women

Chick Crack

Of all the strippers I’d ‘dated’ in the past every one subscribed to some form of non-mainstream spiritualism. This girl Angie I used to bang kept Tarot cards in her pink lady’s devotional Bible, another professed to be a psychic; in fact the only people I’ve ever known who self-seriously wanted me to believe they were in fact psychic were all women.

These types look for that connection in a guy. For instance I bought a little silver yin-yang ring that I’ve worn for almost 18 years now when I was in college. I don’t really have any eastern mystic beliefs, I just bought it from a street vendor when I felt I needed a reminder to keep balance in my life. But damned if I didn’t have (and still do) more women point it out and ask me about it, and have it be some karmic conversation starter since I got it. The thing is tiny, but that’s what they gravitate to.

For the stripper set this seems to be par for the course, but I wish I could say this chick-crack phenomenon was limited to just women who had some vacuous spiritual/emotional hole in their lives to fill. No, all women (yes I said all) are predisposed to the intrigue that metaphysical imaginings sparks in them. If it smacks of secret, covert knowledge, privy only to a chosen few, then you’ve got an attentive listener in a woman. UFOs, palm reading (always a classic), psychic premonition, ‘gifts of prophecy’, really anything that hints at knowledge beyond the ordinary is fair game. Chick Crack is not just limited to off-brand spiritualisms either, you’ll find that far more women than men will develop (conveniently) an affinity for, and are more invested in, religion than men.

Feminine Mythology

Women’s natural pull towards the mysterious and metaphysical has its roots in the sex’s historical characterizations. In keeping with the very useful associations of women’s unknowability and feminine mystique, it’s perhaps unsurprising that we find most mythologized representations of women and femininity cast as brooding, fickle, rapacious and often as a temptress, possessing secret knowledge that foolish men (the mere mortals) are neither capable of, nor encouraged to understand. Sometimes childlike, often conveniently eroticized, women are literally cast as forces of nature – whether sexualized nymphs or tempestuous witches, each characterization relies on women possessing some form of secret or forbidden connection to the metaphysical. Even the commanding presence of Joan of Arc, while leading the armies of France, had a connection to something otherworldly. By their very nature, feminine mythology, by default, presumes women are more in tune with the nature of reality, while surpassing the ignorance of brutish men.

Women revel in their mythology. Since covert forms of communication are the preferred language of women, their affinity for secret information is a natural fit. Ever wonder why gossip seems to be uniquely endemic to women? Look no further than women’s innate impulse to acquire secret knowledge. Take away the Vampires and Werewolves – the metaphysical component – from the Twilight series and what you’re left with is a relatively bland romance novel. Add the otherworldly and you have a runaway hit popular with every female age demographic, from tweens to octogenarians.

In women’s evolutionary past, concealment meant everything. Confusing a man as to the true genetic heritage of his children was often a matter of life or death. Pursuing pluralistic sexual strategies depends upon creating a characterization of women as legitimately unknowable, thus the feminine mystique is instituted. Ergo, the sociological PR campaign over the course of millennia has been to perpetuate the mystery of woman.

Doing Crack

If it weren’t so predictable, it would almost be ironic that one of the first useful Game observations PUAs made about feminine nature was their tendency to entertain magical thinking to varying degrees. It wasn’t too hard to figure out that women could be engaged more easily if you started an approach topic, at least playfully, regarding some metaphysical belief. The association is one where (albeit disingenuously) a Man would seem ‘in the know’ about something a woman has a private belief about, thus establishing a point of identification that both would otherwise want to keep secret. Currently the most popular (at least in the circle of women I know) metaphysical concept is actually called The Secret. On the surface of it it’s sheer idiocy, but you’d be surprised how thoroughly the feminine has embraced this new age Jabez Prayer.

Single + Hot = Crazy

I heard this theory come up on a local radio talk show this morning. The idea is basically for men to be wary of exceptionally hot women who are chronically single. The point being that a hot woman ought to be more likely to be monogamous by virtue of her easy ability to attract guys, but if she is constantly single that it’s indicative of emotional / psychological issues that prevent her from getting involved, or deters men in spite of her beauty (i.e. pump & dump-able but not LTR material).

I’ve experienced this phenomenon played out in the past, but I was wondering what other’s takes on it was.

From our Game-aware side of the equation we can certainly see the logic of this, but for men, to be single, childless and never married after 30 carries a social stigma. Of course they’re presumptions, but how many times have your married friends attempted to set you up with a girl who they think has LTR / Marriage potential for you when you’re single? You’re either a workaholic, status seeking, a latent homosexual or must have some other personality flaw if you’re not following “life’s plan” (see, fem-centrism’s plan) like everyone else. In fact in some respects being married (or at least in a serious LTR) serves as social proof of a certain degree of maturity that might be beneficial for a guy in his career. At the very least it encourages the perception that you’re not gay, irresponsible or overly status seeking and family oriented, irrespective of the actual truth.

