Dangerous Times – Part 2

The fulfillment of your own sexuality is nothing less than your battle for existence. – Pook

If you’ve been wondering what I’ve been doing lately over the past week I took it upon myself to read through the 7,000 word short story “Cat Person” that’s recently gone viral. The author, 36 year old Kristen Roupenian, was also offered a one million dollar book deal to expand the story even further. You too can read the whole thing if you have the stomach, but it reads every bit like the passive-aggressive indirection I’d expected it would coming from a less-than Hypergamously satisfied woman who’s well past the Wall. Rather than craft a concrete article about her own inner conflict (and by association all women’s conflict) of having ‘inconvenient’ casual sex, she thought she wanted, we get an overwritten fiction that sock-puppets herself as the main character.

If this book does publish, trust me, it wont be a new 50 Shades of Grey. Cat Person  resonates with women today because we now live in the #MeToo era of moral panic inspired by the same Future is Female outrage brokers who brought us pink pussy knitted caps and the women’s march in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat. I decided to split this series of essays into two parts because at this moment in history we are beginning to see the culmination of the predictions I alluded to in my essay, The Political is Personal. We are seeing, in real time, just how a feminine-primary social order and a growing female supremacism consolidates its power. But as I outlined in that essay, this power is always predicated on the hope of ensuring the largest pool of women are legally and socially entitled to the unquestioned, and unmerited, optimization of Hypergamy.

Any man with a Red Pill Lens reading through Cat Person will easily pick out the social conventions and rationalizations unique to women’s ‘hamstering’ (“Flirting with her customers was a habit she’d picked up back when she worked as a barista, and it helped with tips.”) that the manosphere has been picking apart for almost two decades now. And, like most women, the female readership find nothing inconsistent or conflicting about any of it. Roupenian breezes through the ins and outs of women’s sexual pluralism and the differences between transactional (Beta) and validational (Alpha) sex without so much as an afterthought – and her readers eat it up with the same solipsism.

However, the overarching concern for women about this story is the issue of the newly coined term “enthusiastic consent”. Our poor Margot (the main character and proxy for the author, and ultimately all women) is torn up by a casual sexual encounter that at first she thought she wanted, but later, even after giving the guy the green light to have sex with her, she loses enthusiasm to bang him. Yet, not to be rude or to create an uncomfortable scene, she goes through with the inconvenient, lack luster, sex because it was easier to say yes than to say no.

There are other names for this kind of sex: gray zone sex, in reference to that murky gray area of consent; begrudgingly consensual sex, because, you know, you don’t really want to do it but it’s probably easier to just get it over with; lukewarm sex, because you’re kind of “meh” about it; and, of course, bad sex, where the “bad” refers not to the perceived pleasure of it, but to the way you feel in the aftermath.

Essentially, this shift from Yes Means Yes consent to Enthusiastic Consent ask the last questions in women’s social consolidation of Hypergamy:

“Must I still have to have transactional sex with Betas if all my provisional needs are more or less met?”

“If I’m an ’empowered’ woman, am I not entitled to the sex I want to have with Alpha men that validate both my hindbrain and my ego?”

“Can transactional sex with Betas be used as leverage to extort resources from them at any future date by redefining that undesired sex as ‘rape’?”

Curb Your “Enthusiasm”

The reason I believe that Roupenian’s future book will fall flat is because the viral conversation her short story elicits is about a new terminology that the Feminine Imperative hopes to insert into the public sphere – that of ‘enthusiastic consent‘ being the only legitimate form of consent a woman can give a man. Anything less than genuine enthusiasm (however this is arbitrarily defined by women) is at best illegitimate consent and at worst rape – even if every indicator a woman gives a man prior to, during and after sex says ‘yes’ she still means ‘no’ and, as we’ll see here, it will be incumbent on that man to be an adequate mindreader and sexual evaluator to determine her real degree of ‘enthusiasm’ both in the moment and into the future.

There’s a lot to unpack here, but I wanted to begin with a comment I received last week:

If you read feminist literature, the intent behind “enthusiastic consent” seems to have good intentions. Its based on the following purported beliefs:

  • That there is a huge incidence of coerced sex and sexual contact, which is mostly inadvertent rather than malicious. The best way to correct this is to teach men the principles of EC. 
  • That the idea of a sharp Alpha/Beta divide in men’s sexual attractiveness is a myth propagated by the misogynistic Right. Furthermore, girls and women have a realistic idea of their own SMV and will be attracted to their male equivalent.

