women

Rites of Passage

aboriginal-passage

In the past I’ve discussed the hesitancy of young men to refer to themselves as ‘men’ or to really even embrace what might be considered a ‘conventional’ idea of masculinity. You’ve probably read me using that word before. I use the word conventional because I feel it conveys a better understanding of a naturalized expression of masculinity in a way that men evolved into. Occasionally I have a reader ask me why I don’t use the term ‘traditional’ with respect to masculinity, but I’m not sure they really mean the same thing.

It’s easy to think of masculinity in terms of tradition, but whose tradition are we really referring to? ‘Traditional Masculinity’ as a term has assumed a derogatory meaning in a feminine-primary social order. It’s become one of those catch-terms that we’re all supposed to understand as being characteristic of backward mindsets. It’s part of the social convention that seeks to ridicule, shame and confuse boys who later become men about what masculinity ought to mean to them. So, it’s for this reason I use the word ‘conventional’. It conveys the idea that masculinity in a binary sense has evolved aspects that are inherent and unique to men. So while certain cultures may have had different traditions and traditional roles for men, there is a unifying conventionality of masculinity that relates to all men and maleness in general.

Feminine-centrism doesn’t like this idea. It doesn’t like the idea that masculine characteristics or behaviors are the sole propriety of men. The reflex then is to paint any conventionally masculine attribute, way of thinking, aggression, passion or aspiration as either representative of ‘toxic’ harmful or anti-social, or, depending on its usefulness in securing power, it’s cast as something “not necessarily masculine” since some women can lay claim to that trait.

In several prior posts I’ve outlined how boys are taught from a very early age to gender-loathe their maleness. It’s part of Blue Pill conditioning, but more so, I think it’s important for Blue Pill or unplugging adult men to understand the mechanics and reasoning behind why it’s in the Feminine Imperative’s interests to keep conventional masculinity something ambiguous, arbitrary or something men ought to be able to fluidly define for themselves. That last part there is important, because what most men think is their own self-definition of masculinity is always founded in what the Feminine Imperative has conditioned him to believe is correct.

Latent Purposes

In a social order that’s ostensibly founded upon a baseline equalism (in principle) among men and women we have to look at why it might be necessary for boys to be taught that ‘traditional’ masculinity is toxic. The easy answer is a want for control, but not so much in the terms of convincing boys to become men who will loathe their maleness. Remember, there’s a lot of conventional masculinity that is conveniently useful to further the interests of women and Hypergamy – but the conditioning becomes one of selectively classifying the useful aspects as ‘healthy’ and the non-useful ones as ‘toxic’.

The most important thing to consider here is that, for future men, equalism’s purpose in their upbringing is to prevent them from ever internalizing the idea that they should be their own mental point of origin. This I think is one of the fundamental issues most Blue Pill men struggle with in their own unplugging.

One of the old books, traditional, understandings is that men, by virtue of being male, can expect a degree of authority in their lives and in their families. A man may not be the boss at work, but the traditional understanding was that he could expect to be the head of household in his own home. Feminine primacy, under the auspices of equalism, has effectively conditioned this idea out of men over the course of generations. If men and women are blank-slate functional equals, ideally, there will never be a default authority in an intersexual relationship.

From a conventional, evolutionary perspective we know this baseline equalism is not just false, but we also understand that it serves as a control over the masculine nature men are born into. Men and women are different; cognitively, neurologically, biologically and psychologically, but our socialized presumptions with regard to how boys are raised to be men deliberately conditions them to believe we are the same – or at least functionally so.

The Crime of Being Male

There’s been some pushback to this in our Red Pill awakening, and not all of it is the result of the manosphere. As Hypergamy becomes more openly embraced in a larger social respect, more men are made aware of their deliberate conditioning to accommodate it. What they choose to do with that awareness is up to them, but the response from the Feminine Imperative to this awareness is to criminalize or make toxic the embrace of conventional masculinity on the part of men. It becomes a hate-crime to express any conventionally male attribute.

This is a potential danger for Blue Pill men in that the expressions of maleness that they display are on one hand desired by women, but also a risk to their reputation or livelihood if that expression is offensive to women. Red Pill aware men may have the advantage of knowing women’s nature well enough to mitigate the risks, but Blue Pill men will be stuck in a paradigm that puts them at risk for wanting to be men.

Again, equalist Blue Pill conditioning’s purpose is to prevent men from assuming themselves as their mental point of origin, but once a man’s disabused himself of putting the feminine as his primary internal concern there must be an opposite, contingent, reaction on the part of the Feminine Imperative to put him back into compliance. Thus, we see the criminalization of maleness.

Pedestals

For some time it’s been a manosphere staple to tell guys to take the girl off the pedestal if he wants to be successful with women. We call it pedestalization, but one reason that dynamic, to put a woman on a higher order than oneself, is so pervasive in men is due exactly to this “equalist” conditioning. The internalization is one of making that girl, that woman, the centerpiece of a man’s headspace. This becomes who he is and it’s the result of a childhood that taught him he must place the concerns of girls above his own on many different psychological levels.

Once that guy becomes Red Pill aware, no matter who does his unplugging, not only does he remove girls from the pedestal personally, but also on a larger sociological scope. And this scope is what the Feminine Imperative must pushback against.

Blue Pill conditioning teaches boys/men to cast doubt on their own masculinity. What constitutes masculinity? Is it a mask or a performance they put on? Is it something to be proud of or some problem to keep in check? Should boys/men feel insecure or secure about it? These are the consistent ambiguities the Feminine Imperative wants to invest into the next generations of men because it keeps women on the pedestal. Only women possess the solution to their problem of maleness.

But the Blue Pill also conditions boys/men to never presume to consider themselves as a “man”. The joke is that men are never really men, but rather they become ‘bigger boys’. This is a social convention that attempts to keep men in a juvenilized state and thus ensuring women are the only ‘adults’ to make the judgement call. This ridicule has the purpose of denying men their status of ‘manhood’. If men are perpetual boys, they can never assume the default ‘headship’ of being men. It is a control for authority.

This is another reason men are conditioned to keep women on the pedestal; only women can confirm ‘manhood’ from a superior (mental) position in that man’s mind. When a woman is at the top of a man’s mental point of origin – and not even a specific woman, but womankind – she decides his status of being a man. So it follows that men ought to internalize the doubt of understanding manhood or conventional masculinity.

So, the struggle men have in coming to a Red Pill awareness is one of removing women from this pedestal, but also one of giving oneself permission to be a man. This may seem kind of simplistic, but to a guy who’s been conditioned to put women before himself in his own internal, mental, conversations it’s a very tough challenge. Blue Pill conditioning invests a doubt into boys and then men. They are conditioned to self-regulate on many levels, but to generally put their own concerns beneath those of others and largely the feminine. They are taught to self-sublimate by never giving themselves permission to be “men” in a conventional sense.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #9

Never Self-Deprecate under any circumstance. This is a Kiss of Death that you self-initiate and is the antithesis of the Prize Mentality. Once you’ve accepted yourself and presented yourself as a “complete douche” there’s no going back to confidence with a woman. Never appeal to a woman’s sympathies. Her sympathies are given by her own volition, never when they are begged for – women despise the obligation of sympathy. Nothing kills arousal like pity. Even if you don’t seriously consider yourself pathetic, it never serves your best interest to paint yourself as pathetic. Self-Depreciation is a misguided tool for the AFC, and not something that would even occur to an Alpha.

One important reason I made this an Iron Rule was because it’s almost a default response of men to presume their own ridiculousness. The reflexive response is of course to not take yourself so seriously and have an ability to laugh at yourself when it’s merited. That’s all fine and well, a necessity for a healthy sense of self, but few men realize their ease with self-deprecation is a result of their conditioning to find themselves ridiculous as men. “Men” are ridiculous.

It’s very easy for Red Pill aware men to lose sight of what the Blue Pill conditions men for and how this conditioning has evolved over the course of generations. The latent purpose remains the same (preventing men from adopting their own mental point of origin), but the methods and social mores change fluidly with what the Feminine Imperative finds most efficient for the time. For the past 20 years there’s been a concentrated effort to remove men from deciding their own manhood for themselves.

Rites of Passage

From Remove the Man:

Guys vs. Men

I was participating in a conversation just recently with a young woman of 26 and a young man of 18. The conversation itself wasn’t important, but at one point the young man referred to himself as a ‘Man’. He said something to the effect of, “Well I’m a man, and men do,..” At the word ‘man’ she cut him off with the unconscious snigger that’s resulted from years of feminine ridicule conditioning. Just the mention of a man self-referencing as a “man” is enough to inspire feminine ridicule. It’s laughable for a man to consider himself a man.

This exchange got me to wondering about the turning point at which I began to self-reference as a “Man”. In the face of a constant conditioned ridicule, it’s almost an uncomfortable recognition to distinguish yourself as a Man. It’s too easy to just think of yourself as a ‘guy’ and never be so presumptuous as to insist upon your manhood. In girl-world, to claim to be a Man is to admit to arrogance – it’s to embrace a flawed nature.

It’s important to note here that in embracing your status as a Man, instead of ‘just a guy’, you are passing a meta-shit test. By embracing self-referenced manhood, you are rejecting what a world aligned against you would like you to believe about yourself. You’re endorsing yourself as a Man with self-assurance despite the self-doubt the Feminine Imperative relies upon men believing about themselves, masculinity and the dubious state of manhood as a whole. By flagrantly referring to yourself as a Man you are passing the meta-shit test – you’re overtly stating you’re a Man, but you you’re covertly stating “I Just Get It.”

One of the key elements to unplugging is changing your mind about yourself. This is one of the biggest obstacle to guys coming to accept a Red Pill aware reality. This self-denial of their own ‘manhood’, which becomes a resistance to embracing anything conventionally masculine as being positive, is a foreign thought.

As I mentioned in that post, there used to be a time when boys would go through some rite of passage and be considered a ‘man’ by his family and peers. It’s important for Red Pill men to realize how this passage into a state of manhood has been deliberately confused or shamed out of significance to all but the most traditional of cultures.

Most male rites of passage are painted as cruel and barbaric hazing rituals in a fem-centric society. That’s a popularized and easy connection to make, but what underlies this effort to disqualify manhood as legitimate is a push to force men into compliance with the Feminine Imperative and feminine-primacy.

I would suggest that men coming into a Red Pill awareness need to embrace being a “man”. Red Pill men need a rite of passage of some sort. Sometimes we ask about when a guy finally came into his Red Pill awareness. We compare stories about what we were like when we were still living in a Blue Pill paradigm and then what form of trauma (or not) triggered that Blue Pill disillusionment. We discuss going through the various stages of grief for our past Blue Pill idealism, the nihilism, the anger, the disbelief, then the acceptance and the new enthusiasm of being Red Pill aware and the potential that means.

But there needs to be a rite of passage for passing from that Blue Pill state to a new Red pill awareness and part of this should be a conscious acknowledgement of  giving yourself permission to be a man. This needs to be part of changing your mind about yourself as you become more aware of the agency you really have in a conventionally male respect. You need a point at which you set yourself apart from Blue Pill men and a feminine-primary social order.