Now, that’s as it applies to Men; I’m not so sure that it benefits women as much. We can play the career woman meme and forgive her for not being married and childless, and she garners a relative respect because “she’s fighting her way up the corporate ladder to break the glass ceiling in a world controlled by men” so the Matrix respects that personal sacrifice. In fact if she’s a single parent or married we afford her that much more respect because she’s “doing it all” and at a perceived disadvantage. But, is all this girl-power acceptance really masking what would otherwise be considered a retardation in maturity?

It’s socially acceptable to shame a man for being a ‘kidult’ if he hasn’t gotten with life’s program – he has an underlying maturity problem – but for women, bucking the ‘program’ is evidence of integrity and independence. This begs the question, if she’s attractive enough to retain male attention, but has never solidified a monogamous relationship is there something wrong with her?

The Hot Ones are Crazy

That’s all about the career driven people, but what I was getting at is, is there a corollary between an average woman’s attractiveness, her being perpetually unable to establish a healthy LTR and a personality disorder or mental imbalance? Maybe using the term “chronically single” was a bit of a misnomer. What I mean is an otherwise healthy, dating, attractive woman who, for whatever reason, has been unable to establish a long term connection with a guy. That may be due to men becoming wary of her, or by her own inability to make a lasting connection due to her own insecurities, or by attention whoring. Essentially, is an HB 9 who’s never been in a healthy LTR by age 30 a woman that men should wary of? Is it a red flag?

If you asked 100 different women whether the degree of attractiveness was corollary with how mentally balanced a woman is, my guess is that you’d get answers biased by how relatively attractive each woman was. This is similar to how most very attractive women aren’t as bothered by sexualization in varying degrees as they become less and less so. In other words the HB5 will rail against sexism of skimpy bikinis and beauty pageants, while the HB10 could care less. It serves the less attractive women’s imperative to disqualify more attractive women’s chances of taking the men they’d want to pair with. This is competitive hypergamy 101. So the gorgeous blonde HB10 with huge tits is automatically cast as a bimbo. Women would like nothing more than for a high value men to think of more attractive, chronically single women to be considered damaged goods.

The Maninstitute has a great breakdown of The Hot/Crazy Scale

The Savior Schema

“Every time a man is being nice to you, he’s offering dick. That’s all it is. ‘Uh, can I get that for ya? How ’bout some dick? Can I help you with that? Can I help you with some dick? Do you need some dick?’ ” – Chris Rock

The Savior Schema – the beta male expectation of reciprocation of intimacy (usually sexual) for problems solved.

This is a learned/developed behavior that results from men’s natural push to deductively search for the most rational solution to a problem. It’s really a linear logic; I need sex + women have sex + I must discover what is required for me to get sex from women + I will perform/embody/identify with said requirements = woman will reciprocate with her intimacy. Needless to say this is simplistic at best, but men have a tendency to believe that women will respond as rationally as they themselves would in qualifying for her stated desires. The manosphere is full of men who can tell you this simply isn’t the case for any number of reasons, but sadly they still think that women ought to live up to their implied “agreement.”

The fundamental flaw of the Savior Schema (also, Captain Save a Ho) is that it is essentially negotiated intimacy, and negotiated intimacy is never genuine. You can fix a woman’s flat tire, help her out of a financial jam, fix her a nice lasagne, give her the perfect shoulder to cry on, take care of her kids and listen to her drone on for hours on the phone, and she’ll still go fuck her outlaw biker boyfriend because her intimacy with him is genuine, unnegotiated, unobligated desire. She wants to have sex with him, she doesn’t owe him sex.

What AFCs fail to understand is that all the financial, emotional, dependable support you could possibly offer a woman is no substitute for raw, unmitigated, chemical desire. Some of the most irresponsible, unreliable, poverty level washouts often get more sex than any dutiful AFC suffering from a Savior Schema, because there is no obligation.

Reciprocity

In the wild, the law of reciprocity and fair exchange is a fairly obvious one. Most high-order social animals have some innate understanding of exchanging resources. In fact you could argue that pair bonding, family structure and social collectives are for the most part based on this shared exchange arrangement. So it stands to reason that in the course of human evolution we too developed this innate psychological wiring, thus making men prone to seeing it as the shortest distance between what we have and what we want.

The difficulties arise when (perhaps cleverly) women learned to covertly use this  innate psychology of exchange within the context of a social framework that gives them a resource advantage for little or no exchange of their own. Thus women modeled a social norm, that mirrors men’s natural default position of disposability, and put their attentions and intimacies as unassailable resources so valuable that no effort on a man’s part can merit it. When a woman is appalled by the notion that she should be obligated to have sex with a man in exchange for a dinner and a movie (even over multiple occasions), this social convention is the root of that insult.

