Glenn and a few others had a question about last week’s Love Commodity post.:
@Rollo – This seems very inconsistent to me. How can this be true – ” Men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. ” While this is true? “In an era of unapologetic feminine primacy and unignorable open Hypergamy, this commodification undeniably rests with the feminine.”
You’ll have to forgive a long explanation, I couldn’t simply drop this into the commentary, a full post was necessary.
The first thing we need to consider is the Male Experience vs. the female experience. I hate to get too existential, but it comes down to our individuated experiences as men and women. I’m going to give two examples here and this will also cover the Hypergamy is everything thread I noticed the commentary too.
There’s an interesting conflict of societal messaging we get from an equalitarian / feminine-primary social order. This is one that simultaneously tells us that “we are not so different” or “we are more alike than we are different” and then, yet implores use to “celebrate our diversity” and “embrace (or tolerate) our differences” as people.
This is easily observable in issues of ethnicity, but it also crosses over into issues of gender. The most popular trope is that ideas of gender are a social construct and that women and men are comparative equals and only their physical plumbing makes them different in form only.
From a Red Pill perspective we see the error in evidence of this egalitarian fantasy. I’ve written countless posts on the evidential and logical fallacies that make up gender equalism, but the important thing to be aware of is the conflict inherent within that belief – equalism expects men and women’s existential experiences to be the same, while also pleading that we embrace the differences it purports we don’t actually have.
It fundamentally denies the separation, from an evolved biological / psychological perspective, that men and women experience life in different ways. The idea is that it’s the nebulous ‘society’ that determines our gender experiences and less, if nothing, of it is truly influenced by a human being’s psychological-biological firmware.
zdr01dz posted this:
I think maybe this is in part because men have no innate desire to marry up. Hypergamy doesn’t compute for us. I know what hunger feels like and I assume women feel it the same way I do. I’m empathetic to poor, hungry children because I know what they’re feeling. However I have no idea what hypergamy feels like. I’ve never felt it’s pull.
My second example comes from Women and Sex in which I explore the fallacy of the social convention that insists “women are just as sexual as men” and that “women want sex, enjoy sex, even more than men.”
This canard is both observably and biologically disprovable, but the presumption is based on the same “we’re all the same, but celebrate the difference” conflicting principle that I mentioned above. If a dynamic is complimentary to the feminine then the biological basis is one we’re expected to ’embrace the diversity’ of, but if the dynamic is unflattering to the feminine it’s the result “of a society that’s fixated on teaching gender roles to ensure the Patriarchy, we’re really more alike than not.”
The idea is patently false because there is no real way any woman can experience the existence and conditions that a man does throughout his life. I mention in that essay about how a female amateur body builder I knew who was dumbstruck by how horny she became after her first cycle of anabolic steroids. “I can’t believe men can live in a state like this” were her exact words. She was just beginning to get a taste of what men experience and control in their own skins 24 hours a day and it was unsettling for her.
Women are used to a cyclic experience of sexuality, whereas men must be ready to perform at the first, best opportunity sexually. These are our individuated experiences and despite all the bleating of the equalists they are qualitatively different. As zdr01dz observes, no man has an idea of what Hypergamy feels like. To my knowledge there is no drug or hormone that can simulate the existential experience of Hypergamy. Even if there were, men and women’s minds are fundamentally wired differently, so the simulated experience could never be replicated for a man.
I understand how Hypergamy works from observing the behavior and understanding the motivating biology for it. I also understand that our species evolved with, and benefitted from it – or at least it makes deductive sense that what we know as Hypergamy today is a derivative of that evolution – but what I don’t have is a firsthand, existential experience of Hypergamy and I never will. Likewise, women will never have a similar existential experience of what it’s like to be a man.
So it should be an easy follow to deduce that how a woman experiences love, as based on her Hypergamic opportunistic impulses, is a fundamentally different experience than that of a man’s. The equalist social order want’s love to be an equal, mutual, agreement on a definition of love that transcends individuated gender experience, but it simply will not accept that an intersexual experience of love is defined by each sex’s individuated experience.
I have no doubt that there are areas of crossover in both men’s idealistic concept of love and women’s opportunistic concept, but this experience of love is still defined by gender-specific individuation. By that I mean that women can and do experience intense feelings of love for a man based on her Hypergamously influenced criteria for love.
I’m actually surprised that more women have yet to call me to the carpet about their personal experiences of love from the commodity post, but if you sift through the comments on Women in Love and other blog/forum comments you’ll come across examples of women describing in great detail how deeply they love their husbands / boyfriends, and are in complete disarray over being told their love stems from Hypergamic opportunism. Again, I have no doubt that their feelings of love are genuine to them based on their individuated concepts of love; indeed they’re ready to fight you tooth and nail to defend their investment in those feelings. What I’m saying is that the criteria a man should need to meet in order to generate those emotions and arrive at a love state are not universally mutual as an equalitarian social order would have the whole of society believe.
So, yes, men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely – from their own individuated experiences. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. The processes they used to come to this love state differs in concept and existential individuation, and what sustains that love state is still dependent upon the criteria of men’s idealistic and women opportunistic concepts of love.
The Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies: For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.
The commodification of that love state is presently weighted on the feminine because the Feminine Imperative is socially ascendant. The importance of satisfying the female sexual (and really life-goal) strategy takes primary social precedence today. Thus men’s individuated experience is devalued to an assumption of an “it’s-all-equal” universality while women’s is blown up out of all real valuation with collective expectations of “embracing their unique difference” set apart from that universality. If men’s experience is one-size-fits-all it’s really a small, and socially blameless, step for a woman to withhold the reward criteria men place on their idealistic love in order to satisfy their own sexual strategy.
Women’s social primacy allows them to feel good about themselves for commodifying the idealistic rewards men value to come to their own state of love, as well as maintain it.
It is one further step to embrace the concept that men’s experience of love, the idealism he applies to it and even his own sexual and life imperatives are in fact the same as those of women’s – while still setting women’s apart when it serves them better. Thus the cardinal rule of sexual strategies comes to a feminine-primary consolidation by socially convincing men that women’s experience and imperatives are, or should be considered to be, the same as men’s individuated experiences. Add women’s already innate solipsism to this and you have a formula for a gender-universal presumption of the experience of love based primarily on the individuated female experience of love.
In other words, women expect men to socially and psychologically agree with, reinforce and cooperate with the opportunistic feminine model of love as the equalist, gender-mutual model model of love while still believing that women share their own idealistic model. It’s the correct model that should work for everyone, or so women’s solipsism would have us believe.