Most (Beta) guys have a difficult time embracing the authority and due deference that being a conventional man should convey to him. They are uncomfortable on an ego-personality level with accepting this dominant male role because it goes against everything their feminine-centric upbringing has taught them to internalize.

However, with that authority comes responsibility. I would argue that many a Blue Pill guy is comforted by the lies of equalism because he believes that egalitarianism and the expectations that men and women are functional equals in some way exempts him from his uniquely male burden of performance. On some level of consciousness, even the Beta men who are comforted by equalism still realize that their maleness, their ‘secure’ masculinity, will only ever be merited and judged by his performance. And that performance is firmly grounded in conventionally male tests.

 

The Unbearable Rightness of Being Female

unbearable

The following post quote has been making the rounds in professional circles. It’s from Sallie Krawcheck, CEO of Ellevest, an investment firm dedicated to helping women with financial investment (no jargon, no ‘playing’ stocks for sport, no mansplaining, you got this). She’s also the “chair” of Elevate Network, a global professional women’s network. I’m adding this here to make a later point, but it’s important to understand how normalized it’s become for women to create a sexually exclusionary organization for women who will simultaneously complain about men’s sexism for not accommodating their (presumably successful) business culture to the interests of women. More on that later.

I thought I’d riff on this click-bait for, I assume, professional women because I expect we’ll see more of this prefabricated outrage in the coming years as a response to what will undoubtedly be the suffering of the Trump era in America. I’ll be the first to admit I was surprised by Trump’s win, but the denial of the First Female President® into the White House will be the cause du jour for every jilted woman who believes she’s a “professional”. Even if Clinton had won the mainstream would’ve been inundated with how ‘we still have a long way to go’ stories, however, with Trump in the Presidency the same tired narrative of systemic male sexism will get reinvigorated in the coming years.

From, A Letter to young women, in the age of Trump:

When I was your age, I thought it was over. My mother was a feminist, so I wanted to call myself anything but a feminist. And anyway, I seemed pretty welcome at work. Even though it was Wall Street, my analyst class was about a third women. We weren’t just on our way — we’d arrived.

But then…there were the inappropriate pictures left on my desk. The guy miming a sex act when my back was turned. I wasn’t given the great assignments; the more senior woman I worked with was likewise dismissed as “lightweight” (and, lest you think that might have been true, that woman was Safra Catz, now the co-President of Oracle). Then the women started to fall away in their 30s…more in their 40s. But the worst of it, I thought was over.

And now Trump has made it clear to everyone that the battle for us women is not over.

In femopshere there will always be an ‘us’. As I’ve outline in many prior essays, the Sisterhood will always take precedence above religion, politics, personal conviction and even family affiliations for women. Largely this is due to women’s evolved propensity for collectivism among their own sex. In our hunter gatherer beginnings women had an interdependent need for collective support for keeping tribal cohesion as well as child rearing.

This intrasexual collective support has carried over into what’s become the Sisterhood today. If you look at the interactions of young girls and their social group interdependence you begin to see that nascent tribal collectivism naturally come through. In terms of larger societal scope this collectivity becomes about acknowledging a shared experience of an imagined oppression by men. Between all women there is a gestalt understanding of “the plight of women” and a presumption of an endemic sexism no matter how culturally or socioeconomically dissimilar those women are.

As I mentioned, Trump is now a universal icon of that presumption of sexism and oppression. Granted, it could’ve been any man who displaced a woman in the history books, but the fall back presumption is that whoever ‘he’ is, he becomes emblematic of a ready narrative of sexism irrespective of merit. We presume sexism, we presume a guy would mime a sex act behind a woman’s back and leave ‘inappropriate’ pictures on a woman’s desk despite decades of workplace harassment legislation. We believe it because it sounds right; it sounds like something a typical sexist guy would do.

I can’t stop thinking about this and what we can / should do:

Remember that gender bias in the workplace is not a thing of the past. I’m sorry if I didn’t act when I should have. I thought we had left sexism behind us by the time I was in more senior roles. After all, we had complaint hotlines and diversity plans and requirements for diverse slates of candidates for every job. But now I’m remembering one of the members of the senior leadership team who would kiss younger women on the cheek at the beginning of meetings. Creepy, right? I now wonder what was being said when I wasn’t in that room.

What’s creepy is that in spite of years in a professional field that’s been the domain of men she’s just now remembering this fact. Would it have been less creepy if he’d kissed only his age-appropriate women on his leadership team? Professional women’s default presumption is that it is always sexism that is holding them back from breaking through a mythologized ‘glass ceiling’, but as is women’s solipsism, their first thought is that their problems are caused by externalities. Never is there an insight that they may simply lack the skills or that they don’t perform at their peak in a job they were told should be rewarding to them.

Gender biases will never be a thing of the past because to suggest they ever might be so is to presume a default state of egalitarian equality between the sexes. The gender biases in the workplace are most evident in the peer selection and peer evaluations of women – not some secret group of guys getting together in a private office room to expressly talk about a their co-workers’ tits.

As it stands in today’s modern office men are scared shitless every time they are called to cooperate with a woman on work projects for fear of being accused of sexism or harassment:

“In a lawsuit-happy culture, where claims can be made on a ‘he said/she said’ basis, men are now trying to ensure their actions are always covered by a third party witness”

“The terror of being accused of sexual harassment is now so common it has its own term, ‘backlash stress”

There’s a reason HR departments are largely staffed by women, because they want to be positioned in a way that they can execute policy. HR departments no longer exist to serve the company with regards to employees, rather they exist in order to protect that company from lawsuits and enforce feminine-primary conditions in the workplace.

Ask tough questions, and call the guys out when necessary. I recently asked my best guy friend: “Do guys really talk like Donald Trump and Billy Bush behind closed doors?” His response: “No, but…” And the “but” was that the conversations are more along the lines of: “Boy, she has great legs,” or “she’s a looker” or “Whew. Wouldn’t touch her with a ten-foot pole.” When I asked him how he responded to this, he said he didn’t say anything; after all, he has to work with these folks.

But so do we. And breaking us down to our body parts or our appearance dehumanizes us in some way. Maybe it’s only in some small way. But it’s clear that for some years, we (and by we, I mean I) were likely too complacent about the inevitability of gender progress in the workplace and relaxed perhaps just a bit too much.

It’s funny and irreverent when all the girls in the office get together for drinks or a male revue strip show after work, but it’s dehumanizing when men do the same. I’ve known very few men who would ever comment on a woman’s anatomy in a workplace environment. I have known men who would scold other men for staring a little too long at a female co-worker. I have known women to actively flirt with guys and wear inappropriate outfits to get attention from them. I’ve known women who’ve called me and other men I’ve worked with their “work husbands”.

I’ve worked in the liquor and casino promotion businesses for two decades now. I see some pretty wild behavior on the part of women who are not unlike the poor victimized dears Krawcheck describes going to work on Monday mornings.

The modern workplace culture has conditioned men for fear of women thanks largely to strict codes of conduct, but also because these men have been raised from birth to be dutiful Betas and White Knights who look for every opportunity to correct a ‘typical man’ for his sexist and rude behaviors. They look for these backroom boys clubs where women are rated on their looks so as to expose their heinous misogyny and institutionalized sexism, but they are disappointed when they don’t actually find it. So instead they contribute to an atmosphere of fear in some lame form of Beta Game they hope will be recognized and rewarded for by workplace women.

If you’re in a bad work situation, it’s ok to quit. So many women think that it’s a “failure” if you quit your job; and you know how hard we females take failure. But sometimes it’s not us: it’s them.

I recently left the board of a non-profit that I LOVE. I had been on it for years (and years). At nearly every meeting I asked how much we were spending on our investment managers, in comparison to the return we were getting. Meeting after meeting I was told that the answer was complex, it was hard to calculate, it would take a lot of work – and why did it matter anyway? It was really the net returns that matter, regardless of how much we paid for them. And then, last spring, before I could bring up the topic, one of the men did; and all the other guys eagerly agreed with him, that we need to keep an eye on fees because those are really all we can control.

I quit the next week.

Life is too short, and I can have a lot more impact with the week-a-year I get back instead of being ignored in meetings.

I know not everyone is in the position to quit; I wasn’t earlier in my career. So the onus is also on those of us who are more senior to be more supportive of women who leave these situations. I am hopeful that an outcome of this election will be greater understanding of this.

If it had been a woman who’d made the same suggestion would we be hearing about this? Shit like this happens all the time in the workplace. One reason The 48 Laws of Power resonated with men so well is because it was relatable to exactly this kind of situation. Law 7: Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit for it yourself. Sallie sees this as sexism because it happened to be a guy who pulled it on her, but would she have quit the non-profit had it been a woman who outplayed her?

This is the reality of even the most seemingly benign of companies. They are defined by the interplay of power dynamics, but when women are bested in it the sexism narrative is ready on standby to comfort and explain their failure. So it becomes OK to quit, because the environment is always sexist. The business environment is one defined by competition and this grates on women’s expectation of it to be cooperative and collective. Women like Sallie expect recognition for merit, but wish for things to be easier rather than developing the skills to play the game better.

Get yourself a senior, successful – preferably female – mentor, who can help you navigate the politics of your company. This includes the gender politics. Can’t find one on your own? Speak to HR about helping you find one; this is their job, after all.

Your company doesn’t have a senior, successful female? Get the hell out of there.

Really the only sexism I’m seeing in this piece has been one coming from and endorsed by Krawcheck. She bemoans a lack of gender equity and then suggests a female mentor would be preferable to a male one. Her sexism is blatant here – the only definition of a solid reputable company is one that ensures it has a senior, successful female in it. Since most HR departments are staffed primarily with women it’s their job to help you find a senior, successful and female mentor? I’m not a business insider, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t their job.

I made this point in Male Space, but what happens when women insert themselves into a traditionally male dominated domain is that the enterprise becomes about accommodating the female influences rather than the enterprise itself. This entire article is an indictment of this. Again, the solution to a woman’s problem of not being successful is sought externally.

Do your best to make sure that your success is quantified. Be it a sales goal, a client satisfaction rating, an output metric, a quality target. Numbers count here because they’re black-and-white, cut-and-dried. Were you successful or not? I recommend this even if you work in a “normal” company, because implicit gender biases and expectations still exist for all of us.

Solid enough advice, but it’s couched in the context of an expectation of gender biases (at least the type of bias Sallie finds unacceptable). There’re implicit gender biases, but the ones we see dominate even ‘normal’ companies are ones that favor a feminized workforce.

Think about starting your own thing. This is what’s exciting; we have the ability to start our own businesses today, in a way we didn’t in the past. Why not take our marbles to our own playgrounds and build great businesses and cultures? Our mothers couldn’t do this because the cost was so high – but the costs of everything-about-starting-a-business, including technology, people (i.e., freelancers), real estate (co-working spaces) and support services are coming down. And then no one can relegate you to the less-interesting jobs.