The Protector Dynamic

Of course the flip side to this argument is the Protector Dynamic which is the natural propensity for a man to want to provide protection for his mate. Over the course of our evolutionary history certain psycho-biological behaviors proved to be beneficial to the survival of our species. Specific hormonal releases prompt different emotions and behavioral reactions as a response to our environments. Women, for instance, produce higher volumes of oxytocin and estrogen thus prompting a natural instinctual feeling of wellbeing and nurturing her children (which also, interestingly enough, is released after female orgasm). The same is true for men. Being generally physically stronger and posessing 17 times the testosterone, men have evolved chemical cocktails of their own and thus feel a natural protection instinct when prompted.

The conflict comes when the AFC confuses this Protector Dynamic with a Savior Schema. The natural feelings derived from his biochemistry only serve to reinforce his Savior mentality and solidify it as part of his personality. Even when a woman’s repeated behavior directly contradicts this notion of reciprocating intimacy for help (or his idea of ‘protection’) the Savior Schema only rationalizes it as being inconsistent with a single, individual woman.

This then is the root of the White Knight schema; exchange protection for intimacy (i.e. sex). And, once again, women cleverly, almost subconsciously so, use this dynamic to arrange a beneficial, but unequal, exchange of resources.

You Be the Boy

The following is a poem by Marie Howe that I recently became aware of from an NPR ‘Fresh Air’ interview:

Practicing

BY MARIE HOWE

I want to write a love poem for the girls I kissed in seventh grade,
a song for what we did on the floor in the basement

of somebody’s parents’ house, a hymn for what we didn’t say but thought:That feels good or I like that, when we learned how to open each other’s mouths

how to move our tongues to make somebody moan. We called it practicing, and one was the boy, and we paired off—maybe six or eight girls—and turned out

the lights and kissed and kissed until we were stoned on kisses, and lifted our nightgowns or let the straps drop, and, Now you be the boy:

concrete floor, sleeping bag or couch, playroom, game room, train room, laundry. Linda’s basement was like a boat with booths and portholes

instead of windows. Gloria’s father had a bar downstairs with stools that spun, plush carpeting. We kissed each other’s throats.

We sucked each other’s breasts, and we left marks, and never spoke of it upstairs outdoors, in daylight, not once. We did it, and it was

practicing, and slept, sprawled so our legs still locked or crossed, a hand still lost in someone’s hair . . . and we grew up and hardly mentioned who

the first kiss really was—a girl like us, still sticky with moisturizer we’d shared in the bathroom. I want to write a song

for that thick silence in the dark, and the first pure thrill of unreluctant desire, just before we’d made ourselves stop.

Before you get titillated by this or think “WTF Rollo?” read the poem again. Despite reader compliments, I wish I could say I was more of a poetry aficionado; and yes Howe fits the man-jawed, womyn’s studies archetype to the letter, but after hearing this I had to look up the poem and read it for myself to really get the message. This is a message that I’m not even sure if Howe is really aware of, or intended communicating – You be the boy.

I’ve written in the past about sexual fluidity and the brilliance of it becoming the redefined, reinvented social convention du jour of feminization. I say ‘brilliant’ because it so deftly and conveniently places the inadequacies of its ideology on the backs of the men who wont (really can’t) play along in affirming women’s primacy. Men’s evolved biological predilections and sexual strategies simply refuse to be unengineered into complying with feminized utopian ideals. This has always been the bugbear of feminism. Empowered single mommies can raise a boy to pee sitting down, to leave the toilet seat down, but he still finds he has a natural compulsion to want to take a piss standing up, and seat be damned. It takes half a lifetime of psychological conditioning to repress the male sexual experience.

Similarly, sexual fluidity doctrine also gives the aging spinster a new outlook in her post-Wall years. “Never mind that men wont man up to our your mythologized standards, it appears you’ve been a lesbian all these long years and didn’t know it! But don’t worry, masculinized lesbians make for better ‘men’ than men.”

From Sexual Fluidity:

If you read through the article Why Women are Leaving Men for Other Women, you can’t help but notice the commonalities of the testimonies coming from otherwise feminine women being attracted to more dominant, masculine women. Often these come from long married-with-children women who’ve divorced their beta husbands in favor of a more dominant, butch, Alpha lesbian.

Ironically—or not, as some might argue—it is certain “masculine” qualities that draw many straight-labeled women to female partners; that, in combination with emotional connection, intimacy, and intensity.

“Men can’t understand why I want to be with Jack, a lesbian, when I could be with a biological man,” says Gomez-Barris. “And at first I thought it would be threatening, but I have a rebellious spirit. He’s powerful, accomplished, and appealing. And in some ways, the experience is better than in heterosexual sex.