In my first post of 2014 I introduced the topic of the ugly feminist. As I explained at the time, this is an old charge but is typically aimed at the superficial instead of the core problem. Feminists are ugly because the philosophy of feminism is ugly. It is based on avoiding caring for others and being miserly with love. Several commenters pointed out that this is a devastating charge against feminism, as they could see no viable counter argument for it.
I’m not going to try to offer a counter to Dal’s assertion because in essence I think he’s correct. However I will suggest that this ugliness is the result of a commodification of love (and with it sexual access) that’s resulted from the unfettering of women’s Hypergamy. Love and caring is the commodity women’s Hypergamy uses to fulfill their dualistic sexual strategy.
To this day my most contentious post (and chapter in the book) on RM is Women in Love. This is primarily due to first time readers taking my assertions to their literal extreme. Women’s concept of love stems from opportunism, men’s concept stems from idealism. Most women and Blue Pill men take this to mean that women cannot actually love a man, and absolutist men angry with themselves for having never understood it think much the same thing, “My God! I knew it all along, women cannot actually love a man.”
I assert neither of these positions (really the same position) in that post, nor any of the followup post (that no one seems to want to read once they make up their minds), but what I do assert is:
Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically.
Iron Rule of Tomassi #6 Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.
In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.
Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.
In prior posts I’ve also made the case that men’s idealistic perspective of love stems from an unending need for performance to merit a woman’s opportunistic love. It’s not that men want an unrealistic, unconditional love, but rather they want a woman’s love to be a refuge from having to perform up to, above and beyond the requirements of satisfying an unending optimization of her Hypergamy. It’s not unconditional love they idealize, it’s a love that’s not predicated on their burden of performance.
What frustrates this love idealism is that men are popularly sold the idea that women’s love is based on a mutually similar model. From Disney movies to romantic comedies, to Shakespeare and epic stories, to popular music and the daily talk shows, the message is that love (if it’s real love) is omniscient, conquers all and overcomes all odds. It’s a very seductive message of hope for men whose lives and existences are evaluated on constant performance.
“Could she really love me despite all of my glaring inadequacies?”
“Does she love the real me or is it my money and the lifestyle I provide for her?”
The fact that these themes are a constant in human history illustrates the subconscious, peripheral awareness we have of the differing models of love each sex bases their understanding of love on.
What this selling of idealistic love does for men is keep them in a state of perpetual hope that this idealism is shared by both sexes and they can realistically achieve that ideal goal of a love not founded on his performance. It’s important to note here that this performance isn’t necessarily something a man must make a constant effort to maintain (though this is the usual case), but rather what he represents, not who he is personally. It may be that his effortless looks or inherent status represents a cue for a woman’s optimal hypergamous satisfaction, or it may be the result of years of dedicated performance effort – either way it’s what that man represents; remove the factors a man possesses that satisfy a woman’s Hypergamy and her opportunistic model of love will reveal itself.
Feminists are ugly because the philosophy of feminism is ugly. It is based on avoiding caring for others and being miserly with love.
Dalrock’s observation here is profound in that it illustrates exactly the state of opportunism on which women base their concept of love. On some level of consciousness women understand the inherent value their love, concern, attention and caring has for men. It’s repression or expression is a commodity that has reward value for men who also have an awareness that their performance is what merits a woman’s love.
The popular criticism is that this want for an idealistic love is really a man’s preoccupation with his need for sex, but this is to be expected from a fem-centric culture that needs women to ration love and caring for men in order to ensure its social dominance. And God forbid a man express his desire for a performance-less based love and caring; he’s ostracized for wanting a mother’s love (Freudian), being necessitous (thus powerless) and revealing his deficiency in performance.
As Open Hypergamy becomes more proudly embraced and normalized in society, so too will women’s sexual strategy be laid more bare. And in laying that strategy bare, so too will women’s opportunistic model of love become more apparent to men. This new apparentness is already conflicting with the old-order messaging that kept men hopeful of realizing their idealistic love state.
Women cannot sell Open Hypergamy and the love-conquers-all ethereal ideal love at the same time.
Dal is correct, the philosophy of feminism is ugly, but it’s important to consider that feminism is just the current social operative of the Feminine Imperative today. For the moment women can be miserly with love and caring. They can even express resentment for having to be so with men who they doubt are meritorious of it, or for those who don’t measure up to the rigors of an increasingly open and increasingly demanding Hypergamy.
They can do this because they understand that the hopeful, idealistic love they have men convinced can be achieved is still a commodity to men.
Before I close, I’m going to give you a bit of Red Pill hope (again). Men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. My point with this essay is to reveal how this love develops and the conditional environments it comes together in. In spite of the strongest bonds, there is a threshold at which men’s loving idealism and women’s performance requirements can test, stress and break that bond.
Men’s idealistic love can be strong, as can women’s opportunistic love – the two models are not mutually incompatible, and it’s my belief that the two are even complementary to each other. Neither is a right or wrong way to love, and neither is the definition of real love. Bear in mind these are models that predicate a condition of love, what happens after that is up to the individuals.
Where these models become incompatible is when one commodifies and exploits the condition of love that the other holds. In an era of unapologetic feminine primacy and unignorable open Hypergamy, this commodification undeniably rests with the feminine.
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.
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.
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.
One of the results of becoming Red Pill aware is a meta “awareness” of the feminine centric social order we live in today. On this side of the Red Pill it’s almost routine for me now to filter what’s presented to me in popular media, social doctrine or even casual conversation through a Red Pill lens.
Whether it’s the latest pop hit lyrics of a song my daughter is listening to in the bathroom, the latest movie or book, or just listening to someone rattle off an old Blue Pill trope in casual conversation, my sensitivity to how thoroughly immersed in fem-cetrism our society has become is overwhelming.
I’ve had guys in the manosphere joke with me that having this ‘lens’ is like having the special glasses that let you see the alien/zombies and propaganda in the movie They Live. While I get a laugh out of this I also have to think that those glasses never really come off. So when the holiday season comes around this awareness manifests itself more for me since I’m reacquainting myself with family and friends who are immersed in this Matrix and don’t realize they’re mouthing the meme’s and social focus of a feminine centric order.
