SMV

The Creep – Part 2

Just so we’re clear here, yes, I get that there are a lot of ways to take the term ‘creepy’. In last week’s essay I wanted to dig into what women claim is ‘creepy’ and how this term is really another illustration of ambiguous fem-speak rooted in how a guy makes a woman feel. Furthermore, this feeling is modified by where that man is stationed in her perception of his sexual market value (SMV).

Last week I got linked a Tweet about ‘creeps’ by Roosh (he still hates me). He had a good point, and I paraphrase,

“Creeps are just guys that go from 0-100 in sexualizing a conversation with a woman way too fast. A good PUA knows that slow and steady sexualization works best.”

Take that how you want, but I think this is definitely part of the creep dynamic. There’s a bit more to being creepy than overly fast sexualization (or presumed familiarity); we’ve got to account for a Blue Pill / Beta guy’s lack of social intelligence to understand that taking it slow should be something he knows already. And still, how can we presume this slow and steady sexualization is a proficient form of seduction when we see more Alpha, more immediately arousing men, go from 0-100 themselves and get a same night lay? I’ve done this myself more than a few times back in a time when there was no formal Game to be had. Right guy, right place, right time, and 0-100 is what a woman is hoping will happen. Hypergamy is nothing if not pragmatic.

That said, I am convinced that this over-investment, too quick, too soon is definitely part of the creepy dynamic. I’ve made the call in several prior posts that it’s part of the Beta mindset to want to bypass the arousal and attraction phases of seduction to go directly to rapport. Thus, you get a guy who shares too much way too soon and this itself is creepy for women. It’s a huge telegraphing of that guy’s state of desperation and optionlessness. There’s no mystery left about the guy (assuming the girl even had an initial attraction) and nothing left to figure out. This over-sharing is also a huge red flag to women’s Hypergamous filters; it’s an indication that a guy ‘doesn’t get it’ with regard to how to play the Game with her.

You see, this rush to get to comfort and rapport is usually because that ‘creep’ is anxious to get past the arousal phase, the sexual tension, because he has no clue what to do in that phase. It’s a real source of anxiety for him, and besides, every woman he’s ever asked has said she needed to be comfortable with a guy before she has sex with him (false). Comfort, rapport, familiarity (all of which are anti-seductive) should be where the sex begins to his way of thinking, so again, male deductive logic would follow that getting there quickly would be pragmatic.

When a more Alpha, natural, moves quickly it’s almost always because he’s working with a receptive (proceptive) woman. As I mentioned before, arousal covers for a lot of men’s deficits in Game or feelings of creepery.

The Creeps

As most readers will have probably guessed I’ve timed the release of this series to address the current Hysteria of sexual assault / harassment / rape charges that are  moving like wildfire through Hollywood first, and now through the rest of our pop-culture social strata. While it may be satisfying to see mealy-mouth self-righteous actors and moguls take a fall, it’s important to see the larger social mechanics in play here.

I wrote that essay over a year ago and I’ll say now that I’d never dreamed how prophetic that post would turn out. Criticizing this #MeToo sexual assault hysteria is next to impossible. For the same reasons no one wanted to question the veracity of the UVA fraternity rape hoax that Rolling Stone and Sabrina Erdley perpetrated – no one now wants to question the accusations leveled at the various personalities being conveniently outed for sexual assault/harassment that in some cases occurred 30-40 years ago. We are expected to believe the testimonies of women without question.

This isn’t to say that the celebrities involved didn’t do what their accusers are saying they did, it’s that we are expected to accept that this behavior is endemic in all men, and based on the same principle of believing whatever a woman has to say about it with no afterthought given to its truth or her motives. It’s one thing to presume that whenever a woman comes forward with a rape or assault claim we are expected to presume the man guilty until proven innocent, but we’re rapidly reaching a point where any claim a woman has about a man bears that same weight. When it comes down to ‘he said, she said’, what she said will hold the full weight of the law.

Our Feminine-primary social order is now repurposing this ironclad believability of women – and presumed guilt of men – for every crime a woman ‘feels’ she’s been a victim of at the hands of a man. At the same time we see sexual harassment being defined as something that even a wink from a man can convey, we also see the rapid criminalization of men  who would dare to talk to a woman they don’t already know.

When we combine this overarching presumption of male guilt with the potential crime of men dealing with a woman with the intent of establish intimacy, and then add to it the ever changing definition of what can constitute sexual assault or harassment (and with a uniquely endless statute of limitations), we begin to get a clearer picture of the direction the Feminine Imperative has for men.

I’m sure this all seems very reactionary, but so was the questioning of Sabrina Erdley’s story about a nameless girl who was violently raped on the shattered glass of a broken coffee table by fraternity boys. Once again, I’m not saying sexual assault doesn’t happen, I’m saying that the direction gynocentrism is taking is one in which men ought to lose rights and liberties that only women ought to be the judges of.

Creepiness is a feeling women get from men who lack the social skills to ‘just get it’ that they are or aren’t into them. What this distills down to on a root level is women’s presuming that men should know better than to approach them when they are beneath their Hypergamous attraction floor. It is the criminalization of men not understanding how they fit into women’s sexual strategies. I made a case for this in The Political is Personal. The more men resist the social intents of Hypergamy, the more it will become necessary to legislate men to comply with it.

Feminine-primary social doctrine is an extension of  women’s Hypergamy.

Any deviation from this is on the part of  men is met with a cultural reprisal designed to convince or coerce men to accept their inevitable role in providing those entitlements to women. When those social contingencies fail, or become played out, the Feminine Imperative then appeals to legal legislation to mandate men’s compliance to what amounts to women’s social entitlement to optimized Hypergamy.

We’re rapidly reaching this peak Hypergamous state. As I mentioned in Male Control, since the Las Vegas shooting the narrative of masculinity has shifted. There is no more “toxic” masculinity – it’s masculinity on-whole that is toxic. As Open Hypergamy becomes more institutionalized and made a societal norm by the Feminine Imperative, and as more men become Red Pill aware (by effort or consequences) because of it, the more necessary it will become for a feminine-primary social order to legislate and mandate men comply with it.

In the Zone

Morpheus had a great comment last week that hit on what I went into in Sexual Zoning:

The term “creep” can really lead in a bunch of different directions discussion wise, but I think a really big one is “sexual zones” vs “non-sexual zones”. Increasingly, there are all sorts of places where the default presumption is that women should be “free from” male advances. Work, school, etc. In these zones, the margin for error is very small. Unless you are an objectively visually attractive man with super tight game, the odds of you being perceived as a “creep” are much, much higher. In sexual zones, such as the Friday night bar, your margin for error is higher. The default presumption is men are there to meet women. You still need to have the right social vibe and not come across as a weirdo but you have a little more room to play with.

And from that post:

I would argue that a large majority of men accused of sexual harassment or even just suspected of impropriety are men who’ve found themselves in an environment they believed was an acceptable sexual zone. We are fast approaching a time when all zones will be so arbitrary and ambiguous that every environment with sexual potential will be avoided. This will have the effect of putting women into unilateral control of their own Hypergamy. It will be a state of Sadie Hawkins world – only women will make approaches on men and only those who match her Hypergamous ideal, an ideal fostered and reinforced by a steady diet of social media ego inflation.

A while ago I read this piece about Mike Pence:

“In 2002, Mike Pence told The Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side, either.”

Naturally the media wants to pass this off as some masculine insecurity on Pence’s part. Certainly there’s a religious reason for Pence not wanting to present any perception of impropriety – I’ve know pastor who will never have closed door meetings with women or do counseling for women without their wives present – but there is a practical side to this habit. It prevents the accusations and opportunity for anything like what we’re seeing in the accusation cycling through Hollywood today. But still, shaming the masculine is the first reflex for the mainstream media.

This Atlantic article is an exercise in deliberately not seeing the intersexual writing on the wall. This is the practical contingency for a social order bent on removing men via accusations of sexual misconduct. Yet still, for all of the inherent dangers of a frivolous sexual harassment suit at the disposal of any and every western woman, men are supposed to leave themselves vulnerable to them:

Pence is not the only powerful man in Washington who goes to great lengths to avoid the appearance of impropriety with the opposite sex. An anonymous survey of female Capitol Hill staffers conducted by National Journal in 2015 found that “several female aides reported that they have been barred from staffing their male bosses at evening events, driving alone with their congressman or senator, or even sitting down one-on-one in his office for fear that others would get the wrong impression.” One told the reporter Sarah Mimms that in 12 years working for her previous boss, he “never took a closed door meeting with me. … This made sensitive and strategic discussions extremely difficult.”

This is the social environment feminism and our gynocentric social order has chosen to establish for men and women. Men pragmatically look for ways to guard themselves against allegation, and yet are shamed for that sensibility. It’s gotten (or will get) to the point where old books “decent” behavior is too risky to engage in in the modern workplace. Powerful men must hide behind open doors, and still those men are shamed for being prudent. Why?

We live in a new era where marriage has become disincentivized for men by the risks of capital loss in divorce that overwhelmingly favors women with cash & prizes. Now add to this the increasing ego entitlements of women to high value men. As the prospect of marriage looks less and less like a good deal for men wanting to protect themselves there comes a need for women to create ways to bypass the requirement for marriage to access men’s capital. Enter the era of increasingly more nebulous, acrimonious, accusations of sexual harassment or assault and de facto believability of women’s testimony. Exit the era of frivolous divorce (okay maybe not entirely) and enter the era of more easily accessible capital via frivolous sexual assault lawsuits.

More to come in part 3.

The Lie of Equality

Reader KFG dropped this insight in last week’s post and I thought it was very relevant to something I’ve been contemplating for a while now:

As a general principle genetic fitness is always relative to the environment. A spread of genetic traits makes a species more robust, because it will have individuals better suited for survival in a greater range of environments.

There’s more than one breed of working dog because no one is “better.” Each has its specific strengths, paid for with corresponding weaknesses. A terrier is to small to hunt wolves, but you’re not going to stuff a wolfhound down a badger hole.