So what are we seeing here? Heterosexual women, still crave the masculine dominance that men cannot or will not provide her.

Uncle Roosh has an uncanny knack for posting complimentary articles around the same time I’m contemplating a topic, and this offering was no exception. One thing his study on Eastern European women seems to have a consensus on is a lack of masculinity in feminized men (see: American Betas). Roosh’s article provides an interesting contrast to the sexual fluidity convention in illustrating a natural dominant/submissive dynamic that is an in-born imperative for women.

Hypergamy prompts a natural contradiction for women – security and provisioning versus sexual impulse and genetic preselection – this is the root of women’s evolved pluralistic sexual strategies, get the Alpha seed, get the long term provisioning. In the past I’ve gone into detail outlining the innate compulsion women have for desiring security (and parental investment) in the long term, but I think the idea of what represents security to women needs a better explanation.

Case Study

My friend Dave was a stereotypical beta chump and his shrew of a wife was the typical ballbusting so-con feminist who was only too willing to browbeat reminders of it into him constantly. In other respects Dave was a great guy, the sole provider for his family, a great handyman who renovated his home with his own hands (he even built me a nice wood guitar rack for my guitars), but to anyone who’d see him and his wife together it was clear that he was on the receiving end of what I’d consider borderline abuse. He essentially married his mother, who was also a domineering bitch over his father, which is ironic since his wife was already a single mother of two boys when they wed. They had a single daughter who, in her teenage years, took her cues from her mother and picked up the browbeating when mom wasn’t available.

Yet for all the domineering and all the derision she was so comfortable in laying on Dave, she would rip into anyone who would think he was less than a man. She could call him a pussy, but anyone saying the same would be met with a list of his manly credits to such a degree that you’d hardly think you were talking about the same person in the room. She would defend his manliness with the same zeal she had in abusing it. For all of Dave’s wife’s invectives she couldn’t allow anyone to think that the man she was paired with was anything less than the ideal of manhood. On some level of consciousness she wanted him to be dominante even if that meant she had to manufacture the appearance of it for people who knew them.

You be the Boy

The impetus that brought this post about has been the recent discussion thread about Rational reader Ted D’s situation at home. He’s been stuck for some time over at Hooking Up Beta, but his story, and others like it are all too common in a fem-centric socialization that encourages equalism in favor of complimentarianism. It’s the triumph of blank slate ideology that men should be shamed out of a natural position of dominance that women’s own in-born need for security has need for. It’s tragic that it’s been conditioned to the the point that men have internalized equalism to such an extent that the desire to assume a necessary position of dominance, even a marginal position of guidance or leadership is equated with a tyranny. Even the word ‘dominance’ is conflated with power and control in a negative context.

From the first Iron Rule of Tomassi:

What these men failed to realize is that frame, like power, abhors a vacuum.  In the absence of the frame security a woman naturally seeks from a masculine male, this security need forces her to provide that security for herself. Thus we have the commonality of cuckold and submissive men in westernized culture, while women do the bills, earn the money, make the decisions, authorize their husband’s actions and deliver punishments. The woman is seeking the security that the man she pair-bonded with cannot or will not provide.

There is no such thing as egalitarian equality. Even for homosexuals, there is a dominant and submissive partner. It doesn’t make one an evil controller, nor the other a complacent doormat, it’s just that someone has to drive the car. Either you trust that person to drive or you take that control away from them. Someone has to be the boy.

Power abhors a vacuum, if you are unable or unwilling to be in control of the frame, a woman’s innate need for security will compel her to control it for you – in spite of her subconscious need for you to be the boy. You can be the Dom or the Sub, just know that you’ll only be the Sub for as long as it takes her to find a Dom to drive the car. This is the paradox of Hypergamy; that her desire for the best genetic/provisional partner would conflict with his ability to dominate her, all while professing a desire for equality masquerading as control just in case he can’t or wont take the driver’s seat.

HB10

One of the most entertaining and enjoyable aspects of being active in the manosphere is reading the experiences of other men and then formulating some codified references of what guys relate. The Urban Dictionary is chock full of these colorful euphemisms. For instance, does anyone know what a “cranston” is?

Cranston
The cranston is the gap where the vaginal mound can be seen dipping into the space between the tops of the inside of a woman’s thighs and the bottoms of the inside of her buttocks.

Originally a military term.
I’d say she was about a two finger cranston to be honest.

I love a nice cranston.

The  most contentious term of reference almost always revolves around what physical body type men prefer as the feminine ideal. On damn near any major community forum you’ll find a thread attempting to definitively determine what hot piece of ass can be unanimously agreed upon to be the apex of male sexual desire – the mythical HB10. Even the Chateau used to have a dedicated page to just this purpose. As an aside, I’m still a bit confused as to what the HB actually stands for in this inference, ‘hot bitch’? ‘hot babe’? ‘hot butt’? I know Mystery coined this reference, but the “perfect 10” notion predated his by decades.

