that really hurts – it was easy to get over her because the opt out for him is sooooo much better a prospect than a lifetime of having to untangle her hangups about him.

Final Thought

Bear in mind this post-selection dynamic is only effective insofar as a man’s SMV can be actualized outside of his previous relationship.

Women only contemplate whether a man has moved on from her quickly when they care to concern themselves with it. If it was she who initiated the breakup with her Beta husband/LTR women are simply indifferent to what the guy is doing a year or so down the road.

Nothing is more satisfying to a woman than to believe she’s figured a man out using her mythical feminine intuition. This works in a positive sense when a man leads her to believe she’s genuinely got inside his head, but it also works in the self-convincing negative sense when she dismisses a guy who no longer qualifies for her long term (or short term sexual) hypergamic interests.

The satisfying feminine indignation comes from convincing herself he was never really as invested as he led her to believe he was. Thus the loss of investment is converted to betrayal and becomes a source of self-righteousness despite any circumstance she contributed to the break herself.

Archetypes

archetypes

Law 17

Keep Others in Suspended Terror: Cultivate an Air of Unpredictability

Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. Your predictability gives them a sense of control. Turn the tables: Be deliberately unpredictable. Behavior that seems to have no consistency or purpose will keep them off-balance, and they will wear themselves out trying to explain your moves. Taken to an extreme, this strategy can intimidate and terrorize.

In Law 17 Robert Greene hits upon a human dynamic that has much broader implications than a useful tool for power. Of course Dread – whether a passive acknowledgement or an overt display – is rooted in this principle, but the fundamental dynamic is that humans have an inherent ability to perceive patterns in nature.

It’s comforting for us to know what to expect in both people and our environments. It gives us a certain sense of security to have things remain consistent, but it also allows us to better pick out and isolate exceptions to that consistency. In a herd of brown cows we can better avoid or prefer the lone purple cow in the field.

It’s important to understand this basic need in humans because it’s both an aid and a hinderance to a Red Pill awareness. Dread works because when it’s applied, or even when it’s simply a new perception, what a woman is being forced to recognize is an inconsistency in what she’s come to expect about a man she’s familiar with. When a husband (or a wife) takes on an interest in hitting the gym where previously he’d had none before, the imaginings this prompts is the triggered result of seeing an inconsistency in a previously reliable behavior pattern.

We are creatures of habit, so when that habit is replaced by another behavior this then becomes the purple cow in a field of brown cows. I’ve stated this in many prior posts, but familiarity, comfort and rapport are anti-seductive elements in a man’s Game. This is one of the first areas I try to address with men trapped in a sexless LTR. Most Beta conditioned men believe that a woman needs to be comfortable with him before she’s willing to sleep with him and are then dumbfounded by how quickly she bangs the hot guy in the foam cannon party in Cancun on Spring Break.

These men believe that consistency in behavior will lead to their becoming intimate with a woman – this is a principle of Beta Game that’s reinforced by women with a ‘plan’ for him. However, it’s important to bear in mind that this comfort and familiarity is based on establishing a pattern of behavioral consistency; a pattern women really have no capacity to appreciate.

That’s not cut on women per se, but women’s lack of being able to appreciate a man’s consistency is founded in the same human want to experience security in the environment. Thus the anomaly is what’s appreciated; the ‘hawt’ guy in the right place at the right time who “she wouldn’t normally do this with”.

Bucking the Meta

Men’s unlearned, deductive Game derives from efforts to appear unique amongst the herd. This is the foundation of all Game really. Early PUAs identified the base utility in principles like Peacocking, being Cocky & Funny and mastering the art of Negging because their willingness to experiment with the boldness necessary to do so (often with women they perceived were above their SMV level) set them apart from the masses of men who’s Game was based on the comfort, rapport and familiarity women had told them would make them attractive all their lives.