This was a great analogy. It’s also one of the primary reasons I believe the egalitarian equalist narrative is a deliberate lie with the hoped-for purpose of empowering people who cannot compete, or believe they have some plenary exclusion from competing in various aspects of life. One of the primary selling points of egalitarian equalism for men is the idea that they can be excluded from the Burden of Performance.

There is no such thing as ‘equality’ because life doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

The tests that a chaotic world throws at human beings is never equal or balanced in measure to our strengths to pass them. Equality, in the terms that egalitarian equalists are comfortable in defining it, implies that that every individual is equally matched in both value and utility within a totality of random challenges. Aside from this being patently false, it also demerits both strengths and weaknesses when that individual succeeds or fails at a particular challenge as a result of their individual character.

This is ironic in the sense that it provides easy, repeatable, excuses for a person’s successes or failures. If someone wins, well, we’re all equal so that person’s strengths which led to the success can be passed off as a result of assumed or circumstantial ‘privileges’ that made them better suited to their challenges – rarely is their hard work recognized, and even then, it’s colored by the overcoming of a presumed-unequal adversity that grants them ‘privilege’. If they fail, again, we’re all equal, so the failure is proof of a deficit, or a handicap, or a presumed repression of an equal person in a state of baseline equal challenge.

Individual Exceptionalism

One of the longest perpetuated cop outs (I should say paradoxes) that equalists cling to is the notion that People are People; that everyone is a unique individual (snowflake) and as such there is really no universally predictable method of testing character or knowing how a particular sex will respond to various challenges. It’s all random chance according to the individual’s socially constructed character and their capacity to be a ‘more evolved’, higher-thinking being.

On the surface this all-are-individuals notion may seem the antithesis of the ‘equality’ narrative that equalists cling to, but it is part of a cognitive dissonance all equalists struggle with. This approach is a means to standardizing individuality, so no scientific evidence that might find patterns of an evolved ‘nature’ of a person – or in our Red Pill case, a sex – can be predicted. It’s the hopeful cancellation of reams of empirical evidence that show how influential our biologies and inborn predispositions are. This ‘higher order’ individualism is always touted so the equailist mindset can claim that the exception to the rule disqualifies the overwhelmingly obvious general rule itself.

“We’re all exceptions to the rule.” – Carl Jung

“…and when we’re all special, no one will be.” – Syndrome

This fallacy is where we get the NA*ALT (not all ____ are like that) absolution of the most unflattering parts of human nature. Not All Women Are Like That is standard feminine-primary boilerplate for women and sympathizing men (White Knights) who’d rather we all ignore the aspects of female nature that shine a bad light on what are easily observable truths about their behavior and the motives behind them. The social convention relies on the idea that if there is even one individual contradiction to the generalization (always deemed an ‘overgeneralization’) then the whole idea must be wrong.

Of course, this individual exceptionality rule only applies to the concepts in which equalists have invested their egos in. When a generality proves an equalist’s ego-investment, that’s when it becomes an ‘endemic’ universal truth to their mindset. A binary over-exaggeration of this effect is the reflexive response for concepts that challenge their ego-investments. Thus, we see any and all of the (perceptually) negative aspects of masculinity (actually the totality of masculinity) painted as evidence of the endemic of ‘toxic’ masculinity as a whole. The individualist exceptionality in this instance is always ridiculed as ‘insecurity’ on the part of men even considering it.

The exceptionalism of the individual is always paired with some high-order consciousness, and/or the idea that anything that proves their ego-investment is “more evolved” – despite any evidence that proves the contrary – is proof of that this individual is a being who represents some evolutionary step forward. If you agree and support feminine-primacy it is ‘proof‘ that you are more ‘evolved’ than other men. Thus, the ‘more evolved’ status becomes a form of reward to the individual who aligns with the ideology. Conversely, the avoidance of being perceived as ‘unevolved’ serves as a form of negative reinforcement.

This is kind of ironic when you consider that the same equalist mindset that relies on the individualist exception is the same mindset that insists that everyone is the same; equal value, equal potential, equal purpose and equal ability. Again, the irony is that everything that would be used to establish the ‘unique snowflake’ ideology (so long as it contradicts innate strengths and weaknesses of an opposing ideology) is conveniently ignored in favor of blank-slate egalitarianism. There is a degree of wanting to avoid determinism (particularly biological determinism) for the individual in this blank-slate concept, but it also provides the equalist with a degree of feel-good affirmation that the individual is a product of social constructivism. So, we get the idea that gender is a social construct and, furthermore, that blank-slate individual is ‘more evolved’ to the point of redefining gender for themselves altogether. Even when that ‘individual’ is only 4 years old and hasn’t the capacity for abstract thought enough to make a determination.

To be an egalitarian equalist is to accept the cognitive dissonance that the individual trumps the general truth and yet simultaneously accept that the individual is just the blank-slate template of anyone else, thus negating the idea of the individual. It takes great stretches of belief to adhere to egalitarian if-then logic.

I apologize for getting into some heady stuff right out the gate here, but I think it’s vitally important that Red Pill aware men realize the self-conflicting flaw in the ideologies of post-modern equalism. Our feminine-primary social order is rife with it. They will disqualify the generalities of Red Pill awareness with individualist exceptionalism and in the next breath disqualify that premise with their investments in blank-slate egalitarianism.

This is easiest to see in Blue Pill conditioned men and women still plugged in to the Matrix, but I also see the same self-conflicting rationales among Red Pill aware men using the same process to justify personal ideology or their inability to de-pedestalize women on whole. There’s a common thread amongst well-meaning Red Pill men to want to defend the individual natures of women who align with the Blue Pill ego-investments they still cling to. All women are like that so long as those women are granola-eating, furry-armpit feminists – ‘Red Pill Women’ then become the individual (snowflake) exceptions to the otherwise general rule because they fit a different, idealized, profile.

The Inequality of Equality

I’ve stated this in many prior threads, but, I do not believe in “equality”.

I don’t believe in equality because I can objectively see that reality, our respective environments, our personal circumstances, etc. are all inherently unequal. Everyday we encounter circumstances in life which we are eminently unequalled for in our ability to address them. Likewise, there are circumstances we can easily overcome without so much as an afterthought. Whether these challenges demand or test our physical, mental, material or even spiritual capacities, the condition is the same – reality is inherently chaotic, unfair and challenging by order of degree. To presume that all individuals have equal value in light of the nature of reality is, itself, an unequal presumption. To expect sameness in the degree of competency or incompetency to meet any given challenge reality throws at us is a form of inequality. And it’s just this inequality that equalists ironically exploit.

As KFG was stating, “each dog has it’s strengths for a given task”. One dog is not as valuable as another depending on what determines a positive outcome. What equalism attempts do to – what it has the ludicrous audacity to presume – is to alter reality to fit the needs of the individual in order to make all individuals equally valuable agents. This is the ‘participation trophy’ mentality, but it is also a glaring disregard for existential reality. Which, again, contradicts the idea of individual exceptionalism; reality must be made to be equal to accommodate the existence of the equally valuable individual.

To say you don’t believe in equality is only outrageous because it offends the predominant social narrative of today. It seemingly denies the inherent value of the individual, but what is conveniently never addressed is how an environment, condition and state defines what is functionally valued for any given instance. Like the dog bred to hunt ferrets out of their warrens is not the functional equal of a dog bred to run down prey at 45 MPH. The value of the individual is only relevant to the function demanded of it.

The default misunderstanding (actually deliberate) most equalists believe is that functional worth is personal worth. I addressed this in Separating Values:

When you attempt to quantify any aspect of human ‘value’ you can expect to have your interpretations of  it to be offensive to various people on the up or down side of that estimate. There is simply no escaping personal bias and the offense that comes from having one’s self-worth attacked, or even confirmed for them.

The first criticism I’ve come to expect is usually some variation about how evaluating a person’s SMV is “dehumanizing”, people are people, and have intrinsic worth beyond just the sexual. To which I’ll emphatically agree, however, this dismissal only conveniently sidesteps the realities of the sexual marketplace.

Again, sexual market value is not personal value. Personal value, your value as a human being however one subjectively defines that, is a definite component to sexual market value, but separating the two requires an often uncomfortable amount of self-analysis. And, as in Ms. Korth’s experience here, this often results in denial of very real circumstances, as well as a necessary, ego-preserving, cognitive dissonance from that reality.

Denial of sexual market valuation is a psychological insurance against women losing their controlling, sexual agency in their hypergamous choices.

This is where the appeal to emotion begins for the equalist mindset. It seems dehumanizing to even consider an individuals functional value. Human’s capacity to learn and train and practice to become proficient or excel in various functions is truly a marvel of our evolution. Brain plasticity being what it is, makes our potential for learning and overcoming our environments what separates us from other animals. We all have the potential to be more than we are in functional value, and this is the root of the emotional appeal of equalists. It’s seems so negative to presume we aren’t functional equals because we have the capacity and potential to become more functionally valuable. The appeal is one of optimism.

What this appeal ignores is the functional value of an individual in the now; the two dogs bred for different purposes. What this appeal also ignores is the ever-changing nature of reality and the challenges it presents to an individual in the now and how this defines value. What equalism cannot do is separate functional value from potential value.

Adopting a mindset that accepts complementarity between the sexes and between individuals, one that celebrates and utilizes innate strengths and talents, yet also embraces the weaknesses and compensates for them is a far healthier one that presuming baseline equivalency. Understanding the efficacy of applying strengths to weaknesses cooperatively while acknowledging we all aren’t the same damn dog will be a key to dissolving the fantasy of egalitarian equalism and create a more balanced and healthier relations between the sexes. Embracing the fact that condition, environment, reality and the challenges they pose defines our usefulness is far better than to assume any single individual could ever be a self-contained, self-sufficient island unto themselves – that is what equalism would have us believe.

Band of Brothers

Peterson drops the ball in a couple of forgivable instances here. First, many contemporary studies show that women do in fact enter an estrus state. Secondly, while he is entirely correct about women’s Hypergamy never seeking its own level, he implies here that it is singularly a man’s capacity to produce and share resources that forms the basis for women’s attraction. This is an interesting overlook when you consider how often he’s made reference to how women primarily look for sexual dominance in men. From the Beta Bucks, provisioning, side of women’s sexual strategy, a man’s capacity for production and sharing resources is certainly an attraction cue, but it is only a cue insofar as it applies to women’s long term security needs. From the Alpha Fucks, short term mating perspective, it is a man’s capacity for sexual arousal and his sexual availability to her that is the basis for assessing a man’s SMV.