I think it’s kind of ironic that during the holidays we’re expected to lock horns with our relatives over the latest generational/political/ideological differences, yet these all take place in a common, feminized social narrative. Your uncle may not agree with you politically, but he’ll slap you on the back while you both drink a beer and say, “Women ‘eh? I guess we’ll never figure ’em out” and expect you to have some common agreement with him in spite of those differences.
I bring this up today (and for this weekend’s discussion questions) because it was due to this seasonal Red Pill awareness that I was better prepared to appreciate the holiday classic, It’s a Wonderful Lifefrom a Red Pill perspective.
I’d just returned from a work trip last week and my daughter informed me that the movie was being shown in our local metroplex theater on Christmas eve. I’d seen it before on TV with all the intermittent commercials, and remembered how tedious I thought it was (it’s a pretty long movie for 1946), but she insisted and I wanted to do something with the family. I’ve never watched the movie start to finish, and when I did pick up scenes on TV during Christmas time, it was long before I had any Red Pill inclination.
Needless to say I was shocked (pleasantly) by how thoroughly Red Pill I found it. If you want to see what a pre-sexual revolution gender dynamic is like, this is your movie. Yes, it’s idyllic, but that idealism is founded in a social order, an ‘old books‘ social order, that reveals what our new feminine-primary social order is today. It shows you what we’ve become, but unfortunately the greater whole of our contemporary society lack the special glasses to really appreciate this distinction.
Some notable scenes:
George Bailey, the cab driver Ernie and the cop Bert ogle the sexy Violet Bick after she flirts with George and just flows down a busy street to be checked out all the more by every man on the street. In modern terms these men are all guilty of sexual harassment, but in 1928 (the film’s beginning) and viewed from a 1946 perspective of that time, there is nothing harassing about it. It’s de rigueur, and she enjoys the attention.
The family interaction between George, his brother Harry, and their father with Ma Bailey just prior to Harry’s graduation party. There is matronly deference to their mother, but both of the boys are being boys and there is no expectation for them to settle down. Both the brothers are naturally, effortlessly, cocky & funny with the maid and their mother. This isn’t a forced attitude, it comes off as both positively masculine and fun at the same time. Also, their father is the respected head of the household, both by virtue of his social status and integrity as well as his position as ‘father’. Needless to say, he’s never ridiculed as the buffoon he’d be portrayed as on a post-sexual revolution social order, and in fact dispenses a wisdom that benefits George later in life.After the graduation party George and Mary walk home in the odd dry clothes they were able to find after having fallen into the school pool. Mary is in a bathrobe and George in a football outfit. This flirtation and interaction is perhaps one of the best examples I can think of as an old order form of Game. George is cocky, funny, confident, ambitious, playfully teasing and yet still conscious of Mary’s perception of him as he effortlessly delivers a positive, masculine vibe.Again, it’s idyllic, and men being the true romantics will want to believe such receptivity could actually take place without any confusion of signals with an idealized, Quality Woman woman like Mary, but it’s the atmosphere and the attitude of expecting Mary to respond to George’s delivery that belies the era this scene and story was written in. Nothing seems forced at all, and we don’t expect Mary to match George’s masculine Game with one of her own feminine-empowered forms of Game. From a Red Pill perspective, we want a gal like Mary to exist, but you wont find her in 2014.
These were just a few scenes I thought stood out, but this film is an essay in the old order social structure a lot of well meaning Red Pill advocates would like to believe is still a possibility.
In the last thread commenter Xsplat asked the question whether an Alpha man could also be a provider. His criticism of the manosphere is that Alpha men are being painted as caricatures of cads, assholes and bad boy players women want to bang as part of their Hypergamous mating protocol. Betas are the opposite of this; good for provisioning only – cuckolds to be used for parental investment with only a perfunctory servicing of mediocre ‘duty’ sex as an intermittent reward to keep him pulling the cart.
If there are caricatures of Alpha and Beta being drawn I’d suggest this is due more to women and their comfort with Open Hypergamy and men deductively modeling their gender expectations as a result. That said, Xsplat’s not wrong. It is entirely possible for an archetypal Alpha Man to be an upstanding member of society, provide for his family and be well respected both by his peers and his wife. The character of George Bailey is an old order example of exactly this kind of man.
In our era women have an unprecedented facility for providing for their own security need, but that doesn’t eliminate the root level, emotional need for optimizing Hypergamy with a man who is an Alpha provider. For the most part women simply don’t expect to find this optimization in the same man. There are men they want to fuck and men they want to consolidate monogamy with, and finding this satisfaction in the same man is so rare, so unexpected, that his character becomes unbelievable. The George Bailey of 1928 is an unbelievable character in 2014.
As I’ve illustrated in many a prior post, Alpha is a state of mind, not a demographic. Just because the Alpha energy of a kid like Corey Worthington will get him laid without trying doesn’t preempt a woman from being aroused by, and attracted to a George Bailey. Context is king of course, but what matters is that self-interested Alpha mindset. While many a convicted felon possesses this mindset, and receives women’s sexual interests as a result of it, I’d still encourage men to use that Alpha energy to a positive, self-benefiting effect.
So the questions for this weekend are:
What Red Pill observations do you find unignorable in contemporary society? It’s dangerous to attempt to make others aware of this perception, but do you try anyway?
Do you see examples of the old order as I have in It’s a Wonderful Life? Understanding the idealisms inherent in it, what other examples of this old order to you know?
Alpha providers, while being an idealistic character, can exist, but are they realistic? I’d propose that embodying this role has become one of being seen too readily as a Beta by women due to the unbelievability of it. Does men’s romantic nature predispose them to thinking they can adequately fulfill this role? Does that romanticism expect women to be receptive and appreciative of it? Is that expectation on of investing in Relational Equity?
I received the following email from a reader this week:
Hi Rollo, I ran across the below thread on the TRP discussion on Reddit. I’m not normally a big follower of reddit but this one was good and is something that I’ve thought for a long time. Online Dating really, really, really sucks for men. And turns women into bitches. And has changed the world from an 80/20 market to a 95/5 market. The average male and actually for most above average males too … like SMV 6s and 7s have been completely shut out. And learning Game does little good for these men.
Was wondering if you’d care to discuss such things.
One of the founding Red Pill principles I explored over a decade ago was the tendency for men (and women) to create Buffers against rejection for themselves. I’ll still argue that men being the ‘initiator’ sex are subject to the consequences of rejection far more than women ever will be, but left unchecked, and if we’re honest, deliberately ignored, these rejection Buffers often develop into psychological schemas men internalize as a specific “preference” when it comes to interacting with with women:
Buffers are generally the paths of least rejection that become ego-invested “preferences.” Buffers aren’t so much about those “preferences” as they are about the motivations behind them.