Women are taught that they deserve the luxury of interesting jobs. In fact this is the sole reason for even wanting to enter the workforce most times – a rewarding career that’s fulfilling, but as I wrote in She’s Unhaaapy… that fulfillment is always elusive. Therefore it must be that uncooperative men are holding women back from this happiness.

I’m not sure opening another gourmet cupcake eatery counts as contributing to the status of women in business, but I would say that women ought to be encouraged to start up their own businesses rather than rely on the proven successes of established ones to prove their business acumen. Carly Fiorina and Sheryl Sandberg are not innovators in any sense. Neither started a company from scratch, but they are lauded as powerful businesswomen because they supposedly had the moxie to compete with the big boys and their sexist enterprises – not actually as a result of their companies wanting to present a feminine-correct public image.

I would love to see women’s organic business successes despite themselves, but my guess is that every failure or setback would have some tinge of external sexism attached to them. The truth is there are very few women who actually create something of worth because the easier path to success is to create a social convention that shames men for not including women in their own successes. It will always be easier for women to appropriate the success of men rather than create anything for themselves.

I am going to go out of my way to support other women. It’s clear now: we can’t do this alone. Another woman who is promoted or celebrated or funded clears the way for another. I am actively looking to buy from women-owned businesses, which is much easier these days — Glossier, Outdoor Voices, and Project September are just a few of a new wave of startups led by women — and avoid companies that remain all-men. I’m just so over supporting them.

And here we have yet more fem-centric sexism in a piece decrying male sexism. Weren’t we just reading about how surprised Sallie was about gender bias not being a thing of the past in the workplace? Because Trump won the election she calls for a boycott from buying anything from male owned companies?

One thing I’ve always found ironic about women’s call for collective, gender-exclusionary support for other women is that women are often guilty of even worse infighting than men are in the workplace. Lets face it, women hate other women to a degree that most men are unaware of. Their capacity for sub-communication and psychological warfare among themselves makes intra-sexual competition more brutal than having to deal with any so-called sexist male co-worker. From women’s collectivist perspective one would think that women’s intra-sexual support of other women would make them all outstanding successes in business, but we find the opposite is true. Women have a very hard time making an all-female enterprise a success. Naturally this is blamed, again, on men’s sexists brinksmanship and outmaneuvering them, but by and large it’s internal conflict that destroys all-female run enterprises.

Invest. Having spent my career on Wall Street and now being the founder of Ellevest, a digital investment platform for women, I know I’m a broken record on this topic. But men invest to a greater extent than women do, and it costs us. Indeed, I believe investing is the best career advice women aren’t getting. Think about it – are you more able to tell your boss to take this job and shove it if you have more money or less money?

That’s what I thought. At the end of the day, money is the real key to gender equality.

Of course we get the sales pitch at the end. Women don’t invest because it’s not sexy. It requires a degree of commitment and a depth of insight that goes well beyond what an average woman has any interest in. I do find it entertaining that Sallie finally gets to the real reason for a gender inequality she claims she wants to see abolished. Money is most definitely a key to establishing social dominance and that creates a fundamentally unequal condition between men and women.

Businesses, successful ones, are founded on competition, not cooperation. This is the fundamental conflict we are experiencing in today’s corporate culture; women’s collectivism promotes what they believe should be a successful enterprise based on egalitarian cooperation while men largely see the enterprise as competition. Sometimes this is a win-at-any-cost type of competition, other times it may be more subtle, but the crux is that women’s propensity to want for a more collectivist approach to a successful enterprise is at odds with men’s competitive approach. Success in business is fundamentally unegalitarian, there are winners and losers, not co-equal participation trophy winners. But as women continue to insert themselves into the unegalitarian male spaces of enterprise we will see this push for cooperative hopes for business success fundamentally alter the purpose of these businesses as we attempt more and more to accommodate them.

Deep Conversion

conversion

About four years ago Nick Krauser dropped a quick-hit post on his blog called Deep Conversion. I made a mental note in my head about this concept back then because, in spite of the brevity of it, I really thought Nick was on to something much more significant. The direction of my recent discussions both on this blog and a few other forums I read got me thinking about Nick’s observations.

I had an old reader (who want’s me to believe he’s a new reader) dig back through my archives and reheat an old debate about conflating my post about women’s concept of love with, “women are incapable of love – at all.” Over the five years that this blog’s been online I’ve gone to great lengths to define my position on the differing concepts of love either gender holds, and what influences the origins of love for either gender. I wont do a remedial post to reassert my points on this here. If you’re new reader and unfamiliar with that expansive series of posts I’ll refer you the Love category on my side bar links. However, to restate the premise for today’s post so everything is clear:

Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.

In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.

Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

In the same respect that women cannot appreciate the sacrifices men are expected to make in order to facilitate their imperatives, women can’t actualize how a man would have himself loved by her. It is not the natural state of women, and the moment he attempts to explain his ideal love, that’s the point at which his idealization becomes her obligation. Our girlfriends, our wives, daughters and even our mothers are all incapable of this idealized love. As nice as it would be to relax, trust and be vulnerable, upfront, rational and open, the great abyss is still the lack of an ability for women to love Men as Men would like them to.

That bolded part there was always emphasized for a very important reason – to avoid the misperception in men that women are entirely incapable of love, and to make a distinction about men’s Blue Pill hope that a woman could love him according to his idealistic concept of love. As I said, there is an expansive series on my ideas about this, and it requires an (I believe rewarding) investment of time and comprehension in understanding them. Sorry, but there is no TL;DR version here.

When I wrote this, and during my deliberating it, I fully expected to get this most common response I get from men still stinging from a more cynical Red Pill awakening. And that is the want to believe that women’s Hypergamy prevents them from ever feeling a “genuine” love or a genuine desire for men beyond what their most immediate opportunistic need may be according to their sexual strategy – short term breeding or long term security. Generally, it’s newly unplugged guys who want to accuse me of not thinking it all the way through because I need some hopeful rationale to justify my 20-year marriage, or they think I’ve never considered Briffault’s Law.

Concepts & Expectations

I expected all of this when I wrote my early essays on men and women’s differing concepts of love. And while I’ve covered the idea of love being a complementary arrangement between men and women each holding differing concepts in prior essays, one thing I haven’t explored is what Nick calls the “Deep Conversion” a woman goes through and what she feels for a man with whom she genuinely falls in love with.

Nick refers to this process as a kind of ‘soul surrender’ in which a woman recognizes a Man’s inherent value to both her short term sexual, and long term security needs. From her perception, this guy represents her Hypergamous ideal. Such is his sexual market value in relation to her own that it puts all but the most deeply rooted doubts of his quality to rest for her and opens her to associating him with an emotional state.

I should also point out that this emotional state needn’t always be a positive association; just that the association he represents is an ideal situation her hindbrain interprets as Hypergamously optimal. If that dynamic seems like a recipe for potential abuse you’re not too far from the mark. This conversion comes as a result of a woman’s perception of her Hypergamous need and her own SMV in comparison to what she believes that man’s  SMV is in relation. Shaking a woman out of the devotion she has with an abusive husband/boyfriend is really shaking her out of the perception that he represents her Hypergamous ideal.

That optimal state is also qualified by her own self-perception of her sexual market value, and again prioritized by her most necessitous needs for her phase of maturity. However, given all these variables, that man’s perceived value to her Hypergamy is always valued as higher than her own. Hypergamy never seeks its own level, but always looks for a better-than deserved SMV comparison. In terms of SMV ratios-to-attachment Deep Conversion takes place somewhere between a 2:1 to 3:1 variance.

Most guys are simply incapable of inspiring this kind of total soul surrender and devotion in a women. Most women never get to feel it and instead must get off on Deep Conversion Lite through sugar-rush books like 50 Shades of Grey. It’s the difference between spinning plates with fuck buddies and having a genuine harem where all your girls are exclusive to you. The women aren’t aligning with you out of cold calculation or temporary strung-out groupie lust, the connection runs far far deeper and feels wholesome to both of you.

This was an excellent observation on Nick’s part, however, I think it’s important to consider this bit in terms of why most men are incapable of instilling a Deep Conversion state in women. The first reason is that most men (being Beta) already presume that any woman who would find them suitable for a monogamous commitment must already feel this sense of Deep Conversion otherwise they’d never agree to that commitment. This is part of the Blue Pill conditioning for Beta men – any girl who says “yes” to him must necessarily see him as her Hypergamous ideal. Most men lack the Red Pill awareness that women regularly make long term relationship decisions based on security needs, not because that guy represents her Hypergamous ideal.

Women would rather cry over an asshole than be saddled with a guy who bores them to tears. That doesn’t sell very well with Blue Pill men raised on Disney dreams, but women readily get into LTRs where the Beta they pair with is no comparison to the Alpha she’s widowed from; for whom she had a Deep Conversion with. And as Nick says, this is when they look to manufacture their own indignation and the excitement they lack in cheap (but safe) substitutes.

Another reason most men never experience this is because, due their Blue Pill conditioning, never give themselves permission to become the conventionally masculine men with a dominance that women need in order to feel this conversion for him. Most Blue Pill men have been taught a default deference to women. Theirs is one of a ‘Nice’, passive sensitivity to a woman’s perceived wants, rather than a dominant knowing of her need which is born from a lifetime of learning to place his mental point of origin on the whims of women.

This may be my own interpretation, but I would also argue that both a woman’s evolved psychological filtering (testing) of a man’s Hypergamous qualifications and her socialized sense of self (ego) contribute to a woman resisting this Deep Conversion for a man. As a lot of men in the Married Red Pill and DeadBedroom subredd forums will attest, it’s entirely possible to spend your life with a woman who will never feel this conversion with a man.

Deep Conversion

Done correctly deep conversion is the most satisfying experience possible between a man and a woman. So long as you keep the elements in place, it has no natural time limit. I had my ex-wife in this state for eight of the nine years we were together (losing it only when I lost my mojo) and I’ve had four girlfriends in the past two years in the same position. I’ve got a few more on the boil now. It’s really not very hard to do if you have the following core competencies in place:

  1. An unshakeably strong frame. You are special, you know you’re special, and your masculinity is stratospheric compared to the chumps around you.
  2. Cheerful misogyny. You love women but don’t take them seriously. This is more than just the attraction phase teasing. You genuinely believe women are more like dogs or children, meaning they are a delight when well-lead and a nightmare when left ill-disciplined without a pack leader. It’s empathetic but not weak or equalist.
  3. Direction. Your life must be a straight line in a Deida-esque manner. Whether it’s your music, philosophy, career, fitness your life contains several arrows pointing the same direction… towards building the archetype of a fully developed man. If you are one-dimensional the girl will hold back.
  4. Sexual mastery. Understand that women crave dominance above all else in the bedroom. Give her the kind of sex that penetrates her soul. This isn’t high-fitness sport sex and G-spot finding. Those men will keep a woman around as her sexual provider, the guy she goes to when she wants a good fucking, the bedroom equivalent of a qualifying beta chump. A sexual master rocks a girl psychologically so even a half-assed knee trembler in a public toilet has her dreaming for weeks afterwards. The girl dreams of pleasing him, not him pleasing her.