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Peterson. I count him amongst the greatest minds of Red Pill awareness, however, his analysis is often subject to a Blue Pill conditioning that predisposes him to a default belief in the inherent ‘goodness’ of the female psyche. That isn’t to say women are inherently ‘bad’, but it is to say his objectivity is colored by a want to see the feminine on a pedestal. Peterson tends to pepper in a Blue Pill conditioned masculine ridicule into his observations about men when he’s detailing gender differences and it’s his habit to presume the best from women. He accurately makes the case here for how men are continually driven by an existential crisis when it comes to being accepted by (‘perfectly well-intended’) women in passing on their genetic material, but falls into the trap of believing that women would only, logically, want to breed with men who have good long term prospects for providing and sharing resources. There’s a 30+ year body of evo-bio / evo-psych research that contradicts his presumption.

However, in this instance, Peterson hits upon the fundamental reasoning as to why men are by nature more competitive than women. Over the millennia of human evolution, the stresses of men’s breeding strategies and realities has become hardwired into the male mental firmware, and as such it has selected-for men having a more competitive nature than women. I would go so far as to suggest that competitiveness is a primary aspect of conventional masculinity – and one that requires a constant effort to socialize out of modern males today.

On the female side we have to consider how women evolved, socially and psychologically, in hunter-gatherer, foraging tribes, and how the environmental stress of maintaining a social collective shaped women’s mental firmware. It’s my belief that women’s intense need for long term security (as well as Hypergamous doubt) is directly descended from the need to hedge against the environmental uncertainties of our evolutionary past. The rigors of gestation, carrying a child to term, child birth and then rearing that child to puberty – all while gathering food and resources and defending that child and the collective against external (and sometime internal) threats selected-for women with a collectivist / cooperative mental firmware. While the men of the tribal society were off hunting game or defending the tribe, it would follow that women would develop a more unitary, collectivist social order of intrasexual cooperation in order to survive and, as Dr. Peterson points out, ensure that the genetic material of the men they selected (or were selected by) survived for posterity.

In several essays, and in my latest book, I describe women’s natural social order as the Sisterhood Über Alles. That is ‘women above all else’, and from an evolved psychological perspective this solidarity, collectivism and cooperative bent is the mental vestige of an evolution that demanded women to be so in order to survive. Evolution doesn’t care how women breed and survive, just that women breed and survive. Flash forward to modern times and we see women of every and any social, political, religious and racial stripe preempt any conviction inspired by them with the concerns of womankind.

There are several studies that indicate that collectivism is a characteristic of women’s mental firmware. When presented with the distribution of a common wealth (or resource) it’s women’s predisposition to mete those resources out to the familial, feminine-primary social group (tribe) in as even a distribution as possible, or by an individual’s most pressing needs. Again, this is convincing evidence of a mental framework that leans towards a collectivism that finds its roots in our evolutionary past.

This fundamental prioritizing of the survival, needs and best interests of women as a collective is what now forms the basis of, and drives, what I commonly refer to as the Feminine Imperative. And from the Feminine Imperative, combined with a male-permissive social structure that has allowed for women’s social primacy, we have largely developed into a feminine-primary social order that is founded on the evolved, collectivist social structure that women’s mental firmware naturally predisposes them to.

Collectivism, socialism, is a fundamental aspect of the female psyche. In a social order that prioritizes female interests above all else we see the rise and perpetuation of an egalitarian equalism that finds its roots in women’s natural predisposition for collectivism. I would argue here that the egalitarian equalism we contend with today is really a convenient cover-term for female social primacy, and one that is a result of women’s collectivist nature.

Male Dominance Hierarchies

As Dr. Peterson briefly details in this clip, it is primarily men’s performance burden (and a man’s capacity to share the fruits of it) that has historically been the basis of women’s selection criteria for the long term provisioning aspect of women’s Hypergamous natures. And as I mentioned, this only covers half of what makes for women’s true assessments of men’s sexual market value. DNA mapping of our foraging ancestors reveals the real story about the importance sexual arousal and strategic pluralism played in women’s sexual selection. Historically, only 20% of men bred with 80% of women. If we only look at this fact from Peterson’s perspective we’re left to conclude that this 20% looked like good long term prospects with resources to share, rather than consider the uglier side of Hypergamy and women opportunistically breeding with the best physical specimens they had access to and, proactively or retroactively, cuckolding the ‘good provider’. The mental schema of mate guarding didn’t develop in a vacuum – there are very good evolutionary reasons why men developed a subconscious, peripheral sensitivity to the behaviors that indicate women’s ovulatory phase.

Hypergamy doesn’t care, but it did indeed play a part in the evolution of men’s dominance hierarchies as Peterson suggests. Whether the criteria for selection was physical prowess or provisional prowess, the breeding pressures placed on men by women’s sexual strategy is responsible for a great deal of what we consider the male nature and conventional masculinity itself. While it may be a pleasant fiction for men to apply terms like strength and honor and fidelity to male-kind, those concepts exist outside the evolved male-competitive nature. Kings and emperors had breeding rights to harems while their subjects, by order of degree, had sexual access to progressively diminishing opportunities with women.

One aspect I think Peterson didn’t get around to explaining in this clip is that women have only had unilateral sexual selection opportunity in the past century due to the social and physical unfettering of Hypergamy. Being a king may’ve meant that man had more breeding opportunities than that of his lessers, but it in no way made him the best, or even the willing, choice for the women he bred with. Up until the rise of feminine social primacy, men have always had social, moral, ethical and yes, physical, means of exerting their own control over Hypergamy.

Competitiveness is what defines masculinity for every generation of men. While it may be part of women’s mental firmware to consider the collective first with regard to resource distribution, it is most definitely an evolved characteristic of men to accrue resources in order to be considered a good prospect for women’s long term security needs. When we consider the criteria women have in order for a man to represent an optimal Hypergamous prospect, it makes pragmatic sense that an innate competitiveness would be part of men’s psychological firmware. Nature would select-for a natural competitiveness in men. As such we observe that men consider merit and performance first in distributing resources (rewards) in order to recognize, in theory, an exceptionality in men. Even if it is within our selfish-gene nature to want to retain as much for ourselves (and thus make ourselves better prospects for Hypergamous optimization) we still recognize merit, or lack of it, in men’s burden of performance.

So, with regard to the bigger societal picture, what we’re seeing in our egalitarian equalist social experiment of today is not just a conflict in men and women’s social approaches, but also a fundamental conflict in which sex’s sexual strategy will be the socially predominant one. In a social sense it is a conflict in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual StrategiesSince the time of the Sexual Revolution the answer has been clear; it is women’s sexual strategy that has been allowed to define our social order.

Brotherhood

Jack Donovan had a great post back in February titled We are not Brothers. I entirely cosign his sentiment in this essay – today men bandy around the term Brother without really considering the deeper implications that true, in-group, exclusively male, brotherhood entails. It’s a good essay, but I think one reason Jack is sensitive to the term losing its meaning is due to the efforts the Feminine Imperative has made in destroying men’s understanding of conventional masculinity. It’s deliberate, so Brotherhood means whatever the feminine feels comfortable in allowing it to mean, and it can effect control over its significance for as long as it can continue to confuse men about the sacrificial nature of conventional masculinity.

Men’s dominance hierarchies and breeding strategies predispose men to maverick independence (sigmas) or intrasexual rivalries within a fraternal group (tribes). Men’s collective, cooperative social structures – traditionally, exclusive male spaces – existed in spite of this intrasexually competitive nature. Even amongst the most steadfast, cooperative and loyal of brotherhoods there will always be intrasexual rivalries for breeding opportunities. And as Jordan B. Peterson notes, it is women’s Hypergamy that gives rise to male dominance hierarchies, but moreover it has led to the necessity for developing an evolved predisposition for men’s being competitive.

It is precisely this competitive mental firmware in men which makes it next to impossible for their to ever be a Brotherhood Über Alles – and in an age where men are shamed for masculinity, an age in which women will force themselves into male space as overseers, an age where men will adaptively define masculinity to mean whatever suits their weakest proficiencies, it’s easy to understand the difficulties in men cooperatively coming together to enforce their own collective best interests as men. In ages past, when masculine cooperation determined the fate of a tribe, a people, a nation, etc. this fraternity was a much more imperative concept for men.

It’s been noted before that in earlier eras formalized monogamy was a social adaptation with the latent purpose of solving men’s evolved imperative to ensure his own paternity. Whether this adaptation was (is) a successful hedge against women’s Hypergamy is debatable, but the relative insurance a man was afforded by formal monogamy was that he could send his genetic material on to successive generations. From an evolutionary perspective, men’s primary existential crisis is reproduction, and in order to successfully solve this problem women’s Hypergamy must be controlled for. As this push for male control superseded women’s imperatives it’s made for a social guarantee that a man would reproduce with a lessened need for competition and a lessened burden of performance for men. While high SMV men were guaranteed reproduction, the monogamy adaptation meant that, theoretically, only the lowliest of men wouldn’t find a mate.

That was the latent socio-sexual contract prior to the Sexual Revolution. Today, we see parallels for this struggle between men and women’s sexual strategies and women’s own social push to unilaterally control and institutionalize Hypergamy. Now the script has been flipped to socially create and enforce a new feminine-primary structure that has the latent purpose of ensuring even the lowest SMV woman can fulfill Hypergamy to a greater degree. Just as formal monogamy sought to ensure men could solve their reproductive purpose in spite of his performance burden, now we have women as the primary beneficiaries of a society structured to, theoretically, ensure they have access to both the best genes (Alpha Fucks) and the best provisioning (Beta Bucks) – all to the point that men are conscripted into doing so.