At this point you might be thinking, “well, what the hell, I don’t want to feel rejection, why not employ buffers against it?” The main reason for embracing rejection is that rejection is better than regret. Scan back through this short list of buffers; how many of these have become greater, longer term problems for you than a briefly painful rejection would’ve been? Buffers also have a tendency to compound upon themselves in that one tends to dovetail into another, or more, until you no longer realize that they were originally rejection prevention methodologies and gradually become associated with your genuine personality. After a long enough period, these buffer become “just how I am.”
In the past Roosh has gone into some speculation that there will be a narrowing of the already harsh 80-20 rule of the SMP the closer western society gets to a total consolidation of feminine social primacy. Certain bloggers will debate the numbers, but I tend to agree with his proposition, though I’d say that a starting point of 80-20 might be a bit generous. However, considering the comfort with which women and popular culture are embracing open Hypergamy, I think I would actually step up his timetable for ‘Peak Hypergamy’.
For now, men are being presented with some very simple and pragmatic choices:
Learn Game, stay in the Game. Make the most of what they have to work with in their given circumstances and focus on self-motivated self-improvement. In a sense it’s a form of MGTOW, but with the expressed purpose of actively engaging in the SMP as it’s accessible to an individual guy. In other words, don’t wish it were easier, wish you were better – play the game better but always with yourself as your own mental point of origin.
Exit the Game. No one truly exits the Game, but they can minimize their active involvement in it. For the most part this doesn’t have to be a complete capitulation to one’s sexless, intimacy-less fate, but it does imply a degree of self-imposed indifference to women’s interest. Unfortunately this option seems the most pragmatic for men who either haven’t the patience or circumstance to opt for improving themselves and succeed at the Game, or they simply don’t see a commensurate reward for the investment they’d need to make in assuming the liabilities that come with dealing with most women these days.
Continue on in a Blue Pill ignorance. Although this ‘choice’ is the most common (i.e. at least 80% of Beta men) it will be the one to disappear the most rapidly. Even without a growing Red Pill community, Red Pill awareness is becoming more difficult for even the most plugged-in of men to ignore. Women’s flaunting of Open Hypergamy and blatant admission to a sexual strategy of Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks combined with a widespread Red Pill awareness will challenge even the most ardent of White Knight’s and idealistic ‘average frustrated chumps’. Still, there are diehard self-righteous Betas who’s dedication to the path that the Feminine Imperative has set before them has made any deviation from it unthinkable. They build a life of dependency on the untenable Blue Pill goals and the means to realize them.
The problem inherent to all of these options is that to a lesser or greater degree they rely on a static state of a particular environment, condition or domain.
Just for the record, yes, I’m quite familiar with the anti-fragile doctrine proposed by Taleb with regard to domain dependency. I do see a parallels in this with regard to Red Pill awareness, but this is in no way an endorsement of the book – I simply don’t have enough familiarity with it.
For Red Pill purposes though, Domain Dependence is being good at what you do in one setting, but completely unable to transfer that ability to another setting. I think this dependence is one of the more overstated preoccupations Game critics have in really accepting the validity of greater Red Pill truths.
A cheetah is a deadly and effective predator when he can use his speed to run down prey on the wide-open African plains, but put him in the Brazilian rainforest, with its dense jungle, and he’s probably going to sleep hungry more nights than not.
Translated into predictable Red Pill critique, the idea is similar – “Yeah, sure, game works well for picking up low self-esteem bar skanks, but I’m looking for a Quality Woman.” What’s implied isn’t necessarily incorrect; the most ridiculed, stereotypical examples of Game came from the trials and errors of early PUAs making observations and applying what they’d learned in a contextual domain – night clubs, bars, etc. While those observations were, and still are, invaluable information to a greater meta-understanding of Red Pill awareness, for the most part those early successes were dependent on that specific (club style) domain.
Game has branched out from that beginning to be applied in broader domains. Thus we have specific areas of application dependency based on what can produce at least somewhat replicable results in those settings. Nick Krauser writes the book on day Game, Roosh the book on South America and Northern & Eastern Europe, while other authors ply their trade writing about Game in marriage or under the auspices of religion(s).
And while I have a great deal of respect for the most of them, a creative mind doesn’t work like this. The creative mind has the ability to migrate from one realm to another without even thinking about it. It’s what allows us to connect this dot with that dot. There is a certain applied reasoning and science behind a Red Pill awareness, but it’s important to remember what the ‘A’ in PUA stands for – Artistry.
I’ve known a number of guys in my time who swear that there’s nothing hotter than a woman 15 – 20 years their senior. Others love to explain to me how behind the times I am by pointing out the inherent dangers and liabilities of dating single mothers (for anything more than a one time bang). Still others tell me how enthusiastic a lay the obese women they regularly bang are. All of these guys express a preference for the type of women they can reliably get into bed with and will staunchly defend and praise their preferred type of woman.
Their domain dependency became their internalized, ego-invested preference.
I’ve touched on this dynamic in a few of my earliest posts, but I think it’s important to realize that domain dependency isn’t just about the type of woman you’ve developed a preference for, but rather how you’re predictably rewarded (in this case with sex) within that particular domain. You can semi-reliably do well with Goth girls, fat girls, older women, single moms? It’s important to understand the specifics and motivations of the women within that domain. You went on a sex safari in Southeast Asia or the Philippines, yet get flaked on by every western girl you approach? There are (obviously) specifics that influence those domains.
After all of this, the Red Pill is universally applicable, or it’s not. The same fundamental Red Pill dynamics, operating within the context of a specific domain, are applicable with the correct art necessary for that domain.
Red Pill truths are domain independent. Hypergamy is the same to a girl in Brazil as it is to a girl in Vegas. The domain changes, and with it the necessary art based on a woman’s incentives and the priorities for that given domain, but the underlying purpose and requisites of Hypergamy is unchanged. Yes, cultural, religious and familial limitations of that Hypergamy may apply within that domain, but root level Red Pill truth is still the prime directive for women.
Within a man’s lifetime he will have no choice but to cross into, and adapt to unfamiliar domains many times. These domains are not just locales or social settings, but the specifics of a particular stage of a woman’s life as well as his own life. Marriage is a domain. Single man sex life plate spinning is a domain. Online dating, a dependency on impersonal texting, really any of the Buffers I’ve elaborated on in the past are all examples of a domain men develop a dependency on, and later a rewarded preference for.