Thus, feminists believe a free sexual market will see assortive mating with both men and women being able to get a similar amount of sex. This is why when men complain of the difficulty of getting sex, many women will retort that it must be because they are only chasing “supermodels”.

Look at Charlie Rose, is this a man with any Red Pill at all? Giving shoulder rubs to office girls, showing porn to a couple, this is all high school Beta stuff. But he had a TV show that lots of famous people wanted to get on. Clearly Beta-ized, but a situational Alpha. In my not so humble opinion most of the #MeToo girls are going after former situational Alphas because they turned out to be Blue Pill Beta after all…they feel cheated, and are just so sure that all the other girls got to ride a real Alpha pony on the carousel, so the fury comes out.

The ‘enthusiastic’ consent social push we are just on the cusp of today is the next progression in the larger goal of feminism – removing all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality. ‘Enthusiastic consent’ will be the raison d’etat for the legislation leading to the outlawing of any form of male sexual expression.

From The Political is Personal:

The inherent insecurity that optimizing Hypergamy poses to women is so imperative, so all-consuming, to their psychological wellbeing that establishing complex social orders to facilitate that optimization were the first things women collectively constructed when they were (nominally) emancipated from men’s provisioning around the time of the sexual revolution.

Ensuring the optimization of women’s biologically prompted Hypergamy is literally the basis of our current social order. On a socio-political scale what we’re experiencing is legislation and cultural mandates that better facilitate Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks.

[…]As Open Hypergamy becomes more institutionalized and made a societal norm by the Feminine Imperative, and as more men become Red Pill aware (by effort or consequences) because of it, the more necessary it will become for a feminine-primary social order to legislate and mandate men comply with it.

As much as I’d like to believe that normalizing ‘enthusiastic consent’ may lead to women overplaying their hand, I have to consider how the specificity of defining consent will also redefine past sexual norms and intersexual dynamics; not just among single individuals having loosely defined “consensual” sex, but also married couples and how sex (or lack thereof) defines their relationships. As if the men of today needed one more reason to be wary of marriage and how it will eventually affect their sex lives, now we can add the potential for ‘marital rape’ accusations based on EC (enthusiastic consent) to that list; and all in light of women’s less than enthusiastic response to any of her husband’s advances. God forbid a mewling Beta pouts his way into this grey zone ‘duty sex’ with his unenthusiastic wife.

What were witnessing here is the insertion of college campus consent laws into Marriage 2.0, and as designed its intent is to further disrupt marriage and family. Even in the old books presumptions about marriage a man could expect his commitment to a wife and family meant a plenary exchange of sexual access. But when enthusiastic consent is a prerequisite for legitimizing sexual encounters, anything resembling a woman’s putting out duty sex for her husband, even starfish lack luster obligatory sex is defined as rape.

I got the following comment from last week’s Red Pill Reddit forum repost:

The fundamental driver is removal of female responsibility for her actions, pushing all responsibility onto men. Whatever happens between a man and a woman, women universally agree that the man is to blame for any and all results, including her subsequent regret.

Responsibility used to be on women to say “no” if she wanted to claim rape. This responsibility has been removed. No longer does she have to verbalise lack of consent. No longer does she even have to verbalise actual consent. She can decide after the fact…. years after the fact…. whether her consent was in fact enthusiastic enough, and she can base that on her future feelings. “But did you enthusiastically scream yes?” her friends will ask, which is more than the police or the public will subsequently ask of her.

Women side with women. Whiteknights, weak Betas and naive Blue Pill fools side with women. Everyone agrees women are right and men are wrong.

And this is the intended result: women are not to be held responsible for their actions. They are not to be held responsible at any cost – including the destruction of male lives.

