Is loneliness a disease that necessitates a cure? If men could be made to believe so, think of the potential profit to be made from, and the potential for manipulation of, men.
The real test for a man is how he lives with himself, alone.
Precious few men ever truly allow themselves to be alone and learn real, singular
independence and self-reliance. The vast majority of guys (see Betas), particularly in western culture, tend to transition from mother to wife with little or no intermission between. For the most part they subscribe to the feminine imperative, becoming serial monogamists going from LTR to LTR until they ’settle’ without ever having learned and matured into how to interact as an adult.
The fear of loneliness is entirely too exaggerated in modern western romanticism. The popularized fear-mythology of becoming the “lonely old man who never loved” is the new ’old maid’ myth made popular in an era when a woman’s worth was dependent upon her marital status and (at least now) equally as false a premise. But in our brave new ’Generation AFC’, men (who’ve become women) are repackaged and shamed into
believing this horse shit as part & parcel of feminized gender role reversal. Thus we get Speed Dating and eHarmony and a host of other “conveniences” to pacify the insecurities that this reversal instills.
I’m going to suggest that most AFCs, most feminized, conditioned males, like and embrace the lonely old man myth because it is a Buffer against potential rejection. Does that sound like a stretch? It shouldn’t. When used from a feminized perspective this myth is most certainly a ’shaming’ social convention with the latent function of getting men to commit to a feminine frame — “you better change yourself soon, or your soulmate might pass you by and you’ll be lonely and destitute in your old age”. That’s the feminized use of the myth, however, the internalized AFC use of the myth is a Buffer. This then becomes his rationale for settling for a substandard LTR or marriage; better to marry a shrew than suffer loneliness.
It’s really a triple whammy. There is the feminine reinforced fear of solitude. Then, the self-reinforced expectation of maturity or “doing the right thing”. And finally the use of it as a convenient retreat from rejection or potential rejection; and this is what I’m getting at when I refer to it as a Buffer.
Case example: I have a friend who is trapped in a passionless marriage with a woman, who’s set the frame from day one. He’d like to come off as dominant with his male friends, but it’s clear to most of our friends that his wife owns the frame of the marriage. Prior to meeting this girl our friend was a serial monogamist branch swinger. The LTR girl he’d been with prior to her ran the show in much the same way for almost 5 years. When he was finally freeing himself from her (with a bit of my own help), he started to see the value of being single and independent and began dating non-exclusively for about a 3 month period. After meeting his now wife he gradually tried to find suitable ways to withdraw and become exclusive. Knowing what our reaction would be in so swift a time frame, he began searching for all kinds of rationales to effect this — and settled on the myth of the lonely old man.
His story was the classic one where a guy shakes off his old ways of thinking about women and dating, and almost unplugs from the Matrix, but fails to kill his inner AFC and slides back into his old Beta mentality once he’d secured another ’soulmate’. Here was a guy who’d spent more than half of his 20s in a miserable LTR who managed to briefly unplug for about 3 months before latching onto another ONEitis. Yet his reasoning was “I’m tired of the dating games. I need to settle down. I don’t want to be lonely when I’m 60.” This from a guy who’d only ever been single for 3 months of his life. It was his Buffer. Of course now he’s resentful and pensive about his marriage and lives life vicariously through his single friends, while at the same time self-righteously scolds them for still being single.
The Myth of the Lonely Old Man is a Buffer against rejection. It’s a hiding in relationships they’re told they must constantly work to perfect, because of the fear of potential rejection. They’re pre-set in this idea while still single — they see it as a valid reason and a desirable goal; get married quick, before it’s too late. What’s worse is that the rationale is unassailable.
The foundation of the myth is associated with maturity, and who’s going to tell you not to be more mature? This is how we get the ’Kidult’ social convention women like to trot out; “He’ll never grow up!” The problem is that this lack of maturity is only paired with a Man’s willingness to commit or not to commit to women’s long term provisioning goals. In the feminine imperative’s social construct, maturity means marriage, and marriage means provisioning.
Don’t buy into the powder-puff idea that if you don’t find your mythological soulmate, or the ONE by the time you’re 30 and ASAP you’ll tempt fate and risk a life of quiet desperation. This contrivance only serves the interests of women who’s imperative it is to enjoy their party years in their 20′s with as many Alphas as they can attract, only to later have a stable Nice Guy who’s petrified he’ll live a life of loneliness and desperation, waiting for them at 28-30 to marry and ensure their long term security.
Don’t buy this lie. The man who is comfortable with himself and confident in his true independence is the one that women will want to be associated with and to share in it.
How you handle being alone and what you do with the opportunities that freedom allows is the real measure of a man. If you’re single and 50 you STILL have options if you’re only brave enough to explore them. I know divorced men in their 50s who’re dating mid 30s women right now and I know men in their 60s who’ve been trapped and emotionally blackmailed by their wives for 30 years. Marriage is no insulation from the sexual marketplace.