While it’s vitally important for a man to have a solid grasp of the elements of his own, temporal, domain it’s equally important to understand how and why he came into it. What rewards did he receive or hope to receive that led to his developed “preferences”? Were those preferences dependent upon a Blue Pill condition for reward?
This is key in avoiding domain specific dependency. That’s a pretty tall order for most men, and actually it’s one of the prime reasons most Blue Pill men never come to Red Pill truths. The Blue Pill is itself a meta-domain that men are largely conditioned to be dependent upon. Coming to Red Pill truths requires the self-realization of a domain dependency on Blue Pill idealisms, their promised rewards and then letting them go.
It’s important for a man to develop a fluidity of transitioning from domain to domain. Red Pill awareness prepares him for fundaments that will be applicable in all domains, but accepting that those domains exist and influence (sometimes adversely) his ‘preferences’ is the first step in developing the art necessary to excel in a new domain.
Isolation is dangerous. The presumption that conditions will never change and / or the preoccupation with security is a woman’s realm. Men must accept that they must adapt themselves to adequately perform in changing domains.
Last week saw the publication of the latest paper by Dr. Steven W. Gangestad and Dr. Martie Hasselton titled Human Estrus: Implications for Relationship Science. Anyone who’s read the Rational Male for more than a year is probably familiar with my citing Dr. Hasselton in various posts (her catalog of research has been part of my sidebar links since I began RM), but both she and Dr. Gangstad are among the foremost notable researchers in the areas of human sexuality and applied evolutionary psychology. For this week’s post I’ll be riffing on what this paper proposes with regard to a condition of estrus in women.
In the introduction section of The Rational Male I relate a story of how in my Red Pill formative years I came to be a connector of dots so to speak. While I was studying behavioral psychology and personality studies a great many issues jumped out at me with regards to how many of the principle of behavioral psychology could be (and were already being) applied to intersexual relations. For instance, the basic concepts of intermittent reinforcement and behavioral modification seemed to me an obvious and learned practice of women in achieving some behavioral effect on men by periodically rewarding (reinforcing) them with sex ‘intermittently’. Operant conditioning and establishing operations also dovetailed seamlessly into the Red Pill concepts and awareness I’d been developing for several years prior to finishing my degree.
Since then the ideas I formed have naturally become more complex than these simple foundations, but what I only learned by error was how thoroughly disconnected both students and my teachers were with what I saw as obvious connections. I met obstinate resistance to flat denial when I wrote papers or gave a dissertation about the interplay between the foundations of behaviorism and interpersonal relationships. It was one thing to propose that men would use various aspects to their own advantage, but it was offensive to suggest that women would commonly use behavioral modification techniques to achieve their Hypergamous ends.
This peer resistance was especially adamant when I would suggest that women had a subconscious pre-knowledge (based on collective female experience) of these techniques. I never thought I had brass balls for broaching uncomfortable considerations like this – I honestly, and probably naively, assumed that what I was proposing had already been considered by academia long before I’d come to it.
I was actually introduced to the work of Dr. Hasselton during this time, and along with Dr. Warren Farrell, she’s gone on to become one of my go-to sources in respect to the connection between contemporary behavioral ‘dots’ with theories of practical evolved function in intersexual dynamics. I owe much of what I propose on Rational Male to this interplay, and while I doubt Hasselton would agree with all of what I or the manosphere propose, I have to credit her and her colleague’s work for providing me many of the dots I connect.
I understand that there are still evo-psych skeptics in the manosphere, but I find that much of what passes for their piecemeal “skepticism” is generally rooted in a desire to stubbornly cling to comforting Blue Pill idealisms. That said, I’d never ask any reader to take what I propose here on faith, but personally I’ve found that the questions proposed by evo-psych reflect many of the observations I had in my college days.
For the social theater of the Feminine Imperative, one of the more galling developments in psychological studies to come out of the past fifteen years has been the rise of evolutionary psychology. The natural pivot for the Imperative in dealing with evo-psych has been to write off any concept unflattering to the feminine as being speculative or proving a biased positive (by “misogynistic” researchers of course), while gladly endorsing and cherry-picking any and all evo-psych premises that reinforce the feminine or confirm a positive feminine-primacy.
Up until the past two years or so, there was a staunch resistance to the concept of Hypergamy (know as sexual pluralism in evo-psych) and the dual natures of women’s sexual strategy. Before then the idea of Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks was dismissed as biased, sociologically based and any biological implications or incentives for Hypergamy were downplayed as inconclusive by a feminine-centric media.
However the recent embrace of Open Hypergamy and “Sandbergism” of the last two years has set this narrative on its head, and the empowered women who found the idea of their own sexual pluralism so distasteful are now openly endorsing, if not proudly relishing, their roles in a new empowerment of Hypergamous duplicity.
For those of you that aren’t aware, women now are often out earning men and more of them receive college degrees than men. As of now there aren’t really any programs to help guys out. Assuming this trend continues what do you think will happen to dating? I think that attractive women, will have their pick regardless.
However, for a lot of women, trying to lock down a guy in college will be more of a big deal. I don’t think hook up culture will disappear, but will definitely decrease.
With the exception with my current boyfriend, I have always earned more than any guy I have dated. It has never been an issue. I just don’t have to think about their financials, my attraction is based on their looks and personality. I am guessing the future will be more of that.
I thought this TRP subred was an interesting contrast to the Estrus theory proposed in the Gangstad-Hasselton paper (comments were good too). Yes, the woman is more than a bit gender-egotistical, and yes her triumphalism about the state of women in college and their earning is built on a foundation of sand, but lets strip this away for a moment. The greater importance to her in relating this, and every woman embracing open Hypergamy, is the prospect of better optimizing the dual nature of her sexual strategy.
In many a prior post I’ve detailed the rationales women will apply to their sexual pluralism and the social conventions they rely upon to keep men ignorant of them until such a time (or not) that they can best consolidate on that dualism. Where before that strategy was one of subtle manipulation and pretty lies to keep Betas-In-Waiting ready to be providers after the Alpha Fucks decline at 30, the strategy now is one of such utter ego-confidence in feminine social primacy that women gleefully declare “I’m not just gonna have my cake and eat it too, I’m getting mine with sprinkles and chocolate syrup” with regard to Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks.
