In the “community” there’s a lot of want for better terms. One of the major obstacles in the average guy’s path to unplugging from his conditioned interpretations of gender relations is really coming to terms with the ’terms’ we use. Somewhere on the net I’m sure there’s a glossary of the common acronyms used in the “manosphere” outlining the various shorthand we use. Some of these terms have gone mainstream and I’m beginning to see even “legitimate” online journalists use LTR (long term relationship) or ONS (one night stand) somewhat regularly, meaning there’s a common perception that others will already know what they mean.
The reason this is a obstacle for a lot of plugged-in guys is because it seems almost
juvenile, like a tree house club for preteen boys. For me to draw comparisons of an
acculturated, feminine social paradigm to the central plot of the Matrix movies,
admittedly, that seems kind of silly. It’s an apt comparison and a useful allegory when you understand the concepts behind it, but for a guy just coming to grasp it while being immersed in a feminine-primary socialization for his whole life, it doesn’t click.
And predictably, women invested in that same socialization see the terminology as little more than little boys holed up in their tree house, throwing rocks at the girls below.
However, like any new developing science or art or technology there is always going to be a need to codify abstract concepts. We lack better terms so we’re forced to create new ones to represent new concepts.
The AFC — average frustrated chump — was coined almost a decade ago with Mystery Method. It’s seen a lot of modification over the years, becoming almost synonymous the use of the term Beta (beta male) or Herb (herbivorous male). In fact, although I use it often, I rarely read AFC in PUA blogs, forums or the ’community’ at large.
Regardless of the terminology, the concept is really the crux of the term. Most AFCs, most guys looking in from the outside, can relate to the idea of what an average frustrated chump is — they can identify with it. Once they begin unplugging, the AFC idea comes into better focus and, usually with some discomfort, they realize how that term applies to themselves:
Qualities of an AFC
• ONEitis — First and foremost.
• Subscribes to feminine idealizations.
• Supplication is supportive. To comply with gender equalism she must increase, so he
must decrease, relational equity is the basis of a rational relationship.
• The Savior Schema —reciprocation of intimacy for problems solved.
• The Martyr Schema — the more you sacrifice the more it shows devotion.
• The ’Friends’ Debt — LJBF (“lets just be friends”) and the pseudo-friendship as a
means to prospective intimacy.
• Primarily relies on dating and social skills (or lack thereof) developed during
adolescence and early adulthood
• A behavioral history that illustrates a mental attitude of ’serial monogamy’ and
the related insecurities that accompany it.
• A belief that women infallibly and consciously recognize what they want, and
honestly convey this to them, irrespective of behaviors that contradict this.
Uses deductive reasoning in determining intent and bases female motivations on
statements rather than objectively observing behavior. Believes women’s natural
propensity is for rational rather than emotional thought.
• An over-reliance on rejection Buffers.
• A belief in the Identification Myth. The more alike he is, or can make himself, with
his idealized female the better able he will be to attract and secure her intimacy.
Believes that shared common interests are the only key to attraction and enduring
• Believes and practices the “not like other guys” doctrine of self-perceived uniqueness,
even under the condition of anonymity.
• Considers LDRs (long distance relationships) a viable option for prolonged intimacy.
• Maintains an internalized belief in the qualifications and characterizations of women
that coincide with his ability (or inability) to attract them. Thus, he self-confirms the
“she’s out of my league” and the “she’s a loose slut” mentalities on-the-fly to reinforce
his position for his given conditions.
• Harbors irrational (often socially reinforced) fears of long term solitude and alters his
mind-set to accommodate or settle for a less than optimal short term relationship
— often with life long consequences.
The AFC will confirm a belief in egalitarian equality between the genders without
consideration for variance between the genders. Ergo, men make perfectly acceptable feminine models and women make perfectly acceptable masculine models. Due to
societal pressures he unconsciously self-confirms androgyny as his goal state.
This is anything but a comprehensive list. There are far more, but my intent here isn’t to provide you with a list of criteria that qualifies an AFC (“you might be a chump if,..”), rather it’s to give you some basic understanding to clarify the term, and round out the idea of what an AFC is.