The Myth of the Lonely Old Man
The Myth of Women & Sex
“Booty is so strong that there are dudes willing to blow themselves up for the highly unlikely possibility of booty in an other dimension. There are no chicks willing to blow themselves up for a penis.” — Joe Rogan
One of the single most annoying tropes I read / hear from men (more so than even women it seems) is the “Women are just as / more sexual than men” canard. Nothing stops me in my tracks more abruptly than reading this line parroted back in some form by a
self-effacing white knight trying to convince himself, hope against hope, that it could be true. This is a very effective feminine social convention, even internalized and spouted back by the likes of more than a few infamous PUAs. This fantasy belongs among the higher order social convention myths like the Myth of Sexual Peak. Just a rudimentary knowledge of female biology is all that’s needed to deconstruct the myth.
Women are more sexual than men, but they are repressed due to society or a lack
of “trust” with a guy.
Patently false. A healthy male produces between 12 to 17 times the amount of testosterone a woman does. It is a biological impossibility for a woman to want sex as much as, or as often as men. Trust that when a woman says, “I don’t understand why sex is so important to guys” she’s speaking the literal truth. No woman will ever experience 17 times the amount of her own testosterone levels (barring steroids). Amongst it’s many other effects, testosterone is the primary hormone involved with stimulating human libido. I should also add that, on average, and barring environmental variables, a mans testosterone only declines 1% per year beyond age 40, so even at age 60 the average, healthy male is only dealing with an average 20% deficit in testosterone.
Critics of this observation like to argue that, for female sexual response and arousal, testosterone isn’t the only factor to consider. To which I’ll agree, however it is the primary factor in sexual response. A woman cannot possibly understand what 12 to 17 times their present amount of testosterone could feel like without steroid use. In fact the first effect female bodybuilders report when cycling anabolic steroids is a 100 fold increase in sexual interest and libido. So in terms of natural female hormonal / biochemical response there is no unaltered way a woman could ever make an accurate comparison to what a man’s baseline libido is in relation to her own.
Women’s sexual desire is also cyclical. Even at the peak of her ovulatory cycle, when she’s at her horniest, she’ll never experience what men do 24 hours a day. This is the root of the myth, and the source of the social convention.
Like men, women rely on testosterone to maintain libido, bone density and muscle mass throughout their lives. In men, estrogens simply lower testosterone, decrease muscle mass, stunt growth in teenagers, introduces gynecomastia, increases feminine characteristics, and decrease susceptibility to prostate cancer. Sexual desire is dependent on androgen levels rather than estrogen levels.
I also understand that female sexuality functions differently than male sexuality, but this only reinforces my point. Women’s sexuality is cyclic, not only on a monthly schedule, but also over periods of a lifetime (menopause, and peak fertility for instance). There are periods over a month and a lifetime where sexual desire waxes and wanes, (healthy) men’s stays relatively constant from puberty to about age 40. Women are slower to arouse, they tend to need more than just visual stimulation, and there is definitely a
psychological element (they need a fantasy) necessary. Men only need visual stimulation and minimal feedback to get aroused (i.e. porn).
It should come as no shock that post-menopausal hormone therapies use testosterone to boost women’s flagging libidos too. When women are at the peaks of their ovulatory cycles, low and behold they experience a sharp spike in testosterone levels in order to facilitate pregnancy and then it gets flushed out during menstruation. You can debate about how best to get a woman’s testosterone flowing, but it’s testosterone that’s needed to prompt a sexual response.
Now the real question is, why would such a popular myth be such a useful social convention? Think about it. It sexualizes women, while not making them outright sluts. They can avoid the stigma of promiscuity while presenting the fantasy that they are secretly “more sexual” than they are “allowed” to be, if only they could meet a man skilled enough to bring this out in them.
It’s a sexual selection convention. The fantasy is that women are really these wolves in sheep’s clothing for the right guy. To an extent this is true. Studies do indicate that women in their peak fertility window do in fact aggressively seek out Alpha males for conventional sexual encounters, especially so during the proliferative phase of their menstrual cycles. However, again, the root of this social convention is in the presumption that “women are just as sexual as men”, which is simply not the case considering the conditionality that the female sexual response is dependent on.
No self-interested Man is ever going to be encouraged to refute the idea that women are equally preoccupied with, equally aroused as, or equally desirous of sex as men are. We love the fantasy that women are secretly yearning for sex with us, if only society were more open and accepting of feminine sexuality. Yet, in the same breath we’ll hear about how slutty and aggressive women have become in the fall of western society by the same guys. It’s ironic, but it gives guys hope that if they can find the secret formula to unleashing the sexual beast within every woman he’ll find this insatiable she-devil to pair off with monogamously. If women were men’s sexual equals, why would they not be prone to the same drives that conflict with monogamy? Imagine a world where women are as horny as men. Think of a gay bath house and you might have a workable model.
Women of course love to encourage and reinforce this social convention because it sounds like empowerment in the face of patriarchal sexual oppression (yes, we’d be more sexual if you’d only allow us to you evil men), while at the same time tacitly acknowledging that, turns men into white knight sympathizers of the cause (i.e. feminine entitlement and primacy).
The point of my starting this topic wasn’t to debate whether or not women are sexual at all — obviously they are — however it was my intent to draw attention to the canard that women (and their would-be male identifiers) would like everyone to believe, “women are just as / more sexual than men”. No woman can make a realistic assessment about that unless she’s had 12 -17 times her natural testosterone levels increased and lived in a man’s biological condition. Just on the face of it the assertion is silly, but as I said, for women it’s empowering to think that women are “just as sexual” as men. And
female-identifiers are all too happy to reinforce that meme because it offers them the hope of getting laid with one of these ’sexually repressed’ women.
