Choose Wisely

Potential vs. Struggle

“Women don’t care about the struggle. They wait at the finish line and fuck the winners.”

Rich Cooper

This is a popular belief in the Manosphere today. Hypergamous stress is so intense that women have turned into mercenaries with respect to vetting the men they’ll accept to plan a future with. I’ll admit, a lot of well-meaning Red Pill men believe women’s Hypergamous Filter is necessarily amoral if not overtly cruel. The ill-informed critics of Hypergamy believe in a binary extreme. They presume that all those Red Pill guys are self-defeated by the idea that all women are prostitutes and only “out to get theirs“. This is simplistic ignorance of the concept of Hypergamy meant to dissuade the curious from Red Pill truths that they refuse to process. But do they kind of have a point though?

Virtually every extreme of MGTOW and the Mens Rights Movement have some open variation of how Hypergamy is a straight jacket and

Why bother with a woman for anything other than a short term fuck if her Hypergamous nature will just predispose her to jumping ship to the first guy who comes along with a bigger dick or a bigger wallet?”

I covered all of these is detail in Hypergamy – The Misconceptions a while ago in case you’re curious as to why these are unfounded, and more often deliberate, misunderstandings of women’s nature. And no, that doesn’t mean I’m backpedaling on anything I’ve ever written about Hypergamy.

A couple weeks ago I got wrapped up in a Twitter exchange about the conflict between whether women indeed wait for the winners at the finish line or they make calculated bets about a man’s future potential.

From a pragmatic point of view I’m very much inclined to agree with this assessment. Yes, it makes women seem overly mercenary with respect to Hypergamy, but I’ve said it as much myself in any number of prior essays:

Women can only willingly want to please a man whose Frame is the dominant one. You’ve got to have that world established that she wants to enter and become a complementary, supportive (of you) and willing participant in. This world-building takes time. Women evolved to seek competency in men. Hypergamy cannot afford to bet all of a woman’s genetic legacy on a guy who has “potential” – they want the proven commodity. This is one reason women look for men older and taller than they are. More importantly, you need a woman who is playing on your team, not against you. And sadly this is the state of marriage promoted by the Feminine Imperative today. Egalitarianism doesn’t promote complementary cooperation, it promotes an adversarial state of competition between husband and wife.

The Marriage Game

In a purely evolutionary context it’s true; because a woman’s sexual market value – and ultimately her only agency with men – is perishable Hypergamy cannot afford for a woman to waste her time on a ‘good bet‘. This truth is a basic, Darwinistic, rule for women’s sexual strategy.

Despite all the social conventions to make them believe otherwise, women’s hindbrains know that their sexual agency and prime fertility window in life is limited. This creates a degree of urgency in a woman as she gets closer to, or ages past, the Wall. This understanding necessitates tradeoffs, but optimally a woman would prefer not to take chances with her reproductive future – and ultimately her life’s future.

For the more nihilistically inclined men of the ‘sphere, this Darwinistic determinism seems like a reproductive death sentence. If women only fuck the winners at the finish line, and you’re a loser, you may as well give up and go jerk off, right? This defeatism is a core tenet of the Black Pill.

All that said, a lot of people disagree with this assessment:

Jack knows I love him, but he is living with a girl much younger than himself. While I think that’s cool, and proof of Red Pill concept, he is actually living out the point being made here. Statistically, women tend to prefer men who are 5 to 7 years their senior. Another aspect of women’s evolved mental firmware is the natural attraction to older men as prospective long term mates. Women know that it takes men longer to mature into the genuine value that her Hypergamous Filters test for. An older rich man is always more believable than a younger rich man. Women tend to pair with a man their senior because Hypergamy doesn’t need to wait on his potential when he’s already a proven commodity.

Most of the criticism in this thread centers on exaggerating the age of “marriageable men” to the point of absurdity, but women do look for long term security as a prime requisite of the men they hope to pair for life with. There is a root-level presumption in women, correct or not, that an older man will have established the status and resources a woman needs in a long term partner. In fact, our feminine-primary social order shames men for not preparing to assume this role of security provider for women by a certain age (usually 30ish).

Alexander is also a good friend, but I’m going to disagree with half of his assessment. Women don’t readily recognize potential in men. In fact most of them are piss poor at it. This is because they’ve been socially conditioned to focus more on themselves (and exacerbated by their innate solipsism) than be concerned with making a good assessment of men’s potential for future success.

Now, before you think I’m siding with the Hypergamous nihilists, this did give me pause to step back and assess my stance on women reading men’s potentials to provide for their future security. And that last part is the most important because women’s sexual strategy has two parts: Alpha Fucks – short term sexual needs – and Beta Bucks – long term provisioning and security needs. It’s the latter that we’re discussing in this debate.

Women want to fuck the winners in the short term, but they will also assess a man’s potential for the long term.

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.

The Epiphany Phase Revisited

In the essay Women’s Existential Fear I also made the following proposition:

The Existential Fear in women is that their innate, Hypergamous Filter, their Feminine Intuition, might be fooled, and by being fooled she may either die or have her reproductive potential compromised for her lifetime by bearing and raising the child of man who is a suboptimal Hypergamous choice for her – a man who exerted his will over her Hypergamous choosing filters.

Making Choices

All of this presumes that a woman is in some way testing for a man’s potential. Even women’s autonomous shit testing is a confirmation of this. So yes, women do look for potential in men. Some better than others. The Hypergamous Filter is an imperfect tool which is exactly why women needed to mystify their feminine intuition in popular understanding. Men had to be kept in the dark as to a woman’s motives because their filters have always been intuitive guesswork. This is a vulnerability that men might exploit – with good Game for instance – if women were ever honest about it.

Not all women can fuck the winners so they have to make calculated bets on men. This is also a reason women rely on social proof and the preselection cues of other women. If other women find a guy to be a ‘good bet’ it provides her a short cut to getting to intimacy. Again, Hypergamy cannot afford to miss out on a socially confirmed ‘good bet’. And yes, this is also a vulnerability in women’s vetting process that men with good Game regularly exploit.

So, the tradeoff is this: when a woman is at her peak sexual market value (SMV) she has the leisure to fuck the winners at the finish line. The more her SMV decays the fewer her options become, and the more likely it is that her necessity requires her to make a ‘bet’ on a man’s future potential. This is the primary reason women opt for the Beta in Waiting around her Epiphany Phase. Necessity forces her to go with good potential.

One of the ways feminism and female-primacy sabotages women’s ability to vet for good potential is in the mythology surrounding their sexual viability as they get older. Social conventions constantly reinforce the false idea that a woman’s SMV is indefinite – and by extension her agency over men should also be indefinite. This is why Blank Slate idealism and Social Constructionism are a preferred mythology for women. Without the Blank Slate a woman would be forced to accept the evolved realities of her sex. The Blank Slate is a prime source of women’s solipsistic denial of her own nature.

Turnkey Men

Do women care about the struggle? Do women ever appreciate the sacrifices a man must make to facilitate their own realities? I explored this topic a long time ago in Appreciation and I’m still going with my old assessment, no.

It may be that a man of Rich Cooper’s age, affluence and status only attracts the ‘finish line girls’ because he’s already a made man. He’s an attractive catch because he’s already a proven commodity. Thus, he tends to attract women who are looking for a ‘Turnkey’ man with an established world into which they want to move.

I should also add that most middle aged women, past their sexual prime and well past any long term potential they may’ve had themselves universally look for the ‘Turnkey’ man – once they’re done playing cougar immediately after their divorce. This is another illustration of women’s sexual strategy from the post-Wall side. Alpha Fucks – Beta Bucks never changes, only the context does. Post divorce women go through a second Epiphany Phase right after the divorce. Play cougar and fuck the fun college guys if they can because it’s easy, but be on the lookout for a ‘Turnkey’ winner who’s still ignorant of his Blue Pill conditioning at 45.

Whether it’s a woman in her late 20s or a post-Wall ‘mature woman‘ a man’s struggles to become her ideal is largely irrelevant to her. WHile women are speculators with respect to men it’s the end result of those struggles that’s the operative for her. Almost every woman who disagreed in the Twitter thread above all had some success story of how their brilliant feminine intuition led to them investing in the man they’re so proud to call a husband now. None of them were about how they made a horrible mistake in betting their future on a losing horse. So it’s important to see how the results skew for women.

Women will readily make claims on Relational Equity as an insurance against his leaving her later, once he’s achieved that potential. His struggle and her bearing through it with him is only important in that it produced the positive results she’d hoped for. That ‘dedication’ of seeing it through is her relationship insurance. It’s why women despise and reinforce the “trophy wife” meme. It’s prime indignation to have a man betray her speculation on him by rewarding a younger, hotter, tighter woman at the finish line.

Your struggle is her burden despite you having to bear it under duress of her abandoning you if you failed. Women will never appreciate the sacrifices a man makes to facilitate a reality, her sexual/life strategy, she believes was always her due. You just did what you were supposed to do as a man. Women believe it is their due to pair with a man who is worthy of her social media inflated ego. If that sounds harsh remember that women regularly bemoan the lack of men who are their “equal partners” in both money and education well after their prime SMV years are past.

Finally, the reason the finish line metaphor is apt is because more women than ever are postponing marriage in the expectation that ‘Turnkey’ made men will be waiting and available when they hit 31-33 years old, rather than investing in men with good potential in their early to mid 20s. Doing so would mean sacrificing their peak SMV Party Years when someone like Sheryl Sandberg convinces them to wait for the ‘Right Guy‘. It’s simple pragmatism for a woman not to bet her reproductive future on an unproven commodity so early in life. If she does, and it works out for the best, she’s practically sainted by the Sisterhood for her prudence and sacrifice for him. Behind every great man is a woman, right?