Needless to say these mental schema are some of the impediments to unplugging, or
helping another man unplug, from his old way of thinking. As I’m fond of repeating, unplugging chumps from the Matrix is dirty work. Expect to be met with a lot of resistance, but understanding what dynamics you may harbor yourself or those that a friend might cling to will help you in moving past the years of social conditioning. It’s thankless work, and more often than not you’ll also be facing a constant barrage of shit tests (from both women and feminized men) and ridicule in your efforts. Be prepared for it. Unplugging chumps is triagé — save those you can, read last rites to the dying.
In the next few sections I’ll be explaining some of these plugged-in qualities in more detail.
Women have boyfriends and girlfriends. If you’re not fucking her, you’re her girlfriend.
“Rollo, how do I get out of the Friend-Zone?”
Never allow yourself to get into it.
Women have used the LJBF (“let just be friends”) rejection for a hundred years because it serves an ego preservation function for her. To a greater or lesser degree, women require attention and the more they have of it the more affirmation they experience, both personally and socially. The LJBF rejection is a Social Convention that has classically ensured a woman can reject a man yet still maintain his previous attention. It also puts the responsibility for the rejection back on his shoulders since, should he decline the ’offer of friendship’, he is then responsible for entertaining this ’friendship’.
This of course has the potential to backfire on women these days since the standard
AFC response will be to accept an LJBF rejection in the mistaken hope of ’proving’
himself worthy of her intimacy by being the perfect ’surrogate boyfriend’ — fulfilling all her attention and loyalty prerequisites with no expectation of reciprocating her own intimacy.
I should also point out that this situation is analogous to men using women as
“fuck buddies” — fulfilling all his sexual availability needs with no expectations of
reciprocating commitment. Needless to say this merely positions the new “friend” into being the ’emotionally supportive’ Beta counterpart to the indifferent Alpha she’ll
consistently bang and then complain about — also popularly known as the Emotional Tampon.
The LJBF rejection also serves as an ego preservation for her in that having offered the false olive branch of ’friendship’ to him in her rejection she can also sleep that night knowing that she (and any of her peers) wont think any less of herself. After all, she offered to be friends, right? She is absolved of any feelings of personal guilt or any
responsibilities for his feelings if she still wants to remain amiable with him.
Men get a LJBF rejection because of a process. These are the “friends first” mindset guys; the guys who put far too much emphasis on a solitary woman and wait her out until the perfect moment to attempt to escalate to intimacy, at which point her most comfortable rejection (Buffer) is to LJBF. This is made all the more easy for her because of the process the guy used to get to that point.
Virtually all guys who get to the point of a LJBF rejection come to it because they fall in line with some variation of what I call a Sniper Mentality. They patiently wait for their one target, to the exception of all others, constantly attempting to prove their quality in doing so — meaning they emphasize a comfort level and try to be friends before lovers.
In essence they believe that desexualizing themselves will make them more attractive
(by virtue of not being like “other guys”) because they’ve bought into the idea that a woman must be comfortable with them first before they initiate intimacy. Once the AFC gets to a point where he’s mustered enough courage to initiate, and he feels she ’should’ be comfortable enough to appreciate him as boyfriend material, the Sniper takes his shot.
The problem with this process is that it bypasses essential stages of attraction and the necessary discomfort and sexual tension necessary for intimacy, and proceeds directly to a warm familiar, comfortable, (and ultimately anti-seductive) rapport, the exact opposite of arousal. If you think about this in terms of sex, this is the stage right after climax when she wants to cuddle, spoon and be wrapped up in her nice, secure oxytocin induced comfort.
This is the opposite of the testosterone fueled, sweaty, anxious and uncomfortable stage of arousal and intercourse before that release. So in terms of “friendship” and the Sniper Mentality, you’ve skipped arousal and gone straight to comfort. You’re perceived as a stuffed animal she can hug and then put back on the bed. Thus, when that previously platonic stuffed animal uncharacteristically gets a hard-on and says “I think we ought to be intimate” her reaction is to think that everything you’ve done for her up to that point has been a grand ruse. “My God, all you wanted was sex this whole time?”