The Rational Male
Good girls are just bad girls who never got caught.
Allow me relate here a case study I counseled a friend on personally about 6 years ago. I have a very good friend, Rick, that I hired and work with. Though we started out as work associates he became one of my better friends and had the benefit of my personally having unplugged him from the Matrix. He was a good student (for lack of a better term), but in becoming so he went through a transformation process. Like most guys fed on a lifetime of feminine conditioning he patronizingly accepted what I was initially teaching him, but privately, he still clung to his AFC mentalities. That is, until the turning point came.
Unbeknownst to me Rick had entertained a flirtatious “friendship” with a semi-attractive PR girl we were working with for a while. He knew what I’d said about LJBF rejections and “playing friends” with women, so he left me out of the loop on the whole affair. He had “dated” her on several occasions, but beyond the infrequent “kiss while drunk” she kept him at arms distance using the standard filibuster techniques women classically use — “I’m not ready for a relationship”, “I’m not looking for a boyfriend”, “We’re good friends”, etc. She did however keep him in her ’attention web’ with little carrots of affection for him to pull her cart for about 3 or 4 months. Mind you, Rick was never a chump. He’d hooked up with his share of women, but this cute, “good girl” who was at best an HB7 developed into a ONEitis for him.
This all came to a head when one night she had to do some work with Aaron Lewis (yes, from Staind) while he was doing his solo acoustic act at our casino. To make a long story short, the PR girl ended up buzzed on this night and fucked Aaron Lewis’ tour manager in a classic situation of right-Alpha, right-environment, right-conditions. Her mistake was in feeling the need to confess her actions to Rick who’d felt betrayed considering all the
investment he’d put into doing what he thought was the right way to go about things. Here was one guy on one night who she fucked in a moment of chemical reaction because “he was hot, I was drunk and one thing led to another,..” versus his 3-4 month personal investment (i.e. Relational Equity fallacy).
This was of course when he consulted me and informed me of everything leading up to it, only now he was at an impasse. She apologized profusely to him and held out (once again) the olive branch of a LJBF rejection. He asked me what he should say, and it was at this point he took the initiative to tell her “no, we can’t ’just be friends’.” He did what I advised him to and he walked away from a woman for the first time in his life. This is when all hell broke loose for her. She’d never been met with this response before and all the cards went straight into Rick’s hands. She would consistently ’bump into him’ at bars or events to “have another talk”, she did a complete 180 in her attitude with him all in an effort to “be his friend.”
Now I’m exceptionally proud of Rick because, unlike most guys finding the true power of a takeaway, he stuck with it rather than being contented with her chasing him and then giving into the LJBF. He had actually learned a valuable tool that he still uses now — the power of the takeaway.
In addition he also came to understand the principle of understanding a woman, not by what she says, but by what she does (the Medium is the Message) — he learned the importance of reading behavior. Of course after about 6 or 8 months she stopped pursuing him “to be friends” and he has talked to her in the interim years, but the frame of their discourse has changed. She has respect for him that she never had when he was the
pursuer and never would’ve had if he’d surrendered to another LJBF.
This girl, at every opportunity, loved to display her ’properness’ and would always say she “wanted a man with a good heart” when asked what she looked for in a guy. She was very outgoing as befits a PR person, but at all times she presented herself as someone conscious of how people perceived her and her reputation. Hers was a classic case of basing estimations upon behavior above words. Biology trumps conviction — sexuality, for as much as we think we can, will not go unexpressed. Celibate priests, moralistic conservative statesmen, and the pure-as-the-driven-snow virtuous girl you’ve got ONEitis for all want to get off, and they’ll find a way to do so. According to FaceBook she now lives in Montana with a thoroughly Beta husband who likely has no idea that she had the capacity for raw, feral hypergamy.
One of the trappings of a woman a guy perceives as a ’good girl’ is that he’ll have a tendency to pedestalize her by default. White Knights are a given, but even hardened PUAs are prone to want to read more into the personality of a ’good girl’. A cute-ish HB8 ’good girl’ is a recipe for ONEitis because she seems to be above seduction.
“I just want a guy with a good heart” sounds so fairytale perfect and with just the right amount of naiveté applied, she comes off as a girl who truly believes Disney wishes
really do come true. To guys with Game she’s a jewel in the rough amongst the bitch-shielded mean girls that populate the new hook-up paradigm. To chumpish White Knights she’s an archetype — the innocent damsel who needs to be saved from the world before it corrupts her soul and she turns into all the other women who wont date them. Both of them are equally shocked when she spontaneously fucks an Alpha tour manager.
If you haven’t done so yet, I highly recommend adding The Art of Seduction by Robert Greene to your reading list. In this seminal work he begins by profiling the archetypes of seducers and amongst them we find our ’good girl’ is really The Natural; a child like innocence that masks a seductive motive. You may be inclined to think of a good girl as a prude, but this is often in error. The good girl needs to be seductively cute enough to make her hypergamy work for her. Any marginal prudishness is reserved for putting a suitor into stasis long enough to evaluate better options, or in the case of our PR girl, the option to capitalize on an immediate Alpha experience.
