relationship

Mutiny

mutiny35bounty4121

There are times I’m typing away on a particular topic and I get scooped by my own comentariat.

Quote from BadPainter (emphasis mine):

George – “She prefers a dual pluralistic feminine sexuality where she can express and enjoy greater sexual freedom and an artificial feeling of control and dominance.”

Because giving herself sexually to a man who is a provider either makes her a whore (trading sex for material goods), or a slave (giving up power to submit to a dominant man). By chasing Alpha Fux she can submit in that moment and maintain the illusion of independence. By accepting commitment from Beta Bux she gets the very highest price for her sex and can aintain the illusion that’s she is not a whore. Combining the two, Alpha Fux and Beta Bux means accepting a submissive position to a man who provides with an expectation of sex.

This is antithetical to entire feminist paradigm of equality with, and independence from, men. To achieve this ultimate feminist goal women achieve equality, and equality of outcome by political policy, and they achieve independence by becoming lesbians.

George’s response:

Well put, agreed. I wonder how many women really are successful with this plural hypergamy and how many really aren’t. We are seeing many media examples of this and examples of young girls in traditionally masculine leadership fantasy roles (hunger games, etc.). However, I personally know very few real females who are successful with “open hypergamy” and none who characterize real leadership traits. The ones attempting to practice this plural hypergamy expose themselves as the untrustworthy sluts they are, divorced, etc and no man worth a shit wants anything to do with them. They end up extremely insecure bitter hags in short order.

Again BadPainter:

George – “They end up extremely insecure bitter hags in short order.”

This seems to be the case amongst all women who hold to the feminist notion of equalitarian relationships. And I think generates similar results amongst women who don’t actively subscribe to feminism but willingly accept the benefits of feminism. And I think it’s the career track reality that does it.

A woman working outside the home must submit to the hierarchy of the work place. The workplace is the Alpha of her existance because it can and will dispose of her as soon as she is unwanted/not needed. The workplace is dread writ large. When she goes home she can’t as easily submit to her beta husband because she knows he can’t and won’t dispose of her so easily, especially if there are children involved. This is a source of disrespect, she gets away with it because she can. She resists because she has been playing that submision game all day and refuses to simply give in at home.

Likewise a man having to walk the tightrope of workplace politics being both a good follower and showing initiative, and leadership irrespective of rank and position, has little desire to fight those same battles at home. So he gives in out of exhaustion what he wants is a moments peace where his way is the only way because he’s the king of his own castle at least in his own mind.

Both man and woman are ultimately played against each other in this situation. The woman is more resistant to submit, the man more reluctant to dominate because he now has to be more dominant than the woman’s work place without the benefit hard dread sans consequences.  In the past the practiced amount of domestic dominance required would be reduced or mitigated by the economic reality of the woman’s dependence on the man for her material standard of living. Not so today when divorce law favors the woman, and domestic violence laws, and standards for defining abuse only apply to men. Today those influences plus the nuttiness of feminism makes a challenging situation worse as the the gender roles are now competitive instead of complimentary and collaborative

I realize I may raise a few hackles with today’s post. And while I wont apologize for what I’m going to propose here, just know that my intent isn’t to offend or injure, but rather to strip away a degree of what I think is a very pleasant, but sugar coated fiction.

Whenever I read or hear a man consistently refer to his wife as his “bride” it alerts me to his Blue Pill state of mind as well as his conditioning. This is a relatively new colloquialism for the Christian set (“christianese”). Generally I hear and read this from Evangelical Christian men because their context (or domain) is one of a self-enforced reverence for their wives. Usually it’s meant to be a not-so-veiled attempt at pedestalizing their wives in casual conversation with people they think will appreciate it (and hopefully earn cookie points with the wife), but what it reveals in my Red Pill lens is a guy who believes his “voluntary” deference to her makes him more respectable to her.

Before you think I’m unfairly highlighting “Christian Beta Game” there is a similar, but more pervasive dynamic in the married-man set of the manosphere. Whenever I read a man (I’ve never heard a guy verbalize this) refer to his wife as the “First Mate” or “First Officer” it similarly sets off the same sensitivity I get with the “brides” men – and for much of the same reasons.