As women have less and less need of men who can (directly) produce and share resources the concept of masculine cooperation in enforcing their best interests becomes a farce at best, a ‘hate crime’ at worst. The more women can produce and/or consume resources, or conscript men to involuntarily produce and share, the more women lean towards the Alpha Fucks aspect of Hypergamy in prioritizing their sexual selection. As a result, male dominance hierarchies will continue to develop around the short term sexual breeding criteria of women. In the past, as per Dr. Peterson, that hierarchy may have been centered on long term provisioning; today it is all about women’s pleasure in accessing the best genetic material her evolved hindbrain determines is in her best interests.

Yet still we hear women bemoan a lack of marriageable, long term producer/sharers who are their (perceived) status equals or better (always better). The evolved need for that security providing, competent male is still part of her mental firmware, no matter what the social conventions of the Feminine Imperative are telling her conscious self. And in a pragmatic, adaptive response, men will continue to define masculinity for themselves, continue to prioritize short term sexual arousal above long term attraction, and continue to be befuddled or embarrassed by the ideas of forming Brotherhoods with any deeper meaning than what pop culture will define them for men as.


Late edit: Reader Novaseeker had a brilliant observation about the reasons women’s collectivism evolved.

The innate sisterhood, or herd, also arises from the reality that most human tribes were patrilocal and not matrilocal. That is, the core of the tribe was a group of males bonded by kin, and they brought in females from other tribes (trade/conquest) routinely for mating. Thus, the males had relatively high levels of cooperation due to being kin-bonded (not perfect levels of cooperation — rivalries always exist, violence happens in kin bonds as well — but much higher than among non-kin-bonded males), whereas the females had to adapt to cooperate with the other females despite the lack of kin bonds between them as a kind of counterweight to the innate solidarity that the kin-bonded males had vis-a-vis the females. The kind of female sisterhood/collectivism that we see in women evolved, in addition to what you write about, as well from the need to counteract the male solidarity in patrilocal tribes — women evolved to cooperate with other “strange” women in the face of this male solidarity which was based on kin bonds.

A key point of this — and something which explains much of the behavior of women *politically* in the last 200 years or so — is that the context in which this evolved was specifically to counterweigh male power. That is, because females would otherwise have remained weak and isolated in the face of a tribe of kin-bonded males, they evolved this sisterhood/collective mentality specifically to provide a counterweight to male power. This is important, because it’s this specific context in which this mentality comes to the fore most prominently in women, even today. Women can fight and scratch and claw with each other and be bitches with each other incessantly, but when one of them comes into conflict with a man or “with men”, the sisterhood/collective mindset kicks in in high gear, precisely because this is the specific context it emerged to counter. In other words, it’s specifically evolved to offset male power, to counterbalance male power, by forging solidarity between females who otherwise would not have any reason to act like a sisterhood (and who may even dislike each other).

Contemporary feminism is perhaps the most obvious form of this, but it isn’t the only one. The pronounced female in-group preference is another easy to spot one as well. But in any case, a key point to understand is that the sisterhood isn’t neutral — it’s evolved to counterbalance any kind of male power that threatens women’s interests as a group. This is the case even though women haven’t lived in patrilocal conditions for a long, long, long time, and even though contemporary men have no solidarity to speak of at all which could possibly threaten women’s interest as a group. That evolutionary history casts long shadows, and the tendency for women to see men as a cabal acting to control women — when in fact, as we all know, we’re kind of the exact opposite of that — arises from the collective evolutionary memory of adaptations to deal with the very real male solidarity females faced when they were imported into patrilocal male tribes of kin-bonded males.

The Utility of Beta Men – Part II

Before I get started today I thought I’d relate a few things to think about from the first installment of this series.

No Neutral Balance

Reader Boxcar had a pertinent comment on last week’s thread:

Frankly, losing the “beta” qualities would make it difficult to live a happy, successful and fulfilling life. But they have become stigmatized because they are associated with men being used by women.

I used to lock horns about the necessity of Beta traits with Athol Kay on Married Man Sex Life back before women took over his messaging. The problem with this idea is that 80%+ of men in a feminine-primary social order, that has systematically engineered a majority of men to be predominantly Betas, possess all these Beta behavioral and psychological attributes in spades.

As such, there will always be a gross overemphasis on the value of those aspects. I don’t believe in a balance of Alpha to Beta traits. It’s my opinion that men should make Alpha traits their predominant, default set, only expressing Beta traits as necessary to maintain a minimum comfort level – and even then, this comfort level should only be apparent to reinforce a necessary anxiety level for a woman’s continued interest in a man.

Also, I believe there needs to be a distinction between Alpha and Beta behavioral sets and Alpha and Beta mindsets. Most men today are raised into a Beta mindset and this manifests in their behaviors. Vice versa for Alpha mindsets. However, that isn’t to say that a man of a predominantly Alpha mindset can’t deliberately display a Beta attribute in order to serve his own ends. Same with Beta men displaying a Alpha attributes. The problem with this lies in what is congruent with the overall perception of that man’s status to a woman.

In the case of the Australian guy whom Goldmund schooled in last week’s post, the woman already had a preconceived understanding that his mindset was that of a Beta. Had he displayed some brief “flash of Alpha” it would’ve seemed inauthentic and incongruous with her preconception. However, going from an Alpha preconception to a brief “flash of Beta” can be endearing and affirming for a woman.

Ergo, there is no neutral balance of Alpha and Beta that a woman will ever find attractive in a man. His mindset and behaviors must be predominantly and consistently Alpha to hold her Hypergamous sexual and relational interests. While occasional, strategic and brief expressions of a Beta-like trait are necessary for comfort, there is no advantage in a man trying to maintain some equilateral balance of Alpha to Beta, and if anything it only serves to confuse a woman about her estimate of your status. Moments of Vulnerability can be reassuring for women, but only when that vulnerability is uncharacteristic for a predominantly Alpha man.

Relational Equity

One very common hindbrain presumption most well-trained Betas have is a that their emotional, financial and loyalty investments in a woman will be appreciated and reciprocated by the women they invest in. This ‘pre’-sumption is integral to a mindset founded on the old books social contract. Beta men’s approach to intimacy going in already expects a woman to appreciate his investing in her as some quality that sets him apart from “typical guys who just want to bang her”.

So, when when a guy like Goldmund effortlessly seduces the woman that Aussie Guy has been investing so much into (like all-expense paid trips) it represent two very frustrating realities for him. The first, as I mentioned, is the destruction of his ego-investment in his old books mindset. The second is the sense of loss of so much relational investment he was trying to figure out how to get a return on. All of the preconditions he believed were necessary to get this woman’s intimacy are tossed out of the window when Goldmund arrives and she willingly and (to him) unconditionally becomes sexual with him.

He believed he had to earn her sex, but in no uncertain terms, along comes a guy who did almost nothing to earn it and she reflexively responds to him with sex. In prior posts I’ve proposed that women will break rules for Alpha men while creating and imposing new/more rules for Beta men to access her sexuality. I would expand this to say that Beta men will, via their preconditioning, impose those rules upon themselves before they even meet a woman with whom to invest themselves in.

The presumption of relational equity comes before a Beta even has a woman to invest in. This is the source of Aussie guy’s frustration. I covered this dynamic in Prewhipped and Betas in Waiting.

Giving Value

Commenter Trent Lane had an excellent insight about what ought or ought not to be a Red Pill aware man’s duty to his fellow, unenlightened Blue Pill man.

Ethic responsibilities in a red pill paradigm for those who are not in it is an interesting concept. If we all accept Red Pill principles like Hypergamy, AF/BB and so on as truth (which most of us do, since we‘re here) and as you advance in Game you see, know and can do more with social and intergender dynamics than 99% of the men around you.

You can use this for destruction and mayhem. You can use this to selfishly get your needs met with zero fucks given about anyone. Or you can use it to get your needs met AND give value to the people you interact with.

The question is, why should you?
The answer is, aside from metaphysical reasons like religion, Karma and so forth, in which you can chose to believe or not: you mainly do it for yourself.

By fucking others up this way you fuck yourself up. Is it possible to go down the route of destruction this way with zero fucks given about anyone and lead a happy, fulfilled life long term? Probably for some. More likely you‘ll end up fucked yourself, without purpose, unable to ever satisfy your raging narcissistic urges, burning out and getting more and more shallow as you chase the next kick.

Giving value makes you happier than taking value. It sounds corny like a cliche, but if long term happiness in life is your concern, it‘s true.

I’m going to jump off here because this comment speaks to what I want to cover next in this series – dealing with Blue Pill men in a Red Pill aware man’s life. Just as I’m inclined to tell guys of the MGTOW persuasion that there really is no exiting the game, so too is it next to impossible for the Red Pill aware man to insulate himself from having to deal with, work with, relate to, men who are thoroughly invested in a Blue Pill defined existence.

In the first part of this series I mentioned how Blue Pill orbiters are often an untapped resource of social proof for a Red Pill aware man. Sometimes all it takes to stand out in the crowd is to simply allow the mediocre to display their status and be ready to capitalize on it. It’s like the part of Game where once you get to attraction all you have to do is not fuck things up. That’s not to say Game doesn’t take effort, it does, but when you have a connection with a woman who herself has orbiters’ attention in spades it easy to see that her attraction cues and ego are built around quality not quantity.

I also mentioned in last week’s essay that actively AMOGing these guys can actually be counterproductive to Game. Women may not ever want to bang their orbiters or really have them mean anything more that easy attention, but on the same note they likely don’t want to have anything too cruel happen to them. Fortunately there are ‘lightest touch’ ways to use these guys’ inability (or willful rejection) to really embrace Red Pill awareness to your advantage if you have the art. There’s a tendency to want to help these orbiters, but I would say the real test is having the confidence to use them as SMV comparisons. Adopting an Amused Mastery with an orbiter is one such method – building social proof by artfully pointing out their Beta Game strategies. The risk you run is women taking this as arrogance on your part, at first, until that Beta confirms your measured analysis of him.