The good girl’s Game is built around playing to the ’Quality Woman’ mythos that men harbor. They want to believe she exists among a sea of vapid, self-absorbed sluts looking to cash in before they hit the Wall. She’s not the prudish Madonna and she’s not the Whore of Babylon, she’s the cute good girl somewhere in between. She’s only an HB7-8, not the demigoddess HB9+, so she also emanates the tantalizing potential of attainability. All of this makes for a very idealized, very cemented form of ONEitis until it’s graphically dispelled for the guy suffering from it.
Just like all men have some form of game, women have their own game. Since we live in a feminine defined reality, women’s game is not considered subterfuge, it’s simply how women are, or the feminine mystique. What makes a good girl contrast with ’other girls’ is still founded within this feminine social normalization.
The wise practitioner of Game knows what works best for him, but he must also be aware of the Game being used against him. One of the most important aspects of the principle of Amused Mastery is actually having the mastery to be amused. That may sound cryptic, but what it means is having the experience to know what to expect from feminine Game, mastering it and being able to riposte with an amused laugh.
For example, the operative goal of girl-game is to maximize hypergamy, this is a foundation of Game. So in knowing this, you can craft an amused response to any seduction methodology women use on you. The good girl is still looking for an Alpha, and will still stop the good girl car to get out and fuck him should the opportunity arise. When you deal with the good girl or any of her sister’s methods always see them beginning with the end in mind.
The Myth of the Good Girl
Popular culture likes to teach women and, by association, unenlightened men, that there is an innate biological clock inside each woman that slowly ticks down to a magical
period where her maternal instincts at long last predispose her to wanting a child.
Perhaps, not so surprisingly, this coincides perfectly with the Myth of Women’s Sexual Peak as well as conveniently being the age demographic just post or just prior to when most women hit the Wall.
The concept of a biological clock sounds very convincing on the face of it — it’s “biological”, and when it comes to feminine social conventions, nothing convinces women more than their bodies, their selves. In girl-world biological reasonings are always suspicious rationales for men’s bad behavior, but when applicable to women, biology is “Mother Nature”, and you don’t argue with that bitch.
Unfortunately, and as fate would have it, the hard science of biology often tends to crash headlong into feminine social conventions. Lo and behold many Women Underestimate Fertility Clock’s Clang. In 2011 NPR aired an article of the same title. It would appear the cold hard science of women’s actual fertility window doesn’t exactly coincide with the articles of faith that feminine primacy is teaching them:
A new survey finds a big disconnect when it comes to fertility. The age women think they can conceive a baby is far different from what their bodies are actually capable of. This poses an increasing problem, as more women wait longer than ever to have children.
What’s the chance a 30-year-old can get pregnant in one try? Many thought up to 80 percent, while in reality it’s less than 30 percent. For a 40-year-old, many assumed up to a 40 percent success rate. It’s actually less than 10 percent. And when you keep trying? The survey finds many think you can get pregnant more quickly than it actually happens. It also shows many women underestimate how successful fertility treatments are.
Not only is the myth of the biological clock inaccurate in terms of when a woman should get pregnant, it’s dangerously misleading in the odds of becoming pregnant.
“The first thing they say is, ’Why didn’t anybody tell me this?’” says Barbara Collura, who co-authored the survey and heads Resolve, the National Infertility Association. She laments that no federal agency pushes this issue, and neither women nor their OBGYNs tend to bring it up. Though, Collura admits that fading fertility is a hard message to deliver.
“Let’s be honest, women don’t want to hear that they can’t have it all,” she says. “We can have a great job, we can have a master’s degree, we don’t need to worry about child-bearing because that’s something that will come. And when it doesn’t happen, women are really angry.”
I wont argue that women actually possess maternal instincts, I will argue that their
understanding of when they manifest has been deliberately distorted by a feminine-
centric cultural influence. If women are “angry” about the revelation their inability or difficulty to conceive in their post Wall biological conditions presents, their anger is misdirected. Rather than come down from the heady pedestal of ego-invested female empowerment psychology, they’ll blame men for not being suitable fathers, or lacking a will to “play-by-the rules” of the feminine imperative by whiling away their time in porn and video game induced comas.
“I just feel like it’s something else they lump onto women that we have no control over,” says filmmaker Monica Mingo, who’s blogged about her decade-long effort to conceive. She says the real issue is society at large, which is pushing back the age people are expected to settle down and have kids. Mingo didn’t even meet her husband until she was 32.
“You tell us your fertile years rapidly decline in your mid-20s,” she says. “Well, if I’m not dating anyone, and I want to have a family, what’s that information going to do for me?”
Well for one thing it might force you to come to terms with the course you want to set for your future life with an informed choice, rather than blaming it on so-called “Kidult” men when you do realize you want kids. I guess that’s asking too much when you’re in your prime party years at film school. Sorry Monica, time’s up, and you did have control over it in your pre-Wall years. All the haggard ghosts of feminism are cackling heartily around the cauldron of boiling good intentions in hell.
What were seeing here is a collision of hypergamy and feminine primacy smashing against the harsh reality of biology. The feminine imperative needs to create a new social convention to make this incongruent reality agree with it’s doctrine. It’s been done before with the convenient reinvention of sexual fluidity. Blame men for not living up to the tenets of the “having it all” ideology and create a convenient new social convention that shames men in its retro-resolution of the problem it caused for itself.