These early PUA were bucking the meta game of the time. Women were (and mostly still are) accustomed to being pandered to by ‘Nice’ guys, ready and pre-programmed to defer to, respect and pedestalize them by virtue of their being a woman. Thus the anomaly, the man undisposed to that deference, who reverses her expectations of him qualifying to her becomes the purple cow.

Statistically Beta men are the common herd, but this isn’t what they believe of themselves. What that Beta  believes his herd is is what makes his efforts fail and traps him in the plan of the Feminine Imperative. He believes he is the purple cow, but that belief is what makes him common.

That Beta man makes his efforts about adhering to what a fem-centric culture has convinced him will make him unique. He believes he’s bucking the meta; a meta environment he’s convinced is overwhelmingly populated with insensitive Alpha assholes. He believes the Alpha Men (women love to hate) are the common herd and the more he is alike with women and his behavior is more consistent than the Alpha ‘douchebags’ the more he will appear unique amongst them.

Archetypes

I’ve been asked on many occasions about my impressions of Vox Day’s now manosphere-common referencing of different sub-types of men as Alpha, Beta, Delta, Sigma, Omega, etc. I had Goldmund ask me about these classifications when we had dinner last week and I had to admit that I’m much more of a reductionist when it comes to delineating and Alpha mindset from a Beta mindset.

I’ve always been impressed with Vox’s thinking and observations, and I do think his classifications have a definite merit as useful models for abstract personality types, but I have to also temper that by saying these classifications are by no means absolutes. I say that because I know that humans have an insatiable desire to see consistency and familiarity in people. For the better part that want to interpret patterns is generally reliable in predicting behavior, but that isn’t to say personality is ever static.

Robert Greene works his own personality archetypes into the first half of his book The Art of Seduction. He too categorizes different seduction types in an effort to make their strategies more understandable – The Dandy, The Natural, The Rake, etc. And again, these are very useful archetypes upon which Greene builds and applies examples of how each uses various seduction strategies more or less effectively.

While generalizations are always a necessary tool in a broader understanding of a dynamic it’s important to grasp that the archetype you believe you embody are neither static nor deterministic. As I’ve stated before, Alpha and Beta are mindsets, not demographics. We’ve recently had an interesting debate about how uncommon it is for men to break their Beta cycle, and how rare it is for a man to change his stars. I’d like to address this by saying that personality is never static.

Over the years I’ve evolved from naive Beta high school chump to unwitting Alpha semi-pro rock star, to simpering Omega crushed by a BPD woman, to a lesser Alpha husband / father, to an Alpha businessman, artist, and successful brand owner – those are demographics. You could’ve placed me in many of Vox and Greene’s personality types along my progression to who I am today, and my Game evolved with what I adapted to and what proved successful (or so I thought) for me then.

But when I distill it down to an essence, what shifted for me in all these instances wasn’t the label I would’ve applied to myself, but rather what mindset I adopted at that time – Alpha or Beta. The results of my Alpha or Beta impression of myself became what I was. This is why I’m more of a reductionist in this respect. A want for consistency makes archetypes comforting, but there is never growth, there is never arousal or stimulation in comfort.

Equalism in the Meta

I should also address that the prevailing ideology of egalitarian equalism hates the idea of easy archetypes (even though it fluidly applies its own). The easy observation of course is that if all are equal blank slates then categorizing people by personality type smacks of profiling and denying the individual in a state of equality. However the real flaw in the equalist philosophy comes from an ego-investment in a blank slate state that doesn’t allow for ‘types’.

While critics in the manosphere see this categorization as deterministic and incapable of changing, the equalist chafes at the idea that people could be too predictably alike in type and behavior.