But if she chooses unwisely and her life goes to hell she’s wasted her own potential on a bad bet. Social conventions can mitigate this of course. Men can always be blamed for her downfall, but she’s still saddled with the consequences of that bad bet. And it is exactly these consequences of a bad Hypergamous choice that the Feminine Imperative will bend all its power to legally and socially insure against for women (i.e. legal abortion, child support laws, #MeToo, the Duluth Model of feminism).

All of this is why women are pushing their decision to marry, if at all, back to older and older ages. The average age of first marriage today is 27-28 for women, and the overall marriage rate has been in free-fall for decades now. This is why. This evolved dynamic is conflicting with our present age’s social imperatives for women and the falsehoods they are conditioned to believe about their sex from the earliest ages.

If you liked this topic you can also listen to my discussion about it with Donovan Sharpe here:

Raiders of the Lost Covenant

I hate to begin an essay with an apology, but I feel like one is in order this time. For the past year and a half I’ve been invested in writing my fourth book, The Rational Male – Religion. This required a degree of perseverance, dedication in research, feedback, interviews and general behind the scenes dialoging that I’ve never had to involve myself in before. As a result, I’m less able to devote myself to writing this blog as well or as regularly as I believe I should. For that I’m apologizing here for skipping a week more often than I should.

I’m enjoying every minute of the work I’m putting into the new book, but it is taxing. A criticism I always get is that my books are just re-edits of this blog’s essays, and “Why should anyone buy your books if they can get it all for free here?” Ironically, these are also the critics who berate me for selling out, or they assume pushing my Red Pill books is all I do for a living [insert eye-roll here].

Well, not this time. This time the book will be (almost) entirely fresh material and this takes time, effort and concentration. There will be some material from a handful of past essays, but about 85% of the book is new material.

This process began prior to my publishing Positive Masculinity in July of 2017. I knew then, while still writing my third book, I wanted to do a book on how the Red Pill awareness of intersexual dynamics intertwined with religions and religious mindsets for the series. I began to do some casual research in Spring of 2017 as an aside to the third book. This quickly snowballed into a part time job for me. Now, add this to my schedule with:

  • The Red Man Group
  • My own YouTube presence
  • A few regular live spots and interviews I do
  • Red Pill 101 I do with Pat Campbell every Sunday
  • The keynote talks I’ll be giving at three 21 Conventions in 2019
  • Producing a new liquor brand for my real job this year

Anyway, that’s my way of saying I feel bad for missing a week or two on this blog. The Rational Male will always be my comfortable place to come home to and I want to let you all know, just because I’m posting less in the comments doesn’t mean I don’t read every one. In fact, this is one of the only forums, among dozens, I make a point to keep up with consistently.

Covenant vs. Contractual Marriage

Since digging into the new book I’ve gotten in the habit of comparing notes with various religious personalities who I think might give me a better perspective into how aspects of the Red Pill dovetail into religion. Everyone from Jewish Rabbis to Greek Orthodox ministers (?), to the Muslim faithful, to Evangelical pastors have been on my discussion list for two years now. One notable of late was Dr. Everett Piper, the recently retired president (chancellor?) of Oklahoma Wesleyan University.

Dr. Piper has a regular segment on the Pat Campbell radio show that comes on a half hour before I go on with Pat every Friday morning at 9:05am EST. The link to all our archives is in the sidebar.

Listen to the full discussion here

Last Friday Dr. Piper and I had a discussion about the state of marriage today. I’m loathe to call it a proper “debate” because there’s a lot that he and I agree on with respect to the value of marriage for men and women – at least, the value of what marriage had in the past and should mean to men and women going forward. Marriage is always going to be a persistent hot button issue in the Manosphere. Depending on what your personal, moral and/or rational beliefs are, marriage is something to be actively avoided or something only to enter into with the most serious degree of vetting and caution. Today’s marriage is defined by the dangers it poses to men. Unfortunately, this caution is rarely a consideration for most Blue Pill conditioned, Beta men.

Another area that Dr. Piper and I (and the Manosphere) agree on is the ‘feels before reals‘ priority our feminine-primary social order has embedded in our social consciousness. Today, the “correct” way to address a decision is to lead with our emotions, but it’s exactly this ‘feelings first’ idea that leads men to disregard the life-damaging potential that modern marriage poses to them.

I took the pro-avoidance side of this discussion. And, as usual, I always have to qualify my doing so first; Yes, I’ll be married for 23 years in July. Yes, I’m still happily married to the same woman and have never been divorced, nor have I ever considered divorce. My marriage’s success is directly attributable to my Red Pill awareness and putting it into practice. Mrs. Tomassi and I are still very much in love, we’ve raised a gorgeous and smart daughter to adulthood, and I think my marriage is as close to most people’s ideal as can be.

And yes, I would still never remarry were I to find myself single tomorrow – I simply cannot endorse marriage, as it exists today, as a good idea for any young man. Remember, this is coming from a guy with a damn good marriage. As MGTOWs are fond of saying, endorsing marriage today is leading the lambs to slaughter. I agree. It is simply, statistically, the worst decision a man can make in his life at present, yet so many men want to believe they won’t be one of those statistics.

This confuses a lot of people. Fundamentally, I think the institution of monogamous marriage has been one of the bedrocks of success for western civilization. Marriage is a good idea; it’s how we execute it in the late 20th and 21st centuries that makes it one of the worst prospects imaginable for men. So, I’m technically not anti-marriage; I’m anti-never-saw-it-coming-Pollyana-how-could-she-do-this-to-me?-hypergamy’s-doesn’t-care marriage.

This was my position going in to this talk with Dr. Piper. Have a listen to the whole segment if you have the time, but what we distilled it down to is the idea of a Covenant Marriage vs. a Contractual Marriage. This was the premise used to describe the divide between marriage how it should be done – religiously, personally, devotionally, how it was done in the past – and the way marriage is now – the worst contractual liability a man can enter into. Needless to say a lot of qualifications followed this.

By my understanding a Covenant marriage presumes a mutual religious reverence and understanding of what is expected of a man and a woman before they enter into marriage. It is founded on the agreement of two individuals who believe they are better together than they are apart. On paper this sounds good, but it presupposes quite a bit – particularly on the part of that woman today. I’ll detail the reasons why in a bit, but I take the Covenant definition of marriage to mean that there’s a mutual understanding between the man and woman that they are marrying for love in accordance to what they believe is their religious and monogamous obligation. Fine. We’ve got a model for marriage that is set apart from the Contractual model.

The Contractual marriage is one based on mutual support and an insurance that this support will continue even if the marriage itself dissolves. MGTOWs liken this to a bad business contract that, were it not marriage, no right-thinking man would ever agree to sign off on.

Contractual marriage is the standard for today. Dr. Piper sees this model as the “what can I get from my partner marriage“, but you can decide for yourself if you listen to the discussion. I think this is a bit disingenuous since it implies that men’s only consideration for agreeing to what amounts to a bad business contract would in any way make sense due to a desire for getting what he can out of what’s already a bad deal. Why marry at all if what you’re taking away from it is nothing you can’t get outside of marriage without the risk?

Essentially, Contractual marriage is the marriage-divorce-support structure that men are wisely hesitant about today. Dalrock once noted that sometime after the Sexual Revolutionwe moved away from the marriage model of child rearing and into the child-support model of child rearing“, and I think the Contractual model of marriage becoming the default was an integral part of this.

If you’ve ever watched the documentary Divorce Incorporated you can see the machinations of the Contractual form of marriage at work. This is just a taste of some of the real world consequences that accompany Contractual marriage’s liabilities. However, I think going in – and with the emphasis on leading with our feelings – most men have idealistic, Covenant marriage, expectations for their marriages.

It sounds pretty good, right?

And for the premarital sex mindset it’s the only game in town if they want sexual access. So, it serves a purpose to convince oneself that a man’s spouse is necessarily on the same page as they are with respect to his idealistic concept of love (versus a woman’s opportunistic concept of love). This is where most Beta men get themselves into trouble. They presume their ‘bride‘ to be shares his mutual idea of love, and combined with a potent cocktail of dopamine and endorphins, he leads with his Emotional Process rather than his Rational Process.

Off the Books Marriage

While we also discussed the issue of Responsibility vs. Authority in marriage, what got me was his marching back the question about separating a ‘Covenant’ marriage from the ‘Contractual’ marriage. This is something I’ve discussed with MGTOWs occasionally. Would marriage work if you removed the state and any entitlement to the cash & prizes liabilities from the equation?

I brought this up because this “private ceremony”, off-the-books unofficial marriage is what saved my friend Anthony Johnson from losing his ass in his own divorce. He wasn’t wise enough to see through his ex’s deceits, but he was smart enough not to involve the state in his marriage.

I was genuinely surprised to hear Dr. Piper disagree with the idea of separating the marriage models we’d discussed at the time, but to have him state that he wasn’t willing to somehow give up on the heroic fight to reform the ‘Contractual’ marriage was, in hindsight, kind of disingenuous. In both instances, with respect to headship and authority, and the reluctance to let go of the contractual definition of marriage (especially after making such an impassioned case for a covenant marriage) I can only come to the conclusion that Dr. Piper’s position on marriage is influenced by the feminist undercurrent prevalent in the church today – and without his really realizing it too.

Once again the fiscal considerations of not offending women’s (feminist influenced) sensibilities comes to the fore in another religious leader. This has been a constant theme among the Pastors and church leaders I’ve been interviewing since I started the fourth book.