If there were an actual biological clock, it was ticking its loudest when a woman was 22-24, not conveniently when she needs male provisioning the most, and when her sexual market value is in declination by her mid-thirties.
The Myth of
the Biological Clock
“Your bulletproof Game and charming personality wont make you look any better when your shirt comes off.”
Have two. Three is best, but if you only have one, Game is the most essential.
I realize that I’m heading into dangerous territory with this, but I maintain that looks are an integral part of attraction — sorry, that’s a fact of life — but I’ve never stated that looks cancel Game. In fact I advocate that learning Game is just as necessary as maintaining a good physique.
The problem is with people who can only think in absolutes. It’s always an either-or proposition; Game trumps physique or physique trumps game is horse shit. They’re both important and play off each other. There are plenty of average looking guys who pull tail thanks to Game in spite of their looks, and there are also good-looking guys who pull tail without ever hearing what Game is. But wouldn’t you rather be the guy with both? The guy who can pull women without compensating for personal deficits?
Consider that greater than 66% of people in western society are overweight (33% are morbidly obese). So it stands to reason that 2/3rd of the guys seeking out the community in order to change their lives, outlook and sexual prospects are going to be struggling with obesity from the outset. Now also consider the preferred belief among guys that looks, at least, matter less than personality, Game, etc. in female attraction. This is not a coincidence. For these guys it takes more effort to change their bodies than to change their minds.
“Looks aren’t as important for women.”
The first thing most men who were previously out of shape will tell you is the marked increase in attention they receive from women after they got in shape. This is perhaps the simplest experiment that puts the lie to this assertion.*
There is a popular misconception men adopt in thinking that “looks aren’t as important for women” and that they’re more forgiving of a few extra pounds if a guy is witty,
humorous and/or embodies some combination of the laundry list of nonsensical adjectives they place on their online dating profiles. This is the male version of the body image acceptance social convention women have been promoting themselves for the past 50 years. Don’t worry about getting in shape; money, humor and confidence will make any woman swoon for you. If this were the case the Louie Andersons and Danny Devitos of the world would be swimming in top-shelf ass. I have no doubt that very rich, but out of shape men have a relatively easy time attracting women, but they can’t make a woman genuinely desire to fuck him on a physical level. It’s just the very commercial version of negotiating desire.
While this may seem like a male-specific social convention, guess again; it’s actually a very calculated feminine convention. In terms of feminine breeding strategies and
women’s schedules of mating, it is far more advantageous for a woman to engage in short-term breeding strategies with Alpha men during the peak of her sexual viability when she knows there is a social structure ready to accommodate her long-term breeding strategy (i.e. provisioning) with future men. In other words, encourage men to think that “looks aren’t as important to women” so they’ll be more acceptable future providers while breeding in the short-term with men embodying their very specific physical ideal. This is precisely the reason why the “kidult / man-up” phenomenon is so vexing for women today — it threatens this long-term strategy.
In accordance with women’s sexual strategies, women place an importance upon looks according to their phase of life. The priorities and importance of characteristics that women will consider prerequisites for intimacy shift as her life’s conditions dictate.
14 — 24 years old: Looks are everything. Yes, some romanticism might help complete the fantasy, and Game is definitely a factor, but the priority for arousal is primarily Darwinian. Women will gladly overlook character flaws or a lack of assets in favor of fucking the physical Alpha while she approaches her own sexual apex. For a brilliant study of this take the time to read Dr. Martie Hasselton’s study, Why Muscularity is Sexy linked on the Rational Male.
25-30 years old: Looks are still of primary importance, but other factors are beginning to compete in significance as she becomes increasingly more aware of hitting the impending Wall. While she’s still hot enough to command attention, her hypergamic priorities lean more towards the life time provisioning potential and parental investment potential a Man represents. As she gets closer to 30, she knows she has to play her cards well if she is to cash out of the game while she’s still able to compete with other women. Ambition, character, assets, humor, personality, etc. begin to be more important in the light of a potential life-time commitment.
30-35 years old: Most single women in this demographic are in varying degrees of denial (aided by social conventions), but on some level of consciousness they realize that they’re past their expiration date and securing a commitment is a progressively more difficult battle with every passing year. Looks lose precedent in favor of assets and status. Game and personality become more prominent, but the primary focus is catching up to the choices she made (or should’ve made) when she was about 28. Locking down a
proven commodity — a Man with a reasonable amount of success and status — is the goal now; not a Man with “potential” for that same success. While the physical is still important, she’s more than willing to compromise the physical standards she held at 24 if the Man brings a lot to the table.
35-45 years old: She’s well past her expiration date, hit the Wall and is, graciously or not, accepting the fact that she’s used goods. Any notion of a list of requisites or priorities are a fond memory now. She may play the Cougar card in an ego protection effort. This may seem like she’s back to her primary Looks focus in playing the Cougar, but again, on some level of consciousness she understands that younger Men are doing her the favor by fucking her and in no way expects more than a physical fling. The hope is still, by some miracle, to lock down an aging AFC divorcee in a bad spot, with at least some amount of appreciable assets. Status is nice, looks would be icing on the cake if he’s still got them, but provisioning takes priority above even Game or social intelligence.