All four elements increase with age if you live your life correctly. I don’t want to write too much about it and certainly the book will never be released. Just be aware that it has it’s own ego traps, its own risks…. but it is possible. When you’re tired of the notch-carousel you might want to look into it.

Much of what Nick is outlining here is Red Pill 101 and I’d also add that Roissy’s original 16 Commandments of Poon would fill out this list more completely. What I’m exploring here, however, is the concept of how this Deep Conversion fits into the framework of men and women’s individualized concepts of love. On the one hand I have men who are critics tell me I’m in error because women’s opportunistic concept of love doesn’t meet their criteria for what love ought to be between a man and a woman – a mutually shared, unconsciously agreed upon, concept that aligns with men’s idealistic (love for love’s sake) concept.

Yet still, they don’t disagree with my assessment that women’s concept of love is rooted in optimizing their innate Hypergamy and manifests as an beneficent opportunism (beneficent in terms of quality control for the human race, not necessarily for men). This is where the conflict starts. If a male-idealistic concept of love is the correct one, and women lack a capacity to understand, appreciate or engage in that concept in a genuine, organic fashion then women entirely lack the capacity for love as men would define it. This is the deductive logic that tears men up when I explain men and women’s differing concepts of love. Their definition has to be the correct one, and if it is then women cannot love men. For guys reeling from the initial hopelessness that their Blue Pill world was always an exploitative fantasy, it’s hard for them to accept that their concept of love is only subjectively correct for them.

Blue Pill Idealism

Much of this hopelessness stems from the all-is-equal mentality that the Blue Pill sells us when we’re being raised by the ‘Village’ of pop-culture. Equalism is the religion of the Feminine Imperative, so Blue Pill men are conditioned to believe that men and women, being co-equal, co-rational agents, would necessarily share a common concept of love. As with everything egalitarian, that equalism outright denies any innate differences physically or psychologically that would separate men and women or make them adversarial in sexual strategy or purpose in life. This premise, of course, is deftly twisted by the Feminine Imperative to make feminine-primary sexual strategies and women’s concept of love, the socially correct expressions of ‘equalism’.

But therein lies men’s conflict. The same influences that convince men their idealistic concept of love is the mutually shared one are also the influences that convince men that satisfying women’s socio-sexual imperatives ought to be their life’s priority and their mental point of origin if they ever hope to achieve that idealized love state. Take this Blue Pill path to that idealistic state away from men, and you get very despondent guys who don’t believe women have a capacity to feel actual love for them. It all becomes jumping through hoops to create a feeling of love in women whose criteria for a love that originates in their opportunistic concept they must constantly qualify for.

Women critics of this differing love concepts dynamic, unsurprisingly, personalize every experience they have, their friends have or their family ever had by referring to examples of their own selfless acts of devotion to a certain man. It’s always a story about how they gave everything to a (often unappreciative, unreciprocating) man they felt some undying idealistic love for themselves, and how dare I impugn their sincerity in it?

And again, I’ll add that the only way they came to this idealistic love was through a Deep Conversion they had with a man who satisfied their Hypergamous opportunism long before they were ever inspired to those selfless acts of devotion and sacrifice. For every Alpha Widow woman who ever gave herself over to that conversion and surrendered her soul to a guy who never reciprocated it, there are a hundred Beta men who will never inspire that degree of devotion in the wives who settled on marrying them. Statistically, 80% of men (Betas) will never inspire the Deep Conversion that 10-20% of men women feel it for did.

The Red Pill Conversion

When I wrote The Love Experience I was asked to elaborate on a quote I’d made about men and women both having the capacity to love each other deeply and passionately:

“Men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures.”

For men who innately cling to an idealistic concept of love, their own kind of Deep Conversion can come in the form of ONEitis and develop into some very unhealthy dependencies. One of the reasons ONEitis is so common among men is because their Blue Pill conditioning predisposes them to putting women’s needs above his own and they see that as the path to sustaining this True Love state – a state defined by their idealism.

For women, this Deep Conversion can only result from a man who so thoroughly satisfies her Hypergamous nature she’s willing to abandon her own sexual strategy. And, like the guy with ONEitis, she dedicates herself to the one guy she was able to (she thinks) lock down who was a better-than-deserved Hypergamous prospect. Women get very upset when this dedication is questioned (not unlike the ONEitis guy) because they’ve generally abandoned furthering their sexual strategy by investing their egos into a guy who satisfied their Hypergamous natures. To doubt that devotion is to doubt the wisdom of her investment – and that goes down to her evolved biology and psychology in that choice. I should note here that Alpha Widows are born from this conversion.

However, for all of that inherent risk, and despite men and women’s differing concepts of love, men and women can and do come together in individual states of love (that they often believe the other shares) that are ‘genuine’ to them and also last a lifetime. I would argue that this state cannot exist without a woman’s Deep Conversion occurring after, and as a process of, her testing and evaluating the quality of the man she feels it for. And I would also argue that a man who commits himself to this woman must also feel some sense of his idealistic concept of love being validated by that woman who has devoted herself to him.

Under the old social contracts, and under the old set of books, this conversion in men and women was likely something much easier than it is today. Women are distracted by social and cultural influences that distorts their ever truly understanding their greatly diminishing value to men, and at the same time places so many men so far below women in general that this conversion and devotion will always seem demeaning to them – even for men who exceed them in SMV.

However, this Deep Conversion state is not an impossibility and it is not impossible to sustain it in a Red Pill aware paradigm. In fact, I’ll say that Red Pill awareness and internalized Game is really the only way to sustain it in an era of Open Hypergamy where Blue Pill conditioning of men is the norm, and women’s expectations of men are ridiculously low, but standards are ridiculously exaggerated.

For the Red Pill / Game aware guy, understanding this conversion and how to inspire it is something he ought to contemplate since so much of a woman’s ego becomes invested in her devotion to him once that conversion takes place. Conversely, Red Pill men should also understand, as Nick explained about his ex-wife, that this conversion is always tentative upon his own capacity to perpetuate it.

Spare the Rod,…

spanking

Two weeks ago in A Woman’s Prerogative I explored the possible social changes that a male-controlled birth control might mean to our feminine-centric social order. I think it’s important to bear in mind that the primary reason something like Vasalgel would be in any way controversial is because we’re considering it from a social state where women are already allowed a unilateral control of birth, and by extension a virtually unilateral control over their Hypergamous choices. More importantly though is the fact the both women’s hormonal birth control and (prospectively) men’s Vasalgel birth control are both concealed forms of contraception. In other words there is always a certain degree of trust or an acknowledgement that a woman will faithfully take her pill, while a man’s word that he is or isn’t on Vasalgel would be the card he plays close to his chest.

I don’t want the discussion to be lost on the mechanics or the semantics of how Vasalgel would or wouldn’t change the intersexual landscape in this post. Rather, I think it’s important to keep in mind just how one-sided the process of Hypergamy is for women today. In all of the post-sexual revolution generations we simply take for granted things like sperm banks, safe and legal abortion, and unilaterally female-controlled birth control that is for all intents a trust-contract for men.

I use the term feminine-primary social order quite a bit in my essays. What I mean in this respect is that we tend to take women’s imperatives as the correct ones in virtually all arenas of westernized societies, and women’s benefits, real or imagined, will always come before any man’s imperatives are considered, if at all. The more we progress socially the more the feminine base of control becomes more evident. Case in point, we don’t really consider the gravity of women’s power in a concealed form of birth control in which women are the only arbiters and only they know the truth of until something like Vasalgel is invented to give men a similar degree of control.

All social mandates revolve around satisfying the insecurities and doubts inspired by women’s Hypergamy, or allaying fears and justifying the fears of having to live with the consequences that result from it.

I coined the term feminine-primary social order because there comes a lot of confusion with other terms like Gynocracy or Matriarchy, also not to be confused with Matrilinear. It’s important to delineate these ideas because Matriarchy implies a direct and overt form of social control while Gynocracy is a self-perpetuating form of indirect or covert social control enforced with the aid of both sexes but neither acknowledging the feminine-primary focus. Men aid in Gynocracy willingly because men (the majority Beta) see a deference to women as an expectation and a benefit to their own sexual strategy.

A feminine-primary social order is a manifestation of a Gynocentric pre-understanding on the part of both sexes, but neither sex considers, overtly, the power imbalance because common understanding is that women are always the victims of male oppression. This is a self-perpetuating status that will never be appeased because in so doing women lose a default form of power.

It’s ironic how, in an egalitarian perspective, women are supposed to be independent, rational free-agents right up until the consequences of their actions begin to impact their lives. Then it’s either men’s fault for their state, men are held accountable for those decisions and behaviors, or they are expected to forgive those consequences and solve the problems women created for themselves.

Self Improvement

One reason I don’t think Vasalgel will be legalized for mass consumption (or will eventually meet stiff legislative resistance) is because it puts a measure of Hypergamous control in the hands of men. We’ve already seen attempts to make ‘sex by deception’ equitable with rape. And we’ve already seen the legislation that makes even approaching a woman on the street equitable with a hate crime. My guess is that not disclosing a guy is on Vasalgel or he’s had a vasectomy could easily be construed as such too.

But what’s really at issue is the presumption of control a woman ought to have over men in this respect. There is no reason a woman would ever consider improving herself to be a more acceptable candidate for an LTR when it is all supply and no demand for her.

I touched on this dynamic in Sexy:

Show Up Naked, Bring Beer

Another great irony of our age is that we still cling to the idea that it’s women who are the best seducers of humanity. In the same misdirection that women would like to believe that they are the more romantic gender, so too would they like to believe they are the most effective seducers. Both of these are far from the truth. It’s Men with the greatest art that have gone down in history as the greatest seducers of the genders. So much more is required of Men to be effective seducers than women.

In this age female seduction amounts to show up naked, bring beer.

Men are stimulated primarily by the physical, but there’s a lot more a woman can do to be seductive. Quite honestly I think seduction is a lost art for women. Very few women know how to be sexy, much less seductive. Even fewer ever feel a need to be seductive. This is due to an environment that, for the past 50 years, has simplified sexual exchange for women to the point that all she need do is stay somewhat fit and wear a thong occasionally. So many men have become so acclimated to just these visual prompts as sexual cues that women don’t really need to learn seduction. There is no greater reward for being sexy or seductive beyond what she’s already capable of prompting in a man, so seduction practices aren’t reinforced for her.

Now add to this the feminine priority westernized culture has placed on women’s sexuality. Any woman feeling a need to be seductive for a man is cast in the role of putting his sexual value above her own. Remember, according to Cosmo and Oprah it is he who needs to be sensitive to her needs. Her sexuality is a GIFT he qualifies for, not something she should ever feel a need to sell to him by means of seduction.

Women don’t need to seduce men anymore. The feminine-priority dynamic has put a default value on women’s sexuality. Those hot enough to simply wear something revealing never need seduction, and those not hot enough can’t sell it anyway. And the girls who’re in between – the one’s who’d benefit most – are discouraged from learning seduction since it’s denigrating to women who should already be on a pedestal to begin with.