Churches are business franchises today and if you want to keep the tithe checks forthcoming in order to keep the lights on pastors and church leaders need to prioritize the sensibilities of the primary consumer in the western world – women. It’s gotten to the point now that church leaders have internalized that women’s eyes and ears will be judging their words minutely in sermons and public appearances to ensure their Pastor is on ‘team woman’. This is why opposing a separation of Covenant marriage vs. the Contractual is literally a ‘no brainer’ for these men. They don’t ever think about it any other way because they’ve already adopted the feminist zeitgeist that’s assimilated their churches. To endorse that separation is to deny women their potential for cash & prizes if a man displeases God by making them unhappy.

I think maybe I expected more from Dr. Piper. I was hoping to find some common ground, but I think he may be committed to a doctrine that panders to the Feminine Imperative without realizing it. When we got to the part about headship (Corinthians) he came right out the gate with pre-qualifying headship vs. being a domineering asshole. I’ve come to expect this from a female-primary church that deemphasizes male authority. In fact, it redefines that ‘authority’ as responsibility before you get to discuss any other aspect of what women might allow as “headship”.

It’s like a mental illness with these people. If a wife isn’t perfectly happy and beautiful it’s the husbands fault.

It’s a disgusting view of marriage which can only increase unhappiness for the average Christian couple because there’s no way to keep a woman happy all the time, and, age means women are going to get old. It’s part of life, and it is enough for a woman to age gracefully without these Pastors trying to brainwash men into thinking that any lack of beauty is their fault.

7817 dalrocks Blog

Imperfect Men Vet Imperfect Women for Imperfect Marriages

The “You should’ve vetted better” or “You should’ve married a ‘real’ Christian woman” excuses are something I encounter a LOT from Christian church leaders. Dr. Piper also used this one too. It’s really the Christian version of the Quality Woman dilemma.

As I’m working my way through my fourth book and on The Red Pill & Religion this is one cop out I get regularly. Apparently no ‘real’ Christian woman would ever initiate divorce and if men were only Godly and wise enough to discern from the outset of ‘courting’ that their “bride” wasn’t a fully devoted woman of Christ then it’s their fault for marrying her – or their fault for screwing up God’s perfect plan for his married life later in the marriage. This is ex post facto rationalization that reinforces moralistic beliefs, but also justifies the reaming you’re going to take in divorce court for not being wise and Godly.

It’s basically another play on the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. “They not ‘real’ Christians/Muslims/Jews/Krishnas/etc.” should be the subtitle for my new book, I’ve heard so many times.

Deus Vult

When it comes to debating church leaders I simply cannot win the “God says so” clause. This is another obstacle to discussing Red Pill ideas in a religious context. It’s an appeal to faith that is always the go-to response to issues I bring up that they have no real answer to. That, or they don’t want to answer for fear of offending the Feminine Imperative in the church today.

Contractual” marriage is an all-downside proposition for men today. I tried to make my best case for why men shun it in the discussion. Naturally, there’s a common impulse for Publicity Pastors to AMOG from the pulpit and shame men for avoiding marriage, but they can’t argue against the marriage stats and the life-destroying fallout of divorce for men. It’s all too verifiable. The marriage & divorce rates today are unignorable, so men deductively go with the pragmatic response and avoid marriage or go MGTOW.

All that means nothing to the faithful Christian mindset. “It doesn’t matter if contractual marriage is one of the worst decisions a man can make today – “God says you should marry.”

What about the incentive of cash & prizes women have in divorce?

Doesn’t matter, God said get married

So I can’t argue with the divine creator of the universe. God says jump, so you jump. That’s the absolutist-moralist win button for any rational argument to the contrary.

Alternative link to the interview is here

Discussion at Dalrock’s Blog

Sexual Selection & Existential Fear

Way back in the early years of this blog I wrote a post flipping a common feminist trope on its head. In Women’s Physical Standards I laid out the case that it is women, not men, who hold the most stringent and static standards for ideal male beauty.

…from a purely physical perspective, it is women’s idealized masculine form that hasn’t changed in millennia. While there may have been a Rubenesque period when men loved the fatties of the 1600′s, no such era ever existed for women’s physical preferences. The classic broad chest, wide shoulders, six-pack abs and squared jaws of greco-roman athleticism are still the idealized male form that has graced EVERY romance novel cover in existence. I’m still waiting for someone to post me a link for a dating site that caters exclusively to women’s fetish of BBMs – Big Beautiful Men – average to good looking, fit, women specifically looking overweight men. Executive Introductions caters to women seeking affluent, influential men, but women just looking for overweight men, that site doesn’t exist.

I wrote this essay in a time well before apps like Tinder and Bumble became household names. Since then (September, 2011) the sexual marketplace has fundamentally shifted to exactly the state I saw it going to then, and all it took to prove it was a handful of fuckingdating’ apps to facilitate Hypergamy. In 8 years women have proven they are every bit as viscerally motivated by men’s physical appeal as I spelled out in this post. Back then I was run up the flagpole for suggesting women were the ones with “unrealistic beauty standards”, now it seem matter of fact.

Of course, the double standard has gotten much worse with respect to men having any sexual selection standards. In Maryland we have the instance of high school boys being pilloried on a global stage for daring to rate their female classmates’ looks on a 1 to 10 scale. Ironically, the the same teen girls who took such offense to this will think nothing of swiping left or right on a potentially lover on Tinder in just a few short years. In fact, they’ll think it’s normal for a woman to base her sexual selection on the physical, yet the same is sexual objectification for men to do the same. Certainly, men will never be allowed to voice their physical preferences without the fear of personal destruction in our Global Village.

About 5-6 months ago, Pat Campbell, my co-host on Red Pill 101, linked me to a pair of stories about how offensive some social justice warriors found it that young men were avoiding trans-gender ‘girls‘ as potential dates. The logic was that more evolved heterosexual young men should feel attraction towards a trans-gender, biological male, if he was presenting himself as a female. The natural sexual selection process for those young men, and by extension all men, was being circumvented by the social imperatives of others.

Pat also linked me to a story where a popular, heterosexual, high school quarterback accepted the Homecoming Dance proposal of another homosexual young man. As expected, the story was written as a heartwarming victory for modern progressivism and a young man “secure in his masculinity” praised as a hero for essentially accepting a social control over his sexual selection process. Naturally, the predictable hate to overcome would be from ‘less evolved’ guys alleging the quarterback was really gay.

This is the pre-written script we expect will follow (the clichéd triumph over homophobia), but the real story here is that a young man’s sexual selection process has been removed from his direct control. If the quarterback had refused the proposal the best he could hope for would be that no story would be written about it – but the more likely story would be him having to defend himself against his homophobia. In essence, the threat of a global online mob ruining his future makes accepting the proposal a necessity.

In 2019 men’s control over their sexual selectivity is something women don’t want to hear about. Part of ensuring that Hypergamy is the defining social dynamic today includes exercising as much control over men’s sexual selection process as possible. As fluid as men’s selection naturally is, it’s still out of women’s total control. The method to that control is social pressure. Women’s need to insure against their own Existential Fear of pairing with an unacceptable guy is so obsessive they will resort to social engineering.

Tinder and Bumble are social engineering programs as much as they are facilitators of women’s Hypergamy. Body Positivity / Fat Acceptance (exclusively for women) is equally a social conditioning effort. But for these and more the latent purpose is the same – convincing men to repress their evolved sexual selection proclivities in favor of accepting women’s selection process as the ‘correct’ one. The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies states that for on sex’s strategy to succeed the other’s must be compromised or abandoned. In today’s feminine-primary social order, the Feminine Imperative wants nothing less than complete abandonment from men – and it will use every social and political means available to insure men do.

Men must be raised up and conditioned from the earliest age to accept women’s strategy and their role in it as the only acceptable one. Men’s selection of a mate must be made for him according to women’s standards. Many times I’m asked how to go about “vetting for a wife”. I’m asked what the criteria, what aspects, what traits should a woman possess to make her “marriage material”. From a Red Pill perspective a lot of what I lay out seems highly offensive to the sensibilities of men and women conditioned by the Feminine Imperative. But the qualities, and the reasons I define them being desirable, are nothing any man who is invested in his own sexual strategy wouldn’t find mundane.

It’s not difficult to figure out what attributes in women would make for a good pairing – what’s offensive is that a man would ever have the temerity to require a woman to possess them at all.

It’s offensive to feminized sensibilities for a man to speak aloud the things he wants from a woman. How dare he ever have the presence of mind to create a list of acceptable qualities for a potential long term mate. Who is he to make demands? Has he not learned that Hypergamy and women’s needs now define his existence?

I’ve written in the past about how women commodify their own sexuality. We’ve pandered to the security needs of women for so long they feel entitled to their being met. We’ve developed a social order that’s prime directive is to insure against women’s Existential Fear of ever having to worry about a bad Hypergamous decision. We ensure that they can voluntarily reproduce at will via sperm banks and frozen eggs. We demand that men find them arousing no matter what their physical condition and in spite of 100,000 years of evolved arousal cues. Gynocentrism demands men be nothing more than willing participants in women’s sexual / life strategies.

A day ago I posted this quote on Twitter:

Women only see men as breeding stock or draft animals.

Women and their ‘allies’ lost their collective minds. Follow that link, see for yourself. It’s a litany of middle school blathering and presumption about my motives for making public what most of these feminists confirmed. All the responses are the predictable boilerplate you’d expect from a generation of women used to parroting back what the Village has taught them to respond with for so long.

But what is my observation revealing here? Nothing that we don’t already know – women define the reproductive process in western culture. And again, most of these feminists proudly agree with the observation. They say, “Yeah, as it should be”, while their oblivious male ‘allies’ seek affirmation.

The boys at the Maryland high school got caught in the gynocratic gears. They weren’t properly conditioned to know their place. They did what most guys in high school do, they compare notes, they make comparisons, because they still believed they might be allowed to have a preference of who they want to date, bang, have for a girlfriend, have for a wife. How dare they!