Making the Change
Changing yourself takes an effort. The greatest obstacle in change is the first one; recognizing and accepting that you need to change. This is where AFCs and Beta males chomp at the bit because they’ve been told for the better part of a lifetime to “just be themselves” and everything will go according to fate’s plan. Then for whatever reason they unplug from the Matrix enough to realize that they’ve been sold a bill of goods and that personal change is necessary for them. They need to change their lifestyle, change their attitudes, change their outlook, change their minds about themselves and yes, change their
But change takes effort and people are lazy. They want the quick fix; the magic pill that makes them happy, successful and sexually irresistible. So they flock to guys selling the best program that promises all that for a minimum of effort. Learning Game demands practiced effort, but it requires far less physical effort than improving one’s body, and it’s especially daunting for guys unaccustomed to working out. It takes time, energy and dedication all commensurate with how out shape that guy is to begin with.
There are countless “chubby chaser” websites dedicated to catering to this particular “fetish” for men, but not a single one exists for women, why? By that I mean there is a percentage in society of otherwise average, fit men seeking out obese women, yet the standard for ideal masculinity seems to remain constant for females by the lack of fetishes for obese males. There is such a demand in society by men seeking fat women that businesses have been developed in order meet it, but there is no similar demand on the part of fit women (or one not sufficient enough to register) seeking overweight men.
Why do you suppose this is? There has never been a “rubenesque” period for Men — where overweight men were consider the feminine ideal — in history. A muscular athletic build has always been the masculine standard.
Men define what is feminine and sexy for women, however the inverse is true in that women define what is masculine and sexy for men. The reason women find particular aspects of Men’s physiology sexually arousing is because the men in the past who
embodied them were rewarded with sex often enough to make those traits psychological subroutines in women’s brains.
Yes, Game is vitally important, as is root level, dynamic personal change. I don’t think I need to explain just how important this is. However, looks count, looks matter.
What I find amazingly ironic is that looks are one of the few areas of change that a Man has direct control over — his body. Barring physical disabilities, you have no excuse not to be in better shape. Why wouldn’t you want the full package? Stop being so Goddamned lazy and accept that you’ll need to exert some effort and sweat to make yourself more
attractive and more arousing to women. Game and a positive-masculine mindset are vital elements for your attractiveness and well-being, but they wont make you look any better with your shirt off.
*Side Note: I should also point out that for as much as women will assert that a man’s penis size is irrelevant to their sexual pleasure, often the first insult they’ll hurl at a man in order to shame him is “I’ll bet he’s got a small dick!” You connect the dots.
The Myth of Male Looks
The manosphere has been awash in articles detailing the sexual marketplace (including my own) and the impact women’s short-term vs. long-term sexual strategies have for them for as long I’ve been writing about gender issues (10+ years). These analyses range from the biological consequences to the insidious, life-damaging punishment a socialized feminine primacy (feminism) inflicts upon unassuming members of both sexes. The most recent manifestations of this have been the social ’shaming’ efforts of the Man Up! 2.0 popularizations in mainstream media.
Yes, I’m guilty of cracking this topic more than once, but it bears repeating how feminism, equalism and the feminine imperative conspire to reinvent sexual market value for women.
In Navigating the SMV I graphed out my own rudimentary overview of how the SMP lays out, as well as sexual market values relative to each sex. Although I began a bit tongue in cheek, in all earnestness I attempted to visually plot out what a persons’ life time-line might look like were he or she to have a ’God’s Eye’ perspective of when their SMV will be at it’s apogee, when it builds and when it wanes. As with everything I put to keyboard, my effort was to get to the honest nuts & bolts of the SMP and how our lives’ events coincide with that valuation. Here’s the breakdown again:
This was an effort in defining a contemporary, realistic view of how sexual market value fluctuates for each sex. I think it’s comparatively reflective, if a bit rough, however I
approached this graph from a male perspective in that its intent was to educate Men of their SMV potential later in life, and to plan accordingly.
What I didn’t account for is feminization’s influence on women’s (and by association men’s) collective understanding of their own SMV. Given the plenitude of manosphere articles devoted to women’s distorted and deluded interpretations of their sexual market value I figured this had been done to death; it took a bit of digestion to shake a new thought into my head.
Women Like Men
As if on cue, Team Red vents his frustration from a comment thread:
“Why should money even matter anymore to these women in the long-term when it seems like the majority of them have put their careers first and put marriage/kids off until later on in life? It seems like the dating world is polluted with 30+ year old career women that have been riding the carousel 10-15 years and are now ready to “settle down” and
pop out 2-3 kids by ripe old age of 40. What these women seem to have forgotten is the greater risks involved having children so late in life.”
I found this comment apropos since it sums up my thoughts on the Myth of the Biological Clock: Women want to be men. This is the legacy that a since-decayed feminist social impetus has imparted to the generations of both men and women who’ve come after the Gloria Steinem’s got married themselves, dried up and blew away. Women need to be the men of tomorrow. I suppose I should’ve seen this messaging before, and in honesty I think the greater part of feminized thinking revolves around role reversal, but this is more than reversal. Women want to be men.
If a man can wait until his maturation develops, his achievements are more actualized and his SMV peaks at 38-40; equalism says “why shouldn’t you Man-Girl?”