Ever since the sexual revolution there’s been less and less motivation for women to develop seduction skills. If anything there’s a resentment for ever having needed them in the past. I’d argue that feminine seduction skills have been replaced with emotional and psychological manipulations (see BPD) in order to make men comply with their imperatives as a result of having abandoned those seduction behaviors.

It’s Men who are learning seduction skills now. How many men do you suppose have read the Art of Seduction by Robert Greene in comparison to women? It’s men who’ve created a global community dedicated to seduction techniques. Perhaps this is the best evidence of the gender reversal the community discusses so often? Women’s sexuality has been elevated to such a degree that it’s men who find it necessary to collectively study seduction.

In the manosphere men are constantly working at self-improvement. For most, self-improvement is their only imperative. Not a day goes by that I don’t read some Red Pill guy talking about how he’s changed his life for the better with his new found Red Pill awareness. Of course, it’ll be argued that this is for our own benefit apart from what women would like as the better of him. Be that what it is, that improvement still raises his SMV and still improves his prospects even its a ‘peripheral’ reward to him.

At present there is no need for women to be anything more than arousing and sexually available. There are no ‘femospheres’ dedicated to women’s self-improvement that parallel that of men’s. Even “Red Pill Women’s” forums would be hard pressed to explain how they planned to improve their selves.

Women no longer have any real incentive to dedicate themselves to self-improvement, to seduction or to embracing femininity for a prospective man. This harkens back to my post Crisis of Motive, why do you do what you do? However, what motivation does even an average woman (HB5-6) have to learn to cook, clean or make a home today? Even when women do, it’s never for men. The criticism is always not wanting to be a man’s mother and this is an interesting feminist oxymoron – literally any act of domesticity is construed not just as servitude on the part of a woman, but the necessity of it on the part of a man, or for men, reinforces the idea that men are all innately children in need of mommy’s services.

Correcting Women

In the last post I mentioned a need for ‘correction’ on the part of women. Naturally, the binary reflex response for some was to presume I meant that some kind of scolding or shaming was due on the part of men. And, of course, the images of men and husbands talking down to women like errant children was the predictable impression.

I think it needs to be said that correcting women needn’t be some in-her-face directly overt affair. It may be as simple as deciding for oneself what a man deems unacceptable behavior from women and voting with their dicks and their wallets. As Red Pill awareness spreads and men become more sensitive to seeing the truths inherent of today’s women there should also come a new pragmatism in men’s dealing with women. Correcting women will always be far more effective when it’s indirect. As I said, women will not learn so long as there is a feminine-primary social infrastructure that absolves them of any accountability. And if a man so much as offers his take on why a woman is in the shape she is or he’s bold enough to tell a woman how to avoid the pitfalls she’s likely to fall into he’s accused of misogyny and being a “monster” for daring to attempt to correct her.

In fact, this correction will likely be something Red Pill men won’t even consider as ‘correction’; it will simply make sense not to bother with women whose character has been molded by feminist influences or whose egos have exceed all sensibility in contrast with her sexual market value. And it will be women who actually inspire this new pragmatism of correcting women.

As open, overt, Hypergamy is more widely embraced by women, as the duplicity of their sexual strategy becomes something women triumphantly use in popular media and culture the more unignorable, that hubris, that raw deal, becomes evident to even the most Blue Pill of men. Mix in a degree of real, unilateral control for men – such as Vasalgel or its like would – and you put women into an uncomfortable and unfamiliar need to actually have to develop some sort of ‘value-added‘ to their characters.

I remember laughing at a Leykis 101 rule where Tom said something like if a woman you’re on a date with insists on looking at her phone or takes a call or is texting you should casually excuse yourself and leave her there to pick up the tab.

I used to think that was harsh, but I understand the sentiment that makes it necessary today. Women can’t learn what men wont teach them. Now, I get that women have Beta chumps on speed-dial ready to console them right after you do something similar, but it’s that drastic experience that’s needed to send a message. If you were Alpha enough to make an impression on her she’ll understand she fucked up. I’ve always advised men that if they know they’re heading for a breakup they need to be the initiators of it. It’s far better to leave her with the impression that the Frame was always in your terms.

I wish I could say that women will eventually learn from their mistakes, but women’s innate nature of solipsism combined with a social order that never holds them accountable and constantly reinforces their ‘correctness‘ in spite of it keeps them perpetually indignant to any insight a man might offer to them. One more reason a woman should only ever be a complement to a man’s life, never the focus of it.

When you combine women’s opportunistic concept of love with a society that never holds them accountable for the ramifications of it, no matter who it impacts, you get generations of women who are simply not worth anything to men beyond sex.

What we’re experiencing is the end result of a blank-slate egalitarian social order; you reduce human interaction to the lowest acceptable transaction. It will be interesting to see how something like Vasalgel will shift this condition by putting the choice of birth in the control of men. I get that Betas will always be available to breed, but women aren’t hardwired to be aroused/attracted to Betas. The onus of shifting their behavior in order to optimize Hypergamy will be on women if they want to consolidate on it with a better-than-deserved man with a higher SMV that her.

Women need the correction of men. How this correction is implemented is really what’s at issue. Being the apex male in a woman’s life as a means to initiating this correction is the first step. Dread can cause a women to self-correct of her own volition, but Dread is only effective if a man has real appreciable value to a woman.

Women will actually need to correct themselves to access the men aware of their Game, who demonstrate higher SMV, and have that guy actually be interested in her for more than a fuck – a fuck he wont need to worry about getting her pregnant with. Women have reduced themselves to sexual commodities and the only means to improving that state is to put a real, actionable, degree of control into the hands of men. At present, men have nothing to barter with beyond their own SMV and their hard won resources.

All that said, men must be prepared to walk at the first signs that he isn’t a woman’s first priority. The correction comes from a woman learning the value of a man the hard way. Demonstrate, do not explicate. You correct a woman by fucking her best friend. You correct a woman by putting all her shit out on the curb when she cheats on you. You correct a woman by being a man so valuable to here that she wants to comply with your rules. You correct a woman by being so valuable to her Dread is an ambient passive dynamic for her. You correct a woman by being aware of Alpha and Beta tells and acting according to the message her medium is telling you.

Women are never expected to shoulder consequences of their actions and as such they have no incentive for introspection or correction. There’s a social infrastructure that’s been established and revised for centuries that expressly excuses women from the consequences of their behaviors and ideologies. Women need correction, but they only learn it from the ramifications of their actions when men enforce it by their non-participation, non-cooperation with women’s ‘correctness’ or by women’s loss.

Stalling for Time

stalled

I was made aware of a trio of rather noteworthy stories last week all of which I found dovetail nicely on topic together. The first was Tweeted to me about the new advent of artificial ovaries and how overjoyed our feminine-concerned social order was that ‘infertile‘ women might have a better chance of conception. The report’s subtitled perspective was, ostensibly, about how making a synthetic home for a woman’s egg-producing follicles could improve fertility after chemotherapy and help women with endometriosis conceive:

Women can become infertile after cancer treatment as the ovaries and the egg-making follicles they contain are vulnerable to chemotherapy, especially for leukaemias, brain cancers and lymphomas. Removing and freezing ovarian tissue beforehand to reimplant after treatment can help women conceive, but there is a risk that this tissue will reintroduce hidden cancer cells.

Call me a cynic, but I think if a woman’s had a cancer serious enough to warrant chemotherapy I’m not sure her capacity to conceive a child is really her most important concern. A noble reasoning to be sure, but another paragraph down and we get to the real reason for the excitement:

“It may be used by women who want to delay having babies or postpone the menopause“

The method could benefit other women, too. “When fully developed, this technology may be used in women who want to delay having babies for social reasons, or who want to postpone the menopause,” says Claus Andersen at the University Hospital of Copenhagen, Denmark.

Ah yes, the Holy Grail of bioengineered gender equalism – a safe and effective means of perpetuating a woman’s fertility well beyond all reason and concern for healthy parenting would otherwise mandate. Nowhere is it mentioned, or are we to politely consider, that women’s real reasons for wanting a safe way to extend their fertility has less to do with ‘infertility’ concerns and a lot more to do with their difficulties in optimizing Hypergamy.

Earlier this year I wrote an essay entitled Assurances in which I argue that women will demand that society and science accommodate and insure their indefinite fertility while they sort out why it is they can’t seem to find the right (and Hypergamously cooperative) guy with which to start a family. I began that article by outlining the recent worker’s benefit of ‘egg freezing’ some larger companies were offering in order to entice (executive level) women to work for them – women, we are meant to presume, are so absorbed by their careers that they need to dedicate their most fertile years to their professional aspirations. All in order to stay on an equal footing with hyper-competitive men of course:

The latent purpose of developing technology to freeze a woman’s eggs, for instance, is to cheat (or give the impression of being able to cheat) the otherwise natural process of fertility that women are beholden to.

The latent purpose of every pop-cultural trend that contributes to the perception that women can realistically exceed the window of their fertility is offered as an assurance that women have more time than would be naturalistically expected to optimize Hypergamy.

Ostensibly, the message for women is the cliché of ‘having it all’ – reassuring women that they can have a rewarding career and make a significant difference in their lives and the lives of others as well as realistically having a meaningful family experience later in life. The unspoken hindbrain message is that a woman has more time to optimize Hypergamy.

I took a lot of criticism for being so presumptuous in that assertion. How dare I suggest that professional women didn’t deserve to be afforded the same opportunities men, who peak in their own SMV well after women’s prime fertility years have passed, had in life, career, and family. The thoroughly modern women of today weren’t forestalling pregnancy because of any personal misgivings or difficulties in attracting Mr. Right, these women needed to freeze their eggs to have more time to develop their careers, don’t you know.

The Real Reason Women are Freezing their Eggs

Turns out, not so much. Actually not at all,…

They are often portrayed as hard-hearted individuals who are putting motherhood on hold in order to climb the career ladder.

But women who freeze their eggs are actually waiting for a man who is perfect father material to come along.

Researcher Kylie Baldwin, who asked a group of women why they froze their eggs, said: ‘I think they were looking for a hands-on father.

‘And it was the absence of this particular type of potential father, not just the absence of any partner, that led them to freeze the eggs.

‘It’s not just about not having the right partner, it’s about having the right dad for their child.’

Interestingly, some of the women were in a relationships – but froze their eggs because they didn’t believe their partner was father material and were hoping someone better would come along.

I should add a side note here and point out the importance these women place having “the right dad for their child.” It’s so important that they’d expect a scientific miracle to give them enough time to find this very important father. However, I’d encourage my readers to compare and contrast this to the complete lack of importance men are expected to place on their own roles as the biological father of a child with regard to raising a child that is not his own. You see, while a woman will freeze her eggs in order to find the perfect hands-on Dad to breed with, men are told that even when a child is not his own he shouldn’t concern himself with his own self-importance in breeding or raising that kid.