Her most predictable response is then the LJBF rejection.
The field has already been tilled by you, it’s only one, very easy step for her to stay in that suspended comfort — “can’t we just be friends?” And then the cycle repeats. The AFC believes the LJBF is a genuine offer (not a rejection) and then falls back into the Sniper Mentality. He mustn’t have been convincing enough to prove his worth to her and therefore returns to further proving himself as the perfect boyfriend until he once again presses his intent of intimacy after another period. All this goes on apace until she becomes intimate with a ’real’ boyfriend and/or he acquires a new target after realizing his efforts with the LJBF girl aren’t bearing fruit.
The Friend Zone
The problem with a lot of the ’friend-zone’ advice women tend to offer is that they cast doubt on whether a LJBF rejection is in fact a rejection and not a genuine offer of friendship. To which I’ll say, the only reason the ’friend-zone’ is such a common issue among men & women for so long is because it’s been repeated so regularly and the outcome so predictable as a rejection.
A woman’s behavior is always the only gauge of her intent, and thus when a rejection like LJBF has been so consistently met with the same outcome and behavior (as evidenced by millions of identical stories from men) it’s only prudent for a Man to behave in kind.
A man’s default response should always be to excuse him from the LJBF situation.
The reason for this is because it serves his best interest whether she is testing him or is rejecting him. If he is confident enough in himself to walk away from the sexually tense
environment, he proves himself as decisive enough to put himself above being ’played’ like this. Ergo, he leaves her with the impression that he is the prize, possibly has
contacts with better prospective women and is confident enough to take away his
attentions from her and thus passes any shit test she might have implied, while placing the responsibility of a re-connection on her (where it should be anyway).
If she has in fact had a change of heart (her prerogative, remember?) and is using the LJBF as a means to reject him, he still benefits from all of the above and plants the ’seed of doubt’ in her about her initial estimation of his acceptability for her intimacy. Even if she is truly not interested in the guy, he walks away on his feet and not his knees, by
playing “friend” with her and wasting still more time that could be far better spent with more productive prospects.
It is really one of the few win-win Game situations for a guy to make a wholesale withdrawal of his attentions when he is confronted with an LJBF. Women know all too well how an LJBF places social pressure on a guy to accept what basically amounts to an ultimatum of negative social proof, and that’s a hell of a shit test no matter what her real intent is. If the guy turns down her offer of friendship, he’s the dickhead, not her. But the guy that can do what common sense and gut instinct points out to him will be the one to succeed, with her, other women and himself.
Human being’s natural inclination is to avoid confrontation. When a man makes an approach to intimacy with a woman this becomes confrontational. If she is unsure of a man’s sexual acceptability for her intimacy she must resort to psycho-social, learned behaviors to diffuse this confrontation.
Preferably these techniques should be reinforced beforehand and proven to diffuse just such a confrontation, thus the LJBF response is acted out through generations of women across many different cultures — quite simply it works more often than not.
You can also apply this to the Boyfriend Disclaimer; women who not-so-nonchalantly weave into their casual conversation that they have a boyfriend in a preemptive effort to diffuse a potential suitor’s interests. It’s basically a proactive LJBF rejection — she reads your telegraphed intent and prevents your further pressing her for a date.
It’s the guy who is unwilling to accept these conventions that makes the most lasting impressions of confidence with women. It goes against what our common human heritage dictates for us — avoid conflict, don’t make waves, be her friend, etc. By not accepting a LJBF you emphatically make known that you are good at confrontation, you have an understanding of her motives and you’re confident enough in yourself to make it known.
Not only does this impress her with potential for security provisioning it also implies future confidence. The problem for most guys is enacting this and making it a default behavior when our biology would have us move away from conflict rather than engage in an unacceptable social dynamic that is subtly damaging to his own interests.