Any man with a cursory experience in the manosphere recognizes this buzz-term from Athol Kay’s Married Man Sex Life. The principle of the term stems from the idea that a husband needs to be the ‘captain’ of his marriage, his family and the director and decision maker of where that unit will go, what their goals are, etc. On the face of it, this male headship positioning stresses what men (and wives) interpret as an old-order conventional complementarity between the sexes.

A strong male leadership role is very appealing to both men and women, and I’ll be the first to cosign the need for a man’s ‘captaincy’ as it were in his marriage and his life in general. This ‘Manning Up’ into a headship of his relationship hits the right buttons for a man predisposed to Beta complacency (not to mention it gives him a faint hope for resolving a sexless marriage), but also for women who are encouraged by the ‘new’ Alpha-ish husband they hope will take the lead (usually from her) and potentially generate the tingles he’s never quite been able to do for her.

Unfortunately, this push for ‘captaincy’ is self-defeated by the equalist-mindset compromise of allaying a woman’s inherent insecurities by giving her assurances that she will be the “first mate” in this new arrangement. Even in a position of instated headship (relinquished or otherwise), men predisposed to an egalitarian equalism still want to ‘play fair’ and offer an appeasement for being allowed to be the head of the home.

Her voice will be heard, her input will be considered, because he just “loves her that much”; this is the self-satisfying rationale for being allowed to direct the course of his marriage and family. The problems inherent in this are rooted in the compromise of his assuming all accountability for the failures of that arrangement while still granting her his magnanimous assurances that he’ll always have her best interests in mind.

Father Knows Best

I overheard a young woman explain what amounted to open Hypergamy to a Beta kid I know over the holiday. At one point she said, “It’s women’s job to get away with everything they can in life.”

Then the kid asks, “So what is men’s job to do in life?”, “Not to let ’em” was her reply.

I’ve always stressed that the Frame in which you begin a relationship will set the overall tone of that relationship. That’s not to say the predominant Frame can’t be altered (indeed many men fall victim to their own Beta backsliding in marriage), but that tone, that predominant directorship of who’s Frame will set the course for where it goes and how it develops is set before you sign on to monogamy in its various forms. It is either your reality into which a woman must enter, or hers that you must enter. Their may be compromises, but these will be colored and characterized by whose Frame is the dominant one in the relationship.

Know this now, your wife, your LTR girlfriend, doesn’t want to be your “First Mate”.

While you may think you’re flattering her with your self-styled magnanimity, this compromise only reflects your Blue Pill equalist hope that she will genuinely appreciate the sacrifices you make in considering her Frame. The dominant Frame (hopefully yours) is what matters. While a wife’s input may present you with insight you may have overlooked, she must ultimately acquiesce to your Frame’s primacy.

When you consider her a co-equal actor in what you believe is a mutual Frame (or what you’ve convinced yourself is really your Frame to maintain that relationship) you will own your mistakes and failures, but she will share in, and at times take an equal credit for, your successes.

There’s a reason that the cliché is “Behind every great man is a woman” and not the other way around. Any man claiming a supportive responsibility for a woman’s success – or even being graciously acknowledged by her for it – is perceived as a coattail rider. When it comes to a comparison between Sensitive New Age Guy® and Strong Independent Woman®, a woman is always a support system for a man’s success. Men’s genuine support is emasculating because ‘support’ is a feminine role in either an egalitarian or a complementarian relationship.

Down with the Ship

While it may be comforting for a woman to believe her opinion is valued, or that what passes for her newfound submission to his direction is guaranteed by his considerateness, very few  ‘first mates’ are willing to go down with the ship once it starts taking on enough water. The ‘first mate’ notion is really a win-win situation for women who are already virtually guaranteed of long term support whether her ‘captain’ sinks the ship or not. With so many reassurances of social, emotional and financial support women can always reserve the right to jump ship should her husband’s fates and fortunes not live up to his headship.

When she goes home she can’t as easily submit to her beta husband because she knows he can’t and won’t dispose of her so easily, especially if there are children involved. This is a source of disrespect, she gets away with it because she can. She resists because she has been playing that submision game all day and refuses to simply give in at home.

In other words, the ‘captain’ is really on his own regardless of his ‘first mate’s’ input.

She’s absolved of his failures and shares in his successes – which are made all the better when he convinces himself that the directives of her Frame are really his own. Any consideration for real mutual input will always be mitigated by this foreknowledge of a relatively ensured support should he not live up to the performance demanded of a ‘captain’.