Preferences

In Women’s Physical Standards I briefly outlined the concept of men’s fetishization of their ‘type’ preferences when it comes to women:

You see, men will very readily cater their physical sexual “preferences” in accordance with what has proven sexually successful for them in past experiences. In other words, men tend to return to the same watering hole they found to be plentiful in the past. These preferences of convenience manifest themselves as ‘fetishes’ for men. And you don’t even need all that extensive research to prove this.  All one need do is search the vast variety of porn available catering to the physical attributes that men will fetishize. Big boobs, small boobs, big ass, small ass, every hair color of the rainbow, shaved snatch, hairy snatch, teen girls to MILFs and older, tan, pale, ultra-thin to the ubiquitous BBWs (Big Beautiful women). Ladies, name the physical attribute(s), and there’s a fan-group just waiting to bang you. Rule 34 was never more provable than in men’s willingness to fuck damn near any physical demographic of women – just ask the female midgets catering to that fetish of porn.

Men tend to stick with the same breeding circumstances that proved successful in the past. Again, this is another function of the want of a predictability in pattern and behavior. It’s the Watering Hole Theory as I stated here; we go back to what worked for us before.

Men’s deductive, rational nature when it comes to problem solving is both a blessing and a curse in this respect. The problem inherent in repeating the pattern in order to extract a similar success runs the risk of a man being trapped by what he believes are his “natural ”  preference for a certain ‘type’ of woman – the type who would eventually fuck him.

We may fetishize these preferences and thus men believe their only options for sex and intimacy with a woman get pared down to archetypes of women – Goths, Plain Janes, single mothers, big “beautiful” women, etc. become the ‘type’ that will fuck him. They become his ‘preference’, but in the same way men consider the deterministic nature of applying archetypes to themselves, rarely do they consider the archetype of woman their conditions and self-image predispose them to.

Most men don’t see the link between physical types and personality types. In other words they don’t really grasp why they like what they like. A fem-centric society, with the imperative of keeping a man ignorant of it, will offer him the easy answer that his desires, his very arousal cues, aren’t ‘natural’ at all. Rather they’re the result of a nebulous “society” programming him to only respond to what makes a woman less able to compete and consolidate on a man.

In reality physical and personality preferences can differ according to what was priorly successful for him, as well as what a man understands about himself (maturity, SMV peak potential) and what women have or lack in contrast to that.

Law 25

Re-Create Yourself

Do not accept the roles that society foists on you. Re-create yourself by forging a new identity, one that commands attention and never bores the audience. Be the master of your own image rather than letting others define if for you. Incorporate dramatic devices into your public gestures and actions – your power will be enhanced and your character will seem larger than life.

I began this essay with the truth that others will always want to see a consistency in your behavior. It’s interesting when you consider this and how flashes of Alpha tend to both shock and excite women expecting a Beta response from you in a confrontational instance.

Both men and women want what they expect from you consistently. Granted, the comfort of the pattern is part of human nature, but the categorization that comes from it is often a way to keep you trapped in the role others expect of you. One reason I advocate that there is no “Beta with a side of Alpha” is because the inconsistent side of that equation is never believable. Women want that consistency to keep you in the role they expect of you.

Men struggling in Dead Bedroom marriages, or ones in which the power/authority dynamic defaults to their wives fight an unenviable, uphill battle to reclaim the Alpha respect their wives really want from them. It’s a difficult situation because the believability of that change doesn’t happen in an instant, it takes the progressive establishment of consistent behavior changes. A sudden switch from Beta servitude to Alpha respect from a woman never happens. What’s necessary is a persistent, slow, believable change in the pattern she’s expecting.

Adaptations – Part II

Studio 54

When I first published the comparative SMV graph a few years ago one of the first criticisms was that the age comparisons between men and women seemed too concrete and too specific to contemporary times. I tried to make concessions for this then, but when I was writing that post it was at first meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Still, I try to write with the presupposition that critics will take things either too literally or too figuratively. I knew that the literati then and now would think, “…well, yes it’s a good outline, but you’re looking at the SMV from the perspective of 2012 and society was much different 50, 70, 100, 2,000 years ago so this graph is flawed…”

My SMV graph was never meant to be some canonical tablet handed to me from the almighty. I thought of it then, and still think of it now, as a very good workable outline for how men and women’s comparative SMV relates to the other. This has been borne out in many other statistics from individual studies sent to me by readers or just my coming across them since I created that graph.