I presented this point in Men and Suicide, but just to recap, on a subconscious level women will always seek to absolve themselves of complicity in men’s personal destruction. This extends from destroying mens lives due to regrets over not optimizing Hypergamy, to any concern over men committing suicide. At present, women are attempting to reconcile ‘bad sex’ with ‘inconvenient sex’ they have in spite of themselves. However, the same absolution of any inherent complicity in this ‘transactional’ sex ends with blaming men for women’s lack of agency or self-moderation:

Bad sex isn’t even necessarily coercive. I’m talking about having a sexual encounter you don’t want to have because in the moment it seems easier to get it over with than it would be to extricate yourself.

Young women say yes to sex they don’t actually want to have all of the time. Why? Because we condition young women to feel guilty if they change their mind. After all, you’ve already made it back to his place, or you’re already on the bed, or you’ve already taken off your clothes, or you’ve already said yes. Do you really want to have an awkward conversation about why you want to stop? What if it hurts his feelings? What if it ruins the relationship? What if you seem like a bitch?

The problem in this rationale isn’t about women changing their mind or feeling guilty – those are excuses for male-initiated victimhood for women and absolve women’s complicity – rather, the focus should be on the fact that women going through with this type of sex presently have the option to ruin a man’s life at any future date by defining it as ‘unwanted sex’. Ella Dawson may not want to conflate transactional, Beta sex as rape, but that’s where this conversation is leading us to.

Is it OK for Alpha Males?

I apologize for forgetting who it was that sent me this link, but the present day #MeToo moral panic combined with notions of “enthusiastic consent” and a resulting atmosphere of fear in intersexual dynamics was predicted as far back as 2004, and by a woman no less:

Sexual harassment is a crime committed by beta-males who think they can get away with alpha behavior. But that is a distinction too delicate for the blunt instrument of the law. How do you explain to a judge why one man’s comedy is another man’s bone-chilling lechery? And can we really expect the beta-males themselves to understand the difference?

I found this article very prescient about our present moral panic. In the last two posts I’ve made the case that what were finally seeing on a social scale is the consolidation of women’s entitlement to an almost socialistic guarantee of optimized Hypergamy. Through any number of direct and indirect institutions we’ve now virtually guaranteed women a right to Beta men’s resources, protection and provisioning as well as a dominant social status above them both at home and in the workplace. Whether overtly or covertly, women dominate Beta men; the last piece of consolidating Hypergamy is then the (at least partial) control of Alpha Fucks.

As we move into 2018 – an era to be defined even more thoroughly by the Future is Female, #MeToo and Enthusiastic Consent – I believe we’ll see a push for the following:

  • Sexual harassment will indeed be a crime committed by Beta males who fail at a convincing ‘Alpha’ behavior. As such the push will be to get Beta men to self-police their behavior via fear. There will be a doubling down on the part of Blue Pill White Knights and ‘Feminist Allies’ in the wake of the social and legal options women will have to be believed of men’s sexual misconduct allegations by default. Feminized men will “try harder” and rat out their rivals for any hint of misconduct in an Orwellian effort to be more appealing and identifying with women.
  • Only confident Alpha men, or men well versed in Game, will be allowed to approach women from a perspective of social acceptability. However, even then it will be a woman’s prerogative to later define that approach or subsequent interaction as harassment if that Alpha doesn’t comply with a woman’s long term security needs, provisioning and parental investment ‘entitlements’. The latent purpose of a suspension of the statutes of limitation for sexual harassment will center on locking down (perceptually) Alpha men in a long term relationship.
  • This new feminine-primary sexual paradigm will further limit Beta men’s sexual access and increase reproduction stress in the few Beta men who don’t pragmatically drop out of the sexual marketplace altogether. This will also reinforce boys/men’s conditioning of loathing their own gender. They will be taught to accept this feminine-primary sexual strategy, as well as the legal restrictions  on his power of choice and his life’s direction as the societal norm.
  • Legal mandates and societal mores will directly and indirectly ensure Beta men’s compliance in all aspects of parental investment in children he was not biologically responsible for, as well as women’s long term security.

Now, more than ever it is imperative that men become Red Pill awakened and see the writing on the wall with a Red Pill Lens. All of this may seem horribly unavoidable, but let me emphasize, it’s not for men who are aware of, and have internalized intersexual dynamics and can plan accordingly.

In the last installment of this series I’ll be delving into some of the larger socio-sexual implications of where we find ourselves today and where I see present day intersexual relations leading us in a larger scale as well as what Red Pill men can do to win at whats becoming a very dangerous game.