Forgetthesky from last week’s comment thread:

I think George and Badpainter bring forward an interesting hypothesis above: the idea that women are pursuing an AF/BB strategy so relentlessly not only because a man to exemplify both sides are so rare (though they are unusual), but because women would generally avoid such a man – because she would have no power over him, he would command all spheres. And modern women fear submission greatly, they’ve been trained to. And they’ve often enough never experienced it positively, with so many absent and beta father’s around.

A Man needs to command all spheres to genuinely be the ‘captain’, and ultimately this disqualifies any validity of his woman’s considered influence on him.

The idea of a needed balance of including a wife or LTR in a man’s decision making process is not just the result of an equalitarian mindset, it also serves the Feminine Imperative. While equalism is the root belief, the notion of a mutual (though nominally lesser) inclusiveness works on much the same level as Choreplay. If a man “plays more fairly and evenly” the expected reciprocation should be a reward of more of a woman’s love, respect and pussy. In fact this is the sell for both equalist Purple Pill inclusivity and doing a feminine defined set of equalized chores.

The problem then becomes one of the observer effect when a woman is constantly aware of the inclusivity, captain-first mate Game that she and her husband are both overtly playing. Observing the process will change it, so any assuming of ‘captaincy’ and any presumption of a roleplaying legitimacy on his part become suspect of both he and his wife’s genuineness. Truly submissive women want a decisive, unapologetic man with masculine determination and ambition for his life, who doesn’t need to be told he needs to be so. He ‘Just Gets It‘, and so much so that his Frame is the dominant one from the outset of the relationship without any back and forth about captains or first mates. She enters his reality, or she doesn’t associate with him.

Women don’t want to be overtly reminded that they’re “being included”. This is pandering to women who already know they have the blameless option of abandoning or jumping the ship. This overtness then inevitably script-flips to male ridicule.

“I’m the king of the castle. My wife told me I could be” is how the joke that men tell themselves goes, but the self-observation is really one of abdication to a woman’s Frame while he lamely grasps at an authority he doesn’t believe he’s ever earned.

No one laughs at his joke.

Rational Male – Q&A

RM_Q&A

SoSuave and Rational Male reader compleks had a few questions about what he read in The Rational Male book. Since I’ve been doing these weekend questions lately I thought these might make for some interesting discussions. Hopefully they wont distract you from family time this holiday weekend, but maybe they make for some interesting dinner table talk.

Just a side note here, I’m deliberately leaving my own answers less detailed than I normally would so as to inspire your owndiscussions:

If The Rational Male was recommended to me as a book about game, I probably wouldn’t have read it. But my friend who put me onto it basically described it as a life altering piece that would forever change the way I viewed the world of inter-gender relations.

Big sell!

So I read it.

Being freshly unplugged I’m still just awakening from that groggy comatose/confused state. However I feel as though I have a slight head start on at least some of the material. Just by sheer chance, rather than any real research into the subject.

I’ve only ever been in one LTR (2years), and it was with the girl I first hooked up with (she let me sleep with her, better hang onto this one!). Anyway, I ended that (5-6years ago) and have been single ever since, with no desire of entering another relationship.

I started ‘spinning plates’ about a year ago, just through a natural realization that any moral/ethical objection was actually completely unfounded. Not just my own (programmed) objections, but objections from the feminine perspective, which I guess are one in the same. I thought I must have been ‘wired’ differently because I had no desire of settling back into a LTR. I actually argued my case on multiple occasions to avoid it happening.

This book was eye opening and definitely shed some light on issues I never would have even thought to question.

If you care to keep reading I’m just going to spew some thoughts/questions having just finished the book. Keep in mind this is from a very rudimentary understanding of the text.

QUESTIONS

1) Does ONEitis best Hypergamy?
We all know a girl (either personally or anecdotally) who is in a committed relationship with some deadbeat. Everyone knows she can do better, but you can’t possibly convince her to leave him. What factors are at play here? Does SHE suffer from ONEitis to the point that her hypergamous tendencies have been shut off?

Or could it be a case of low self esteem and lack of self worth, so much so that she believes he is the best she can do? Or could he actually just be an Alpha male (albeit a bad example of one)? I’m sure there’s a grey area or middle ground here with many factors potentially at play depending on the specific scenarios. But it’s a pretty common scenario and I’d like to hear what you guys think.