That said, and in relation to where I’m going with this Adaptations series, those critics aren’t wrong to suggest that this outline would be subject to the social environments and simple physical realities of earlier times, and likely some times yet to come.

Take what I’m about to delve into here with a bit of salt; I’m not a historian. One of my favorite figures from the civil war ear was Colonel Robert Gould Shaw. If you’ve seen the movie Glory you know who I’m referencing here. This young man was 23 when he enlisted and 25 when he was promoted to Major and then Colonel. In that time Shaw saw some pretty grisly shit, including the battle of Antietam.

I’d seen the movie when it first came out in 1989, but after watching it again for a class assignment I had a new appreciation for the real man who was Robert Shaw. I saw the film using what was just becoming my Red Pill lens. It struck me that the realities of that era forced men to become Men much sooner than men do today. The realities of our times give us a leisure the men of Shaw’s age simple couldn’t imagine. The realities of that time necessitated a quick maturation to bear the burden of heavy responsibilities. Those burdens were much more imperative then, but a 23 year old is still a 23 year old.

I thought about how I’d spent my own years between the ages of 23-25 when I was at the peak of my semi-rock star tail chasing in the late 80’s Hollywood scene. I began to really think about the differences in the social and physical environments of the 1860s and the 1980s-90s. I’ve always joked that men don’t become Men until they’re 30. Even on the SMV graph the point at which I attribute men’s real ascendency to their peak SMV at around age 30, but this wasn’t always the case in the past.

Men (comparatively) live longer lives as a result of health and medical advances, but (at least in westernizing culture) it takes much more time and personal investment, as well as acculturation for men to realize their personal potential. Men’s burden of performance wasn’t much different in prior eras, but the timeframe necessary to reach a man’s peak potential was much more accelerated.

So to address the concerns of the temporal critics of the SMV graph, yes, this graph might look a bit different to the men and women of the 19th century. Considering lifespans of the era and the social conditions then, the ages during which a woman would reach her own peak might be around 17, and a man’s may be 25, however the same curves of the bell wouldn’t change drastically. Men adapted to the conditions their environment dictated to them then in much the same way they did before and after the sexual revolution. And this adaptation came as the result of what was expected of them as their burden of performance, as well as what their social leisures would permit them.

Love American Style

Into the 70’s the new social contract of the Free Love generation began to take a new shape. Bear in mind that this new equalitarian contract was based on the hopeful presumption that both sexes would mutually honor the “what’s on the inside is what counts” normalization of attraction. Under this contract women’s Hypergamous natures could flourish, while men’s unlimited access sexual strategy could ostensibly be realized.

Of course these lofty, higher-consciousness, presumptions  were meant to supersede human nature and an evolved sexual arousal function based on human biology. One thing that still thwarts ideological feminism today is that its perceived goal states contradict human beings’ natural states. This contradiction gets narratively blamed on men not wanting to cooperate with feminism, but even the most ardent feminist is still guilty of her own biology and arousal triggers contradicting herself.

Biology trumps conviction. People get fidgety when I apply this in a religious context, but it’s equally applicable to feminism and really any ideology that under-appreciates human nature and the realities of its conditions.

As the new sexual landscape began to solidify, men began to adapt their own sexual strategies to the conditions of this fast and loose environment. Just prior to the Disco Generation hardcore pornography began its path to the ubiquitous porn we know today. The sexual restraint necessitated by the realities of prior generations loosened in light of widespread hormonal birth control and safe(er) legal abortion.

While Hypergamy was effectively unleashed, the women of this era hadn’t fully grasped the scope of it being so or what it would become. Acceptable premarital sex, abortion and unilaterally feminine controlled birth control meant that women had an unprecedented degree of control over their Hypergamous decision making. I doubt many women of the time understood this, but the only real control men had (and still have now) over women’s breeding and birthing outcomes was now grounded in the psychological (Game) or the physical (arousal). Provisioning was still a consideration for women, but the division between short-term and long-term pairing became more stark.