Outrage Brokers

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.” – Mark Twain

Well I finally had a chance to watch Roosh vs. the bloggers – there are no journalists left in the world – debate (it was anything but a press conference) and it was about what I expected. Every opportunity these bloggers had was to call him on his beliefs and his position on the state of the world with the intent to dismiss, marginalize or ridicule him.

By my estimate, there wasn’t a single blogger present who was older than 30 and each took turns couching their questions in terms that would challenge his perspectives with respect to their own. They weren’t there to report; they were there to debate questions they’d already written their own answers before going in because, like Roosh, they live and die by the impressions their readers/commenters. Roosh tried to classify them as ‘establishment’ or ‘the media’, but in reality they are bloggers – ‘journalists’ in name only. What they really are is outrage brokers and together they have a symbiotic relationship.

Roosh manufactures outrage, they distribute it to the cubicle workers who want to feel engaged in a world outside their cubes. Roosh cancels the meet ups, the cube workers feel like they’ve won a battle with edgelord shit-head misogynists and the Rooshites (preemptively) declare a victory for raising awareness of the ‘free speech’ Social Justice Warriors want to curb. Ding, ding! Return to your corners for the next round.

All this does nothing to benefit men in the Red Pill awareness even marginal Roosh proponents want to believe is the good that comes from this circus. “At least he’s raising Red Pill awareness. Any press is good press, right?”

Wrong. Ask Subway if they think the press their spokesman Jared Fogel generated with his 15 year sentence for child pørn charges was helpful in raising awareness of how great their sandwiches are. Not that anyone is boycotting Subway sandwiches, but likewise, no one’s minds are changed after Roosh had this presser. Not the bloggers or Twiteratti that hate him, not the Neomasculists who were already onboard with him and certainly no one that’s never heard of the ‘sphere in a public fashion.

Team Roosh and team SJW are still what they are. The fact that we get women and men IRL who know about this “leader of some MRA group who wants to legalize rape” should be evidence enough of the reach this quick hit, easily digestible ‘outrage bite’ has.

It’s easy to say that fence-riding men who’d never heard of the manosphere (the manosphere Roosh disowned, remember?) will be made aware of it and embrace it, but that’s a convenient and unmeasurable metric to justify what really amounts to a very damaging PR fuck up. Or maybe it wasn’t a fuck up? Maybe it went exactly as planned; maybe even more successful than planned.

Let me be clear, this is not an apologetic. Roosh masterfully turned (intentional or not) this to his advantage by playing all the bloggers present in the room to his narrative on his terms. He did exactly what he should’ve – no apologies, no admissions of guilt, and he forced these tools to play the cards he was dealing. He was handed a golden video op on a silver platter by these young journalists bloggers who knew going in that they were compromising the “journalistic integrity” their communications class teachers told them they had.

My concern isn’t how he handled this, it’s why he put himself (and other men who admire him) into this. My concern is that any genuineness he might’ve had about Neomasculinity is suspect of being just a vehicle for his own notoriety. If that’s the direction he’s chosen to go, if that’s how he’s decided to turn a dollar, I wish him good luck, but he’s become a dishonest broker of outrage at the expense (in some cases physically and financially) of the men who believed he was sincere.

If you read through the Deadbedrooms or Divorce subredds, there are countless men there who would save or change their lives if they embraced Red Pill awareness, but for whatever reason they get violently hostile at any mention of a TRP solution to their circumstances. How many of these fence-riders will look at Roosh and just have all those biases confirmed about TRP now?

Roosh is just playing a character now; one that the outrage brokers want and need:

I wrote about exactly this dynamic on Return of Kings in the only guest post I ever wrote for the site:

If the “postponement” of the ABC 20/20 manosphere “exposé” has taught us anything it’s that the writers seeking to cast light on the manosphere are looking for crazy. They need crazy because it’s the only thing they know how, or have the patience, to confront in as minimal an effort as it takes to type a few paragraphs dismissing it as misogyny.

Writers (vichy male writers) like R. Tod Kelly are also lazy. They see an opportunity for outrage that sells advertising. They wanted Stormfront and what they got was a global consortium of rational, well reasoned men with jobs, families and intelligence, men from all walks of life, all ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds expressing ideas that don’t fit into an acculturation of feminine primacy.