The Estrus Connection
For all of the ubiquitous handwringing the manosphere imparts to the social implications of today’s Open Hypergamy, it’s important to consider the biological underpinnings that motivate this self-interested conceit.
In the vast majority of mammalian species, females experience classic estrus or heat: a discrete period of sexual receptivity – welcoming male advances – and proceptivity – actively seeking sex – confined to a few days just prior to ovulation, the fertile window. Only at this time, after all, do females require sex to conceive offspring. The primate order is exceptional. Although prosimians (e.g., lemurs, tarsiers) exhibit classic estrus, the vast majority of simian primates (monkeys and apes) are sexually active for at least several days outside of the fertile period . Humans are an extreme case: Women may be sexually receptive or proceptive any time of the cycle, as well as other nonconceptive periods (e.g., pregnancy).
Do Women Retain a Functionally Distinct Fertile Phase?
Graded sexuality. Women’s sexual activity is not confined to an estrous period. But are women’s sexual interests truly constant across the cycle? Many female primates (e.g., rhesus macaques and marmosets) are often receptive to sexual advances by males outside of the fertile phase, but they initiate sex less .
In fact, women’s sexual interests do appear to change across the cycle. Women exhibit greater genital arousal in response to erotica and sexually condition to stimuli more readily during the follicular phase [5-8].
A recent study identified hormonal correlates of these changes by tracking 43 women over time and performing salivary hormone assays . Women’s sexual desire was greater during the fertile window, and was positively related to estradiol levels (which peak just before ovulation), but negatively related to progesterone levels (which rise markedly during the luteal phase).
Changes in the male features that evoke sexual interest. Since the late 1990s, some researchers have argued that what changes most notably across the cycle is not sexual desire per se but, rather, the extent to which women’s sexual interests are evoked by particular male features – specifically, male behavioral and physical features associated with dominance, assertiveness, and developmental robustness. Over 50 studies have examined changes across the cycle in women’s attraction to these male features.
The importance of behavioral features? Whereas preference shifts of major interest early on concerned male physical features (e.g., facial masculinity; scent), several recent studies have focused on women’s reactions to men’s behavior and dispositions. Previous research had found that women find male confidence, even a degree of arrogance, more sexually appealing during the fertile phase [e.g., 15-16]. Recent studies replicate and extend that work, finding not only that fertile-phase women are more sexually attracted to “sexy cad” or behaviorally masculine men (relative to “good dad” or less masculine men), but also that, during the fertile phase, women are more likely to flirt or engage with such men [17,18]. Females of a variety of species, including primates , prefer dominant or high ranking males during the fertile phase of their cycles. These males may pass genetic benefits to offspring, as well as, potentially, offer material benefits (e.g., protect offspring). Women’s fertile-phase sexual attraction to behavioral dominance appears to have deep evolutionary roots.
Much of what’s explored here I laid out in Game terms in Your Friend Menstruation over two years ago, but the implications of the behaviors prompted by women’s menstrual cycle and biochemistry strongly imply an estrus-like predictability. This estrous state is a foundational keystone, not just to developing Game, but a keystone to understanding the dynamics behind Hypergamy, women’s dualistic sexual strategy, Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks, and can even be extrapolated into the drive for ensuring feminine social dominance in both overt and covert contexts.
When women embrace a social order founded upon a feminine state of openly revealed Hypergamy they confirm and expose the reality of this estrous state.
Whereas before, in a social order based on concealed Hypergamy, this state could be dismissed as a social construct (and a masculine biased one at that), or one that had only marginal influence to reasoning women with a “higher” human potential. No longer – the confirmation of a true estrus in women via open Hypergamy literally confirms virtually every elementary principle Game has asserted for the past 13 years.
Within the dual sexuality framework, fertile-phase sexuality and non-fertile-phase sexuality possess potentially overlapping but also distinct functions [22,23]. In a number of primate species, extended sexuality – female receptivity and proceptivity at times other than the fertile phase – appears to function to confuse paternity by allowing non-dominant males sexual access [e.g., 24]. These males cannot rule out their own paternity, which might reduce their likelihood of harming a female’s offspring. In humans, by contrast, extended sexuality may function to induce primary pair-bond partners to invest in women and offspring [e.g., 22].
I found this part particularly interesting when you contrast this dynamic with the social resistance that standardized paternity testing has been met with. In a feminine-primary social order based on open Hypergamy, the Feminine Imperative can’t afford not to legislate a mandated cuckoldry. If Beta provider males will not comply with the insurance of a woman’s long-term security (as a result of being made aware of his place in Open Hypergamy) then he must be forced to comply either legally, socially or both. The old order exchange of resources for sexual access and a reasonable assurance of his paternity is replaced by a socialized form of cuckoldry.
Some studies have found that women’s sexual interests in men other than partners are strikingly rare during the luteal phase, relative to the fertile phase [25,26]. Other research has found moderating effects; for example, women who perceive their partners to lack sex appeal experience increased attraction to men other than partners, less satisfaction, and a more critical attitude toward partners, but only when fertile [27,28]. Fertile-phase women in one study were more assertive and focused on their own, as opposed to their partner’s, needs, especially when attracted to men other than partners during that phase .
Most research on cycle shifts has been inspired by theory concerning women’s distinctive sexual interests during the fertile phase. One study explicitly sought to understand factors influencing women’s sexual interests during the luteal phase, finding that, at that time, but not during the fertile phase, women initiated sex more with primary partners when they were invested in their relationship more than were male partners . This pattern is consistent with the proposal that extended sexuality functions, in part, to encourage interest from valued male partners. Others have proposed that women’s estrus phase has been modified by pair-bonding.
Initiating sex or being receptive to a primary partner’s sexual interest during the luteal phase (the Beta swing of the cycle) follows when we consider that a woman being sexual during this phase poses the least potential of becoming pregnant while simultaneously (rewarding) reinforcing that primary partner’s continued investment in the pairing with sex (intermittent reinforcement). This is a very important dynamic because it mirrors a larger theme in women’s socio-sexual pluralism – it’s Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks on a biological scale.
Compare this intra-relationship predisposition for Beta sex and contrast it with the larger dynamic of open Hypergamy Alpha Fucks during a woman’s prime fertility window in her peak SMV years, and her post Epiphany Phase necessity to retain a comforting (but decidedly less sexually exciting) Beta provider.
Women’s sexual strategy on a social scale, mirrors her instinctual, estrous sexual strategy on an individual scale.