As I mentioned here in the beginning, a slowing of the maturation process was the inevitable result of women’s freedom of Hypergamous choice. Short-term Alpha Fucks no longer posed the same societal and personal risks of a pre-birth control generation, thus long-term pairing choices (Beta bucks) began to be delayed. The ideological cover story was one of women expecting men to “love their insides” despite their age, psychological baggage or physical condition.

Women’s preoccupation with The Wall was ostensibly mitigated by the Free Love social contract that men would honor their end of the higher-consciousness equalitarian dream of a mutually agreed attraction based on intrinsic qualities. The biological realities for both sexes was much different.

Women trusted they could be sexually ‘free’ without social stigmatization, but the reality was that the long-term needs of Hypergamy could be postponed in what would eventually become a Sandbergian sexual strategy. The more Alpha men of the time – ones in touch with the visceral nature of women and themselves – understood the incredibly boon this represented to them.

It’s important to bear in mind that Hypergamy was not the openly embraced dynamic it’s come into today. Thus, the unspoken, secretive nature of Hypergamy was something a man who ‘just got it’ instinctively understood and women were aroused by it.

Machismo

During the 70s ‘Macho’ men began to adapt to a new paradigm. They adapted to the reality that women were conflicted by the Free Love paradigm. These men embraced both the sexual openness expected of women, but they also understood that in spite of the social contract of love being based on intrinsic qualities, women still wanted to fuck (with abandon) the men with extrinsic arousal triggering qualities. The physical began to take priority above the emotional pretentiousness.

The macho quality could take different forms. Whether is was the good ole boy of the south or the Tony Manero at Studio 54, understanding the mindset is what’s important here.

Macho men in the discos and key parties of the 70s figured out they could ‘Game’ the old paradigm of non-exclusivity paired with birth control by re-embracing (with disco era gusto) a masculinity that had been abandoned just a decade earlier. Unlimited access to unlimited sexuality was for men who overtly challenged the Free Love preconditions. They enjoyed the rewards of its expectations of women while rebounding off the self-expectations of the Beta men who were still cooperating with the Free Love social contract.

This era is an interesting parallel to our own. I think much of the Red Pill resentment coming from men still plugged into a Blue Pill mindset is rooted in a similar perception that they’re playing by an acceptable set of rules that “men with Game” are exploiting for their own selfish ends. What they don’t realize is that their Blue Pill interpretations are a designed part of a social paradigm that supports feminine primacy. Game works because, like the macho men of the 70s, it’s primarily based on women’s inborn psychology and the visceral realities of women’s biological impulses.

Beta men in the 70s still believed that the Free Love mindset was equally and mutually beneficial for both sexes since it was supposedly based on a freedom from performance for themselves while freeing women from sexual repression and (covertly) from the reality of the Wall. In reality the Free Love paradigm put men at a disadvantage by giving women almost total control of Hypergamy and the time in which to realize short term mating and long term provisioning.

So these men’s resentment of the Alphas of the era is understandable when you consider that their visceral attractiveness was observably and behaviorally arousing to women who were supposed to idealistically love them for who they were not what they were. These men represented a return to that burden of performance they’d hoped to avoid in the Free Love contract.

These Alpha men understood women’s base impulses then, and that understanding became an integral part of their “just getting it” attraction. However, as we’ll see in the next part of this series, these men would eventually become the butt of their own joke as the Feminine Imperative fluidly transitioned into a new social paradigm of Fem-powerment developing in the 80s and reaching its apex in the 90s.

The arousing ‘macho’ men, the Alphas of the era, would systematically become the most ridiculed parodies and caricatures of masculinity as women came into a better understanding of the power they were only beginning to realize and the Beta men took their perceived revenge. And likewise men adapted to this new paradigm based on the same visceral reality women’s sexuality is fundamentally based on.