If you read Matt Forney’s 20/20 interview post you’ll see the desperation for crazy in their producer’s attempts to provoke him to become what they think he should be – a frothing, angry, hate-fueled misogynist. That would make it easy for them, they know how to sell crazy. The copy gets approved, the crazies get marginalized and we move on to the next Mabeline commercial.

But they didn’t get crazy from Matt, or Roosh (okay Paul Elam looks a bit like Charles Manson in a certain light)—they got well reasoned, sensibility that was hard to argue against, so they attempted to prompt the crazy by barraging Roosh with questions about rape in the hopes that he’d blow up. He wouldn’t. They wanted it to be easy. They wanted to know all they needed to know about the manosphere by sourcing Manboobz, interviewing three manosphere bloggers and then trot out the crazy, show off the carnival freak, demonize and marginalize him and frog march the crazy off the stage. They wanted fringe, the easy kind of fringe that their journalism, communications and women’s studies classes taught them the easy answers to confront it with.

But the manosphere isn’t fringe. For as much as R. Tod Kelly, or the producers at ABC would like it to be, the manosphere is too broad, too comprehensive, too diverse for anyone unfamiliar with it to really understand it, much less deliver an unbiased objective opinion of it. So Kelly follows formula and makes the same lame attempts at simple aspersion and misogynistic dismissal 20/20 had already failed in doing (as evidenced by their segment’s postponement). The Daily Beast wanted its formulaic red meat, but Kelly is just dishing out ABC’s cold left-overs.

The MSM wants crazy. Crazy gets clicks. There was a time Roosh would’ve responded with far more measured and reasonable responses to these allegations, now he’s found it necessary to adopt the crazy that the MSM wants. He did it artfully, but he’s given them the ugly caricature, the black & white melodramatic misogynist who’s easy to hate.

They want a villain, a misogynist, a chauvinist, a caveman and a guy easily ridiculed in a feminine-primary social order and it appears Roosh is more than happy to give that to them if it means he can profit from it.

The problem with delivering the crazy is that Roosh does so at the expense of men who would otherwise benefit from genuine Red Pill awareness. I approach Red Pill awareness from a bottom up perspective because it is important that men effect real change in their lives and their thinking on a personal level.

I disagree on many ‘doctrinal’ tenets of Neomasculinity for any number of reasons, but the core Red Pill principles Neomasculinity appropriates are still there. Roosh does Red Pill truth-seeking men no favors by making a mockery of those very core principles he claims for the basis of Neomasculinity with his readiness to play a dangerous game with those men’s lives for his personal benefit. All Roosh does in playing this character is polarize men into a team mentality with no real change beyond an Us vs. Them shift.

It might feel good to rally and shake a fist at SJWs and feminists, but it does nothing to educate a man with Red Pill awareness so he knows why he’s in the social conditions he finds himself with women and a large feminine-centric social structure. That takes far more effort and personal investment in that man than simply recruiting him with an easy cause and an easier enemy to hate.

Roosh calling for public meet ups on a RoK six weeks in advance on a site that claims 1 million unique hits a month is not just “a chance for likeminded guys to get together for a beer” it is the bait and the time needed to draw a response from exactly the opposition he’ll complain is out to get him when they predictably do. Granted, that opposition took the bait as predicted, and along with it the outrageous capital he’d hoped to generate, but he’s only going to be able to cry wolf like this so many times before he marginalizes not just himself, but the validity of Red Pill awareness.

In fact that may be forthcoming sooner than he expects. Of course the outrage brokers he hopes to offend will be more than happy for the blog fodder, but at some point he’ll become passé and like PT Barnum he’ll be forced to up his game due to people rolling their eyes at another one of Roosh’s set ups. This is the same formula he’s been using since the London stop of last year’s world tour; he’s got to go bigger on the next push to keep the interest going.

Satire and Irony


Roosh suggesting the legalization of rape on private property wasn’t satire. It was irony, it was juxtaposition to expose a counter point – that women need to accept at least some responsibility for the consequences of their sexual indiscretions – it was illustrative sarcasm, and it was an allegorical thought experiment, but it was neither satire nor parody.