I really enjoy these threads because it brings such diverse experience and perspective to the table. In particular I love the individual posts where guys will attempt to define what an HB 1 through 10 is to them by posting pictures of examples of each strata of woman. I must credit these threads for disabusing me of the one-size-fits-all mentality I’d been conditioned to believe men had with regards to what they found arousing in a woman. This was one of the last residual mental schemas of feminization I needed to purge from my  head in my own unplugging – despite women’s protestations that all men have “impossibly high, media fueled, bikini model physical standards for women” I’ve come to understand that this is simply a canard that despondent fat / post-Wall women comfort themselves with.

While in a general sense it is true that men largely have a predisposition for physical traits that imply youth, fitness and fertility, within those parameter is a myriad of physical variety and permutations of body type, age and ethnicity. Even guys with a ‘thing’ for MILFs are still looking for physical features that fit into this parameter.

Attraction vs. Arousal

Attraction and arousal are really two different things for men. We may be attracted to a woman’s personality, her femininity, her playfulness, her spirit, etc., but we are aroused by her body and sexual availability. There are many women I’m attracted to, but I have a very distinct physical standard for women I find arousing. I think this was one of the difficulties I had in assuming all men had a similar archetype for physical perfection in their cues for arousal. I came to realize I have exceptionally stringent physical standards for the women I find arousing, but that didn’t my standards were every guy’s standards as feminization would have me shamed to believe.

Myself not withstanding though, there is so much room for variety in men’s arousal cues I think it’s a shame that fem-centrism has convinced women that men are universally corrupted to seek only a very narrowly defined set of physical prompts for sexual desire. For instance, I happen to think that women with big assess are too fat for my particular arousal, but I cannot ignore the fact that a significant proportion of men like nothing better than a nice ‘ghetto booty’. I don’t understand it in the same way I don’t understand foot fetishes, but I can’t deny the fact that there are men who get off on feet.

So take heart ladies, unless you are grossly malformed, or morbidly obese you’ll probably find a subset of men who ‘have a thing’ for fucking exactly your body type. You may think men’s evaluating you so clinically is offensive, but we are far more forgiving in our arousal cues that women will ever be in their own physical standards.

HB’s & SE’s

Since so much has been made of HB scales and ratings I don’t think it’s too unfair to present my own observation here.

On the Tomassi scale, there is no such thing as a an HB10 that you haven’t slept with. The last point to half point is ALWAYS earned on performance. I’m sure you wouldn’t buy a Maseratti if it had a VW engine under the hood. Subjectively I believe there are HB10s it’s just that the last point is earned on performance not attractiveness. An otherwise HB10 who turns out to be a ‘lick it around the edges’ girl instantly falls back to an HB7 or so,..That said, I feel the scale also has to be adjusted for geographic region. An HB 8 in Butte, Montana is an HB 5 in Los Angeles. You have to adjust the scale for regional concentration. Hot women tend not to congregate in remote places, they go where they know their looks will serve them best. This then increases the benchmark for that place since the field of competition is deeper. Based on personal experience, an HB 9.5 in South Beach, Miami etc. is well beyond anything NYC, Houston or Chicago could offer up on a consistent basis. The rating curve is more pronounced. Conversley a Miami HB 7, becomes an HB 9.5 in Boise, Idaho. However, after having lived in Hollywood, Las Vegas and Orlando, and traveling somewhat extensively, I think my standards are exceptionally high in this respect.

Lastly, I don’t think that the HB scale is entirely helpful for men’s assessment purposes since it only accounts for physical appeal. There needs to be a second rating attached to the HB (physical) standard, one that accounts for self-esteem SE.

If you rate looks (HB) on a 1-10 and self-esteem (SE) on a 1-10 scale, realistically you’ll want different ratios at different times. If you’re sport-fucking and have no desire for a LTR this ratio might be around HB9 to SE3, no lower than this though since a 3 (the way I’d rate it anyway) would indicate the threshhold for self-destructive personality disorders. If you’re looking for a companion for the long haul of monogamy, then you’ll adjust your ratio accordingly. An HB8+ to an SE 5-7 might be ideal. It’s when you perceive imbalances in the ratio that is cause for concern. For instance an HB7 with an SE of 8 (too self-important for her looks). Or extremes like HB2 to an SE of 9 (most rad-feminists, easily avoidable) and an HB9+ to an SE of 1 or 2 (the suicidal death spiral girl).

It’s all in the balance my sons.