This study was an interesting confirmation of the assertions I’d made in Assurances – Women want an assurance of Hypergamous optimization. Egg freezing isn’t about medical concerns or even professional sacrifices; egg freezing is about Hypergamy and women’s increasingly diminished ability to satisfy it later and later in life. In the manosphere and in my book Preventive Medicine there’s an understanding that women’s Party Years, the years she rides the “cock carousel”, are dedicated to the pursuit of Alpha Fucks – her prime directive is generally focused on a short term breeding strategy. Women’s entitlement extends to the point now that they demand science extend this period and assure them they will have ample time to complete their quest for Beta Bucks, motherhood, provisioning and parental investments indefinitely, or at least as long as men might be able to live up to their peak SMV qualifications.

The women were predominately middle-class and highly educated and were aged 38, on average, when they had their eggs frozen.

Mrs Baldwin, a sociologist, said: ‘I asked them about what their motivations were and I would say none of the women underwent the procedure for career reasons.

‘Instead, it was very often down to their perception that it was not yet the right time for them to be pursuing motherhood for one reason or another.’

And, as you might expect, what article about women’s struggle in finding the right guy would be complete without shaming men for their reluctance to participate in playing the roles the Feminine Imperative demands they play in order to fulfill women’s sexual strategies?

The comments about men’s reluctance to commit echo some made by one of Britain’s leading fertility doctors earlier this year.

Professor Adam Balen, chairman of the British Fertility Society, said: ‘There is a notion that young men are not committed to relationships in the way they have been in the past.

‘Childhood for some men is being extended into 20s and 30s when they’re not committing to a relationship.’

Again, it’s childish men’s fault that women have been brought to egg freezing science. This then brings us full circle to NPR’s recent story about economists “puzzlement” over why men are leaving the workforce in droves.

“I wasn’t going to go back to work. It was almost going to just be a nice transition into retirement for me — a very early retirement. I mean, I’m only 36 years old,” he says.

And if he does go back to work, he worries about the prospects.

“Things move really, really, really quick [in IT], and I’m worried that if we can’t make it work, that I’m going to go looking for a job and they’re going to say two years out of it, ‘Sorry, brother, you don’t have what it takes to work here anymore,’ ” Rekkedal says.

Tara Sinclair, chief economist for job-search site Indeed.com, says brawny jobs are being replaced by brainy ones, and that trend doesn’t favor men.

How’s that for an interesting social cycle?

There’s a common refrain you read in both the femosphere as well as religious bloggers about the state of extended adolescence they believe men are extending today. I even wrote about this ridiculous impression of men’s clinging to juvenility in Are You Experienced.

Men forestalling their “adulthood” – a characterization that is entirely dependent on how well a man aligns with women’s imperatives – by dropping out, or otherwise not preparing to be a potential provider for a family a woman deems is at last necessary to her, are considered ‘kidults’ or extending their adolescent years. Professor Adam Balen in the egg freezing article says men are extending “childhood” into their 20s and 30s.

Ironically, you’ll find the most ardent critics of extended adolescence in the writings of Man-up-and-marry-those-sluts religious male bloggers intent on virtue signaling their acceptability to women who will benefit most from their ‘manning up’ and overlooking their Party Years indiscretions.

On the other hand, women wishing to forestall motherhood – a characterization which used to imply a woman’s entrance into adulthood – are never characterized as “extending their childhood.” Women who opt to delay marriage can always fall back on the unacceptability of ‘most men these days’ to excuse their own extension, or they are “focusing on their career.” Women can never be cast in any way other than Strong and Independent®. In fact, this is the first, default presumption we make about a never-married or never-mothered woman.

The Daily Mail article about the truths of women’s reasoning for freezing their eggs puts the lie to this presumption. Women’s latent purpose in egg freezing is to extend fertility until their ideal Alpha man arrives in their lives.

Then, of course the blame become circular on men – men not accepting the role that open Hypergamy expects them to already be aware of and accept wholesale makes him guilty of extending his childhood. Women then blame their spinsterhood on a lack of acceptable ‘adult’ men.

There is never any incentive for personal insight on the part of women, not even when she’s far past her reasonably fertile years, to say nothing of her capacity to intersexually compete with her sisters for those acceptable men. Nowhere is there an afterthought that acceptable men would actively avoid her or find her unacceptable for his own long term investment.

Advancing Gender Dynamics

Finally, we need to add to this the obscene amounts of on-tap social validation women enjoy today. I’m not the first author to recognize or write about this, but there is a very real psychological dynamic that humans in this era have had to deal with which no other previous generations had to consider. Our capacity for technological advancement has progressed so quickly over the past century (and 16 years) that human beings are scarcely capable of understanding what these advancements imply to us as a society and largely as a species.

One reason I believe evolutionary psychology will always have a place in the manosphere and Red Pill discussion is because it aids us in understanding how our minds have evolved and what we can expect from ourselves, or cultures our intersexual dynamics in the context of how we’re experiencing these technological advancements. I had a reader tell me once about how appalled his grandmother was at the idea of a sperm bank when they first appeared. Today it’s part of the scenery, but when they appeared it was scandalous to the mindset of that era’s acculturation. Fast forward from the 1960s to now; in just over half a century think of the tech advancements we have with us today that we take for granted, but our grandparents would marvel over. Now think about how those advancements are interpreted by our hindbrains in so short a time.

Communications technologies, and now a social media explosion, affect our very plastic, yet feral hindbrains in ways that our new globalizing culture can’t keep pace with. I bring this up, because it’s important to consider how women’s feral selves are affected by an instantaneous attention and affirmation that previous generations of women craved, but never dreamed of having this kind of facility with.

As the conversation is won’t to do on this blog’s comment threads, the topic du jour picked up on the merits, or lack thereof, of monogamy vs. legal marriage vs. pLTRs (primary long term relationships or ‘plural’ long term relationships as the term fits). I’ll be addressing this in the next post, but I’ll foreshadow a bit with this; sifting through one of his usually long comments, this bit from YaReally stuck with me (emphasis mine):

“But even if your Game is as tight as YaReally’s, try interesting a modern young chick in commitment. Go ahead. You’ll be in for a shock. A woman in her prime years is so high on a never ending validation train that she’s sure it will never end. Why should she commit? There’s no incentive to do so. She always branch swings to better, and better is always available before she’s even tired of what she’s got.”

You hear them say “I wouldn’t give up my social media for that dream guy”, but you don’t hear why they won’t. The “why” is what we’re up against. They are conditioned to think they will never hit the wall, Amy Schumer at 45 gets the rich doctor in the end, they have endless offers of commitment and monkey branch higher and higher up the tree in their prime.

I have fuckbuddies who’ve disqualified high status guys. and rich jacked 6-pack dudes for like one or two errors. My favorite was one who disqualified a guy because the area of medicine he picked to specialize in wasn’t EXCITING ENOUGH. So she interpreted that as him not having enough ambition. She turned him down for such a silly reason. But why wouldn’t she? She has dates lined up anytime she wants with guys as high value or higher than him around the block whenever she wants. If she takes care of herself the attention train won’t stop till 35+. Why would she want to limit her Hypergamous options by settling in her early 20s?

That’s why those girls look at you funny when you suggest giving up social media. They can’t comprehend any reason TO. It doesn’t compute.

In a globalizing culture where both science and social order is predicated on the satisfaction of women’s imperatives, why indeed would any woman believe she isn’t entitled to it all? Both technology and social reengineering have placed women into a position where their hindbrains cannot hope to interpret the experiences they afford, much less have the attention span necessary for the insight to process how they should best cope with changes they’re scarcely aware of or take for granted.

This post is the first in a series detailing the contrast between how our evolved biological natures conflict and cope with the changes our rapid advancement demands of us, and how our intersexual and social relations are changing as a result of it.

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies

monogamy

When I first began writing on SoSuave over a decade ago I used to get into what I consider now some fairly predictable arguments about monogamy. It was an interesting time since it was around then I was getting into some heated arguments in my behavioral psychology classes in college.

I had just written what would later become my essay, There is no One and a good majority of my classmates and all of my teachers but one were less than accepting of the theory. I anticipated most of the women in those classes would be upset – bear in mind this was around 2001-02 and the Red Pill was yet to be a thing – what I was surprised by was how many men became hostile by my having challenged the soulmate myth.

I got a lot of the same flack from women then that I get from uninitiated women when they read my work now; “Aren’t you married? Isn’t she your soulmate? Don’t you believe in love? You must’ve got burned pretty bad at some time Mr. Hateful.” Those were and are what I expect because they’re the easy subroutine responses a Blue Pill ego needs to protect itself with. There was a time I probably would’ve mouthed the same. That’s how the conditioning works; it provides us with what we think ought to be ‘obvious’ to anyone. And at the same time, we feel good for ‘defying the odds’ and believing in what we take for granted, or common sense.

This is how deep the subconscious need for assuring our genetic heritage goes. For women this assurance is about optimal Hypergamy, for men, it’s about assurances of paternity. In either case, we need to believe that we will reproduce, and so much so that we will attribute some supernatural influence to the process of doing so. The fulfillment of your own sexuality is nothing less than your battle for existence, and on some level, your subconscious understands this. Thus, for the more religious-minded it gets attributed to fate and faith, whereas for the more secular-minded it’s about the romanticized notion of a soulmate.

Monogamy & ONEitis

I contemplated the idea of ONEitis for a long time back then. I’d most certainly been through it more than once, even with the BPD ex-girlfriend. By then I understood first hand how the belief absorbs a Beta and how it is an essential element, effectively a religion, for a Blue Pill life experience. I didn’t realize it then, but I was maturing into a real valuation of myself and I had the benefit of some real-world experiences with the nature of women to interpret and contrast what I was learning then.

Honestly, I had never even encountered the term ‘ONEitis’ prior to my SoSuave forum days. I referred to the soulmate myth in my writing as best I could, but it wasn’t until (I suppose) Mystery had coined the term. Outside the ‘sphere people got genuinely upset with me when I defined it for them.  Back then I attributed this to having their ego-investment challenged, and while that’s part of it, today I believe there’s more to it than this.

The old social contracts that constituted what I call the Old Set of Books meant a lot in respect to how the social orders prior to the sexual revolution were maintained. That structuring required an upbringing that taught men and women what their respective roles were, and those roles primarily centered on a lifetime arrangement of pair bonding.

It’s interesting to note that the popular theory amongst evolutionary anthropologists is that modern monogamous culture has only been around for just 1,000 years. Needless to say, it’s a very unpopular opinion that human beings are in fact predisposed to polyamory / polygyny and monogamy is a social adaptation (a necessary one) with the purpose of curbing the worst consequences of that nature. We want to believe that monogamy is our nature and our more feral impulses are spandrels and inconveniences to that nature. We like the sound of humans having evolved past our innate proclivities to the point that they are secondary rather than accepting them as fundamental parts of who we really are.

Women, in particular, are far more invested in promoting the idea of ‘natural’ monogamy since it is their sex that bears the cost of reproductive investments. Even the hint of men acknowledging their ‘selfish gene’ nature gets equated with a license to cheat on women. This is an interesting conflict for women who are increasingly accepting (if not outright flaunting) of Open Hypergamy.