When the Beta Bucks / provisioning side of the Hypergamous equation is more or less accommodated for by the social order the only thing left is Alpha Fucks. This is Hypergamy on a meta-scale. Why would any woman bother with the notion of Value Added to make herself more ‘marriageable’? Men aren’t allowed to have preferences. They should feel lucky that a woman would date them in the first place. Feminism has taught her that if she is to be the ideal Strong Independent Woman® she is “never to do anything for the express pleasure of a man.” And besides, the exciting guys, the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys who she does swipe right on; those guys don’t care about ‘value added’ – they care about fucking.

The New Polyandry I described is an extension of ensuring women’s Existential Fear is always compensated for on a societal level.

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Roissy

I’ve quoted this in other essays. Usually I’m asked why this would at all be feminists goal?

“You think feminism is all about controlling your dicks?”

In essence, yes, but really it’s about affording women unilateral control over their Existential Fear and absolving them of any consequences for the bad decisions made in controlling for it. In the last essay I stated that Abortion is Eugenics, but isn’t affording women total control of human reproduction eugenics? Isn’t socially engineering and conditioning men’s behavior to accept women’s sexual strategy as the “correct”, normal one eugenics as well?

I would say yes, except, the Sisterhood doesn’t have a ‘master race’ planned. There is no uniform conscious direction to this eugenics. It’s all driven by women natural, evolved mental firmware and impulses – all facilitated by the power afforded to them by men. We’ve unfettered Hypergamy. We’ve allowed women to do something unprecedented in human history, we’ve given women the reins of the direction of human reproduction.

And we’ve done this at the same time we’ve maximally restricted male sexuality. Dr. Jordan Peterson once predicted that in the future any expression of male sexuality will be illegal. I would amend that: any Beta male expression of sexuality will be deemed offensive or illegal.

The Existential Fear – Men

You need to understand WOMEN HATE BETAS in fact they hate them so much that they would prefer to work soul destroying jobs to support themselves than attach themselves to a Beta provider that wants to fuck them and impregnate them with his shitty beta genetics.

Incubus Rising

This was a comment that I meant to include in last week’s essay, but I’m glad I saved it for today’s article. It serves as a good starting point for men’s Existential Fear. If there’s one buzz-term that’s been bandied around by women since the rise of feminism it is “fear“. Men fear this. Men fear that. Men feel “threatened” by a strong woman. More recently it’s, “Men fear working with women today over concerns of workplace sexual misconduct.” So, I want to state here from the outset that I’m using the term fear in both these essays for lack of a better one. But what really gets the point across?

“Rollo, why does it destroy my soul to imagine my ex-wife / ex-girlfriend banging another man? I can’t sleep because I’m imagining her giving up herself sexually to a new guy.”

Some variation of this question is something I get a lot from guys I counsel who are going through a breakup or divorce. Sometimes it’s from men who’ve been separated from the woman for a long time. This is to be expected from Blue Pill conditioned men, but even guys who are Red Pill Aware will still feel the rage of infidelity even after the breakup has been official for years. Guys will tell me they wont even go out socially or associate with friends so as not to be in the same space as their ex for fear that they would do something rash if they saw her with another guy. There’s just something in their DNA that’s unsettling about imagining their ex giving herself willingly to another man – and they’re conflicted because the fem-centric world tells him he’s “insecure in his masculinity” for his possessiveness.

I can remember the same anxiety after I’d mercifully split from my BPD girlfriend. Even years after it was all over I’d still have nightmarish dreams about her. What the hell was that all about? What is our subconscious trying to get across to us with this?…

“Why am I so jealous and suspicious of my wife / girlfriend cheating on me? Should I feel bad that I root through her texts and IMs? Am I just ‘insecure in my masculinity’ if I feel like that? Why am I so possessive?”

This is another common one I get from men I counsel. I detailed a bit of this in Gut Check. Our subconscious mind has a way of warning us when our ‘aware’ mind is unaware of, or ignoring, the inconsistencies in our peripheral awareness. We’re actually much more aware of our environment than we appreciate, we simply refuse to acknowledge these inconsistencies. More often than not that denial is conditioned into us for purposes that aren’t always in our best interests. And sometimes it’s outright manipulative of male nature.

In Gut Check I related a time in my life where I had instinctively been suspicious of my wife because my instinctual awareness turned on the warning lights in my head. I had no rational reason to believe my wife was cheating on me, but I had a very real, evolutionary, reason that my instinctive mind would be suspicious of infidelity. Millennia of evolution has written anti-cheating failsafes into our mental firmware.

“Why are DNA tests illegal in some countries? Why is it illegal for a doctor or their staff to tell a “father” that the child he thinks is his own really isn’t biologically his? Why do we legally protect women’s cuckoldry?”

More and more we are seeing feminine-primary social conventions and legislation crop up that can only have one purpose – the systemic disempowerment and disenfranchisement of men’s interests in the reproductive process. The cover story for this Removing of the Man from any semblance of reproductive authority is what I call the Cult of the Child. I’ll be publishing a full essay on this soon, but the short version is that anything that serves women’s sexual strategy is always deemed to be “in the best interests of the child.” The interests of children has become the shield of what is really the interests of women’s sexual strategy.

For decades now, feminist ideology has successfully convinced most western societies that what serves the female reproductive interests is always what serves the a child’s interests. Men are superfluous at best, and pose a danger to the child at worst. This presumption is rooted in the Duluth Model of feminism, but women’s sexual strategy always comes at the cost of the reproductive interests of the man/father. I wrote about this in Children of Men. There is an open war on paternity today, but as with all intersexual conflict we need to look deeper to determine what the latent purpose of that conflict is all about. What interests are served in unilaterally disenfranchising men from the reproductive process?

Existential Fear

The answer to all of these questions finds their root in men’s Existential Fear – All men have an evolved need to determine and ensure his paternity.

Ascertaining paternity, and ensuring his parental investment is vested in perpetuating his genetic legacy, is the prime directive of men’s existence. This is a male imperative that virtually all higher order animals share.

Despite what many blank-slate academics still promote, men and women are different. Contemporary thinkers would have us believe the sexes are more alike than not, but the truth of it is we are different in fundamental ways that most equalists are uncomfortable admitting. Yes, we are the same species, but the fact remains that our differences, and in particular our sexual strategies, conflict in profound ways.

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other
gender must compromise or abandon its own.

In last week’s essay I outlined the the Existential Fear women hold in their evolved unconscious – that of the Hypergamous doubt. “Is this guy the best I can do?” is the question that their hindbrains ask. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution, and the systemic Fempowerment that followed, women have collectively used this authority to ensure the preeminence of their sexual strategy (Hypergamy) in our social order. I outlined many of the resulting social changes we see were the result of this in last week’s post, but this preeminence came at the cost of men’s interests and influence in the larger, meta-conflict of the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies.

Men’s evolved reproductive interest is very simple; ensure that the child a woman bears to him is his actually his own. Up until the last 60 or so years patriarchy, true, legitimate patriarchy has always been the order of society. Despite the ignorance of feminists protesting it, patriarchy has been a beneficial aspect of our advancement as a species since we formed tribal hunter-gatherer bands millennia ago. But that patriarchy depended on a simple doubt that formed men’s base sexual strategy – ensure his genes were passed into the next generation.

There are two ways a man can achieve this outcome. In The New Polyandry I explained men’s Strategic Pluralism Theory:

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

Essentially, men follow an ‘r’ or ‘K’ reproductive strategy according to their (perceived) sexual market value (SMV). Since a majority of men fall on the low SMV side of the reproductive equation social conventions that served those men’s reproductive interests had to be developed and standardized. The resolution of men’s Existential Fear needed to be instituted and standardized to ensure the largest number of men could be relatively certain that the children they sired were indeed their own.

A lot is made of women’s reproductive costs in academia. In a fem-centric social order it pays to focus on women’s suffrage/victimhood narrative. But, men bear reproductive costs in this equation as well. Men’s biological imperative is unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Our best shot at sending our genes into the next generation is ‘spreading the seed’. Our biological hardware is made to do just this, but there are costs and obstacles to solving the reproductive problem. And the easiest solution for men has always been exercise their direct control over women’s sexual strategy. Imposing our natural strength (in many forms) on women has historically ensured that it’s women who were the ones to compromise their sexual strategy in favor of men.

Patriarchy & Monogamy

Socially enforced monogamy was the least barbaric of those compromises, but in this century destroying that monogamy has been a priority for the Feminine Imperative. In theory, socially enforced monogamy was the most beneficial mating strategy for largest number of (low SMV) men to solve their reproductive problem. But the fact remained that it was still an exercise of control over women’s Hypergamous natures. In essence, monogamy worked for men, and it was beneficial as a compromise in parental investment for women, but it also assumed direct a control over women’s sexual selection process.

Patriarchy and monogamy answered a woman’s Hypergamous doubt for her, and that is the crux of women’s Existential Fear – to have the control of her Hypergamy, her selection process, and ultimately the cost associated with that choice determined for her. This fear is exactly why the primary goal of feminism has always been the maximal unlimiting of women’s sexuality and the maximal restricting of men’s sexuality. It seeks to replace the social-scale compromise of the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies with the total capitulation of the male strategy. Today, the Gynocracy has achieved this almost entirely.

But for one sex’s strategy to succeed, the other’s must be compromised or abandoned. For a gynocentric social order, only men’s abandonment of their own strategy is acceptable – and this abandonment insists men deny the evolved imperative of their own Existential Fear – insisting on paternity.

In the evolved scheme of things men’s reproductive best interest involves sacrifices. When a man commits to parental investment with a woman he takes on sunk cost risks. The time he spends investing himself committed to one woman and the children they produce comes at the cost of reproductive opportunities with other women. Women’s sexual strategy necessitates he compromise or abandon his biological imperative. Naturally, both men and women have adapted ways to circumvent monogamy to optimize their sexual strategies (infidelity, short-term breeding schema), but the basic equation is the same; if a man is invested in one woman it limits him from seeking other (potentially better) reproductive opportunities. If you want to know why Plate Theory irks women so much look no further.