It was an essay in exposing the duplicity of women’s hypoagency – the idea that certain individuals (e.g. women) lack agency in their own actions. They lack control. They are not actors … rather, they are acted upon. The corollary to that argument being that they are not responsible for their own actions. Yet the cultural narrative of the omni-empowered, Strong Independent Woman® is completely at odds with exactly women’s hypoagency with regard to rape. They are powerful and purposeful when it serves and entirely unaccountable and blameless when it’s not convenient.

There was an “entirely serious” article written by Femitheist (on Vice no less) not long ago ‘suggesting’ the systematic culling of 90% of the male population. It turned out to be less-than-serious, but it was written in the same vein as Roosh’s rape legalization “satire” to illustrate a counterpoint.

Difference? A woman wrote it.

If a woman had written, verbatim, what Roosh had, the irony wouldn’t have been intentionally missed. There would’ve been some friction for suggesting rape is any woman’s fault, ever, under any circumstance (hypoagency)  – and it would be even more salient had an anti-feminist woman wrote it – but readers would’ve gotten the gist of the irony. Just as they eventually did with Femitheist’s article.

If a homosexual like Milo Yianopoulos had written it, he’d have been met with the same friction, perhaps even more censorship at his speaking engagements, but readers would’ve gotten the irony – and with a giggle because he’s a cheeky Brit with fabulously gay bleached hair.

Outrage Sells

We live in an age of outrage media. I’ve written in the past about how women need indignation as part of their innate solipsistic make up, so it follows that in an era where men are feminized to the point that they think wearing skirts and heels are a legitimate form of protest against mass rape that fem-men would also lap up the same indignation. They lap it up because they identify with the feminine, with being women themselves.

All one need do today is search for “Rapsit beaten by” on YouTube or Google to see just how far that rape hysteria has ensaturated society. Label a man a ‘rapist’ in the slightest degree of seriousness and you have carte blanche to kill him or destroy his life and livelihood. No doubt Roosh is aware of this judging from the volume of death threats he’s received for the mere perception that he may be a rapist or the oblivious lack of critical thought that he’d seriously advocate for legalizing rape.

He knows this because he’s written, in my opinion, one of the most insightful essays on exactly this social order – The Most Insidious Method of Control Never Devised.

Roosh wrote the seminal essay on how insidious the threat of “stealing a man’s bread” has in controlling his decisions and silencing him. This is why it pains me to see Tweets like this after so elaborate an effort of publicity at the potential cost of other men’s bread – men who believe in the sincerity of what’s only a vehicle for his notoriety now:

I had to reconsidered doing this breakdown of Roosh’s very blatant attention trolling at the expense of anyone who would’ve thought his intents were genuine about organizing a world wide meeting of the tribes. I’m in a difficult position here.

By posting I get tagged with not being cooperative to the manosphere on whole by exposing Roosh for the marketeer he’s regretably turning himself into. On Twitter and the previous thread I get accused of cutting Roosh off at the knees for not being a team player because “any press is good press” (false) and even if he is the Svengali he is, well, at least the ‘sphere is getting some spill-over publicity.

I say that’s bullshit, and then I’m reminded of my own reasons for involving myself in writing what I do and who I write for.

Not only is it bullshit, but it’s bullshit that damages the capital that the ‘sphere collectively has developed for over a decade now. Roosh isn’t making any new converts to Neomasculinity or anything else with this, and while his epic trolling of SJWs and fem-stream media bloggers deserves the highest praise, it’s regrettable the cost should come from men who are genuinely looking for the answer Red Pill awareness provides.


The Red Pill Monthly

Niko Choski and I will be discussing this post and other topics on the next installment of The Red Pill Monthly youtube Livecast this Friday, February 12th at 10AM Pacific Standard Time.

You can follow the link here.


In light of the Feminine Imperative having itself capsized over the UVa rape fantasy retracted by Rolling Stone this month, I was reminded of this video and post by Heartiste (Roissy) a few years ago:

Basically, the guy had a few friends follow him around the mall, one guy filming him and the other two guys (I can’t tell if any of his hired guns were women) acting as his “groupies” or entourage. He goes around identifying himself as “Thomas Elliot” when people, mostly women, ask him his name. Eventually, he begins to pile up admiring and gawking female attention, which only snowballs into more female attention. Apparently, not one of these starstruck chicks thought to question if Thomas Elliot was a real celebrity. That’s the power of preselection and fame; so powerful, it can disengage a woman’s neural logic circuitry.