I’ve attempted in past essays to address exactly this duplicity women have to rationalize with themselves. The Preventive Medicine book and posts outline the conflict and how women internalize and ‘hamsterize’ the need to be both Hypergamously selective, but to also prioritize long-term security at various stages of their lives. Ultimately a woman’s position on monogamy is ruled by how she balances her present Alpha Fucks with her future prospects of Beta Bucks.

Seed and Need

It might be that women would rather share a confirmed Alpha with other women than be saddled with a faithful Beta, but that’s not to say that necessity doesn’t eventually compel women to settle for monogamy with a dutiful Beta. In either respect, the onus of sustained, faithful monogamy is always a responsibility placed upon men. The indignation that comes from even the suspicions of a man’s “straying”, a wandering eye, or preplanned infidelity is one of the most delicious sensations a woman can feel. Women will create syndicated talk shows just to commiserate around that indignation.

But in an era when the likes of Sheryl Sandberg encourages women to fully embrace their Hypergamous natures and expects men to be equally accepting of it, it takes a lot of psychological gymnastics to reconcile the visceral feelings of infidelity with the foreknowledge that a less exciting Beta will be the only type of man who will calm her suspicions.

It’s important to also contrast this with the socialization efforts to make women both victims and blameless. As I mention in the last post, men who lack the appreciation of the necessity to prepare for a sustained monogamy with a woman are considered ‘kidults’ or prolonging their adolescence. They are shamed for not meeting women’s definition of being mature; that definition is always one that centers on the idea that men ought to center their lives around being better-than-deserved, faithful, monogamous potentials for women’s long-term security and parental investment.

On the other hand, women are never subject to any qualifications like this. In fact, they are held in higher regard for bucking the system and staying faithful to themselves by never marrying or even aborting children along the way to do so. So once again, we return to the socialization effort necessary to absolve women of the consequences that the conflict Hypergamy poses to them – they become both victims and blameless in confronting a monogamy they expect from men, but are somehow exempt from when it’s inconvenient.

Pair Bonding

Arguably, pair bonding has been a primary adaptation for us that has been species-beneficial. It’s fairly obvious that humans’ capacity for both intra- and inter-sexual cooperation has made us the apex species on the planet. However, the Feminine Imperative’s primary social impetus of making Hypergamy the defining order of (ideally) all cultures is in direct conflict with this human cooperativity. A new order of open Hypergamy, based on female primacy (and the equalist importance of the individual), subverts the need for pair bonding. There is no need for intersexual interdependence (complementarity) when women are socialized and lauded for being self-satisfying, self-sufficient individuals.

Add to this the conditioning of unaccountable victimhood and/or the inherent blamelessness of women and you get an idea of where our social order is heading.

Both sex’s evolved sexual strategies operate counter to the demands of pair bonded monogamy. For millennia we’ve adapted social mechanisms to buffer for it (marriage, male protectionism of women, etc.), but the cardinal rule of sexual strategies still informs these institutions and practices:

 

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

In this respect, it is men who are expected to make the greater compromise due to an evolved sense of uncertainty about paternity and the social mandate to accommodate women’s sexual strategy.

The counter to this is that women have always borne the responsibility of parental investment if they chose a father poorly (or didn’t choose), but in our post-sexual revolution social order, the consequences of this responsibility have been virtually eliminated. In fact, those consequences are now viewed as evidence of women’s independent strength.

Even aborting a child is a source of pride now.

Men bear the greater effect of compromising their sexual strategies to accommodate and resolve the strategy of women. When we account for the normalization of open Hypergamy, soft cuckoldry, and the legal resistance to paternity testing (ostensibly centering on the emotional wellbeing of the child in question) it is much clearer that men bear the most direct consequences for compromising their sexual imperatives.

From Warren Farrell’s book. Why Men are the Way They Are (h/t to SJF):

Why are men so afraid of commitment? Chapter 2 explained how most men’s primary fantasy is still, unfortunately, access to a number of beautiful women. For a man, commitment means giving up this fantasy. Most women’s primary fantasy is a relationship with one man who either provides economic security or is on his way to doing so (he has “potential”). For a woman, commitment to this type of man means achieving this fantasy. So commitment often means that a woman achieves her primary fantasy, while a man gives his up. — P.150

Men who “won’t commit” are often condemned for treating women as objects — hopping from one beautiful woman to the next. Many men hop. But the hopping is not necessarily objectifying. Men who “hop from one beautiful woman to another” are usually looking for what they could not find at the last hop: good communication, shared values, good chemistry. — P.153

The meaning of commitment changed for men between the mid-sixties and the mid-eighties. Commitment used to be the certain route to sex and love, and to someone to care for the children and the house and fulfill the “family man image.” Now men feel less as if they need to marry for sex; they are more aware that housework can be hired out and that restaurants serve meals; they are less trapped by family-man image motivation, including the feeling that they must have children. Increasingly, that leaves men’s main reason to commit the hope of a woman to love. — P.159

Dr. Farrell is still fundamentally trapped in a Blue Pill perspective because he still clings to the validity of the old order books/rules, and the willfully ignorant hope that women will rationally consider men’s sexual imperatives as being as valid as their own.

That said, Farrell’s was the germ of the idea I had for the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies, he just didn’t go far enough because he was (and still is) stuck in Blue Pill idealistic hopes of monogamy. Bear in mind, Farrell’s book is based on his intrasexual understandings of everything leading up to its publication in 1986, however, this does give us some insight into how the old order evolved its approach to monogamy then into an open, socially accepted form of Hypergamy now.

He relies on the old trope that men are afraid of commitment by reasoning that men only want to fulfill a fantasy of unlimited access to unlimited sexuality – all shallow, all superficial, while women’s priority of commitment is correct, selfless, valid and blameless. Farrell also reveals his Blue Pill conditioning by making the presumption that men only Game women in the hope that they’ll find a unicorn, and they’re endlessly fucking women for no other reason than to find a woman with good communication, shared values, good chemistry, etc.

I sincerely doubt that even in the mid 8os this was the case for men not want to commit to a woman, or essentially compromise his sexual strategy to accommodate that of women’s. Farrell never came to terms with dual nature of women’s sexual strategy and how it motivates women over time because he believes men and women have, fundamentally, the same concept of love and mutually shared end-goals.

Mandates & Responses

In the decades since this publication, the normalization and legal mandates that ensure men will (by force if necessary) comply with this compromise is something I doubt Farrell could’ve ever predicted. Legal aspects, social aspects, that used to be a source of women stigmatization about this compromise have all been swept away or normalized, if not converted to some redefined source of supposed strength. Abortion rights, single parenting (almost exclusively the domain of women), postponing birth, careerism, freezing women’s eggs, sperm banks, never-marrying, body fat acceptance and many more aspects are all accepted in the name of strong independence® for women.

Virtually anything that might’ve been a source of regret, shame, or stigmatization in the old order is dismissed or repurposed to elevate women, but what most men never grasp (certainly not Dr. Farrell) is that all of these normalizations were and are potential downsides to a woman’s Hypergamous decisions.

MGTOW/PUA/ The Red Pill, are all the deductive responses to this normalization, but also, they’re a response to the proposition of the compromise that the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies presents to men in today’s sexual marketplace.

In all of these ‘movements’ the fundamental, central truth is that they all run counter to the presumption that men must compromise (or abandon) their sexual imperatives – long or short term. Thus, these ideologies and praxeologies have the effect of challenging or removing some of the total control of Hypergamy women now have mandated to them. Even just the concepts of MGTOW/PUA/TRP are equatable to removing this control.

However, it is still undeniable that there is a necessity for monogamy (even if it’s just temporary) or some iteration of pair bonding that ensures men and women raise healthier, stronger, better-developed children. We are still social animals and, despite what equalism espouses, we are different yet complementary and interdependent with one another. Mutual cooperation, tribalism, monogamy and even small-scale polygamy have been beneficial social adaptations for us.

Gynocentrism and the respondent efforts against it defeat this complementary cooperative need.

Gynocentrism / egalitarianism defeat this cooperation in its insistence that equalism, self-apart independence, and homogeny ought to be society’s collective mental point of origin in place of the application of differing strengths to differing weaknesses.

So we come to an impasse then. It’s likely it will require a traumatic social event to reset or redefine the terms of our present social contract to ever make monogamy a worthwhile compromise for men again. We can also contrast this ‘raw deal’ compromise against the Cardinal Rule of Relationships: In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. It’s easy to think women simply have no need of men when their long-term security is virtually assured today, but fem-centrism goes beyond just separating the sexes by need. It wasn’t enough to just separate male and female cooperation, fem-centrism has made men’s compromise so bad that they must be made to despise their sex altogether. Men had to be made not only to accept their downside compromise but to feel ashamed for even thinking not to.

Sugar Babies

prettywhitegirl

Whenever I use a manosphere acronym I’m always torn between presuming my readers will already know the terminology and need to re-explain a concept that the letters represent to new readers. We use a lot of acronyms and placeholder terms in the ‘sphere. These are necessary, but when you apply needed terms to abstractions and unfamiliar ideas critics will always fill the blanks in for themselves by telling you what you think you mean according to their preconceptions.

Next to the (abstract) terms of ‘Alpha’ and ‘Beta’, SMP and SMV are two of the more contentious placeholders for manosphere concepts. SMP is Sexual Marketplace and SMV is used to represent the relative Sexual Market Value of an individual within that SMP. There’s a lot to consider when when we attempt to define just what that ‘marketplace’ entails, but the point of contention for critics is that by valuating a person based on a perceived market state we dehumanize that individual. For those uninitiated to Red Pill concepts, a complete denial of any sexual marketplace is usually the first retort.

People are People and everyone is special” or some variation of the nebulous individual’s uniqueness needing to be held as the benchmark for each case of ‘value’ are the common refrains. Even denying an observable, measurable marketplace altogether for fear of being ‘judgemental’ is part of the Red Pill critic’s predictable counter to the idea of a sexual marketplace.

However, the latent purpose of this denial is really a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ tactic that keeps players ignorant of the system they exist in. Just as with the 49th Law of Power, deny the game exists and you can better play it.

As with all Red Pill truths, the awareness of where one fits into the scheme of the SMP, and accepting the sometimes cruel realities of it can be a bucket of cold reality for men (and women). The simple truth is that our capacity to valuate various stimuli in our environment has been a survival-beneficial adaptation for us.

We commodify a lot of our personal lives these days. We simply don’t have a problem accepting the easier aspects of this. ‘Time is money” is quick aphorism we apply to a lot of situation for ourselves. When a woman does the breakdown of all her ‘unpaid’ housework or childcare for an article in Forbes she’s lauded for commodifying and valuating that work. But let a man commodify women based on their general sexual appeal and utility to his sexual strategy and he’s dehumanizing and objectifying women.