LDRs are not relationships.
I’m sorry to break this to you, but there is no such thing as a long distance relationship (LDR).
That’s correct, you have no relationship. An LDR simply does not meet the criteria
necessary for it to be considered a legitimate relationship. There is no reciprocity of
anything more than words passing over a phone line or an instant message text.
Understand me here — you have no relationship. You have self-assumed accountability, self-assumed liability and internalized responsibilities to be loyal to this person, this
idealization, in your head. You are entertaining a commitment to fidelity with an idealization, and ignoring what everyone outside of your LDR will regularly tell you is insanity.
LDRs are one of the more insidious forms of ONEitis.
LDRs are the most easily identifiable form of ONEitis, and it would be laughable if it weren’t so damaging to a guy’s life maturation. The LDR man generally sacrifices years of his life in this pitiable effort to pursue his ’soulmate’ across the planet or even a
hundred miles away.
The very thought of refuting the idea that an LDR can work is equatable to denying his belief this fantasized ONEitis fueled idealization that he’s swallowed for the better part of his life. It’s easy to criticize an LDR in the terms of questioning either party’s earnestness and fidelity in entertaining an LDR and this is usually the tact that most people giving
advice on LDRs follow. One or both parties are or will ’cheat’ on the other over the course of time, it’s true, but LDRs are far more telling of a mentality that results in much more damaging consequences as a result of deeply conditioned self-expectations and fears.
I can’t begin to list the number of otherwise intelligent and ambitious men I’ve known who’ve drastically altered the course of their lives to follow their ONE. Men who’ve changed their majors in college, who’ve selected or switched universities, men who’ve applied for jobs in states they would never have considered, accepted jobs that are sub-standard to their ambitions or qualifications, men who’ve renounced former
religions and men who’ve moved across the planet all in an effort to better accommodate an idealized woman with whom they’ve played pseudo-boyfriend with over the course of an LDR; only to find that she wasn’t the person they thought she was and were depressive over the gravity that their decisions played in their lives.
An LDR is akin to a LJBF, but writ large and festering in a man’s life. You play surrogate boyfriend, voluntarily accepting and internalizing all of the responsibilities and accountabilities of being a woman’s exclusive, monogamous partner with no expectation of
reciprocating intimacy or sexuality in the immediate future. However an LDR is worse than a LJBF arrangement since it pervasively locks a man into a success or failure
mentality with regards to the relationship actually being legitimate. After all, she’s agreed to remain his girlfriend (from miles away) and if he’s the one to falter it’s his lack of perseverance in this ONEitis ego-investment that dooms them. Once the LDR inevitably ends he’s the one left with the self-doubt, he’s the one beating himself up over wasting time, money and effort and he’s the one feeling guilty whether he or she is the true ’cheater’.
An LDR is like having an invisible friend with whom you’re constantly considering the course of your actions with. Consider the personal, romantic, familial, educational, career, personal maturity and growth opportunities that you’ve limited yourself from or never had a chance to experience because of this invisible friend. When you finally divorce yourself from this invisible friend, will it have all been worth it?
Guys cling to LDRs because they’ve yet to learn that Rejection is better than Regret.
AFCs will nurse along an LDR for years because it seems the better option when
compared with actually going out and meeting new women who represent a potential for real rejection. They think it’s better to stick with the ’sure thing’, but it’s the long term regret that is the inevitable result of an LDR that is life damaging.
Nothing reeks of desperation or verifies a lack of confidence more than a guy who self-righteously proclaims he’s in an LDR. Women see you coming a mile off, because you are a guy without options, clinging to his one previously realized option. In fact the only reason a man entertains an LDR is due to a lack of options. If you had more plates spinning an LDR would never look like a good idea.
And finally, it’s not uncommon to see the “not in my case” defense offered about how you actually do see your invisible friend once every 4 or six months. To this I’ll say, again, what opportunities are you censoring yourself from experiencing by playing virtual, long-distance, house with a woman you only see this often? Do you honestly think you’re the exception to the rule? The truth is you’re molding your lifestyle around what you hope your relationship will be in the future — that’s no way to live.