I get this one now and then – “What about this one great looking girl I know who’s stuck on this complete douchebag, deadbeat, scumbag, suckup, :insert invective here:?” While I’m not sold on the idea that women ever get ONEitis for a guy, I am thoroughly convinced that women being 1-2 SMV points below a particular man they’re involved with develop a strong attachment for him.

For women, oftentimes that attachment gets paired with the soul-mate myth. I’d separate that “spiritualism” from the ONEitis a man gets for a woman, but it’s still rooted in the same dynamic – the subconscious realization that this person is the ‘best they can do’ in the SMP.

The reason I’d make the separation between how men experience ONEitis and women is due to the concepts either have when it comes to love. Women’s concept of love is rooted in opportunism as a result of their innate drive towards hypergamous optimization. All this ‘deadbeat’ needs do is be perceptually 1-2 levels above her own perceived SMV and the Alpha prerequisite for Hypergamy is met.

Most guys looking from the outside of that perception in realize the guy’s a fuck up (even Alpha Buddah, Corey Worthington is an example), and we can’t understand why that subjectively hot woman can’t use reason and rationality to see that he is, but then, this is due to our own self-perceptions and our mistaken belief that women’s reason can be appealed to.

2) Genuine Inter-Gender friendships?
Okay, so i don’t have the book with me. But I remember reading a sub-section on inter-gender relationships. It didn’t sit well with me when I read it, but it’s probably something I will have to re-read. I have a lot of female friends. Friendships that go back 15 years. Some of these are very close friends in a completely non-sexual way.

I’m closer with some of these girls than I am with many of my male friends.
Initially these friendships may have blossomed based on the fact that I was a shy kid and didn’t have any ‘intimate’ relationships with women till I was 19. But they are now concreted as some of my most valued friendships.

What is your take on Rollos opinion of inter-gender friendships (as outlined in the rational male)?

My take in the book, and still is, is that men and women cannot be friends in the same way and to the same degree of intimacy that same sex friendships develop.

Men and women cannot be friends in the way or to the degree that most people perceive same sex friendship to be. Now the natural response to this is “I have lots of female friends” or “what are you trying to say, I can’t have female friends, they all haffta be enemies?” Which of course is the standard binary (black or white, all or nothing) retort and the trained AFC thinks anyone suggesting that men and women’s relations as friends could be anything less than equitable and fulfilling is just a neanderthal chauvinist thinking. However, they are incorrect – not because you wouldn’t want to actually be a woman’s friend. There are fundamental differences in the ways men and women view friendship within the framework of their own sex and the ways this transfers to the concept of intergender-friendship.

Quite simply there are limitations on the degree to which a friendship can develop between men and women. The easy illustration of this is that at some point your female “friend” will become intimately involved with another male; at which point the quality of what you perceived as a legitimate friendship will decay. It must decay for her intimate relationship to mature. For instance, I’ve been married for 18 years now; were I to entertain a deep friendship with another female (particularly an attractive female) other than my wife, my interest in this woman automatically becomes suspect of infidelity – and of course the same holds true for women with man-friends. This dynamic simply doesn’t exist for same sex friendships because the sexual aspect is inconsequential.

I should add here that the presumption of an equatable degree, character or quality of intergender friendship (platonic) being the same as a same-sex friendship is a product of the same “we’re-all-the-same-with-different-plumbing” naive equalism that deliberately ignores complementary differences between the sexes.

This presumption is actually a vetting mechanism for women’s control of sexual selection and Hypergamy. The social convention that promotes the idea of equitable concepts of friendship only serves women’s imperative of being able to hold the attentions of multiple male orbiters until such a time that she can optimize both sides of her sexual strategy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks). The longer you’re rapt by the idea of an equal intergender friendship, the longer she has to consolidate on whatever side of hypergamy she’s prioritizing at the phase of life she’s in. In other words, the longer you’re in the bullpen, the longer you’ll be a Plan B prospect.

3) Religion vs Evolution vs Habit?
This is a bit abstract. But in terms of a decayed loveless marriage, what would you say are the factors holding these marriages together? Neither party is happy, but they are also unwilling to do anything about it.