Building Better Worlds

building_worlds

I had an interesting conversation this week with my good friend Ray and a couple of my designers, Sadie and Sam (names changed to protect the innocent). Just a little background first; Sadie is the Japanese woman I mention in Mental Point of Origin. She’s been divorced once and her relationship history is one punctuated by her involvement with Beta men.

She’s is the definition of the opportunistic concept of female love, but her frustration comes from never having been able to consolidate on an optimized Hypergamy – she simply doesn’t have attractiveness or feminine pleasantry to generate the Alpha interest that would satisfy her. Thus, she attracts Beta orbiters looking for some low hanging fruit, and force-fits them into a contextual Alpha frame. In other words, she opportunistically entertains the Betas with provisioning potential and hopes they’ll man up into dominant Alphas. Thus far she’s been disappointed.

Sam is a gay man in his early 30s who makes a good living afforded by not having children and possessing a high calibre technical skill set. He’s got the outgoing, “look at me, I’m special because I’m gay” exuberance I expect from gay men, but he’s not flamboyant and can still be professional when he has to be. He’s been “dating” a new guy for a while now and has moved this guy into his home recently. He took part in our conversation because the issues of sharing resources, money and picking up half the rent (in his case mortgage) in a relationship came up.

Ray has been one of my best friends for over 15 years now and he’s the guy I mention in Good Girls Do. He’s worked for me directly or indirectly for most of that time and he’s notorious for starting conversations like this when we have downtime. He’s a firestarter, it’s what I like about him, and among the three he’s the only one who knows my online reputation. Ray is Red Pill aware so he knows how to prompt a controversial conversation with me when we’re in mixed company.

Ray: “RT, hypothetical question…”

RT: “Do I have to?”

Ray: “Let’s say you move your girlfriend in with you…”

RT: “Let’s say I don’t and I would never do that. End of hypothetical.”

Ray: “No, I know, but, say you did, and let’s say your rent is $1,000 a month. Would you tell your girlfriend ‘Hey the rent is $1,000 a month how about you pay $300 and I’ll pay $700 or would you say 50/50?”

RT: “No. I’d pay it all myself. I’d also be sure that only my name was on the lease.”

Sadie:”What? Why, that’s silly?”

Ray: “You wouldn’t expect any contribution?”

RT: “No. I wouldn’t turn it down if she took it upon herself to contribute, but I wouldn’t expect it from a girl I (foolishly) brought into my living arrangement.”

Sadie: “You wouldn’t expect her to pay half?”

RT: “No. If I can’t provide my own $1,000 rent or food, or to keep the lights on, I have no business bringing a woman into that arrangement. If I have more than enough for myself I don’t need her paying. Besides, if she’s that into living with me, she’ll want to contribute in other ways and I wont have to ask.”

Sam: “You don’t think it should be an equal split? Maybe that’s a man and a woman thing…”

RT: “Yes and no. I’m sure between you and your boyfriend there’s a more dominant personality right?”

Sam: “Yeah, me.”

RT: “And you probably make more money too. So there’s really no ‘equality’ when it comes down to it.”

Sadie: “I expect my boyfriend to pay half the rent.”

RT: “Of course you do, because women think in terms of equality when it works to their advantage. What if your ‘boyfriend’ could pay for all the rent, utilities and most of everything else? Would you still try to pay half?”

Sadie: “Yes of course.”

RT: “What if he only paid just half and you knew it was a better deal for him?

Sadie: (tentative) “Yes,…”

RT: “I doubt that, but what you’re saying is that you’d limit improving your way of life to maintain a belief in equality.”

Sadie: “All the guy’s I’ve lived with have been mooches.”

RT: “Which explains why you’re not living with them any more. It goes both ways, women don’t respect men they need to support. All this stuff about equality in relationships is nonsense.If your boyfriend could easily make rent while you struggled to come up with it you’d resent him for it. There is no equal division.”