Heartiste goes on to make the prerequisite Game principle  & application observations here, but there is a much larger dynamic in play. While the mall makes for a good setting to test this experiment, it is fairly isolated. A security detail gets assigned to “Thomas Eliot” and even some shops close in order to avoid a crowd panic, but could this dynamic be proven on a larger scale?

This is a very interesting social experiment, particularly when compared to the now infamous (and staged) viral video of Shoshana Roberts walking around New York and enduring the attentions of men she found less than savory. Interesting because they’re essentially trolling for attention from the opposite sex with similar methods, and the results are telling about how each gender perspective generates and reacts to that attention.

Darryl Long made a comment on this topic, and I’ve been considering it for a while now:

On this topic of how women’s attraction changes across their lifetimes I don’t think any analysis is complete without looking at the phenomena of teen-idols. As a man who has sisters and daughters its clear that there is something biological going on with pubescent girls in a way that is radically different from boys. Boys may fantasize about a poster girl, but they never fall over themselves for heartthrobs like Bieber, or Lief Garret, and David Cassidy (in the old days). I’m amazed that many of these teen heartthrobs are more on the fair/effeminate side than masculine. They look like they have good genes, but the most important thing is that all the other girls like them. They are male figures that girls lend incredible status making them even more attractive.

Preselection is a very powerful motivator of women’s hypergamous decision making process. Even the perception of fame (or even the potential for it) is a prime motivator and incentive to lock down a man who presents the hypergamous optimal ideal – a guy who satisfies the sexiness her Alpha Fucks hypergamous needs require and the long term security of provisioning potential from status-confirmed Beta Bucks.

Whether this “famous” guy actually embodies this ideal is irrelevant to a woman’s Id-centric psyche. When women are younger, tweens and teens, this self-convincing is much easier since girls lack any real world experience to reference with respect to what the guy really represents. A capacity for abstract thinking is something that develops as we mature, but the desire to optimize hypergamy is a limbic, instinctual drive for girls and no amount of reasoning can compete with the fantasy of a pre-fabricated idealized Hypergamy.

They want to believe it.

Thus we have hordes of girls and young women willing to go to behavioral lengths they would never consider with the mundane men they’re familiar with in order to just brush with the possibility of  that hypergamous ideal. They will literally climb over one another to realize this.

In a Game sense, preselection (and prequalification or 3rd party endorsement) is a very powerful, instinctual impetus for women. Even in marginal, isolated social settings preselection is an overriding imperative:

Your goal should be to attract women effortlessly, so play to your strengths no matter what they are; there is a groupie for every male endeavor. – Roissy

Mass Hysteria

Once you have a basic understanding of the preselection dynamic and how it is an evolved feature of women’s psychological firmware, the next step is to understand how the power of preselection influences women (and by association men) when scaled to a feminine social dynamic.

Roissy notes from the first video:

Apparently, not one of these starstruck chicks thought to question if Thomas Elliot was a real celebrity.

As I’ve noted in prior posts, perceptions are the overriding imperative of the feminine psyche. It’s not that women on an individual level don’t possess the faculties to discern legitimate social proof, it’s that on a social level they want to believe in that social proof. The estimation of the collective feminine mindset is a powerful influence on the individual woman since it plays on that non-abstract, instinctual need for a pre-verification of optimal hypergamy.

In other words, the effort of sexual-selection vetting has already  been done for them by the feminine hivemind.

Verifying legitimate social proof takes individual time and effort. Perhaps not as much as men have a rational capacity for (the New York stunt fooled more than a few tag-along guys affirming the pseudo-social proof), but for women that opportunity for meeting a hypergamously ideal man supersedes the mental efforts needed to verify social proof. The greater mass of women already believe in the preselection and the intersexual competition is on and overt.

I’ve made the distinction before with regards to women’s preferred communications methods; covert communication being women’s native language, but when women resort to overt communications it’s generally because the content of the  information needing to be transferred outweighs the need for how it’s delivered, or the context of that information.