One clings to a religious frame as reason to not leave/divorce, as the children are all old enough now that “staying together for the childrens sake” no longer applies.

The other seems completely indifferent and stuck in the routine. Both are mid 50’s and have been married for 30 years and probably just scarred shitless of being alone. But what would you make of this from an ‘unplugged’ point of view. (might be a stretch from the realm of this book, but just curious).

What you’re describing is akin to the phenomenon of Grey Divorce. In the time line from my Preventative Medicine series, I briefly outline what’s known as the 20 year itch – the period of life, usually after 50 around the time a long-married couple becomes ’empty nesters’ and the binding responsibilities of raising children is at, or almost at an end.

It’s around this phase that a reassessment of one’s partner takes place and the prospects of living out the rest of a life with that person gets serious consideration. This is a phase that’s very telling of the overall prospects of marriage as an institution on whole and how either sex really considers their idealistic, loving union from very mater-of-fact practicality, when there is no longer a mutually cooperative goal (childrearing) as the centerpiece of that relationship.

Religion and/or a conviction that children are better raised by an involved two parent (male and female) family who are both mutually invested in the success of their kids is generally a bond that both parties mutually agree to as the cornerstone of their marriage.

Once that goal has been met (or termed out) then that relationship must be reestablished and based on a genuine interest and desire for the other person. For a man this may involve his realizing an understanding of tenets of the Game that he’s, until then, unwittingly been a party to. For women this may be a longing for renewed interest from extra-marital (but not necessarily infidelity) attentions and desire from other men.

It’s kind of telling how men’s idealistic concept of love endures beyond his late-life Epiphany stage. In spite of having experienced the consequences and all-downside risks men face in their prior marriages, it’s still overwhelmingly men who want to remarry and take another shot at that idealism.

It is women, in either their veiled pragmatism or their aging, unrealizable opportunistic concept of love who are more or less indifferent to the prospects of remarriage.

“Most currently divorced or widowed men are open to the idea of remarriage, but women in the same circumstances are less likely to be,” says the report, which draws on figures from a survey it conducted in May and June. Almost two thirds of men either want to remarry or would at least consider it, while fewer than a half of women would.

These stats alone are more than enough to verify my assertions of how either sex hold different concepts of love.

Men still dream of an idealistic love, and women have find precious little use for men beyond the practical when presented with the prospect of having to optimize Hypergamy at an age they are no longer capable of intersexual competition.

Intimacy

intimacy

Bad Painter had a great question a few months ago:

What exactly is intimacy? What does that look like in a Redpill context?

I used to think I knew what intimacy was, in a blue pill way at least. And I have come the realization that intimacy is either not worth shit, or I simply don’t get it. What I do know is that those times were I was informed intimacy had been achieved were not correlated with my feeling comfortable, more secure or less anxious rather it was the opposite.

This is a good question.

In my writing I use the term ‘intimacy’ as a sort of confirmation of a woman’s genuine interest, but I don’t think I’ve ever really defined it.

Strictly from a PUAs sense I would say intimacy is a woman’s sexual availability – in no uncertain terms it’s confirmation of her intimate interest and acceptance of you, but then again, in my own sexual past I’ve had more than one fuck-buddy with whom I really didn’t share any real intimacy with.

In those instances I was (at least perceived) a point or so above these women’s SMV and enjoyed all the Alpha benefits that arrangement afforded me, but beyond the sexual, I had no real interest in any kind of intimacy, shared or not.

In a sense, I actually had a much deeper intimacy with the three fuck-buddies I would bang in my 20’s than the women with whom I’d invested myself with in more “meaningful” relationships. You see, with my fuck-buddies all pretense of caring about what they thought of me personally (and certainly from a long-term investment) was simply a non-issue. I was free to express as much or as little of myself as I wanted because I wasn’t actively qualifying for their future investment in me. My Frame was dominant from the outset – sex-on-call is a pretty strong indicator of dominant Frame.

When I was writing the final edits of the Wait For It? post for the Rational Male book I felt that I needed to add a caveat towards the end of that section to account for a sense of intimacy for red pill men, who by conviction or otherwise, weren’t comfortable with actually fucking a woman to confirm genuine desire.

The point of that being that sex isn’t necessarily a determinant of intimacy, but rather the real desire for that person and the want for a mutual connection (to be consummated by sex) creates a condition of intimacy.