Dread Games

I’m not exactly sure why, but somehow last week became the unofficial ‘dread’ week. I’ve had so many other irons in the fire both work-wise and blog-wise this month that I find it particularly annoying that my attentions should be distracted by this topic again, but I will admit that the comments about the evils of Men manipulatively employing a sense of dread in their LTRs has given me pause to analyze the dynamic in more detail. So, OK, I’ll bite, what’s all this dread about anyway?

The original huff about dread came in the wake of Roissy’s seminal post about instilling a sense of dread in a woman in order to help maintain a consistent frame control in a relationship. Naturally, women’s unconditioned response to this overt assertion of control was to demonize the whole idea of dread. When you think about it dread, as proposed,  is really a sense of conceptualizing the potential outcome of a losing the intimacy of a partner and the resulting fallout (emotional, financial, familial, personal, etc.) from that loss. Such an overt declaration for promoting a sense of dread conjures melodramatic images of fiendish men blackmailing their women into emotional enslavement to their insecure whims.

I think what’s lost amongst all this sensationalism about dread – a very weak term for the concept – is the applicability dread has in a much broader scope (and particularly for women) than the overly dramatic characterization of it when men openly discuss using it themselves.

Faces of Dread

I have a good friend, Jim, who’s just this side of 37. I love the guy, but Jim’s not much to look at. At around 30 he essentially gave up on himself. He got married far too young on the business end of a do-the-right-thing ‘accidental’ pregnancy, and from a personal standpoint that was the end of his window of opportunity to explore any other options he may’ve had. His wife let herself go just after the 2nd pregnancy, turned into a beach ball, and he followed suit. In actuality it wouldn’t take much for him to get back on top of his game, but he has no desire to.

Now, after detailing Jim’s situation you might think he’d be the last candidate to participate in anything resembling a manipulation of dread in a relationship, and you’d be right, but he, and guys like him are often the unwitting participants in their wives’ own dread-games. Although Jim isn’t going to spontaneously attract women with either his looks or due to his complete obliviousness to Game, he is an exceptional provider for his family. He regularly busts his ass as a programmer for a legal agency and is the sole breadwinner of the family – singlehandedly funding his wife’s nursing school. In addition he’s a very attentive father, husband and is somewhat of a handyman around the house. In spite of all this his wife tends to be a bit of a shrew, browbeating him on a regular schedule which has been passed onto the personalities of his teenage daughters who engage in the same heavy handedness their mother does.

Yet for all the passive-aggressive derision, Jim’s wife is easily one of the most possessive women I’ve ever known. He literally lives in a constant state of surveillance as to his whereabouts. She calls to verify he is where he says he is, and continually suspects him of running off to a strip club (which to my knowledge he’s never set foot inside one) or engaging in anyway with another woman. It’s gotten to the point that it’s comical to think that she’d have any worry that he’d be snatched away by a better woman, but there it is, the dreaded competition anxiety prompting unease in an, albeit LSE, woman with no realistic possibility of it ever occurring.

“I can’t compete with that,..”

Some of the most neurotically possessive women I’ve ever known have been the girlfriends and wives of amateur circuit bodybuilders – my brother’s former GFs actually being among them. Most of these girls, even the fitness competitors, had to either be very self-assured or they resorted to controlling tactics and possessiveness due to the constant reminder of how desired their Men were by other women. Even when that was explicitly not the case, the perception of their desirability was enough to bring this out in them. They had the love and desire of very elite Men, but this still wasn’t enough to pacify that innate sense of dread.

Dalrock has blogged ad infinitum about the feminized notion of how a man’s viewing “using” porn is conflated with adultery. To say nothing about the constant push to pathologize the male condition, this is an easy out for women following the Eat, Pray, Love script wanting to exit a marriage with cash and prizes. However, the fundamental point in that conflation is a woman’s, often overstated, inability to compete with the “porn star ideal of physical perfection and sexual acrobatics that no normal woman could ever be comfortable with.” Considering the sheer variety of men’s sexual appetites this is ludicrous on the surface of it, but it is illustrative of the predominance dread plays in women’s psyches. It doesn’t matter what the particulars of his sexual appetites are, she feels inadequate in that competition and fears a loss of intimacy.

Dread Games

I catch a lot of hostility from the femosphere for even suggesting a Man directly foster competition anxiety in his LTR, but the underlying reason for this venom is a preexisting condition of dread in women that can barely be tolerated when it’s under the surface, much less when it’s exposed. Dread, in this context, is an innate fear of loss of security that intensifies as a woman progresses further beyond the Wall and with her diminishing capacity to reestablish that provisioning security with a new partner. In fact it’s exactly this dread that is the root source of the gynocentric laws that award women cash & prizes in a divorce settlement. So powerful is this fear that legal assurances needed to be instituted to account for a woman’s lessened ability to secure long-term provisioning after a failed marriage, after the Wall, after pregnancies, etc.

Dread, for lack of a better term, is a female condition.