Cues of Fertility Status
Females across diverse species undergo physical and behavioral changes during estrus that males find attractive: changes in body scents in carnivores, rodents, and some primates; changes in appearance, such as sexual swellings, in baboons and chimpanzees; changes in solicitous behavior in rodents and many primates [2,31] Because women lack obvious cyclic changes, it was widely assumed that cycle shifts in attractiveness were eliminated in humans, perhaps with the evolution of
pair bonding .
In 1975, a pioneering study documented increased attractiveness of women’s vaginal odors midcycle . A quarter century later, research revealing other detectable fertile-phase changes began to accumulate, including increased attractiveness of women’s upper torso odors, increased vocal pitch and attractiveness, and changes in women’s style of dress and solicitous behaviors . Meta-analysis of this literature confirms that changes across the cycle in women’s attractiveness are
often subtle, but robust (K. Gildersleeve, PhD dissertation, UCLA, 2014).
A notable recent study demonstrated that hormones implicated in attractiveness shifts in non-humans also predict attractiveness shifts in humans . Photos, audio clips, and salivary estrogen and progesterone were collected from 202 women at two cycle points. Men rated women’s facial and vocal attractiveness highest when women’s progesterone levels were low and estrogen levels high (characteristic of the follicular phase, and especially the fertile window).
Emerging evidence suggests that these changes affect interactions between males and females. During the fertile window, women report increased jealous behavior by male partners [25,29,36]. A possible mediator of such changes – testosterone – is higher in men after they smell tshirts collected from women on high- than on low-fertility days of the cycle [37; cf. 38]. A recent study examined related phenomena in established relationships by bringing couples into the lab for a close interaction task (e.g., slow dancing) . Following the interaction, male partners viewed images of men who were attractive and described as competitive or unattractive and noncompetitive. Only men in the competitive condition showed increases in testosterone from baseline – and only when tested during their partner’s fertile phase.
What remains less clear is how we can understand shifts in attractiveness from a theoretical perspective. It is unlikely that women evolved to signal their fertility within the cycle to men [22,34]. In fact, the opposite may have occurred – active selection on women to conceal cues of ovulation, which could help to explain weak shifts in attractiveness relative to many species. Concealment might have promoted extended sexuality with its attendant benefits from investing males, or
facilitated women’s extra-pair mating. Possibly, the subtle physical changes that occur are merely “leaky cues” that persist because fully concealing them suppresses hormone levels in ways that compromise fertility. Behavioral shifts, by contrast, may be tied to increases in women’s sexual interests or motivation to compete with other women for desirable mates [e.g., 40].
Usually after first-time readers have a chance to digest the material I propose in Your Friend Menstruation the first frustration they have is figuring out just how they can ever reliably detect when a woman is in this estrous state. On an instinctual level, most men are already sensitive to these socio-sexual cues, but this presumptuousness of sexual availability is rigorously conditioned out of men by social influence. In other words, most guys are Beta-taught to be ashamed of presuming a woman might be down to fuck as the result of picking up on visual, vocal or body posture cues.
Beyond this perceptiveness, there are also pheromonal triggers as well as behavioral cues during estrus that prompt a mate guarding response in men.
I would however propose that the evolved concealment of an estrus-like state and all of the attendant behaviors that coincide with it are a behavioral mechanic with the purpose of filtering for men with a dominant Alpha capacity to “Just Get It” that a woman is in estrus and thus qualify for her sexual access either proceptively or receptively. Women’s concealed estrus is an evolved aspect of filtering for Alpha Fucks.
In addition, this concealment also aids in determining Beta Bucks for the men she needs (needed) to exchange her sexual access for. A guy who “doesn’t get it” is still useful (or used to be) precisely because he doesn’t understand the dynamics of her cyclic and dualistic sexual strategy. Her seemingly erratic and self-controlled sexual availability becomes the Beta Bucks interest’s intermittent reinforcement for the desired behavior of his parental investment in children that are only indeterminately of his genetic heritage.
Evidence of this intermittent reinforcement can also be observed in what Athol Kay from Married Man Sex Life has described as wives “drip feeding” sex to their husbands. The confines of a committed monogamy in no way preclude the psycho-sexual influences of estrus. Thus placating a less ‘sexy’, but parentally invested man with the reinforcer of infrequent (but not entirely absent) sex becomes a necessity to facilitate the prospect of a future sexual experience with an Alpha while ensuring the security of her Beta.
In closing here I think the importance of how this estrous state influences women on both an individual and social level can’t be stressed enough in contrast to the social embrace of open Hypergamy. The Hypergamy genie is not only out of the bottle, but women are, perhaps against their own interests, embracing the genie with gusto.
Just today Vox posted a quick hit article about how men are discovering that pornography is now preferable to relating with the average woman. In an era of open Hypergamy I don’t believe this is a rationalized preference so much as it’s simply a pragmatic one. Men are rapidly awakening to a Red Pill awareness, even without a formal Red Pill education, and seeing the rewards (the intermittent reinforcement) simply aren’t worth the investment with women who blithely express their expectations of them to assume the role they would have them play in their sexual strategies.
This weekend’s discussion post was inspired by commenter Johnnycomelateley
Rape hysteria also has a deeper motive, equalitarianism (high taxes and social distribution) has changed the economic ecology and altered the incentives for female bonding patterns.
Several economists and anthropologists contend that society is transitioning from monogamy to serial monogamy (serial polygyny).
For serial polygyny to be facilitated women require absolutely unfettered, unrestricted, unconditional, uncommitted, unrestrained, unmoralizing, independent and completely free and unqualified safe access to sexual free choice. Unbounded by contracts, agreements, social norms, moral restraints, religious injunctions, social ties, aesthetic norms, maternal obligations, infanticide (abortion), selling progeny (adoption) and economic restrictions.
Anything that is deemed as restrictive is seen as limiting this choice, male spaces, employment obstacles, undesirable attention, unsafe neighbourhoods, male aesthetic standards, religion and of course rape.
What we are seeing is ‘choice hysteria’, anytime someone somewhere restricts female sexual choice it is met with unbounded fury. Even centuries long legal precedents and wrongful imprisonment must acquiesce to facilitate free choice.
Here are some quotes showing we are transitioning to serial polygyny.
Murdock’s (1967) Ethnographic Atlas categorized just 16% of 862 cultures as exclusively monogamous, with polygamy being found at some level in the rest.
A 2011 study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found that just 23% of women and 14.7% of men aged 25-44 had one (or zero) opposite-sex lifetime partners.