The following was a timely question by a SoSuave forum member:
“Just wanted to find out: who do you talk to about aspects of game with off this site?
I’m talking here about “game” in the broadest sense of the term, so pick-up, but also self-esteem, how to keep a relationship healthy, the roles of men and women in society etc.”
“My experience with voicing the views advocated in the ’manosphere’ in public has nearly always been negative. I have 3 - 4 good male friends who are interested in pick-up, and they love it. But these friends are the exception rather than the rule. My parents (beta dad, controlling mum) think my attitude towards women is sexist and my opinion of ONSs (one night stands) “disgusting.” Just about everybody I know subscribes to the Disney / soulmate view of relationships, and some of my contemporaries (I’m 21) are even starting to settle down and get married. God help them. Talking to girls in bed about what they
find attractive in a man is interesting, if only to see the extent to which they delude themselves, but ultimately counter-productive, since a woman (tacitly) expects a man to know how to express his sexuality.”
“Can we as men ever talk about these things in public? What are your experiences?”
Before I begin, let me say that I think it’s encouraging to see such an insightful question posed by so young a Man.
From The Matrix:
MORPHEUS: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so
hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
Every random chump within earshot of your conversation about Game, about your ’changed’ way of seeing inter-gender relations, about your most objective critical
observations of how women ’are’, etc. — understand, that chump waits everyday for an opportunity to “correct” you in as public a way as he’s able to muster.
That AFC who’s been fed on a steady diet of noble intent, with ambitions of endearing a woman’s intimacy through his unique form of chivalry; that guy, he’s aching for an opportunity to prove his quality by publicly redressing a “villain” like you for your chauvinism. Even under the conditions of relative anonymity (like the internet), he’ll still cling to that want of proving his uniqueness just on the off chance that a woman might read his rebuff and be fatefully attracted to him.
This is the bread and butter of the White Knight Beta.
It’s best to assume that most guys who pick up on just your Game vibe, to say nothing of overtly talking about it, are going to side with the feminine imperative by default. For practitioners of Beta Game (which is to say the better part of 90% of guys) this is an organic opportunity to identify with women and engage in the same shaming conventions women use without the fear of having it seem contrived.
Now this is the mechanics of it, but the rabbit hole goes deeper than that. For the Beta Game that our noble white knight is so invested in to work, he depends on an assumed system. He depends upon reaffirming his assumed understanding of how to best achieve a woman’s intimacy (sex). He must reaffirm that presumption by defending it and looking for opportunities to show he adheres to the feminine imperative (or the version of the imperative he’s been taught to believe). His Game, his ego-invested identity is literally dependent upon that system. So not only is he defending his Game and his ego, he’s also defending the social architecture that makes his Beta Game even possible.
You see, when an AFC clings to the mental schemas that make up an AFC mindset it
requires a constant need for affirmation and reinforcement, particularly in light of his glaring lack of verifiable success with women while clinging to, and behaving in accordance with the mindset.
AFCs are like crabs in a barrel — once one gets to the top to climb out another drags him back in. The AFC needs other AFCs to affirm his blatantly obvious lack of success. He needs other AFCs to tell him, “don’t worry just be yourself” or “she’s just not a quality woman because she can’t see how great a guy you are.”
So when an AFC finally does get a second date and then finally does get laid it becomes the ultimate validation for his mindset. “See, you just have to be a patient Nice Guy and the right ONE really does come along.” This is when the self-righteous phase begins and he can begin telling his PUA friends that ’his Game’ does work, and he’s “getting some” now without all the Positive Masculinity claptrap. In actuality he rationalizes away all of the conditions that led up to him getting the girlfriend and the fundamental flaw that he’s settling for a woman “who’d fuck him”, but this doesn’t stop him from claiming a moral high ground. His long wait is over and he’s finally hit White Knight pay-dirt.
Average Frustrated Chump
Letting Go of Invisible Friends
Enter White Knight
The concept of Honor that men began has been made to serve a feminine purpose.