Sam: “I guess I see what you’re saying, but the expectation is still the same even for me and [boyfriend].

RT: “There is no equality in a relationship, but there can be complementarity where either person’s benefits can offset the needs of the other.”

Ray: “So you and Mrs. T aren’t 50/50?”

RT: “Ray, I make about 4 times the money that she does, how is there ever going to be anything like equality with that kind of balance?”

Ray: “But what about chores and shit?”

RT: “I take care of the outside of the house, she takes care of the inside. I do the smelly dirty jobs, she keeps the fresh cleaning ones, it’s not rocket science.”

Sam: “Sounds like you just want to stay in the power position.”

RT: “Yes, but it’s only a power play if you’re exploiting your partner. Women like to say they want an equal partner, but they don’t, do they Sadie? They want someone to respect and look up to. So when that comes down to numbers, to money, what’s really holding you together? Love? Mutual interests? (at Sam) Right now you can’t help but be the more dominant one in your relationship. So do you stop being so just to balance things? Do you expect [boyfriend] to pick up the slack more?

The Cardinal Rule of Relationships

In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.

This principle isn’t so much about ‘power’ as it is about control. This might sound like semantics, but it makes a difference. It’s very easy to slip into binary arguments and think that what I mean by the cardinal rule of relationships is that one participant must absolutely rule over the other – a domineering dominant to a doormat submissive. Control in a healthy relationship passes back and forth as desire and need dictate for each partner. In an unhealthy relationship you have an unbalanced manipulation of this control by a partner. Although control is never in complete balance, it becomes manipulation when one partner, in essence blackmails, the other with what would otherwise be a reinforcer for the manipulated under a healthy circumstance. This happens for a plethora different reasons, but the condition comes about by two ways – the submissive participant becomes conditioned to allow the manipulation to occur and/or the dominate initiates the manipulation. In either case the rule still holds true – the one who needs the other the least has the most control. Nowhere is this more evident than in interpersonal relationships.

When I was writing this post many years ago I hadn’t fully considered how this rule interacts with, and contradicts, many of the tenets of egalitarian equalism. The idealistic state of that equalism is one in which two co-equal, yet independent people come together in a perfect union of balance. In theory that balance should account for resources, emotional investment, family considerations, as well as intellectual and social status aspects of either partner.

These considerations alone should be enough to illustrate equalitarianism as the manipulative farce it is, however, all we really need to do is take into account the Cardinal Rule of Relationships. It’s very easy to be accused of being controlling when you embrace the truth of this rule – and particularly so when the reigning social undercurrent is one in which everyone ought to be co-equal rational actors.

I expected to have that leveled at me in this conversation, but it’s important to bear in mind the real nature of power. By my own definition, power is the degree of control we exercise over the direction of our own lives. As I mentioned, I don’t mind being the more powerful partner in terms of resources in my marriage because I accept that stupid notions of maintaining anything like “equality” is simply infeasible. I know more than a few men who’ve sold their lives’ potential away in the belief that they should lessen themselves in order to support a more balanced, equalist ideal. Ultimately their relationships, marriages and families suffer because they never own that potential – just the idea of owning it is a source of guilt and shame.

For all of the bleating about more equitability being needed between men and women. the fundamental truth is that it’s neither a realistic nor workable state. I’ve used money for my illustration here, but this applies to many other facets of an intersexual relationship. From an equalist perspective this sounds a lot like a want for creating a condition of dependency, but in truth it is an unachievable state of egalitarianism that creates a never-satisfied state of dependency.

Her World or Yours?

If you go back and look at the video from Bachelor Nation you can see the dichotomy that presumptions of “equality” sows in western(izing) women today. Within the first 6 minutes of the video we see the internal contradictions inherent in women. There is a want for an idealized equal pairing, but yet a desire for a man to be a Man. The documentary finds the root of this dichotomy in modern resource imbalances between the sexes, and makes the predictable appeal to men not living up to their burden of performance. The male shame comes in contrasting women’s taking on what should be men’s performance burdens – the male obligation to which ironically flies in the face of anything like true egalitarian equalism.