Betas at Work

One of the most arduous aspects of modern work life is having to cooperate with well-conditioned Blue Pill men. God forbid you have a business partner or a boss with whom your financial wellbeing depends. I would argue that the single most dangerous environment in which to attempt to ‘help’ a Blue Pill man with Red Pill awareness is in the workplace. For all the talk of mythical “glass ceilings” and back room boys clubs, modern corporate culture has been at the mercy of the Feminine Imperative’s influence for several decades now. This social environment was a Male Space that was invaded long ago by feminine-primary interests, but for the sake of this discussion I’d have readers consider the following: imagine a Blue Pill conditioned Beta who’s been educated and acculturated in feminine primacy (as equality) for the better part of his lifetime. Now, take that guy and put him into a workplace social structure, steeped in feminine-primary work laws, HR departments and corporate bylaws (all designed to avoid charges of endemic workplace sexism). Finally, base that man’s livelihood, the health of his marriage and the future wellbeing of his children on how well he adheres to that feminine-primary office culture and you get a guy who’s a veritable time bomb for any Red Pill aware coworker.

This reminds me of a great article in the Telegraph about how men are so afraid of sexual harassment accusations they resist the urge to extend the most basic courtesies to women in the workplace.

Elsesser cites examples of men who have been dragged in by their HR departments for simply opening a door for a female colleague or complimenting her on a new suit. “Stories like these spread around workplaces, instilling a fear that innocent remarks will be misinterpreted,” she says.

The upside to this situation is that a Red Pill savvy man can use the predictable foreknowledge of how a Blue Pill colleague will respond to various workplace circumstances to his advantage. While it may be prudent to accommodate that guy’s Blue Pill mindset at work, it also presents some opportunities to use Red Pill awareness and Game in a context that can advance your career. Female bosses are still female, and as noted earlier, the same dynamics you can use to ping social proof from a Blue Pill orbiter can similarly be used with a Blue Pill coworker and a female supervisor.

If you know a guy is trapped in a Blue Pill marriage, odds are he’s in a dead bedroom situation. If he’s got kids, especially a newborn, it’s fairly easy to predict his life priorities based on what we know of his Blue Pill mindset. Happy wife, happy life is probably his ego-investment. There’s quite a lot you can read from a Blue Pill coworker or supervisor, and as a Red Pill aware man, this puts you at a strategic advantage in the workplace. As such you are not at the disadvantage he is and can opt in on work opportunities his mindset and his life’s resultant conditions wont permit him to.

As a side note here, I should also mention that being Red Pill aware has various advantages in dealing with women in the workplace too. In the same vein as the Blue Pill supervisor, it’s important to get a ‘read’ on a female boss and how she interacts with male and female subordinates. Corporate culture is often the most visceral teacher when it comes to understanding intrasexual competition amongst women. However, as a Red Pill aware man we can also apply our predictive Red Pill Lens towards what most women in the workplace are experiencing in their lives. We know the common dissatisfaction professional women experience when it comes to their personal lives. We also know that even the married ones are likely to be discontent with husbands whom they can never feel comfortable in submitting themselves to – especially after 8-10 hours at an office where lesser men must submit to her and the greater men she is beholden to don’t see her as anything but an instrument for their own success. The trick is using this tactical understanding to your own benefit by getting inside their heads and making female nature work for you.

So, after all this we’re left with a few of considerations. The first is the degree of calculated risk a Red Pill man is comfortable in taking with a Blue Pill colleague. Even if the guy is a personal friend, there is always a risk that using your Red Pill Lens with him can backfire on you. There’s only one thing worse than a woman scorned and that’s a deeply committed Blue Pill guy who’s just had his mindset used against him by a superior player. Most will pass it off as the result of an unfair life, but others, the less stable Blue Pill guys, they can have an explosive potential.

Then there is the ever present ethical considerations that will always dog this question – should you do it? If Goldmund’s story from last week’s essay was an object lesson in mate poaching it was also a subjective lesson in the ethical consideration of it too. Much of what constitutes attractiveness in men to women is found on the Dark Triad personality traits. Sometimes Red Pill awareness and Game application gets called an education in psychopathy. Having written about Red Pill awareness for as long as I have, I know there’s far more to this, but to an initiated reader, one steeped in Blue Pill conditioning, I fully understand why it would look like psychopathy.

Now the question is, does a Red Pill man use his awareness to his advantage outside of the intersexual realm? In the case of using it with a female supervisor that might be an easy, yes, but in the case of using a Blue Pill man’s handicap of his mindset that answer may be subjective by order of degree. Even if there is no malice involved, and even if just by fact of having that awareness, a Red Pill man has a distinct advantage over men given to a Blue Pill belief set and their resultant life conditions.

So the question might be, are we our Beta brother’s keepers? Do we have an obligation to give Blue Pill men value or does that idea end where that man’s capacity to accept what Red Pill awareness offers him end? Obviously I have two books and five and a half years of blog posts all written with the intent of ultimately unplugging Blue Pill men and making them aware of the true nature of intersexual dynamism. My purpose has always been to give men the tools they need to do that, but is it my obligation to do so?

The Utility of Beta Men – Part I

This week my fellow 21 Convention speaker and good friend Goldmund posted a very poignant essay about his experience stealing a girl away from her Blue Pill orbiter for a same night lay. I’ll paraphrase a bit of it here as I riff on it, but do click over to his blog and read the entire exchange.

Before I do though, let me first begin by stating that I have been the Blue Pill orbiter Goldmund describes here. I think too many readers seem to think I write from some position of Alpha authority; as if I’ve always been the lesser Alpha I am today. I’m sorry if this disillusions anyone, but I’ve run the gamut from being a well-conditioned Blue Pill Beta, to being a verified-by-social proof rock star Alpha, to dropping almost into an Omega status with a BPD girlfriend, to maturing into a Red Pill aware, lesser Alpha I would humbly think of myself as today.

A lot of critics, and even a handful of Red Pill men I know, have a real tough time with what they believe are arbitrary terms – Alpha, Beta, Omega, Blue/Red Pill, etc. – but let me reiterate here that these terms have always been abstracts. They are placeholder words for larger ideas, not binary definitions. A lot of critics also, erroneously, believe that Blue Pill, Beta, Omega, White Knight, etc. are some dismissive insult to end a conversation with, rather than, again, the abstract terms used to describe a man’s condition. I’ve made it clear in prior posts that being Beta or Blue Pill isn’t a life sentence, and neither should it merit our scorn beyond the ignorance that man happens to be a subject of.

I’m prefacing this here because sometimes it’s hard to look at ourselves, or our past selves, from the perspective of a guy who is enduring the same Blue Pill conditioned delusions we had. The Blue Pill orbiter’s role in Goldmund’s story here is a guy I’m sure most Red Pill men can somewhat empathize (if not sympathize) with because they were this guy also. They made the same decisions based on the same foolish Blue Pill preconceptions about women, and due to the same ignorance and lack of any Red Pill awareness we once had. So in this respect, try to understand the following from an objective perspective of what it was like to be that ‘hopeless Blue Pill orbiter’ basing decisions on old books social understanding.

To outline the story briefly, Goldmund was invited to socialize with a friend and what he’d thought was a couple; a nice looking 23 year old woman and her dutiful Beta ‘pseudo-husband’ (edited for content):

It was Sunday evening, the weather was pleasant, and being around a group of great guys who were eager to learn had me in extra fine spirits. A text came in from a friend who said he was hosting some people from out of town and wanted me to join them all for dinner. I met them at a restaurant and sat down to eat.

At first I thought the two attractive people he was hosting were a couple. They were both from Australia and sitting next to each other at the table. I noticed that the guy was catering to the girl, not standing his ground in conversation, and ended up paying for her.

After dinner we all went to a bar where a band was playing, the girl came over to me and we started to chat. I immediately asked her “so, is that your husband?” and she responded with “oh, no, he’s just a friend” and gave a hungry ‘save me’ look.

[…] The Australian guy stood next to the girl while I walked closer to the front, and after the first song, I looked back and waved her over. She came right away and the guy glared at me like I was Satan.

She stood right in front of me and began dancing a little. While I rubbed my crotch on her wiggling ass, my hands went to her hips, then felt up her flat stomach before caressing her big boobs.

I said into her ear, “I’m going to take you on a date right now” and she looked back and smiled.

At this point you can probably see where this is going. One thing I think is very important to point out here is that Beta male orbiters of most stripes can simultaneously end up being their own worst enemies while reinforcing the Alpha impression of his sexual competitors. In most cases, that orbiter’s status is set in woman’s hindbrain and as such any other man’s status whom she happens to encounter is measured against his. Game savvy men should (usually do) know that Beta orbiters are an opportunity to establish an implied social proof. Orbiters actually strengthen your Game and SMV because of his baseline status and subconscious comparing of Hypergamous options.

Women want men who other men want to be and other women want to fuck. Whether it’s actually true or not, to a woman’s mind, her impression of your orbiter’s status means you are a man who wants to be like the competing Alpha – the guy who she and other women want to fuck.

In most instances there’s no real reason to AMOG an orbiter. We’ll get to this in a bit, but understand now that most orbiters are unwitting volunteers in aiding a Red Pill, Game aware, man boost his signal, so to speak, by complaining, doubting and criticizing the efficacy (or ethics) of it. In doing so, his less (or non) competitive status is also reinforced with every positive response a woman returns for that Red Pill awareness.

Remember, stay objective here, focus on what’s transpiring and why it’s working. Whether you’re the Blue Pill orbiter or the Red Pill seducer in a scenario like this, the real education comes from observing the process.

Goldmund continues:

We went to the back of the venue, and my friend came up to me and said “hey man, listen, that guy is really upset that you are hitting on the girl”.

“Well she surely isn’t going to fuck him, they aren’t together”

“Yeah, but he paid for her to come out to New York [from Australia], and last night, he told her that he loved her”

I couldn’t help but burst out laughing.

While this conversation was going on, the guy went up to the girl and begged her not to leave with me. At this point, I despised him, especially after my friend informed me that he had referred to me as ‘a creepy predator’, and wanted to teach him a lesson that stung. Especially since he was taller, better looking, and much more arrogant than me.