The only way this compromise of sexual strategy can be advantageous to men is if he can be relatively assured that the child he’s raising is his own. This is where men’s Existential Fear of paternity fraud begins. He cedes his own strategy and the sunk opportunity cost for reproduction in exchange for the certainty that he’s invested in a child that bears his name and his blood.

I call this men’s Existential Fear because denying men the certainty of paternity presents the same existential anxieties as a woman’s control of Hypergamous doubt taken from her. Women fear the idea of being forced to birth and raise the child of a suboptimal man not of her choosing, while men fear the idea of being deceived into raising a child not of their own genetic lineage. And until the advent of DNA testing only a woman could be certain that the child was her own.

This is root level stuff here. So important was the determination of paternity for men that an obsessive concern for it was written into our mental firmware. The risks of falling for paternity deception was that important, and the men who evolved this compulsion were selected-for. The reason we Mate Guard, the reason our hindbrains default to jealous suspicions, the reason we cannot bear the thought of another man mating with our woman is rooted in the fear of investing ourselves in a child not our own.

In the previous essay I mentioned the natural revulsion response humans have towards things that are inherently harmful to us. A reservation or revulsion of snakes, spiders, feces, rot and necrosis are part of the evolved firmware we’re born with. I would also argue that the revulsion women feel towards “creepy” (low SMV, Beta) men and the revulsion men feel towards “slutty” women is part of this. Both these revulsions are adaptational protections against our respective Existential Fears. Each represents our Instinctual Interpretive Process letting us know what our ancestors had to avoid.

The Mentor

“But Rollo, isn’t it a noble thing to adopt or mentor a child that is not your own?”

I get this response a lot when I discuss this, and yes, it absolutely can be when the choice to do so is of your own making. In fact, the reason adoption/mentoring seems such a noble undertaking is exactly because it requires a man to repress his natural concern for his ow paternity. Kinship affinity will always play a role in men and women’s relationships with the next generation. Human beings are innately tribal and familial because tribalism promotes the advancement of selected genes. So repressing this innate predisposition is exceptional, maybe even noble depending on the social context, but it is so because it requires a man to ignore his natural wiring. For what it’s worth, I think multi-generational mentorship in Red Pill awareness is going to be a new imperative in the coming decades.

It’s just this pushing past our natural, evolved, concerns about paternity that’s been the operative dynamic of the Feminine Imperative in consolidating power. The human revulsion response can be molded. Usually this is through some form of operant conditioning. Revulsion can even be conditioned to be associated with pleasure. The Feminine Imperative has been remolding men’s evolved need for paternity to its own ends for some time now.

The popularization of ‘Poly Relationships is one of the more recent redirects of men’s paternity need. As I mentioned above, the goal state of the Feminine Imperative is ensuring that women’s sexual strategy – and anything that foments it – is the socially ‘correct‘ imperative. Men must become more like women if they want to be accepted by a social order defined by women’s experiences. Men’s sexual strategy is only acceptable when it serves a woman’s purpose, so men’s existential imperative of ensuring paternity is always going to be in conflict with women’s strategy. A man insisting on his own paternity and the perpetuation of his name is in direct conflict with women ensuring she chooses to breed with the best specimen and be provided for by the best male she can lock down.

This being the mechanics of it, it comes as no surprise that the social conventions of this era encourage men to abandon that evolved need. We make “heroes” of men who marry the single mother and assume the parental investment costs of the man she chose to breed with. A fem-centric society makes this a noble responsibility – “He Manned Up for the loser who wouldn’t take that responsibility” – all while ignoring the simple fact that this ‘hero’ is only completing women’s Hypergamous imperative. And it’s come to the point that a man abandoning his sexual strategy is part of women’s expectations and entitlements of Beta men.

For the men who insist on their own strategy, the message is one of shame. Only a man who’s “insecure in his masculinity” would think that a child would need to be his own. In fact, the very title of “father” is offensive to a social order based fulfilling women’s imperatives. Father’s Day must become, ‘special persons’ day‘. Men should never insist that a wife assume his last name. And of course, DNA testing to determine paternity (even in light of life threatening illness) is to be discouraged if not outlawed.

Now You Know

In The War on Paternity I explored a lot of the ways our feminine-primary social order ensures women’s sexual strategy stays the operative one. Our divorce laws, our child support and custody laws all center on one thing – making sure women’s imperatives supersede men’s need for paternity certainty. Even when a child is not biologically a man’s, he has no right to know the truth, but he has every expectation to be financially and emotionally responsible for the “best interests of the child.”

Going forward I think the Red Pill aware man must embrace his existential need for paternity – and do so fearlessly. If a new beneficent patriarchy is to take root then men will need to reject the social conventions that insist a woman’s sexual strategy be the preeminent one. I think mentorship of the next generations of young men should also be emphasized, but I think this needs to be a conscious decision of the men doing so. Today we have the decision to be a ‘cuckold’ made for us proactively and retroactively by women and a feminine-primary social narrative. If you’re an adoptive father then I salute you, but understand, at least you had the decision to make yourself. Most men’s decisions to be the step-dad only amounts to him acquiescing to supporting the decisions of women. 43% of births today are out of wedlock, either electively or based on a bad decision by that mother. We also call single mothers ‘heroes’.

My advice to men today is to be aware of the game you’re involved in with respect to how your need to know paternity is being used against you. That need is well known to the Feminine Imperative and has always been a threat to its interests. Make your own decisions to mentor based on that knowledge and never marry a single mother. If you do so understand that your sacrifices of this paternity need will never be appreciated by women. You may believe it’s the “right thing to do”, the moral choice, but in doing so you absolve both the woman who made her decision for you and the biological father of their total responsibility (and the underlying evolutionary reasons) to consequences of that decision.

Remember,…

WOMEN HATE BETAS in fact they hate them so much that they would prefer to work soul destroying jobs to support themselves than attach themselves to a Beta provider that wants to fuck them and impregnate them with his shitty beta genetics.

Are you really willing to accept that your paternity need counts for so little? Are you willing to accept this truth and fulfill a woman’s life strategy in spite of it because you believe it’s your moral imperative to do so?

Women’s Existential Fear

One of the primary perspectives of the Red Pill as a praxeology in understanding intersexual dynamics is evolutionary psychology. Even the ‘Classic Era‘ pickup artists referenced evo-psych, often without realizing it, in explaining various aspects of Game. Mystery Method itself was fundamentally rooted in the understanding of women’s (and men’s) evolutionary ‘circuitry’ as a basis for developing modern Game techniques. These were the first forays into women’s evolved mental firmware as a means to understanding the mating game we experience today – and how to use it to our best advantage as men.

However, that was really just the starting point. The Red Pill is much more dynamic than Game applications. As I’ve developed in other essays (and talks), the fundamentals of how the sexes relate with one another follow our biological realities, but also the environmental and social realities of our ancestral past. We’re still using the same circuitry in this era that our ancestors did in the past, only the context has changed. Today I want to explore the influences the legacy of this ancestry places on men and women, and also attempt to answer some questions as to why men and women fear certain aspects of the other’s evolved nature.

In my last article I made a distinction between our ancestral, localized, sexual marketplace versus the globalized SMP we find ourselves in today. This is a good starting point. In our hunter-gatherer beginnings our potential mates either came from within our tribal groups, or, when our tribe managed to overwhelm another tribe, we took war brides to breed with. This is what defined our localized SMP in the past. In fact I’d argue that a deficit in ‘marriageable’ females from within a local tribe was actually a prime motivator for going to war with an outside tribe. This is an important distinction because a lot of those same motivational dynamics are reflected today’s global SMP, and how modern intersexual dynamics have evolved.

A Need for Control

A lot of the need for social control we see coming from women and feminism today is part of an ancestral, evolved desire on the part of women to seek security in a chaotic world. Ever since the advent of unilaterally female-controlled contraception, the Sexual Revolution, and the rise of the Gynocracy, an unprecedented power over the birthing process of the human race has been transferred to only one of the two sexes necessary to perpetuate our species.

“Abortion is Eugenics” (or dysgenics) is a saying I’ve been seeing on Twitter recently. Since the Sexual Revolution we’ve not just ’empowered’ women, but men have systematically ceded any claim to our own paternity while at the same time presumed that women should, by default, be trusted with knowing what’s best for the human birthing process and raising new generations. But it’s not just abortion that is eugenics, it’s also Hypergamy and the dozens of other aspects of intersexual dynamics that western societies just presumes women should know best how to proceed with. We took the women of the Baby Boom generation at their collective word that they’d be more merciful rulers than men if we just gave them the option to be sexual with us. We foolishly believed women would police the worst aspects of their own sexual strategy after we willingly ceded power in exchange for sexual access.

Last month a reader sent me a link to a story about how Ireland had just ceded more of its own authority over their country’s reproductive fate to women by legalizing abortion. The very Catholic island of Celts has made Hypergamy its ruling motive after many years of feminist pressure. Irish women celebrated the decision to allow them to kill their unwanted children. In fact many Catholic countries all over South America are in various stages of legalizing abortion. But the sentiment about abortion in this decade is no longer one of it being a necessary evil as it was in the time of Roe vs. Wade. Today it’s cause for overt celebration among women and men alike.

Before I get run up the flagpole by critics here, my opposition to abortion does not (primarily) stem from moral reasons, it stems from objectively following the power dynamics involved and the latent purpose for abortion. Abortion is eugenics; it is the ceding of any claim to influencing paternity that men may have had for the past 100,000 years of human evolution.