Although I’ve suggested casually returning flirtations with other women as a means to amplifying desire and illustrating social proof, this is hardly the only, or best, means of fostering competition anxiety. Overt flirtations are a blunt means of  stoking this anxiety, but often all it takes is a nuanced shift in a predictable routine to trigger that imagination. The idea isn’t to instill terror from fear of loss, but rather to demonstrate higher value; particularly when a woman’s attention is straying into comfortable, routine familiarity and she begins seeking indignation from other sources.

Sometimes all that’s necessary to provoke that imagination is to get to the gym, dress better, get a raise, travel for work, change your routine, adopt a Game mentality, hang out with a new (or old) friend, be cocky & funny with her – risk to offend her sensibilities. Most women believe that their pussies are sufficient to hold their men in thrall for a lifetime, but as a woman’s SMV declines and a Man’s appreciates their confidence in this form of leverage falls off, thus forcing them to adopt new schemas for controlling the fear of loss. When you head off to Las Vegas for that trade show and your wife fucks the ever-lovin’ shit out of you the night before you go, you’re experiencing one of those new schemas. It doesn’t take much, most times the lightest touch will do. Good dread game doesn’t even have to be initiated by you. Often enough, women will do it themselves.

In light of this ambient fear of loss women seek to avoid, one might be tempted to use a more sympathetic approach in order to allay a woman’s fears. This is hardly worth mentioning here since this is generally the tact that most men intuitively use in their LTRs anyway – a constant reassurance of love and devotion. Guy’s like my friend Jim will follow a perpetual strategy of appeasement in spite of themselves.

Lets be clear, the vast majority of women are secure enough not to allow this condition to get the better of them, and it’s in the extreme cases I’ve used above that real neuroticism flourishes. Contrary to popular belief I’m not an advocate of the Dark Triad methodologies of Game. Not because I think they’re ineffective, but rather because, with the right art of Game they’re not even needed. Only in extreme cases are the dark arts to be employed, and if a situation necessitates their use it’s important for a guy to understand that a line has been crossed with a woman who necessitated their use.

So yes, you should be seeking to reassure an LTR of your love and devotion, but know that due to women’s intrinsic fear of security loss, you will never achieve an ideal state of contentment of it, and certainly not by relying solely on comfort and familiarity. She want’s you to rock the boat, it’s what makes her feel alive.

Violence

There’s an interesting dynamic with regards to women and male vs. male violence. I have some interesting stories that address this.

When I was dating my wife I was a blue belt in [a martial art that will go nameless in order to avoid the inevitable debate on which is ‘the best’] and was just getting into competitive sparring. As a date idea I once asked her if she would come with me to Sacramento for a tournament and later we could hit a sushi bar I knew of down there. Instead of the standard “oh I think violence is just terrible/juvenile/men with insecurities stuff” line I would expect from 90% of women, and to my surprise, she enthusiastically agreed. When it came time for my sparring events I beat everyone in my pool that day and placed first for my belt class – trophy in hand. I don’t say this to gloss myself (since I generally had my ass handed to me pretty regularly), but I just happened to win this day and I even took out the last guy with a 3 point head kick and unintentionally drawing a little blood from his nose in the process. To make a long story short, we never made it to the sushi bar that evening – we were too busy fucking like rabbits back at the motel room, she wouldn’t even let me shower! My girlfriend (now wife) worked me 7 way to Tuesday in bed and this is still some of the most memorable sex I’ve had with her.

Next story – As some of you know, I used to be the art director for a major casino in Nevada. We had on two occasions a King of the Cage (UFC/MMA early incarnation) event there. In both instances the women in my department would go nuts over this. Most of these guys are in very good shape physically, but the fighting dynamic is what puts them into a real frenzy. These women would look forward for months to these events, not because of the sport of fighting, but their attraction to the personas of the fighters we did promos and PR with (“I’d jump so-and-so and do him all day, etc.”). Understand that none of these women had any idea of what these guy’s personalities were like, they just lusted after the idea of what they were.

At the last event, a group of guys who were the boyfriends of a few of these women, went to the King of the Cage matches, and got into a street fight in the parking lot later after the event was over on their way back to their cars. When the girls related this story to the rest of us the next day, they emphatically decried how shocked and disappointed they were with their boyfriends for resorting to violence. They then began characterizing ‘men’ as just big children, and ‘brutish’ and ‘typical’.

Now, do you see the contradiction here? There is a definite sexual attraction to a man who can ‘handle himself’ by women. I don’t think I need to reiterate my posts on the attraction of the Alpha thug appeal. For the most part women will ardently deny this to no end so as not to seem to condone violence, while at the same time reward the man, the soldier, etc. who can take care of ‘business’ – who goes off to war – with her intimacy and sexuality so long as he fits her mental archetype of the guy who deserves it. Even if you disagree with this assessment, you have to see the paradox and the confusion it creates for a man. Be a gentleman, but don’t be a gentle man. And again, this all comes back to her intrinsic need for security and ‘strength’ in a man, while at the same time verbally denying she is attracted to it. Society tells her she should be disgusted with the man who punches the guy who disses her at the bar, but in practice, she takes the guy home and fucks his brains out or fantasizes about the hot fighter in the ring who would do the same.