Right about here you’ll probably have a real tough time with the ethics of this scenario, but lets run down a few of the facts we know at this stage. First, ‘Pseudo-Husband’ is now the kind of Beta who pays for non-interested, or semi-interested women to go on international trips with him. This in itself is material for an entire post, but any Red Pill aware guy knows the mindset of the Beta sexual resource exchange – also known as the Savior Schema.

Just as an aside, I think this schema becomes all the more interesting when you account for the Sugar Babies companionship/sex dynamic going on today. It might be easy to think a Sugar Daddy paying for a woman’s exclusive attention would simply vote that girl off the island by closing his wallet, but when you mix pride, alcohol, Beta Game and expectation-but-not-expectation of sex with a Sugar Baby, well, that can make for a very volatile outcome. There’s a certain expectation of ROI when you pay for a woman’s international vacation.

Obviously Goldmund’s approach shifts at this stage, but, being the seasoned seduction artist he is, he has more than enough intel on the guy and IOIs from the girl to get the lay. At this point I expect Goldmund made it personal, but we’ll discuss this towards the end.

‘Pseudo-Husband’s’ impression of Goldmund as “creepy predator” is another tell as to his Blue Pill conditioned mindset. “Creepy predator” is fem-speak. It’s what I expect to hear come from a woman’s mouth, but when it comes from a man it’s a giveaway as to his conditioning; in this case feminine-primary.

As I’d rather not copy and paste all of Goldmund’s story here, I’ll ask that you read the sexual details on his site. Suffice it to say Goldmund expertly Games this woman and has quick-hit sex with her at the venue they were at. However, to continue with the analysis of this girl’s orbiter, let’s skip ahead to some select quotes:

Her face was red and we had been gone for about 20 minutes, so when we returned to the table, I’m 100% sure that everyone knew what just went down. The guy didn’t say a word while the rest of us chatted about sex over drinks, and when I got up to go home, he didn’t say goodbye. As I was leaving I told my friend to mention The Rational Male to him.

Major lessons found in this one, and they are so clear because a few years ago, I could picture myself being in the loser’s situation (I wouldn’t go so far as to pay for a chick to fly across the world, but I’ve done some extremely pathetic things in attempts to woo girls).

Game taught me that girls are incredibly sexual creatures, love being dirty, think about sex often, need it, and want to get fucked by men who are wild.

I’m sure the Australian guy never thought the girl was capable of having sex in a bar bathroom by a stranger, yet it happened right under his nose. Its hard to think of a bigger example of getting friend-zoned than this guy who had spent 1000s of dollars on the girl to confess his ‘love’ for her, only to be cucked by some Playboy she just met.

I think this is one of the hardest lessons a Blue Pill man has to learn before he understands the importance of being Red Pill aware. Most ‘Nice Guy’ orbiters/friends never really need to be AMOG’d by a sexual rival because they’re ignorant of the nature of Hypergamy. Even the ones who’ve experienced it personally from a woman, or having it flaunted in their face via commercial Open Hypergamy, these men still want their dream girl to somehow be different. Many a White Knight has been knocked from his horse after having the truth of women’s sexual natures viscerally illustrated for him. It’s the guys who go into denial, who fall back on the “Quality Woman” rationale and get back on the white horse who are truly lost.

I’ve been friend-zoned before and remember it being some of the most frustrating, mentally clouding times of my life. This guy was seething with anger so bad, he couldn’t even speak–or attempt to fight. The friend-zone is anguishing. Overcoming it happened when I started reading stories like the one above, started assuming every girl has slutty tendencies and will use weak guys for money, attention, gifts, or whatever it is that they are lacking.

Having your Blue Pill ego-investments dispelled in such a brutal fashion often leads to two types of misdirected anger: anger at the sexual rival who just schooled you in the most personal way about women’s Hypergamous sexual natures, and anger with a woman (or women) who are simply incapable of appreciating, or abiding, by the old social contracts, the old books he believes they ought to be.

This anger is not so much about a loss of investment as it is about a Blue Pill man having his inner world destroyed by outer world facts.

There was a point in my own life when I was something very similar to the Australian guy. I’m glad Goldmund mentioned my site and books to this guy’s friend because I’m still hopeful for men like this. I’ve had a few men in my Red Pill sphere tell me I ought not to care about men who don’t want, or don’t know how, to intrasexually compete; either due to their arrogance or ignorance. But that’s not what my goal is. While I understand that sometimes it’s necessary to Ghost on men at times, that’s never going to be my first impulse.

If the dude was cool about the situation and humble enough to talk to me like an adult about it, I would have gladly given him some advice and probably just got the girls number at some point and arranged to meet her privately.

Ego is the reason most people stay bluepill, you have to be honest with yourself and admit when something is wrong. And then find ways to fix it.

Hypergamy and Evolution want Hoes Before Bros

I understand Goldmund’s sentiment here. About 9 months, maybe a year ago I ran a Twitter poll asking whether it should be considered a Red Pill aware man’s duty to educate Beta men about their Blue Pill beliefs and why it’s the source of a lot of their troubles. For the most part, the consensus was that men should help other guys. That’s encouraging, but it’s also not always advisable. I find it fascinating that despite all of the attraction and arousal Red Pill aware men can knowingly generate in women with Dark Triad personality traits, they still believe they can compartmentalize those traits when it comes to helping their fellow man.

Should Goldmund have backed off this girl out of respect for a man who was obviously trapped in a Blue Pill negative feedback loop with her? Or did he do both him and her a favor?

I’ve personally had one of my best friends bang a girl I was locked in the friendzone with. This was a girl I’d tried for months to get her to sexually respond to my pathetically Blue Pill “I really care” Beta Game. I vividly remember (I was 19) the night I introduced him to her and so began a literal fuck-fest between the two of them that lasted about 2 months after only meeting for an hour that night. It was a hard kick in the teeth to take, one my friend and the girl showed absolutely no remorse or regret for, but it taught me a very valuable lesson. All the bullshit about “bros before hoes” all the idealistic pretty Blue Pill lies I believed about being friends and comfort first before sex went right out the window that week – where they belonged.

Personally it was hard to take, but objectively it was exactly what I needed to experience. I think this is a hard line for even a lot of Red Pill men to really cross today. Granted, I expect Goldmund was really into banging this girl that night more than he wanted to teach this guy some object lesson, but I think it’s going to be a really difficult area for Red Pill guys to sort out for themselves when it comes to “helping” Blue Pill guys unplug.

I’m reminded of the story about the guy who taped the note about banging another guy’s girlfriend under the toilet seat.

What is a Red Pill aware man’s ethical responsibility to Blue Pill men?


This is a two-part series of posts. In the next post I’ll consider how Red Pill men might deal with Blue Pill men in non-sexually competitive situations, and the advantages and dangers you might encounter.

We’ll Do It Live – 21 Convention

 

I did about a two and a half hour interview with Anthony Johnson today. Anthony is the organizer of the 21 Convention and is really a great guy who’s unafraid to get into the nuts and bolts of the Red Pill. We covered a lot of topics and questions in this talk so rather than give you an outline I’ll just say listen here or download (available on iTunes soon).

Let me know what you think. I’ll be covering the questions I didn’t get to in a forthcoming post.

The Epiphany Phase Revisited

One of the best things about the Red Pill being a praxeology is that nothing’s set in stone. Like any good science there’s always room for reinterpretation and updating ideas per new information, or sometimes it’s simply something or some observation that seemingly went overlooked that adjust an old interpretation. Reader Playdontpay brought something to light in an old post, Three Strikes:

I agree with the 3 Strike rule for younger chicks of 30 and under but once she hits about 32 something seems to flip in their heads, women of this age and up seem determined to hold out longer even if they want to fuck.

It’s probably because at this age her clock is ticking and she doesn’t have time to “waste” on flings that would won’t lead to commitment, so she re-invents herself as a “quality woman” in the hope of convincing you that she is LTR/ marriage material.

It’s up to you to decide if you can push the envelope to 5-6 dates max but I would only do this if I was sure it was her ASD holding her back and not down to a low interest level.

If you wait to date 5-6 and the sex is sub par, don’t stick around waiting for it to improve as you’ve been sold a lemon and the juice ain’t worth the squeeze!

This seemingly innocuous comment made me think a lot about some of my older material and how newer readers might interpret it. There’s actually quite a bit to unpack in this short response, so with the benefit of over a decade of hindsight I thought I might riff on it.

“…once she hits about 32 something seems to flip in their heads, women of this age and up seem determined to hold out longer even if they want to fuck.”

Any long time reader of this blog will immediately associate this phenomenon with the Epiphany Phase women enter when the reality of their lessened capacity to compete intrasexually with their younger sisters becomes unignorable. Generally this phase comes at or around the ages of 29-31, however, depending on circumstance this may come sooner for some women (those whose attractiveness is already understood to be suboptimal), and sometimes much later for others (women who bought into the lie that their attractiveness is subjective and indefinite). I’ve written many essays about this phase and dedicated two sections of Preventive Medicine to it. It’s very recognizable, and very understandable when you have a good grasp of how women prioritize the ‘needs’ of their sexual strategy as they mature.

The Epiphany Phase is really a woman’s subconscious knowledge of The Wall coming into her cognitive acknowledgement. However, what’s not so easy to grasp is why a woman who’s come to this phase would actually make it more difficult for a prospective long-term, parentally invested, hopefully idealized, mate to become intimate with her?

On several occasions I’ve proposed just the opposite; that Hypergamy cannot afford to wait for 100% perfect confirmation of a man’s Alpha status before she has sex with him. This Hypergamic bypass is actually one vulnerability women have with respect to well calibrated Game. Even for women in the luteal phase of ovulatory shift, (when by all means she ought to be seeking the provisioning, comforting and rapport of more Beta men’s attentions) women will be prompted to sexual immediacy and urgency when presented with the prospects of fucking – and hopefully locking down – what she sees as an Alpha man. It is entirely possible to bypass women’s natural, ovulation-induced, Hypergamy when you present yourself as the right Alpha incentive to her (I’ve done this myself). This is the prioritization women’s natural sexual strategy has, and in reality, a woman faking an orgasm for a perceived Alpha, or having proceptive sex with him in her luteal phase only confirms the urgency women’s natural Hypergamy has with regard to locking down an optimal man.