So, why will women fight tooth and nail for the ‘right’ to free and safe abortion over the course of multiple generations? Why is the right to end her (and the father’s) child’s life in utero such an imperative for women?

Ask women and the feminist boilerplate answer is always “My body, my choice!“, but why is it so important to cut men entirely out of the reproductive process? What is the motivation for legally disenfranchising men from even 1% of a say in a child that is at least half his genetic legacy? This is also one of the greatest of offenses to women; that a man might have some control over women’s bodies. “Hands off my uterus!” that too is another rallying cry, but why is it such an abhorrent thought that men might have some influence in who gets born and who doesn’t?

Existential Fears & The Hypergamous Filter

There are certain fears that human beings are born with. Our evolved mental firmware is highly attuned to our own survival. That may seem simple, but we’re born with certain instinctual reservations about our environments. Snakes, spider, animals with sharp pointy natural weapons are critters we don’t have to be taught to stay away from. That fear, that caution, is part of our onboard system when we leave the womb. The same is generally true of heights and tight confined places. We also have a very defined natural instinct for revulsion. There’s actually an entire area of evo-psych study devoted to the human revulsion response. Part of our innate firmware makes us disgusted by feces, dead carcasses and putrefaction. If it’s unsanitary and might make us sick or diseased ourselves we’re repelled by it – unless we’re conditioned not to be.

The above are some pretty basic existential fears most people have. We have evolved inbuilt firmware that does its best to keep us alive, but there are other, more complex fears and accompanying revulsions that look out for our wellbeing too. The one I want to focus on here is what the Red Pill refers to as the Hypergamous Filter. That’s kind of a loose way of saying women have innate revulsions and distrusts of men who would otherwise like nothing better than the experience of having sex with them.

From our ancestral past right up until the Sexual Revolution in the mid-1960s a woman having sex was fraught with dangerous consequences. For about 100,000 years evolution wrote a breeding subroutine into the hindbrains of every human female – always doubt a man’s quality.

The Hypergamous Filter has many ways of determining quality. Last week I mentioned that women universally use a man’s height as a physical qualification for arousal/attraction. That’s one obvious criteria; check the height box, move on. I have mentioned in other essays that Hypergamy is always based on doubt – doubt that a man is the best she can do – but also the doubt as to whether that guy will stick around and stay committed to parental investment.

This Hypergamous doubt is an existential fear for women.

“What if he’s faking it?”
“What if he really isn’t who he claims to be?”
“Will he stick around after sex?”
“What if I get pregnant with his child?”

These questions, these doubts, do not stem from a woman’s Rational Interpretive Process, they are deeply rooted in her Instinctual Process.

These questions are asked beneath a woman’s cognition, and as such they comprise part of an unconscious Hypergamous filtering process that is linked to both the revulsion instinct and genuine sexual desire. This is a risk aversion instinct that has very real, life-threatening, implications to it. This is a self-preservation skepticism on the limbic level and it is the primary existential fear a woman has. And women will do anything to alleviate it. Women will do anything to ensure they have failsafes against the life-threatening consequences of having that Hypergamous filter deceived.

Why is there a ceaseless effort to criminalize PUAs approaching women on the street? Because it implies a deception of a Beta male impersonating an Alpha male for the purposes of sex. This is a crime against the Existential Fear.

The Existential Fear in women is that their innate Hypergamous Filter, their Feminine Intuition, might be fooled, and by being fooled she may either die or have her reproductive potential compromised for her lifetime by bearing and raising the child of man who is a suboptimal Hypergamous choice for her – a man who exerted his will over her Hypergamous choosing filters.

In our ancestral past, pregnancy, and/or parental investment, could be a death sentence if a woman’s Hypergamous Filter wasn’t supremely sensitive and obsessively refined. The Hypergamous Filter also evolved as a contingency against men’s biological imperative – unlimited access to unlimited sexuality.

That’s not to say pair bonding wasn’t a feature of our ancestral past, it was also a foundational aspect of mating, but it is to say that a man’s investment cost was much lower than a woman’s when it came to reproduction. That’s simple biology defining a sexual strategy for men. Pair bonding would usually last as long as it took for that child to reach survival autonomy (4-7 years). And that’s not accounting for men’s proclivity to seek extra-pair mating opportunities while pair bonded. I’ll explore this in the next essay.

Fast Times in the 21st Century

Now lets fast forward the Existential Fear and the Hypergamous Filter up to the last 60 years or so. One of the most socially destabilizing inventions of the 20th century was affording women the option to invest herself, or not, in the choices she made about her own sexuality. Unilaterally female-controlled birth control was effectively the greatest Hypergamous failsafe ever invented. It released women from the responsibility of a bad Hypergamous decision. But what it didn’t do is erase that filtering process from women’s psyches. We take it for granted, but HBC (hormonal birth control) unfettered Hypergamy for the first time in human history. And as a result men ceded more and more of their paternal interests in the human reproductive process over to women in exchange for the promise of pregnancy-free sexual access. Ostensibly, unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Needless to say this also exacerbated women’s sexual strategy to tactically filter out unwanted males and emphasize sex with chosen males.

But the greatest sexual bargain of the 20th-21st century catastrophically backfired on men because, for all the boons of HBC, it couldn’t rewrite 100,000 years of evolved Hypergamy. And, if anything, it exacerbated women’s desire for failsafe’s against the Existential Fear of having her Hypergamous Filter fooled by deceptive men.

The social and political power men ceded to women in the wake of the Sexual Revolution has been used for one unitary purpose by women – to ensure against the Existential Fear. Why is abortion now something to be celebrated rather than mournfully accepted as necessary evil of this century? Because it alleviates the Existential Fear of bearing and raising the product of a bad Hypergamous choice.

Why did no fault divorce morph into the misandrous divorce industry we have today? It alleviates the Existential Fear. A one-sided divorce industry ensures security, support and resources that would’ve otherwise been her undoing in times before the pill. Why are the stigmas of single motherhood that existed just 60 years ago now replaced with rewarding women for their choice to become single mothers? It alleviates the Existential Fear.

When women were afforded unprecedented power and influence their first order of business was directed at changing laws to alleviate the Existential Fear. Virtually every social change, every political change, every egoistic “you go gurl” self-entitlement since the Sexual Revolution that women have initiated has had one latent purpose – alleviating the Existential Fear.

And finally, why is it that Red Pill awareness, practicing Game, a united Manosphere, and yes, even MGTOW, are perceived as an existential threat to the Feminine Imperative?

Because it all threatens to upset the security that women believe they’re entitled to in creating failsafes for women’s Existential Fear. Exposing the machinations of the Blue Pill and teaching men to unplug from a system that makes them a utility in a female-correct social order is an intolerable threat to women’s security from the Existential Fear, but it is also a new challenge the power base that security is built upon.

This is part one of a blog series.

State of the Manosphere 2018

Tonight at 10pm eastern my State of the Manosphere address goes live. I’ll be answering question in real time in the chat, but once this is up and on the 21 Convention You Tube channel I’ll be answering Q&A primarily on the comment thread of this post.

As I’ve mentioned in my last few posts, much of what I predicted to come for the next two years, with respect to our gender politics landscape, has come to pass far sooner than I expected. I fully expect the 2019 Super Bowl advertising to be a parade of misandrous hate directed at what the Feminine Imperative perceives as their ideological and political enemies – conventionally masculine men.

Furthermore, the scope of the APA’s guidelines about masculinity is revealing itself to be much more extensive with respect to ideological purity than any real science.

The APA ruling ‘traditional’ masculinity as a psychological disorder is also proving itself to be a part of a much larger coordinated attack on who the #resistance and #MeToo believe will be their primary opposition in the coming election cycle. The Gillette agitprop video and the PETA video were only the opening salvos to build the groundwork against conventional masculinity. I’ve seen damn near every article decrying ‘toxic’ masculinity since the beginning of the new year refer to the APA guidelines as a kind of Papal bull for their believers. Expect to see more media use this as a basis for their further demonizing men as we move into the election cycle.

Speaking of which, in the first 3 weeks of 2019 we’ve also seen an almost entirely female set of candidates declare themselves as running for their party’s nomination. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Karen Gillibrand, and a few others couldn’t wait for the clock to strike midnight on December 31st, 2018. This was also something I alluded to in our December 29th episode of The Red Man Group; a vagina will be a prerequisite for consideration for the Democratic nomination in 2020.

Anyway, those were just a few things I saw coming last Fall. Let me know what you think about this talk. A lot of convention attendees told me it was one of my best. I hope you think so too.

The New Polyandry

About five years ago I wrote a post called You Need Sex. In that essay I asserted a few key points about the importance of a healthy sex life for men. If I’m honest I kind of expected most of the reactions I got from that post and even now it remains one of my more contentious pieces. Even when I was in my Blue Pill youth in the 80s and 90s I’d run across the guys who always wanted to deemphasize sex in some reverse-psychology effort to get women to believe that they were deeper than the guys who just wanted to bang them. These were the guys who’d listen to a girl say something like, “I don’t see why sex is such a big deal to guys” or “Am I just a piece of ass to you?“, they’d take it to heart, and then construct some kind of personalized Game around how they respected women and wanted to really relate with them ‘beyond the sexual’.

That’s exactly what the Blue Pill teaches guys; they should always defer to, empathize with and identify with the feminine. This is Blue Pill conditioning at its most basic. It is a boy/man’s imperative to place women’s existence as more important than his own – and with men’s innate protection instincts for women this Blue Pill training is key to establishing a gynocratic social order.

But guys also have to find some way to set themselves apart from the competition in the Blue Pill sexual marketplace. They have to find someway to make themselves unique in how unlike ‘typical‘ guys they are. The miscalculation is, of course, the belief that the more alike, the more they identify, with (as?) women the likelier a woman would select them for intimacy and reproduction. 