A capacity for at least measured violence in a Man stimulates a woman’s desire of fantasy, sexual submission, physicality and security.

One thing I’ve learned about fighting is you don’t go looking for shit, because you’ll find it. Not only that, but if it seems like you’re looking for it, women think you’re an automatic asshole and/or are using that bravado as an overt message to directly to trigger this appeal for her. But if you’re careful, and the opportunity presents itself in such a way that you end up the hero, and whether or not you get your ass kicked, chicks will give it up faster than for any other reason or motivation. If your motives are even peripherally noble, the situation allows for indirect social proof and you actually have the confidence to put your face in the path of someone’s fist, regardless of circumstance or even the outcome nothing spreads a woman’s legs faster. However, you have to be seen as positive, not the aggressor.

The Gift of Anxiety

 

Well since Aunt Sue’s decided to click on the ‘echo chamber’ setting on her blog’s comment filters I thought I’d take the opportunity to retype my deleted response to her (once again) on my unmoderated blog. Aunt Sue has a big problem with competition anxiety, and since she secretly loves me, she can’t make it too obvious that she reads my blog posts regularly for inspiration. Hell, it’s almost a Friday tradition now! It’s OK dear, I’ll entertain you for the weekend. Roissy, Roosh and Dalrock send you their unrequited regards too,…

Dear Sue, you know instead of paraphrasing my perspective on this you could simply quote the bit in my post that set you off (again):

Women don’t want a Man to cheat, but they love a Man who could cheat. Naturally you don’t want to appear to be seeking the flirtation – that would be OVERT – but rather playing along with it. I have encouraged or played along with casual flirtations with my wife present that leave her with the impression that other women find me desirable. When you’ve been together long enough and a strong emotional bond has formed, you will be surprised at how many shit tests and hypergamous evaluations you can avoid just by her perception of you being a commodity that other women are attracted to. Mrs. Tomassi has told me on at least a dozen occasions that she finds it flattering that other women would find me attractive. Always remember that your attractiveness to other women is an associative reflection on your spouse’s attractiveness to hold your sexual interest in the long term.

The trick to this is how you follow up after flirting. She has to be made to feel as though she’s still the one you choose to be with even though you have obvious, provable options. Women are always unconsciously evaluating the men they are with. Her self-worth is associated with his value. This is exactly why women in the stablest of relationships will still shit test. There are precious few ways for a Man in a long standing LTR to establish social proof and demonstrate higher value better than reciprocating a flirt with other women. Nothing stimulates a tired LTR like suspicion and jealousy. Her Imagination is the most important tool in your Game tool box. The hamster doesn’t stop spinning after marriage, but it’s incumbent upon you to make sure it keeps up the pace.

The problem you have with my take on this is that you see it in an absolutist, all-or-nothing in-your-face disrespectful frame. As if every aspect of an LTR would be overshadowed by a malevolent ‘dread’ of loss bordering on emotional blackmail. You might be surprised to know I don’t actually agree with the idea of using the impending doom of ‘dread‘ per se.

If you could get past your taste for the melodramatic you’d realize that returning casual flirtations is actually a compliment to the woman a Man is with. It satisfies that internal, hypergamous doubt as to whether the guy a woman committed herself to years ago is still the Man other men want to be and other women want to fuck.

You see the problem with your perspective Sue is that you view intergender relations from a ‘security first’ priority. This is mostly due to your fem-centric conditioning, but also because you’re in a phase of life now where security means more to you than it did when you were in your 20’s or 30’s. It’s difficult to see the value of adding measured degrees of insecurity into an LTR when your long-term security becomes your paramount concern. After the Wall, women dread the idea of having to start over in a sexual market place in which they are grossly outmatched, so even the slightest deviation from the ‘security forever’ script becomes a major ego threat.

An LTR based on dread, a threat, or an implied ultimatum isn’t one based on genuine desire, and you know enough about my philosophy to understand how important real desire is to me. I think of it more as an ambient understanding that a Man is still desired by other women and this manifests in flirtatious behavior. Obviously if a guy is overtly seeking out opportunities to flaunt his flirtations with his LTR, that’d be indicative of him having other issues to resolve for himself. Guy’s thoroughly underestimate women’s sensitivity to nuance and subcommunication; it doesn’t take much to trigger her imaginings, but most guys think they need to beat her over the head with what he wants her to get; and that of course defeats his purpose – he’s too obvious.