Frank Marlowe, Biological Anthropology – Cambridge
When males provide all the income but some have much more than others, richer males achieve polygyny, while ecologically imposed monogamy prevails in case of moderate inequality. When males provide an intermediate level of investment with little variation, females are not excessively dependent on males and serial monogamy may arise.
David de la Croix, Professor of Economics
In a society with few rich males and virtually no rich females, polygyny is supported by rich males, who can naturally monopolize a larger number of partners, and poor females, who prefer to be the n-th wife of a rich male rather than marrying a poor male monogamously.
Eventually, however, the number of rich males increases enough, and poor females prefer to marry monogamously.
Serial monogamy follows from a further enrichment of the society, through a rise in either the share of rich males, or the the proportion of rich females.
Monique Mulder, Anthropology
A key finding here is that while men do not benefit from multiple marriages, women do. Although the data are very variable (large standard errors), women appear to gain more from multiple mating than do men.
I’ve written more than a few posts about equalism here, but one thing that needs to be made clear is that a true state of egalitarian equalism among the sexes is neither tenable nor sustainable in any realistic measure. There is always a dominant / submissive dynamic in all human relations (not just intersexual ones), even in same sex pairings. While that dom-sub relation may be flexible in various circumstantial instances, the meta-relationship dynamic tends to place the more dominant personality at the top of an intersexual relation.
For the better part of human history this dominance has been expected from a Man, and I daresay as a species we evolved into that dominant role both physically and psychologically. But for the past 60+ years, since the advent of ubiquitous, unilaterally female-controlled hormonal birth control, the social and physical constraints of women’s innate Hypergamy, that had been kept in check by Men’s default dominance, has been unfettered.
When I wrote Owed Sex I went into detail about how women’s perception of their hypergamous choices have been contained by men:
The premise that a man would ever be ‘owed’ sex for anything is offensive to the feminine imperative because it offends women’s self-entitlement to being filters of their own hypergamy, plain and simple. Women’s hypergamy dictates whom they will and will not fuck according to their sexual strategy’s most urgent needs.
To presume a man is ‘owed’ sex for services rendered, or due to his own self-perceived prequalifications for a woman’s intimacy, is to remove women’s control of the decision making / filtering process of their hypergamy.
The offensiveness doesn’t come from the notion that men would need to perform in order to get sex, but rather that a man might forcibly assume control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.
However the base motivation is still the same, and I agree with Johnnycomelately, the social press for equalism is a suitable mask for socialized Hypergamy.
The Feminine Imperative isn’t interested in anything like an idealized state of egalitarian equalism between the sexes; it is only interested in unilateral, uncontested, and socially assured optimization of women’s Hypergamy.
Equalism is an anathema to Hypergamy.
So long as women are subject to innate hypergamous influences there can never be a socialized state of egalitarian equalism between men and women. By its very nature the Feminine Imperative will always seek an unequal state – maximal restriction of male sexuality and maximal unrestriction of optimized feminine Hypergamy. The persistence of pressing the idea that equalism between the sexes is a realizable goal state is necessary to achieve those maximized / optimized conditions.
For men, the end result of that optimized state is really a form of normative, accepted, socialized cuckoldry. However, the efforts to achieve this state are in social evidence all around us now.
Men, driven, as many of them like to say, by fact and not emotion, can see that society is not fair to them and more dangerous for them. They point to the fact that they are more likely to be murder victims and more likely to commit suicide. Women do not choose to serve in the Armed Forces and they experience fewer deaths and injuries in the line of work generally.
Women get shorter custodial sentences for the same crimes. There are more scholarships available to them in college. They receive better and cheaper healthcare, and can pick from favourable insurance packages available only to girls. When it comes to children, women are presumed to be the primary caregiver and given preferential treatment by the courts. They have more, better contraceptive options.
Women are less likely to be homeless, unemployed or to abuse drugs than men. They are less likely to be depressed or to suffer from mental illness. There is less pressure on them to achieve financial success. They are less likely to live in poverty. They are given priority by emergency and medical services.
Some might call these statistical trends “female privilege.” Yet everywhere and at all times, say men’s rights advocates, the “lived experiences” and perceived oppression of women is given a hundred per cent of the airtime, in defiance of the reality that women haven’t just achieved parity with men but have overtaken them in almost every conceivable respect. What inequalities remain are the result of women’s choices, say respectable feminist academics such as Christina Hoff Sommers, not structural biases.
And yet men are constantly beaten up over bizarre invented concepts such as rape culture and patriarchal privilege. The bizarre but inevitable conclusion of all this is that women are fueling their own unhappiness by driving men to consider them as sex objects and nothing more, because the thought of engaging in a relationship with a woman is horrifying, or too exhausting to contemplate.
I don’t see men as ‘checking out’ of society so much as I see them being forced to develop personal and cultural contingencies to adapt to a feminine-primary social order that’s based on socialized Hypergamy. The obvious comparisons to Japan’s culture of “herbivorous” men is nothing new to the manosphere, but what is new is the increasing awareness of the consequences of socialized Hypergamy.
The MGTOW movement (such as it is) is a good example of this adaptation, but even men going their own way are still directly and indirectly subject to the social pressures created by feminine social primacy and socialized Hypergamy. Irrespective of how insulated a man may think he is with regard to interacting with women, he’s still subject to the correlative impact of the societal changes that mandate maximally restricting his sexuality while legislating women’s right to optimal Hypergamy into law.
The more men refuse to cooperate with socialized Hypergamy, the more the Feminine Imperative will legislate their compliance with it. But at some point it will reach a state of critical mass. The UVA gang rape hoax, the fem-centric maliciousness of Sabrina Rubin-Erdely and the blind, ego-invested adherence to an unassailable feminine correct narrative of its ‘believers’ was a good primer for this critical mass.
Most of what I’ve delved into here has been manosphere staple for more than 13 years now, but the mainstream exposure from the likes of Milo and even the national dialogue generated from the UVA gang rape hoax (as deliberately distractive as it is), is evidence that the previously hidden social machinations of feminine social primacy are becoming unignorable.
As Open Hypergamy and the Sandbergian embrace of women’s sexual pluralism becomes more normative, so too will Red Pill awareness become more mainstream. Men aren’t dropping out of feminine-primary society, they’re adapting contingencies for it, learning workarounds, comparing notes, and a growing Red Pill awareness is at the heart of that adaptation, even for men who’ve never heard of it.
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
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.