But why would a woman who, for all intents, knows her capacity to attract men is waning be so insistent on delaying her becoming intimate with him? This seems counterintuitive, particularly in light of the fact that most women in their younger, Party Years eagerly had sex with men for whom they made little or no ‘rules’ for in order to become sexual with them. It’s a common enough idea in the manosphere that women will ride the ‘cock carousel’ in their 20s until they realize a lessened capacity to attract guys and then seek to cash out of the sexual marketplace before or around 30. Usually this ends up with a girl settling for a Beta in waiting.

But why would the rules and prerequisites be something she insists on now but didn’t while she was in her sexual peak years?

Vaginas and Moral Compasses

There was a recent article on the HuffPo quoting Cate Blanchett saying “My moral compass is in my vagina“, and while this might be the red meat clickbait the HuffPo relies upon for revenue, it adequately sums up how Hypergamy, a woman’s sexual agency and a woman’s capacity to utilize it throughout her life directs women’s intrinsic and extrinsic priorities throughout their lives. I realize this wasn’t how Cate intended her comment to be taken; she wanted to express some inherent guiding principle for women in an era she believes women are still repressed in, but in doing so she illustrates the real compass women have with regard to moral interpretations of their ideas and behaviors. If something gratifies, optimizes or otherwise benefits a woman’s driving impulse of Hypergamy, it sets a rationale for moral interpretation by her. Or in other words, if it’s good for what optimizes Hypergamy, it’s good for women.

As men we want the easy answer to be the best answer. So it seems obvious to us that a woman making arbitrarily ‘new’ rules of intimacy for her prospectively long-term suitors would follow some epiphany where she comes to her senses, realizes the error of her ways and strives for being some new ‘quality woman’ to represent herself as. As such, her quality should symmetrically be matched by a man’s quality. And that quality should logically take some time to determine. This is, in fact, most women’s self and public rationale for making a ‘quality’ man wait for her sexually when in the past she had no such obstacles for the hawt guy she met on spring break in the Cancun foam cannon party.

We want to believe this because we’re taught to expect such reasonings from a girl who now, at 29, wants to get right with God or “start doing things the right way” with guys. Social conventions abound that condition us to expect that once women, “get it out of their systems” (by following the Sandbergian sexual strategy) she’ll realize the errors of her youthful indiscretion and magically transform into a “Quality Woman”. We want to believe it, and it’s in women’s best interests that we do believe it.

Most Beta men (and not a few self-described Red Pill men) want to believe in a woman’s Epiphany about herself. They love nothing better than the idea of the reformed porn star who’s finally “grown up” and come to her senses about the error of her youth’s indiscretions with the guys they grew up to hate as an archetype. Better still, they’ll feed that rationale/fantasy in the hope that her Epiphany will include her saving her best sex for him since now she’s come to understand that it’s been the ‘nice guys’ all along she ought to have been getting with if not for ‘society’ convincing her otherwise.

The reformed-slut-with-epiphany archetype is a trope Beta men want to forgive because it represents vindication for their self-image, Blue Pill conviction and perseverance (they never gave up on her). Women with the pasts that make them good candidates for eliciting this rationale know men well enough to see the utility it has in securing Blue Pill men’s resources and long term security.

Socially, she’s got countless sources of ‘go grrrl’ moral reinforcement from both men and women. In fact, as a Man, just my bringing this to light makes me guilty of being “judgmental” in popular female-defined culture. And that’s the insurance women will always have in their Epiphany Phase – whether it’s a reformed slut coming to terms with the Wall at 29, or the ex-wife who frivorced her dutiful (but unexciting) Beta to have her own epiphany and discover herself a la Eat, Prey, Love, the social net of feminine-primacy is there with easy rationalizations to catch any and every woman’s Hypergamous fall.

Holding Out

Yet still she hesitates in giving herself to that Beta provisioner.

We excuse this hesitation by claiming it’s because, now, she wants to be extra sure about him. The Alpha men she so effortlessly gave herself to were all, of course, wolves in sheep’s clothing (e.g. men are evil) and in her epiphany she must exercise caution. And if you think it’s because of anything else, well, you’re a misogynist, so shut up.

A woman holding out on a guy during this phase of her life really isn’t about any moral epiphany, it’s really her hindbrain coming to terms with having to make herself become sexual with a type of guy whom previously she would never have naturally flowed into having sex with. We like to think a now ‘quality woman’ is deserving of putting a man through a set of qualifying tests, that seems like appropriate prudence, but in fact her reservation about fucking him comes from a deep seated, subconscious understanding that, while the guy might make for an excellent parental investment, he’s not going to be someone she feels a sexual urgency to fuck.

Later she’ll bemoan that she’d rather cry over an asshole than date a guy who bores her, but in the Epiphany she has to force this subconscious understanding down in order to better insure her Hypergamous security into the future.

This latent, limbic sexual uncertainty has nothing to do with vetting the ‘perfect guy’ for the ‘quality woman’ it’s about a woman, who likely for the first time in her life, is presented with the challenge of having to bypass her hindbrain Hypergamy in order to secure her long term security. Thus, we see this demographic of women make even more rules for a Beta to deserve her intimacy, while a more Alpha tingle-generating man she was more than willing to break rules to get to bed with.

It’s important that we focus on the idea that a man, any man, ought to be deserving of a woman’s sexual ‘gift’. We get this rationale from the affirmations of even the most well meaning of men. Even though the concept of Hypergamy is regularly proven through her Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks strategy prior to her epiphany, the Beta mindset is always ready to do more and expect more from men who would get with his ‘quality woman’. A woman on the expiration of her SMV likes nothing more than to be told, and to encourage the idea in men, that “she deserves better” in spite of her past decisions.

Yet still she hesitates having sex with the ‘perfect’ guy who is ready to overlook all of it.

This is an internal conflict between what her psyche knows she needs to do to ensure her security, and what her hindbrain wants in an exciting Alpha lover. What “flips” in a woman’s head is her inability to resolve her sexuality with her self-consciousness in having to force it to be with a man who likely doesn’t merit it for her – but this meriting her sex, up to now, has always been a process she left to her hindbrain to decide. In a sense it is quality control, but not for the self-righteous rationales we’re supposed to believe it is.

There is a lot of inner negotiation on the part of women entering their Epiphany Phase, trying to reconcile the long term security needs of her Super Ego and the visceral short term sexual needs of her Id. At some point, what sexualized qualities satisfies a woman’s Id she no longer has the capacity to maintain so there comes an inner conversation of negotiation over what available man represents the best compromise depending on her need and her acknowledgement of it – and her true capacity to satisfy her long term security with or without him.

Now introduce a Beta man into this inner negotiation; one who’s been preparing his whole life to be the best, most dependable provisioner that his conditioning would make of him. His influence enters the negotiation process, but her Id can never find satisfaction. Thus, the negotiation becomes one of her Ego negotiating with her Id trying to convince it to refigure it’s visceral Alpha Fucks needs to accommodate this guy since he represents just such long term security as the Super Ego needs.

There’s a bit more to this reevaluation of the Epiphany Phase I may do soon in another post. However, I think I should add here that a lot of not-so-genuine confusion on the part of well-meaning guys about why a woman would so easily break her own rules to fuck an Alpha guy while require them to jump through hoops to get to a mitigated sexuality with her is primarily due to a woman’s hindbrain expectation about what sex should be like with either type of guy.

I’ve related in the past how women will gladly engage in a same night lay with a guy they see as a hot Alpha sex opportunity, but would never consider if she saw the guy as “relationship material”. This situation is a clichéd joke now – we laugh at it as “chick logic”, but the more Blue Pill men become aware of the Myth of the Good Guy the more these quandaries will give them pause to think about the women whose pasts they’re ready to excuse and the women they’re simply never going to consider “relationship material” themselves. They’ll think twice about the social order that’s encouraging them to “man up and marry those sluts”.

False Equivalencies

equivalencies

One of the more persistent questions I get asked about Hypergamy is if there’s a parallel to it in men. I’ve answered this in several comment threads both here and in other forums, but I’ve never really addressed it in a post. When I was considering this I remembered a couple of comments from manosphere luminaries Deti and Novaseeker who I thought summed up this (often deliberate) misconception. Deti was kind enough to provide me with his own observations which I’m quoting and riffing on here:

It’s often said that men and women are both hypergamous.  This isn’t true.  Both men and women optimize.  But only women are hypergamous.

Hypergamy has become a term of art in the manosphere.  It has a very specific meaning which differs from the meaning social scientists ascribe to it.  In social science it refers specifically and only to marriage relationships.   The term is used to refer to women marrying men who are perceived to be wealthier or of a higher social/economic standing or caste, usually observed in Hindu cultures on the Indian subcontinent but also observed in early American society.  In the United States it’s often referred to as women “marrying up”.   

 F. Roger Devlin, himself having a social science background, appropriated the term in his essay entitled Sexual Utopia in Power when referring to his observation that young single women always seemed to be looking for the best man they can get at any one time, seeking the most attractive man or men for sex.  Devlin observed modern Western women’s propensity to discard one man in favor of a better man, in serial fashion, always doing their best to “move up” and get  a more attractive, better man with each successive discard and pairing.  

Expanding on this, manosphere writers and bloggers noticed that hypergamy operates at a low hum, like a background operating system, in every woman.   It is “satisfied” while she’s with a man of sufficiently high value. But if a man of perceived higher value or greater attractiveness  shows interest, and/or her current man’s value is faltering, that low hum becomes a loud alarm. This can cause her, at the very least, to have feelings of attraction for the new man and feelings of dis-attraction for the current man. This can in many cases cause her to leave the current man for the new higher value, more attractive man. This doesn’t always happen, but it can happen. Hypergamy can operate in any combination – more attractive man showing interest; current man’s attractiveness waning or falling, and anywhere in between. Thus, the manosphere’s use of the term “hypergamy” came into being, to refer to a core aspect of female sexual nature which is unique to women. 