Transferring information about a man’s preselected approval amongst a collective of women is one such override. However, it’s very important for men living in a feminine-primary social order to understand that social proof is not just limited to preselection of men as potential partners.

This social proof dynamic extends to the perceptions of women in a collective peer group, as well as men for whom they have no sexual interest in, but serve their material interests nonetheless.

The current cultural atmosphere of male suspicion and autonomous rape-threat assessment of men is another variation of this perceptual, hysterical, collective belief dynamic. Women want to believe in the presumption that every man outside of their preselected, collective approved, hypergamous ideal  is a potential rape threat. In other words, a man who might, by force or coercion, assume control of her hypergamous sexual selection.

The narrative, the perception, is all that matters.

And like the women who never had an afterthought as to whether “Thomas Eliot” was the real deal, likewise women become so ego-invested in the certainty of their collective perceptions that, even in light of contrary evidence, the only acknowledged verification of that perception is how it makes them feel.

This contradiction of a collective feminine hysteria is what many luminaries of the Feminine Imperative are now being forced to confront. It’s important to remember during this UVa / Rolling Stone rape debacle that women, and more than a few enabling male sympathizers, wanted to believe this travesty was true in spite of the vaudevillian outlandishments and still refuse to accept that it isn’t.

From Truth to Power:


The first step to really unplugging from our preconditioning (i.e the feminine Matrix) is recognizing that this conditioning has led to the beliefs we think are integral to our personalities. The psychological term for this is called ‘ego-investment’. When a person internalizes a mental schema so thoroughly, and has become conditioned to it for so long, it becomes an integral part of their personality. So to attack the belief is to, literally, attack the person. This is why we see such a violent reaction to people’s political, religious, inter-social/inter-sexual, inter-gender, etc. expressions of belief – they perceive it as a personal attack, even when presented with irrefutable, empirical evidence that challenges the veracity of those beliefs.

People resort to denial when recognizing that the truth would destroy something they hold dear. In the case of a cheating partner, denial lets you avoid acknowledging evidence of your own humiliation. Short of catching a spouse in bed with your best friend, evidence of infidelity is usually ambiguous. It’s motivated skepticism. You’re more skeptical of things you don’t want to believe and demand a higher level of proof. Denial is unconscious, or it wouldn’t work: if you know you’re closing your eyes to the truth, some part of you knows what the truth is and denial can’t perform its protective function.

One thing we all struggle to protect is a positive self-image. The more important the aspect of your self-image that’s challenged by the truth, the more likely you are to go into denial. If you have a strong sense of self-worth and competence, your self-image can take hits but remain largely intact; if you’re beset by self-doubt, however, any acknowledgment of failure can be devastating and any admission of error painful to the point of being unthinkable. Self-justification and denial arise from the dissonance between believing you’re competent, and making a mistake, which clashes with that image. Solution: deny the mistake. Attribute it to an outside element rather than resort to introspection.

This degree of core-level denial is where the likes of Jessica Valenti, Susan Walsh and Zerlina Maxwell find themselves today.

In spite of still growing confirmation that the story was a hoax, femosphere bloggers hold out hope against hope that even the smallest part of a medieval-like rape story to rival Silence of the Lambs could be true.

The pivot for this will of course be how the falsehood injures women who genuinely are rape victims, but this is just the shiny keys jingling to distract anyone sympathetic to their ego-investments from the fact that they wanted to believe this story was legitimate.

They wanted to believe it without an afterthought of critical analysis.

They wanted to believe it in spite of the obvious melodramatic dialogue described by “Jackie”.

They wanted to believe a naive freshmen girl could be frat boy initiation raped for three hours on the shards of glass from a broken glass table and never seek medical treatment or have anyone raise an eyebrow over the bloody mess that her back must’ve looked like as she nonchalantly walked out of the party house.

They wanted and still hope that even the most marginal parts of the story might be true. They want any shred of hope that will distract from the fact that they must now confront their complete acceptance of this obvious farce without any compunction of critical thinking.

They all have to face the fact that their presumption of male guilt comes before any logic or reason. This is the uniquely feminine hysteria that even men will invest themselves into if it means they can more positively identify with the Feminine Imperative.