Men are natural problem solvers. It’s part of our evolved firmware to look for solutions to challenges in our environment. This makes us constructive, creative, often innovative and more ready to take risks. It also makes us competitive and that competitiveness extends to the sexual marketplace. So it’s not too much of a stretch to see how Blue Pill conditioned young men might look for creative ways to outdo one another in the ‘female-identification olympics

One way this identification competition gets pushed to new heights is in how well a man might better devalue and abase his own sexual strategy to better accommodate that of the woman he believes will appreciate it. Taken to the binary extreme this means finding some way to devalue all men’s sexual natures. What better way to set oneself apart from other guys than to not be a guy? What better way to empathize with the feminine than to tear down the gender women say they despise?

Does all that seem kind of ridiculous? I used to think this way when I was younger. There was a time I might’ve even jumped on the “masculinity is toxic/confusing/outdated/outmoded/ridiculous” train because I truly believed it was the way to a woman’s vagina heart and mind. Even in the 80s and 90s this was a popular misconception. It wasn’t until I’d been through my first bad breakup that I realized the truth. Then I had nothing to lose by making myself more important than the women I was idealizing and behold! The women I wanted, wanted me – sexually to be sure, but they wanted to lock me down in commitment.

In my 20s I had unwittingly shifted from one sexual strategy to another, and I liked the change. It didn’t happen overnight. I had to learn to adopt the attitude, the swagger, the character that would get me laid, but I found that the most important part of playing the game well was putting my own desires well above those of any woman.

Suddenly I discovered I could easily nail the girls I could only jerk off to in my younger years. I can remember the time I first had sex with a girl I thought was the apex of hotness when I was in my teens. She was the best friend of the girlfriend of the drummer in the band I was in then. Both were swimsuit models and I thought I’d finally reached the goal. It wasn’t until after I dumped her to get with a centerfold model that I knew I’d set my sights too low.

Does that sound like a humblebrag? If you’re still held back by a Blue Pill mindset it probably will. I mentioned on a podcast recently that a majority of men will never know sex as anything but a mitigated, compromised transaction. They’ll never know what it’s like to have a woman lust after them. They’ll never experience the dilated eyes of a woman that would give anything to please him in that moment. Not because she’s obligated, but because her ego is validated at the same time her body is aching to have sex with him.

Strategic Pluralism Theory

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.

from Why Is Muscularity Sexy? Tests of the Fitness Indicator Hypothesis

The latter quote here is a simple outline of Hypergamy, but the first part, Strategic Pluralism Theory is what I want to focus on today because this is where the “sex is no big deal” cop out derives from for men.

The first sexual strategy, the one in which a higher SMV (sexual market value) male can enjoy the sexual experience of many women is a strategy predicated on what our most basic, evolved, biological instinct directs us to. It served ancestral men better to ‘hit it and quit it’ and move on to the next girl as expediently as possible for a variety of reasons. This is also a reason why women’s Hypergamous filtering is a base part of women’s sexual selection process today. The investment cost of becoming pregnant was so high that it became part of women’s evolved firmware to be hypersensitive to reproduction cues as well as parental investment cues (provisioning resources) to ensure survival of herself and her offspring. If you ever wonder why rape is such an existential fear for women you have to understand that this fear is written deep into women’s evolved mental firmware because of men overriding this filtering process by violence.

The first archetype of Strategic Pluralism Theory we could day is the Alpha archetype. This is the guy who has the luxury, by effort or genetic lottery, to pursue what I’d speculate was our ancestors’ pre-agrarian, hunter-gatherer sexual imperative. This is what guys like to call the “Natural” with women. Thanks so any number of intersexual advantages (looks, Game, social proof, preselection) it serves him best to spread the seed and women are only too happy to enjoy him as well. He represents the 20th percentile in the 80/20 Pareto distribution of the sexual marketplace.

This side of Strategic Pluralism Theory reflects the r aspect of the r/K reproductive theory. A lot of well meaning Red Pill theologians seem to think that r/K reproductive selection is only limited to the female side of the equation. I’d also point out that this applies to the male side as well. Hypergamy is women’s evolved sexual strategy, however, I would argue that men’s innate, default sexual strategy is unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. This r strategy is manifested today in our base predilection for pornography. Untempered by societal restraints, Alpha sexual strategy is what men a majority would default to if given the choice. 

More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring.

I’m establishing this perspective to better illustrate the Beta side of Strategic Pluralism Theory. For sake of convenience I’m labeling men who fall into the ‘more attractive men’ category as Alphas. I don’t think this is too much of a stretch for most of my readers, but if you have a problem with this just consider the statistics laid out in the book Dataclysm. A majority of women rate 80-85% of men as “unattractive”. That last 15-20% are our ‘more attractive’ Alphas here.

This then leaves the remaining ‘less attractive men’ as the Beta cohort. 

…the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

This then is the Beta mating strategy and if it sounds like the conventional idea of monogamy you’re not too far off. This is the K side of the r/K selection theory. Before I continue I want to stress that monogamy or non-exclusivity is not a value judgement in this essay. Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks has male sexual strategy implications beyond women’s Hypergamy. I refer to Alpha and Beta as placeholder terms here.

For the Beta side of Strategic Pluralism the reproductive strategy is one that, in part, aligns with one side of Hypergamy. The 80% of ‘less attractive’ men find it necessary to compromise their biological imperative (unlimited access to unlimited sexuality) in order to successfully reproduce. This is the nuts & bolts of what is today being called “enforced monogamy”. While this idea is taken to absurd extremes by critics, the premise is rooted in Strategic Pluralism. Since monogamy serves the largest block of men’s reproductive efforts it follows that it would be the institutionalized standard for ‘civil’ society.

Monogamy is Beta

Monogamy is a social norm, if not an evolutionary norm. A lot has been written about how monogamy in its present incarnation – one man, one woman – is really the result of a post-agrarian social order that optimized the sexual strategy of Beta men. In essence socially-enforced monogamy serves the largest population of Beta males.

However, the tradeoff for women was long term provisioning, protection (in as far as the man was capable) and parental investment – all thing conducive to sustainable futures for women and their children. All that was expected of women was a compromise on the Alpha arousal side of Hypergamy. And naturally, Alpha men and most women found ways to circumvent this socio-sexual adaptation that benefitted women in spite of Beta men. 

Monogamy serves Beta men. Alpha men still get sex, broke or not.

I had the above video passed along to me by a Twitter follower about 2 weeks ago. I think he expected me to take issue with how she was defending ‘gold-diggers’ but, ironically, she unwittingly detailed the basics of Hypergamy and Strategic Pluralism Theory. She’s not wrong. Women’s sexual strategy is optimized in conditions of polygamy and polyandry, while men’s sexual strategy – the Beta sides anyway – is optimized in a condition of socially enforced monogamy. 

What’s really ironic is that this girl discounts what so many men discount when they consider Hypergamy. She couches her total perspective on the Beta Bucks, long-term provisioning side of Hypergamy while conveniently omitting the Alpha Fucks side of Hypergamy. The only consideration she has is for resource transfer – again perpetuating the Beta sex experience – and ignoring the fact that even poor men still get to bang women like her if they’re “hawt’. ‘Monogamy is made to benefit men‘, no it’s made to benefit Beta men; Alpha men solve the reproductive problem irrespective of (in spite of) socially enforced monogamy. ‘Broke men don’t get women‘,…unless they’re hot broke men.

I’ve seen Jordan Peterson and more than a few notable evo-psych professors make a similar mistake. They deliberately make Hypergamy solely about the Beta Bucks side of a dualistic mating strategy. Mostly this misdirection is due to personal bias or a want to present the feminine in a positive light. But likewise we also tend to see focus of men’s sexual strategy centering on what long term resources a man has to measure his worth by. Historically, women have generally been the losers in a social order based on a monogamy that tries to ensure that the most men (majority Beta) are solving the reproductive problem. Because women lacked the same resource generating capacity of men, because up until 50 years ago women needed men to solve the Beta Bucks side of Hypergamy, monogamy was a at least a workable solution to their own reproductive problem.

In 2018 this is no longer the case. For all of the bleating of women wanting a ‘good man’ once they exit the cock carousel, the reproductive problem they’re trying to solve isn’t founded in the Beta Bucks side of Hypergamy it’s on the Alpha Fucks side. For as much as the women in this video tried to defend their mercenary sexual strategy of being justifiable gold diggers they really didn’t need to. All of the provisioning needs side of Hypergamy is relatively provided for for women in western cultures today.

The monogamous priority – the one that tried to ensure that most Beta men reproduced – that priority has now shifted to a neo-polyandry. This new social mechanic attempts to solve the Alpha Fucks side of the reproductive problem for the largest number of women. Just as patriarchal monogamy attempted to aide men who wouldn’t otherwise reproduce, the new polyandry seeks to ensure that even the lowest SMV women are entitled to breed with an Alpha male of their choosing.

Once all social stigma and religious buffers were removed from Hypergamy (since the Sexual Revolution) it has been a rapid shift from a male-beneficial monogamy that’s been the social norm for millennia to a form of polyandry that benefits the female sexual strategy.

I’ll be continuing this post in the next essay, but before I leave this essay let me reiterate the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies: For one sex’s strategy to be fulfilled the other’s must be compromised or abandoned. Think of this on a sociological meta-scale.

Male Authority – Provisioning vs. Duty

I’ve been watching Outlaw King on Netflix recently. There’s a part where the wife of Robert the Bruce says ‘Power is making decisions, and whatever course you are charting, I choose you, my husband’ It struck me that my own wife had said almost these same words to me in 2005. When I’d decided to take a job in Orlando that would uproot us from family and friends. There was no “,…but what about my friends, career, etc.?” from her and I had no hesitation to consider anything but taking the position. She said, “You are my husband, I go where you go.”