Whether it’s in terms of Dom vs. Sub in sexually fluid relationships, or in terms of respect or social entitlement, Women want to be men. This is what 60+ years of feminization has taught women is valuable, and taught men to accommodate for. In fact men are ’lesser men’ for not offering women a ’hand up’ to manhood. Feminization in this respect is the ultimate form of penis envy; acculturate consecutive generations of both sexes willing to masculinize women into prominence. This is the heart of the feminine imperative and feminine primacy.
Hypergamy and women’s innate psychologies naturally conflict with this socialization
effort. Thus we have women expecting masculine equability while simultaneously feeling entitled to traditionally feminine courtesies and expectations. This is what “having it all” means. In the interests of feminine primacy, if it works, use it.
So it should come as no shock that in a desire to be like men, a popularized parallel had to be socialized into women’s collective understanding of SMV expectations. In the most literal sense, if men could enjoy a more progressive and maturing SMV then, by the
doctrines of equalism, a ’new’ woman should also be able to mirror that masculine SMV.
By a combined effort of feminism, feminine primacy and its imperatives women have been socialized and acculturated to believe that their SMV profile encompasses and is synchronous with that of men. Since women are essentially men, Equalism (the religion of feminism) convinces women that their SMV schedule should at least be identical to that of men.
I could have simply recolored the men bell curve from my previous SMV graph to illustrate the feminized redefinition of SMV, but that would be inaccurate. It wouldn’t account for the obvious benefits women expect to enjoy in their true sexual peak years (22-24) in addition to the masculinized SMV feminization has convinced the modern woman of.
One thing I did find a need to account for was the Myth of Sexual peak. As Team Red laments, and in my post Myth of the Biological Clock, this feminine defined delusion is deceptively close to women’s post-Wall valuation. Since men’s SMV generally peaks around 38, women needed a social convention that would also make their sexual peak coincide with men’s. Thus we read the endless articles about sexual peak inflating older women’s sexual prowess above that of the 22 year old ’girl-children’ men manifestly prefer for sexual partners. Equalism enforces the delusion that if men are at their most desirable at later stages of life, then so too must be wo-MEN.
Cracks in the Wall
For all its efforts to convince women of a feminized redefining of SMV, there are obvious cracks beginning to show in the social constructs designed to ensure a lasting feminine primacy. Since the last wave of significant feminism was carried along by the Baby Boom generation, women of the consecutive generations are only now beginning to realize the gravity of the “have-it-all” lie.
The institution of gender primacy (masquerading as ’equalism’) is largely, and grossly apparent, at odds with women’s true sexual market valuation and its progression. Try as it may the feminine imperative has never had an effective counter for the biological
motivations that drive SMV — as women age, feminine primacy becomes a victim of its own hypergamy. Thus the imperative must continually redefine its mission, create new social conventions and rely on blaming the men it subjugates for its own inadequacies.
Women are now realizing their true SMV isn’t what feminization has convinced them of too late — one crack in the Wall. Another tact is to shame men for their unwillingness to participate in the SMP the feminine imperative defines for, and expect them to participate in. “Man Up you infantile boys!” — and another crack appears in the Wall.
That many a feminist writer can form a prosperous career and celebrity around her
inability to come to terms with the conflict between her true SMV and the SMV model the feminine imperative has conditioned into her ego is an indictment of the scope to which the distorted, feminized SMV model has been insaturated into women and our culture.
The Myth of Feminine SMV
Generally people of either sex don’t like to have love defined for them. The concept of love is loaded with subjectiveness, and not unsurprisingly you’ll offend people’s interpretations and sensibilities by trying to contain their idea of love in a defined box. This is one of the reasons love is such a great and human idea, but its ambiguity is also the primary cause of much of the human tragedy and suffering we experience.
We see love in religious contexts, personal interpretations, philosophical essays,
biological dynamics and a whole slew of other arenas, so it’s very easy to understand how universally convoluted, manipulative, and yet also how binding and nurturing love can be according to how well, or how ill our concepts of love aligns with that of others.
In outlining (not defining) a male perspective of love in contrast to a female perspective it’s necessary to understand how a man’s understanding of love shifts as he matures. A lot of Rational Male commenters wanted to find the base root of that concept in their relationship with their mothers. As Freudian as that rings I wouldn’t say it’s a bad start. Men do in fact learn their first impressions of intimate, physical and nurturing love from their mothers, and this then forms the foundation of that expected love from their potential wives (or lovers). Even as children are unable to think in abstract terms, there is an innate, base understanding of the conditionality that must be met in order to maintain that motherly love. Yohami posted a great illustration of this with the still face experiment.
Commenter Yohami broke this down thusly:
That circuit gets printed before we learn to talk = before we are able to form abstract and concepts. It’s a basic four piece, emotional / behavioral circuit.
There are many ways that circuit can be imprinted “wrong”. One is to have the mom (or dads) on the receiving end, making the kid the giver. Other is having him owning the frame. Other is to have the mom (or dads) respond only when the kid acts out. Other is making the kid act out and then silence him / punish him for it. Etc. Shortly, the kid understands the game and starts to play it.
And then you build everything on top.
Your experiences from ages 12-21, of course helped forming you, because you’re 35 now and this is a sum accumulative game. But honestly, what happened to you from 12-21, are the same mechanics that were already happening, only adding more external world influence, sex drive, and additional pressures.