If you’re interested in further reading about how we apply market principles to various aspects of our lives I’d suggest the book Life Inc. by Doug Rushkoff. It’s a great read, particularly the ideas about how we view buying a house as an investment rather than a place to live. I bring this up here because it’s a similar dynamic to how women invest themselves with men in the long term and the short term according to Hypergamous necessity. Women’s Hypergamy largely defines the modern sexual marketplace.

The Benefits of Opportunism

Women love opportunistically, men love idealistically. I’ve written several essays about how Hypergamy predisposes (often subconsciously) women to sexual opportunism, and men’s concept of love is rooted in idealism. I won’t belabor summing up these dynamics today, but if you want to review them you can read through the Love series of posts, and male idealism can be found here.

In 2016, the modern dating landscape, as well as contemporary marriage, has become varying degrees of ‘sex work’. I went into this topic a year and a half ago in Commodifying Love. This post was mostly meant to elaborate on another post Dalrock had written observing the utility feminist had with being miserly with love. I sought to explore it a bit further:

As Open Hypergamy becomes more proudly embraced and normalized in society, so too will women’s sexual strategy be laid more bare. And in laying that strategy bare, so too will women’s opportunistic model of love become more apparent to men. This new apparentness is already conflicting with the old-order messaging that kept men hopeful of realizing their idealistic love state.

Women cannot sell Open Hypergamy and the love-conquers-all ethereal ideal love at the same time.

I daresay this quote was a good bit of foreshadowing. One aspect of having a Red Pill lens is that it allows you to see the writing on the wall in so many ways with regard to intersexual dynamics and how they influence societal shifts. When I proposed that men and women’s concepts of love differ, and that much of the disconnect between the sexes is the result of the fact that we don’t share a mutual point of origin for that love, Blue Pill people got upset.

Women’s concept of love originates in an opportunism stemming from a subconscious need to optimize Hypergamy. To this day I still get angry comments from women for having used the word “opportunism”. Naturally, there’s a negative connotation to opportunism, but I use it in this context to describe a function in women’s sexual strategy. I could’ve used the term ‘practical’ or ‘pragmatic’, but often enough what inspires women’s need to optimize Hypergamy is anything but practical or pragmatic.

Everyone needs to realize that men are the “romantics pretending to be realists” and women; vice versa.

This week I received more than a few requests to give my take on the latest trend in women’s sexual opportunism. This comes courtesy of Vanity Fair and their exposé of the Sugar Babies/Sugar Daddies “dating” dynamic that’s become part of The New Prostitution Economy. Have a read of the whole article, but the short version is a breakdown of how women (all in their SMV peak years) look for “arrangements” with generous men eager to fund their lifestyles or (ostensibly) their education goals. In exchange, these men get the privilege of ‘dating’ if not fucking these women who would otherwise be out of whatever league they ascribe themselves to.

sugarbabies_2

I have a real love-hate relationship with articles like this. It’s far too easy to pile on and get wrapped up in the salaciousness and outrage dynamic – which is really what the article is written to prompt. But at the risk of writing an article about how “horrible women are/becoming” I think this trend is really the next logical extension of what I was describing in Commodifying Love a year and a half ago.

Yes, it’s just prostitution by another name. Yes, there is a pop-culture effort to normalize what would otherwise be a manipulative exploitation of men – but who cares, right? If poor Beta saps have the money, it’s only pragmatic that women legitimize the ‘pay-to-play’ model while they can capitalize on it in their prime years, right? And yes, the feminist narrative will simultaneously vilify the men resorting to being a “Sugar Daddy” while applauding the empowered women who play the game as well as they do.

Sarcasm aside, what’s underneath this dynamic is a graphic illustration of just how women’s opportunism looks when the stigma of keeping Hypergamy concealed from men is now brought into the light and proudly embraced in a feminine-centric social order. The social effort to normalize Open Hypergamy takes another step forward when women’s effective prostitution becomes indistinguishable from ‘normal’ dating – that is dating based on common attraction or interest.

The ‘date’-as-investment-opportunity becomes inseparable from women’s opportunistic concept of, and approach towards, love. Commodifying love and sex blurs the line between what is genuine desire and what is motivated interest. The conventional meme is that women have a difficult time separating sex from emotional investment, but the progression of Open Hypergamy – in this case the deliberate feigning of intimate interests on the part of women – puts the lie to this and reveals the true pragmatism with which women will apply their sexuality. Open Hypergamy becomes open prostitution, but this relationship becomes an accepted exchange or transaction the more comfortable women get with revealing the crueler nature of their sexual strategy.

“You can’t tell who the hookers are anymore.”

When we look at women’s opportunistic approach to love, psycho-social dynamics like the War Bride dynamic come into stark contrast next to the Sugar Babies trend – they are both natural extensions of women’s need to optimize Hypergamy and ensure their long term security.

“You can’t tell who the hookers are anymore,” says another guy at the bar, a well-known D.J. in his 30s. “They’re not strippers, they’re not on the corner, there’s no more madam. They look like all the other club girls.”

He tells a story of a young woman he let stay in his hotel room one weekend while he was working in Las Vegas. “She met up with this other girl and all of a sudden they had all these men’s watches and wallets and cash. They wereworking.” He laughs, still amazed at the memory.

“It’s like hooking has just become like this weird, distorted extension of dating,” the D.J. says. “ ‘He took me to dinner. He throws me money for rent’—it’s just become so casual. I think it’s dating apps—when sex is so disposable, if it doesn’t mean anything, then why not get paid for it? But don’t call it prostitution—no, now it’s liberation.”

They all look the same because the commodification of intimacy is the same. Hooking is dating when the only degree of separation is in the comfort women have in the transaction. The necessary compartmentalizing of feelings or emotional investment on the part of women – the ones we’ve been sold for so long as inseparable from their sexuality – are only mitigated by men they perceive as having a higher SMV than those who they view as ‘clients’.

Money isn’t a factor in this equation of SMV; why would it be when provisioning is so easily had via dating clients ready to pay her rent or something else comparable? I’ve dug into this before, but with respect to women’s short-term sexual priorities (the Alpha Fucks side of Hypergamy) money rarely plays a role in genuine arousal; and even then it’s by order of degree in how necessitous that woman may be – or in this case, how entitled to those resources she has convinced herself she deserves.

The larger social embrace of “Sugaring” is an extension of Open Hypergamy. So not only is there an expectation of capitalizing on a woman’s party years, but that once she’s reached the Epiphany Phase she can be relatively confident that her years of Sugaring will be socially normalized and not factor into her long-term capacity to optimize Hypergamy (see the Sandberg effect). Women’s opportunistic concept of love is informed by Hypergamy, so it feeds into the SMP valuation of her intimate transactions.

And this dynamic isn’t just limited to younger women in their SMV peak years; women in their later phases of maturity have also found how useful apps like Tinder are in getting men to do the manual labor tasks they’d otherwise have to pay for themselves.

Genuine femininity has become so rare in our present social order that it can now be bartered as a luxury experience for men who can afford it. So uncommon is feminine behaviors and demeanor now that men will pay a woman’s bills when they can convincingly act feminine, sweet and appreciative. It’s no surprise that married men account for the majority of Sugar Daddies; they seek what they lack in their marriages – sex, femininity, appreciation, caring, even loving conversation – an escape from wives who feel entitled to their efforts and provisioning with out reciprocation.

Even feigned femininity is better than a nagging loneliness in marriage

Transactions

Acknowledging Hypergamy openly is acknowledging the transactional nature of women’s concept of love. It’s ugly, but as Hypergamy becomes an increasingly normalized a blurring of the line between dating and prostitution becomes more common. As I’ve said before, there will come a point that even the most Blue Pill man will be forced to recognize women’s blatant sexual strategies. As it stands now there is some confusion for these guys, thus, we see men wondering who the hooker is and who the available club girl is because both employ similar methodologies.

As a result men become less able to distinguish genuine desire from transactional role playing by women. Even in marriage transactional role playing has already been normalized and a presumption of a feminine frame of authority pervades most marriages – wives allow a husband to believe he’s in his Frame so long as the transaction is beneficial to what her ego believes is her due (see Briffault’s Law).

Solutions & Caveats

Sometimes it’s not enough to simply say “now you know, and knowing is half the battle”. The other half of the battle is taking actions and precautions to avoid the tar pits and protect oneself. In the future I believe it will be imperative for men not only to understand the nature of women’s sexual strategy, but also what to expect from the results of women’s previous decisions to effect them.

Guys ought to consider that by marrying or engaging in an LTR with former Sugar Babies they will not only deal with an Alpha Widow in terms of her sexual past, but also Sugar Daddy provider widows as well. Imagine the lifestyle switch to a lower socioeconomic status than what her former Daddy provided her with. Even dutiful Betas in Waiting will find their patience tested in competing with the previous lifestyle of a Sugar Baby.

Of course the easiest answer is always to recuse yourself from dating a Sugar Baby, to say nothing about entering an LTR with her, but as I mentioned earlier, hooking will be dating or some crossing of that line in the not so distant future. It’s important to bear this in mind, particularly when the transactional nature of it will run contradictory to the narrative that men are never owed sex for anything. The subcommunication is one of an implied contract, but the indignation will be one of men’s non-selected presumptions that sex is what’s being barter for.

From now and into the foreseeable future men must consider women from a realistic assessment of how their sexual strategies inform their decisions and base their own decisions accordingly. It’s also important to remember that the sexual market place differs in various contexts. Usually this context is reflective of the culture or social group engaging in, and reinforcing it. Women sexual opportunism doesn’t change, only how it’s expressed in a social context. Not all women are ‘Sugaring’, however the motives that allow for a normalization of it exist in all women – even the sweet nice ones who want to make a good impression on you.

It’s not impossible to engender a genuine desire in a woman. If that weren’t the case I wouldn’t be writing, but it’s important to be aware of how Hypergamy will evolved social dynamics to better facilitate its optimization. This can be a very damaging influence on both women and the men who attempt to navigate a sexual marketplace founded on unchecked Hypergamy.

A Man in Demand Radio – Talk 3

blah-blah-blah-day-764x382-525x263

Last Friday I had the opportunity (and time) to talk with Christian McQueen once again – this time for a solid three hours. I hardly noticed the time passing since it’s like an exchange among friends, very casual, and a little upbeat I think.

We went into quite a bit and my going on longer is always the first request I get after most interviews so I thought I’d accommodate.

You can pick up the audio for free at Christian’s A Man in Demand Radio here.

As I said, it’s three hours so you may want to download it and listen at your leisure. We did this last Friday which was the day after the Brexit vote so, yes, I did get asked for some political opinions, but as always I stay on what my take is from an intersexual perspective.

We went into the state of Hypergamy in 2016 and how personal and social dynamics are being influenced by it, and I offer some practical solutions for guys dealing with it in the now. We discuss marriage and how and why it’s changed. I also answer some Twitter questions ranging from dealing with one’s family through a Red Pill lens to answering the common question, “Where do you see this going?” or The Talk.

There’s a lot more in this than anything I’ve done with Christian previously, so tell me what you think and feel free to ask me questions about anything or discuss anything I go into in this interview.

Enjoy!