How many men hold a default Frame in their marriage? Many women are reluctant to even accept their husband’s last name today. There’s a lot of bullshit reasons for this, but the core truth is that women have no confidence in their man in the long term. They don’t trust his ‘course’. There’s holding Frame, and then there’s establishing a long term Frame, a paradigm, a reality of his own, that defines a man’s authority in his marriage and family relationships. Women today still want marriage, but few want to defer to their husband’s ‘course’. They don’t trust him with her life.

And why would they? For the past four or five generations men have been portrayed in popular culture as untrustworthy. Either they are Beta buffoons in need of women’s uniquely female ‘reasoning’ (which is really male reasoning with breasts) to save them from themselves, or they’re malicious Alpha malcontents (or perverts) also in need of female correction to bring them to female approved justice. It’s the retribution fantasy of feminism played out in popular media, but the societal result is generations of women who have no inherent respect of men and even less trust in any beneficial course they might plot out for them as future wives.

There’s also the male perspective to consider in this. Most men approach their marriage and long term relationships from what is ostensibly an egalitarian perspective. “Equality”, playing fair, being an “equal partner” a pretense of egalitarianism, is all a cover story for a power dynamic that is truly based on resource dynamics. In a ‘modern marriage’, male authority, even just the idea of it, is ceded by default to the woman. I’ll explain why in a moment.

Today’s marriage stats and the socioeconomic variables within marriage point to a very cold truth; if you make less money than your wife, statistically, your marriage is far more likely to dissolve. In couples where a woman outearns her husband divorce rates increase. Virtually every article written about this power dynamic attempts to paint the men involved as ‘feeling threatened‘ by their wives’ success, but the visceral truth can be distilled through the process of women’s Hypergamy. As you might guess, our feminine-centric social order can never allow for an unflattering picture of women, thus men must look like ridiculous, insecure, man-babies – this is another piece of the puzzle – but the stats don’t lie, only the reasoning for them misleads us culturally.

In an “egalitarian” marriage it is actually financial considerations that imbalance that idealistic fantasy of a “coequal partnership”. Men and masculinity are made to look ridiculous, insecure, potentially violent and incompetent on a social scale. This effort to delegitimize anything male has been going on since the late 1960s. The social impact of this has resulted in several generations whose default impression of men in general is one of distrust. Either distrust based in men’s potential for abusiveness, or largely more a distrust based in a default presumption of incompetence. Women cannot trust a man with her life because a majority of men are ridiculous buffoons, no better than big children and now we add that almost 40% of them are outearned by their wives.

Is it any wonder women have no default respect for a man’s course for their lives? In fact, given these modern circumstances, fantasies of an egalitarian marriage being the ideal notion are really the only way to justify marriage at all for women. Thus, we’ve crafted a new ideal of marriage that furnishes women with legal and social failsafes to make what looks like a really horrible, life-long attachment to a buffoon or an abuser just palatable enough to have women believe things might work out for them. Don’t worry ladies, the egalitarian ideal, that any potential husband worth your consideration will subscribe to wholesale, provides you not only with options that will absolve you of all responsibility for his (and your own) failures, but you’ll never have to really do anything he says. The law is on your side, and the very premise of an egalitarian marriage frees you from ever having to go along with one of his half-baked life plans for the both of you. In fact, as long as you make more money than him, you’ll almost surely be doing the ‘course’ setting for the both of you.

Needless to say this is not conducive to women entertaining a default deference to men’s authority. If women’s baseline impression of men is one of incompetence, ridiculousness and distrust, and then you combine it with the fact that over a third of them wont be earning the same financially we begin to see the reasons for the decline in marriage today. If the default perception of men is one of expected incompetence, why would a woman ever want to get married?

This is kind of a quandary. In marriage, a man’s authority today only extends to this monetary wealth – there is no inherent authority associated with being male despite what feminist bleat about ‘male privilege’. Wealth enforces will, but women still seek to find ways around accepting that authority by assuming control of that wealth. This is one reason why “financial abuse” has been fashioned into a form of spousal abuse, but there are many other means of emotional control that mitigates male authority-by-wealth.

Even when a man is the primary breadwinner his means to authority in his marriage is still mitigated. A man’s provisioning for his wife and family has always been considered a ‘manly duty’. Even the most masculinity-confused, Vichy Males are still conditioned to assume providership as a masculine trait that is ‘non-toxic’ and approved by their teachers. In most Trad-Con thought a man isn’t even to be considered a “man” unless he can prove his competence in generating more resources than he needs for himself. The direction of every aspiration he has must be applied to providing for a future wife, their children, likely their (her) extended family and then extended to society. By the old set of books a man can’t even be given the title of “man” (or “a real man”) unless he can prove he’s prepared himself to be a good husband, father and community leader.

While there’s nothing inherently wrong with a strong desire to fulfill this provisioning agenda, the men who do accept this as their “manly duty” are conditioned to only see their sacrifices as their expected responsibility. They are actively discouraged from ever assuming any authority might be forthcoming in exchange for their sacrifices. Not even a man’s wealth is a guarantee of authority; certainly not if he’s been conditioned to believe that an egalitarian marriage is an ideal, much less a possibility.

And now we come full circle – the promulgation of an egalitarian ideal in marriage, in gender equity, in the retribution and restitution that feminism is based on, all of this and more has the latent purpose of stripping men of any concept of authority, while enforcing the ideal of male responsibility. In The Second Set of Books I made the case that most (Beta) men today live by, or would like to live by, an old social contract that on the surface seems noble. They believe in an anachronism that promises them that honor, duty, chivalry and a default respect of women will, sooner or later, be appreciated by a woman with the “quality” enough to appreciate it and show that appreciation by accepting him for her intimate attentions. Only later do they come to realize that their dedication to that anachronism is misplaced and the exchange of duty for authority is not only erased, but he’s perceived as a “toxic” monster or a ridiculous “macho” fool for ever expecting that exchange. The world is actually playing by a second set of books that expects all of his ‘honor-bound’ beliefs are his responsibility, but nothing he sacrifices grants him any authority.

Last week I hosted a Special Edition of the Red Man Group in which we discussed whether a married man today is by default Blue Pill or Beta.

RMG_Patriarchs_Title_defaultIt’s almost impossible to broach this topic without accusations of bias or personal circumstance coloring a man’s perspective of marriage – and that’s from either side of the topic. I wasn’t endorsing marriage in this; if anything I made a case against marriage based on the same questioning of men’s authority I’ve explored in this essay. By today’s standards, marriage is far too dicey a prospect for me to ever advocate for. But how far are we willing to take this abandoning of dominance hierarchies in intersexual relationships? I recently got into a debate as to whether monogamous relationships – outside formal marriage – were even beneficial for men today. In that discussion we dissected the history of monogamy and in human relations it’s at least somewhat accepted that monogamy and two-parent investment in offspring was a dynamic that’s been beneficial to our own and some other species. I think that in the past, when social circumstance was different, the concept of monogamy and the institution of marriage were instrumental in our advancement and largely beneficial. All that’s changed now and much of the second set of books I referred to in this essay is predicated on an egalitarianism that has erased male authority and placed it on the shoulders of women who are ill-equipped (and honestly not wanting) to use that authority.

This last sentence here is going to seem like heresy to those invested in blank-slate, egalitarian equalism and fempowerment, but the truth is evident and unignorable that an evolved patriarchal authority has progressed us to an age where we’ve become prosperous enough to entertain thoughts of abandoning it. Stripping men of authority while still expecting a default, and total, responsibility is a really good summation of the two sets of books – the conflict between the old and the new social contract. And yes, I’m aware of the all the arguments that this state of disempowering men is by some political design. Destabilizing the family starts with delegitimizing male authority and confusing generations of men about the aspects of masculinity. Doubt and self-loathing are key in men policing other men for presumptions of authority. It’s crabs in the bucket – when one man presumes authority there need to be ten more to pull him back down into confusion and doubt.

So where do we go with this from here? Even the most ‘Con’ of Trad-Con women will still default to their fempowerment conditioning when presented with a default male authority they are supposed to follow. Can a man be a leader in his own home anymore? MGTOWs will tell you no, and they’d be right. You can’t out-Alpha the state. But the state is still comprised of men and women with their own preconceptions and belief-sets. Our evolved firmware still predisposes us to conventional gender roles, and that predisposition is also one of women expecting  male competence, decisiveness and dominance. Women still want a man to follow in spite of their conditioning to distrust men’s competence. Maybe a new form of monogamy is in order. Egalitarianism is a dead end, it only defaults to 100% female authority and 100% male responsibility. But perhaps at some point, when things get so bad that women are forced to take a chance on the men they think are potential buffoons and abusers, a new kind of “marriage” can come out of the morass that egalitarianism has made of marriage.

How do we get back to a state of male authority based on a woman’s trust of her husband? I would like to believe I have this with my wife today, but I know that this is tenuous from the perspective of true, actionable authority. I once came down hard on a pastor who was advising the women of his congregation to “allow” their husbands to lead them. He was basically asking the women to stand down and trust God that their husbands we’re actually worthy of their trust. He didn’t know it, but his entire premise stemmed from women already acknowledging that they had ultimate authority over their husband as a given. Most pastors are pussy-whipped, so this default authority is usually presumed as a sexual threat-point women will exercise over their husbands. What he didn’t understand was that women’s authority is his default for a much deeper, more socially expansive reason. So even to ask women to allow their husbands to exercise ‘headship’ is ludicrous – it’s something even those women have no power to do because the presumption of authority is always in their favor. They can’t allow their men authority over them because the social paradigm they live in wont allow them to allow it.