I’m trying to locate the source of the pain, and is this: like a compass or a geometrical piece that wants to find equilibrium, the pain wants to find the “good” again (from the good the bad and the ugly), but it only knows to reach that “good” by balancing violently between the bad and the ugly and episodes of rage and if that doesn’t work, splitting / self mutilation ( cutting out the undesired parts of you, your past, identity, emotions, people, relationships, blocking stuff out, etc)
It’s a constant look out for the elusive “good” part of the dynamic.
[But] you weren’t confident / self reassured about your needs and wants, because you were still negotiating how to even feel “good” and safe, so you didn’t develop game nor saw girls / relationships for what they were — but you just added this to the previous unresolved mix, like, seeking the “good” (basic, maternal, paternal love where you’re defenseless and you’re intimately loved and taken care of and safe) from girls, mixing the defenseless and the sexual aggressive drive and the long time affection longing and the sense of despair of never feeling safe, etc.
From the moment we’re born we realize love is conditional, but we want for it to be unconditional; our idealized state is unconditional love. To be a Man is to perform, to excel, to be the one for whom affections are freely given in appreciation and adoration.
On a base level it’s this constant striving for that idealized love-state that helps us become more than we started as, but it comes at the cost of a misguided belief that a woman is capable of, much less willing to love us as we think is possible.
A Place to Rest
Commenter Peregrine John summed it up:
We want to relax. We want to be open and honest. We want to have a safe haven in which struggle has no place, where we gain strength and rest instead of having it pulled from us. We want to stop being on guard all the time, and have a chance to simply be with someone who can understand our basic humanity without begrudging it. To stop fighting, to stop playing the game, just for a while.
We want to, so badly.
If we do, we soon are no longer able to.
This is a realization that men don’t make until they are in a ’love relationship’ with a woman. For men this is (should be) the catalyst for maturing beyond that want for an idealized unconditional love. At that point they come full circle and understand that the conceptual love they’d hoped they could return to (or could be) with their mother doesn’t exist in the woman he’s ’in love’ with, and ultimately, never really existed between he and his mother from his infancy to adulthood.
There is no rest, there is no respite or reprieve from performing, but so strong is the desire for that unconditional love assurance that men thought it prudent to write it into “traditional” marriage vows — ’for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and obey, forsaking all others until death do you part’ — in other words, a pledge of unconditional love in spite of all circumstance. Those vows are a direct plea for insurances against a female hypergamy that would otherwise be unfettered were it not made in the context of being before God and man.
In prior essays I’ve mentioned a 65 y.o man whom I used to counsel, who’s wife had emotionally blackmailed him for over 20 years. He’d been married once before and divorced from his first wife after 12 years due to “not living up to her expectations” of
financial provisioning. He never made the connection that the women he was ’in love’ with had different concepts of what love meant to him. Rather, he evolved his previous concept of love wholesale to match that of women he ’loved’, and thus his idea of love was one based upon an endless quest for qualifying for that love. In the first year of his second marriage he lost his job, and was unemployed for about 5 months, leaving his wife as the only revenue source for them. At the end of month 4 of his unemployment, after returning from an interview, he came home to find the locks changed on his home and two duffel bags “full of his shit” were waiting by the door. On top of them was a note written by his 2nd wife which, to the effect, read: “Don’t come back until you have a job.”
I remember him proudly recounting this story to me at the time, because he said, as pissed off as he was at the time, he was ’grateful’ for her kicking him in the ass to be a “better man”. By this point his concept of love had been completely altered from his almost identical experiences with wife number one into a model that was entirely dependent upon his capacity to earn his wife’s love. Gone were the idealizations of unconditional love for the sake of love, to be replaced with the tactical, opportunistic concept of female love of his new wife. And, he was grateful for it.
After 20 years, at 65 (now 69) and in failing health he had come to realize that his efforts to secure her ’love’ indefinitely had never been appreciated, only expected; so here he was facing the very cruel reality that he was losing his health and thus the means to
maintain that incessant qualification for her love and affection.
I get a lot of email and correspondence about the ruthlessness of my, I guess seminal, War Brides essay. Guys have a hard time accepting the amorality of women’s inborn capacity to bond with their own captors as a psycho-socially adaptive survival trait, and how this evolved into women’s pronounced facility with which they can ’get over’ former lovers so much faster than men seem to be capable of.
Women don’t like me detailing this phenomenon for obvious reasons, but I think men
dislike the notion of their easy ’disposability’ because of that same inconsistency in
gender concepts of love. Even as martyrs, even in death, that unconditional male concept of love is rebuked by women’s, by-necessity, fluid and utilitarian concept of love.
Coming to terms with this is one of the most difficult aspects of taking the red pill.
I get that this seems overly nihilistic, but that’s the point. All of the very positive, very beneficial aspects of accepting a red pill reality come at the cost of abandoning the blue pill idealisms we’ve been conditioned to for so long. Leaving behind that Pollyanna,
expectant, blue-pill dream seems like killing an old friend, but unlearning that old
paradigm allows you to benefit from a far more hopeful red pill existence.
I’m not debating the genuineness or sincerity of women’s capacity to love. What I’m positing here is that women’s concept of love isn’t what men would be led to believe it is.