Zenpriest on intimacy:

“When one considers that one must “game” a woman, even your wife, in order to keep her around, then it also means that you must always be operating at a “higher level” than her. It totally negates the whole notion of having a “soul-mate” and means that on many levels, a man will always be alone.” 

That is probably the most important lesson a man can ever learn.

Intimacy with a woman is impossible if you have any interest in being her lover. If you are fine with being one of her grrrlfriends, and don’t mind the stupid messed up games women run on them, then you can share to your heart’s content – and will always be on the LJBF ladder.

The fundamental problem with today’s concept of marriage is that it seems both men and women expect their spouse to be all things to them – lover, confidante, helpmate, “soulmate”, co-housekeeper, and co-wage-earner. With so many role demands, it is inevitable that everyone will fail at some of them. That is why the old division of roles worked fairly well for most people – each could concentrate on a few things they were good at, and leave the rest to the other person.

Zenpriest outlines one of the fundamental differences between a forced egalitarian equalist approach to relationships with the natural complementary approach – intimacy between two autonomous, self-sufficient, self-reliant individuals is an impossibility in a sustained relationship. If there is a complete self-sustaining independence between both partners (an eqaulist idealized state) then there is no true purpose for intimacy between the two.

Buena Vista:

I have been the Alpha Fucks, the Beta Bucks, and I have been both at the same time. Civil marriage requires a man, as Deti notes by inverse example, to commit to permanent Game. Permanent Game rarely involves true intimacy. This is the reality of the Plan B Nice Guy in marriage.

Eon:

It seems that intimacy, like love, is only possible if you are greater than (and thus truly independent of) the object of your love.

Softek:

In my opinion, intimacy is unchanged by the red pill. It’s the ideas and perceptions about it that are changed.

There’s a lot of dichotomy: sex, attention, and affection are all thought of as needs, but at the same time, if you’re not getting any of those things, the only way to get them is to take on the mindset of having an abundance of them.

And the guys who seem to have free access to all of those things have access to them because they don’t care if they have access to them or not.

I have to consider these perspectives of intimacy and cross reference it with the Cardinal Rule of Relationships:

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

Although in an extreme this may seem manipulative to the uninitiated, this balance exists in every relationship irrespective of whether one party is intentionally using that power or not. In fact the most frustrated men you’ll ever meet are those whose women aren’t intentionally using the power his qualifying for her intimacy bestows upon her. He wonders why he can never merit her intimacy, while she, obliviously, wonders why he keeps trying to merit it.

As I illustrated in my fuck-buddies example, I was free to be as intimate as I chose with them because I literally had nothing to lose by doing so. And in that state of outcome indifference they wanted those occasions of intimacy far more than any woman I’d held in a high enough esteem to think I needed to qualify for their intimacy.

However, from a Red Pill perspective, I think the idea that “real” intimacy requires a constant effort of Game is in error. I’ve shared an enduring intimacy with Mrs. Tomassi for 19 years because Game and Red Pill awareness are simply part of who I am now. Game, if that’s even the right word for it, becomes effortless once you’ve made Red Pill truths an intrinsic part of who you are.

I still think Buena’s right though, permanent Game rarely involves true intimacy, but only if that Game is a constant act a man feels he needs to make believable to sustain his relationship. This then comes full circle to wanting to fulfill Blue Pill idealisms of intimacy with applied Red Pill awareness.

Learn this now, you will never achieve contentment or emotional fulfillment in a blue pill context with red pill awareness.

Most men’s concept of intimacy, like love, is shaped by his Blue Pill conditioning. The key to real intimacy is understanding how it can grow and be sustained in a Red Pill context. Chasing after an intimacy defined by the feminine suffers from the same misdirection of presuming women’s concept of love (opportunism) agrees with men’s (idealism).

So, weekend discussion questions:

How do you define intimacy?

Do you think men and women share the same concept and definition of intimacy?

Is ‘true’ intimacy only achievable when you have nothing to lose and nothing invested in a woman?

 

End Note: I’m well aware that intimacy has far broader inferences than just the relations between men and women, and I’m not attempting to pigeonhole the entire concept. There is intimacy with your family, your God, your pets, yourself and a variety of other things. However, even in those instances there is still a power dynamic at play.