If you do a Google search for the term ‘Hypergamy’ you’ll find The Rational Male and the topic category link for all the posts I’ve ever done on it is the second return you’ll get below the Wikipedia entry for the term. At the risk of a humble-brag, I’m not sure anyone in the ‘sphere has written more extensively on the subject than myself and I think Deti sums up the conflict in definition that both critics and the uninitiated have with their understanding why there is a need for a broader definition of Hypergamy.

I made an effort to address this in The Hypergamy Conspiracy, but this was some time ago. ‘Hypergamy’ serves well in a much broader capacity, but should the Feminine Imperative find that broader definition threatening to its purpose it will casually dismiss it as illegitimate, because the manosphere appropriated the term. Thus, we’ll see feminine-primary society embrace the larger ideas of Hypergamy (as in the embrace of Open Hypergamy) so long as it’s flattering to, and benefits most, women. Once it gets ugly, then it conveniently denies the legitimacy of the broad definition and it’s strictly about the “women having a tendency to marry up” sociology term.

People confuse “optimization” with “hypergamy“. Both men and women optimize; meaning they want the best they can get, of anything and everything. Men and women optimize everything:  jobs, cars, houses, furniture, friends, even churches. Men and women optimize with each other. But men and women optimize with the opposite sex in different ways, and that’s where the confusion comes in.

Hypergamy in its current iteration in the manosphere means essentially “is attracted only to people who are more attractive than I am”.  Women will be sexually attracted to men who they perceive as “above” them in attractiveness.  They will be somewhat attracted to men who are at their rough SMV level, but that man must bring other things to the table, usually provisioning and commitment, before she will have sex with him. And women are never ever sexually attracted to men who are perceived to be beneath their own SMV level.  

Example:   A woman with SMV = 7 will be sexually attracted to males with SMV of 8 and up.   She will pair with a male 7, if and only if he brings “other things” to the table. She will never be sexually attracted to male 6s on down.  And she will be able to easily get sex with men above her in SMV.  She can occasionally get relationships with male 8s.  She can easily get relationships and sex with male 7s.  Male 6s on down are her orbiters, with whom she’ll never have sex.   

Female critics of the broader definition of Hypergamy often have a (contrived) problem with the distinction between optimization and Hypergamy. And, as Deti explains, a lot of this comes from the fact that women’s sense of their own sexual market value is largely overinflated. Women rate 80 percent of men below average in attractiveness. When you contrast, even loose, statistics like this against the broader idea of Hypergamy you start to see why women would want there to be some analogous kind of Hypergamy for men. Hypergamy in women is founded on three bedrock truths:

  • Persistent doubt that a woman has adequately ‘optimized’ on Hypergamy with any man she has, or will potentially have, consolidated on a long term relationship with.
  • Hypergamy never seeks its own level. Women are always looking for a better-than-equal pairing with men in respect to their own SMV compared to his. When 80% of men are (loosely) agreed to be below average in attractiveness to women, we must consider that this assessment is measured in relation to what women’s Hypergamous doubt might be optimized with in a man.
  • Women’s Hypergamy is based in, and the source of, women’s dualistic sexual strategy. The manosphere euphemism for this is Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks. This shorthand refers to Hypergamy seeking optimization in both short-term-sex breeding potential and (ideally) long-term parental investment, protection and provisioning security potential.

It’s important to review these principles of Hypergamy because, for all the protestations of women wanting an equal comparison, there are no parallels of Hypergamy for men’s sexual strategy.

Deti continues:

Men do not operate like this at all.  And that’s the difference.   Men are not attracted only to women who are above them in SMV. A man can be, and often is, attracted to women above him in SMV, and to women at his SMV level and also to women below him in SMV. What is also different is the level of women he can get and how well his relationships will work out, based on his and her SMV.   

A man will be unable to continue a relationship with a woman above his SMV. He is very sexually attracted to them, and occasionally lucks out and gets sex with one or two; but he can’t sustain a relationship with them. He can get sex from women at his SMV level but only if he goes all in and offers commitment. He can most easily get sex with women below him in SMV, many times no strings attached sex. 

Example: A male 6 will rarely get sex with a 7 but can’t keep anything with her going. He’s not even on the radar of female 8s on up. He can get sex with a female 6 only if he offers commitment and provisioning. He can most easily get sex with female 5s on down. 

And here’s the grand difference: A man is OK with having sex with women at and below his own SMV. In fact, he’ll be happiest in his relationships with women beneath his own SMV – a woman is “meh” about sex with men at her SMV, and she is positively repulsed and sickened at having sex with men below her own SMV. She’ll be happiest in a relationship with a man above her own SMV and she can tolerate a man at her SMV. And she’ll be miserable at best with a man beneath her SMV and will tend to blow up those relationships. 

Men and women both have attraction floors. Men’s attraction floor is below their own SMV.   Women’s attraction floor is either above her own SMV and sometimes at her own SMV, but never beneath it.

I explore the fundamentals of intimate attachments and how SMV status influences it here. That article might be worth reviewing because in it is a lesson about Hypergamy. Again, compare the idea that the most secure attachments between couples are ones where the dominant, man’s, SMV status is roughly 1-2 points above that of the woman’s and contrast that against the fact that women rate 80% of men’s attractiveness as ‘below average’.

Also, keep in mind the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies: For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

The other, minor difference is that men are polygamous, not hypergamous. A man’s imperative is not (necessarily) to get the best woman. It’s to get as many women as possible with as little investment and commitment as possible. If he can do it, he would love to get as many women as possible at and a little below his own SMV, and have sex with as many of them as possible for as long as possible, without committing to or investing in any of them.   That’s spinning plates. Most men don’t do this, because they can’t, because they’re not attractive enough, but that’s a different post.  

A woman’s imperative is to get the best one man she can get for sex and for provisioning.     That’s why you don’t see many women “dating” (i.e. having sex with) several different men at the same time. Women don’t spin plates; they pick the best plate they can and take care of it as best they can. Instead of trying to collect plates, they just change out the plates, one for another, when a bigger, better one comes along.  

This is why the best long term relationship is one in which the man outranks his woman in SMV. He should be at least +1 and preferably +2 in SMV.  This makes both of them happiest in the long run.

On many an occasion I’ve fielded the question, “Well Rollo, if there’s a Feminine Imperative, there must be a Masculine Imperative.” People don’t usually like the answer, but from a strictly evolutionary and biological perspective, the Masculine (or male) Imperative is Unlimited Access to Unlimited Sexuality.

Deti summed this up adequately here, but the more high-minded of my critics will often think the ‘male imperative’ is setting the bar too low for men, but usually this comes from a want of something more than the visceral truth of what motivates us. And I’d agree with this for the most part, if men are to become something more than their base natures would have of them. But using the same reproductive metric I use in describing women’s Hypergamy I’ve also got to recognize that men’s drive for sex has been the incentive for our greatest achievements and our worst proclivities. If we are to be ethical in our judgements we must be amoral in our assessments. Sometimes those assessments will be unflattering for men and women.

The objective issue here is that men’s imperative is not analogous to women’s imperative. When we look at men’s approach to gratifying this imperative we see the stark contrast between women’s Hypergamy and men’s sexual strategy.

False Equivalencies

One of the most predictable responses I expect to hear from women when they chafe at various Red Pill truths is always the first presumption of false equivalencies between the sexes. Whenever I, or any Red Pill man relates some unflattering truth about the nature of women, without fail, the first reflexive response is “well, men do this too, and it’s worse,…” or there’s some other unflattering presumption about the nature of men that’s supposed to provide some counterbalance to the ugly truth about women that’s being related. Feminized men and White Knights will also adopt this tact in order to defend the honor of the Sisterhood so as to have there be no doubt that they ‘aren’t like typical men’ in their identifying with women.

This is to be expected though. The first impulse is to defend against anyone acknowledging that truth by distraction. “Ooh, ooh, men do it too!” is a distraction meant to refocus the intent of objectively (amorally) assessing what is otherwise an unflattering aspect of female nature, behavior and/or the motivators that prompt it. In order to do so we are expected to first presume a co-equal state between men and women, as well as a co-equal state of mutual goals. Thus, for women’s distraction to be effective there must be a presumed state of equivalency between men and women.

As such, we are, by default, expected to accept that if there is a female Hypergamy there must also be a male form of Hypergamy. This is a very useful illustration of the false equivalency principle women rely upon. Deductively it should make sense, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, but only in a mindset and a social order based on egalitarian-equalism is that reaction presumed to be the binary opposite of the original action.

If, as equalism would have us accept, men and women are functional equals, then it follows that there must be a male Hypergamy that is the reaction to women’s (often unflattering) Hypergamy. Women’s innate solipsism only reinforces this presumption because only an action that impacts a woman (positively or negatively) is deemed a legitimate truth to that mindset. I would argue that this is exactly why women’s first reflexive defense (to anything challenging her gender-defined ego-investments) will always be to presume some gender-opposite reaction for men. The belief is that while she can’t deny the proposed truth, at least (she) women aren’t as bad as men. From there the objective is to distract from that uncomfortable truth by indicting (functionally equal) men’s natures.

All of this presumption only functions in a social order that’s based on the idea of egalitarian-equalism between the sexes. When we look at things from a gender-complementarity perspective, and we accept that there are fundamental differences in the innate natures and motivators of men and women, those distractions become less effective. Just as Deti explains for us here, once we accept that men are not co-equal agents with women, we don’t even expect that there would be an equivalent to women’s Hypergamy in men.

The genders are different. We both have strategies for sex and life and fulfillment that are often not analogous to one another. Women only expect that there would be analogies because they presume that a female experience, female goals and contexts that benefit the Feminine Imperative will necessarily be what men mutually agree upon as what’s best for themselves. Only in a state of equalism, ignorant and intolerant of anything not agreed upon by ‘feminine correctness’, is there a presumption that men must have some parallel to the motivators and behaviors that prompt women. Only in a state of solipsism is this the subconscious assumption.

This is something to keep in mind the next time a woman bemoans how unfair double standards are for women. Men are not women, women are not men. Our strategies are often incompatible, or at the very least require a degree of compromise or total acquiescence to coexist in an ostensibly symbiotic relationship between men and women. It is only women (and feminized men) who default to supposing men are their functional equals.