Stay-at-home dads, house husbands, and anything relatable will always have a stigma attached to them in spite of any weak attempts to make them socially acceptable. That stigma is founded in a limbic-level understanding of men’s burden of performance; to be a Man is not just to produce sustainable resources, but to provide a surplus of those resources.

I recently read a poll sponsored by Forbes magazine that listed men’s top goals in life and for the first time in that poll’s history “a good physique” outranked all personal and financial ambitions for top executives. The predictable shame then followed that men aren’t “Manning Up” any more, and they’ve become vain, self-absorbed narcissists for a new focus on what image they present.

The obvious Red Pill conclusion is of course a realignment with the prevailing social perceptions (courtesy of the Feminine Imperative I might add) that women are out-earning men financially and educationally; thus the Alpha Fucks side of Hypergamy takes precedent. If America’s top execs are heeding the message of Open Hypergamy, why bother establishing yourself financially, academically, ambition-wise or otherwise?

The problem with this equation is evident in the Bachelor Nation video. I can understand the sentiments of MGTOW; if the opinions expressed by the quality of woman represented in the video are any indicator of a female zeitgeist it makes the idea of abandoning the Game altogether that much more appealing.

That said, and I’m going to dare to get prescriptive here, I believe that establishing yourself as an independent Man should be your top priority. I have no doubt that that sentiment will get convoluted with feminism’s Strong Independent Woman® meme, but lets clarify something first – the ideal that men ought to be strong and independent has always been the precursor to his quality as a man. Independence, self-sufficiency and determined ambitions have always been the hallmarks of a man comfortable with his burden of performance. Only in women is independence a novelty.

Yet now, in men, this independence is not just a novelty, but it’s been distorted into being an obsessive-compulsive sign of a man’s imagined insecurities. The very strength and independence men have always been expected to embody is the domain of women, while any hope for it from men is a sign of a fragile ego.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #1

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

I firmly believe Alpha is a mindset. That mindset can get the poorest son-of-a-bitch laid with the right application, tact and circumstance. That’s a tough pill to swallow when you work your ass off in the belief that your affluence and status should be the metric Alpha is judged by and women respond to. That’s also not to say affluence and status won’t get you laid by their own merit, it’s just the context in which that happens that makes the difference. There are many men who’ve found their retroactive cuckolding after having based their personal successes on the presumption that those successes should be the basis of his quality to women.

The concept of frame covers a lot of aspects of our daily lives, some of which we’re painfully aware of, others we are not, but nonetheless we are passively influenced by frame. What concerns us in terms of inter-gender relations however is the way in which frame sets the environment, the ambience, and the ‘reality’ in which we relate with both the woman we sarge at a bar and the relationship with the woman we’ve lived with for 20 years. One important fact to consider, before I launch into too much detail, is to understand that frame is NOT power. The act of controlling the frame may be an exercise in power for some, but let me be clear from the start that the concept of frame is who’s ‘reality’ in which you choose to operate in relation to a woman. Both gender’s internalized concept of  frame is influenced by our individual acculturation, socialization, psychological conditioning, upbringing, education, etc., but be clear on this, you are either operating in your own frame or you’re operating in hers. Also understand that the balance of frame often shifts. Frame is fluid and will find its own level when a deficit or a surplus of will is applied to change it. The forces that influence that lack or boost of will is irrelevant – just know that the conditions of an operative framework will shift because of them.

We can go back and debate the Crisis of Motive once again – who do you really do it for? – but in terms of Frame, even if you subscribe to a MGTOW perspective, it’s important for a Man to have a world into which a woman might enter. Not for her sake, but for a Man’s edification.

Establish your world; you shall make your mission, not your woman your priority. Women should only ever be a complement to a man’s life, never the focus of it.