I have no doubt that the principle of honor dates back from as long ago as we can track human civilization, but like so many other social foundation Men have instituted, the feminine will covertly position them to its own purpose.
In the introduction to the Art of Seduction author Robert Greene explains why there was an original need for seduction to be developed into an art. For this we can look back to ancient civilizations where women were essentially a commodity. They had no overt external power to control their fates, but they excelled (and still do) at covert psychological internal power, and this of course finds a parallel in men and women’s preferred communication methods. The feminine’s primary agency has always been sexuality and manipulating influence by its means.
Much in the same way that each gender communicates, so too is their method of
interacting within their own gender. As Men we’re respected when we keep our word, sacrifice ourselves for a worthy cause (even to the point of disposability), solve problems
rationally, our word is our bond, and a whole host of other qualifiers that make us respectable and worthy of integrity. We must be overt and above board; and when we encounter a man who is covert in his dealings we call him ’shifty’ and think him untrustworthy. Even for the most noble of purposes, practicing the art of misdirection is not something men are respected for — at least not publicly.
It’s just this overt masculine interactive nature that women are only too ready to exploit. In combination with their sexual agency and influence they use this overt male social interactive dynamic to position themselves in places where they can use indirect power.
Cleopatra was an excellent example of this — sending armies to war by appealing to
powerful men’s pride and honor, while reserving her sexuality as a reward. Virtually every Feminine Social Convention is rooted in appealing to, or attacking male social institutions — a dedication to an idealistic sense of honor being chief among them.
The obvious example is of course “shaming” and the “do-the-right-thing” social contract.
In fact to be a “Man” has become synonymous with living up to a feminine imperative that’s cleverly disguised as masculine Honor. It’s not that women created Honor, but rather that they’ve recreated it to serve their purpose. In the Biblical Ten Commandments we’re told not to commit adultery — don’t sleep with another man’s wife — which
probably wasn’t too hard to abide by when polygamy was the norm. In fact multiple wives was a sign of affluence, it used to be the conspicuous consumption of the epoch. Why then is polygamy a social perversion now? What changes occurred that made polygamy honorable (even enviable) into a very evil taboo?
Along with language and culture, social conditions evolve. What we think of as Honorable today are the result of centuries molding. It’s very easy to romanticize about times when Honor among Men reigned supreme, and then lament the sad state of society today in comparison, but doing so is a fools errand. Honor in and of itself is, and should be, a foundation for Men, but it’s only useful when we understand it in the perspective of how it can be used against us.
Man Up or Shut Up — The Male Catch 22
One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.
For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy, ’Male Privilege’ or Misogyny.
Essentially, this convention keeps Beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ’Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it.
This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist,
misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.
In contemporary society we have a very different understanding of what Honor was, or was intended to be initially. One of the psychological undercurrents I see in most AFCs is a strong, self-righteous dedication to a very distorted conviction of Honor. A main tenet being an unearned, default respect for women; essentially an unearned Honor placed on a woman for no other reason than she’s female. We learn this (usually) from the time we’re children, “never hit a girl”. Naturally, this has only been ferociously encouraged by the feminine since Victorian times because it served a latent purpose right up until on demand (feminine exclusive) birth control was offered, and then prompted the sexual revolution.
Today, we still have women using the anachronism that is male Honor in a manner that serves their interests, but it’s contrasted with a sexually emphasized opportunism. A Man’s responsibility should be “Honoring” her as ’the fairer sex’ while recognizing her ’independence’. The AFC gobbles this stuff up and in an effort to better identify himself with her ideals he begins to convince himself that he’s unique in that he better exemplifies this false-virtue, this feminine defined sense of Honor than “other guys”.
The Honor System
“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 female 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 sexual intimacy.
Needless to say this is simplistic at best, but as is the root cause for most of men’s frustrations with women, 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, and honor, their implied “agreement.”
The fundamental flaw of the Savior Schema (a.k.a. “Cap’n 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 lasagna, give her the perfect shoulder to cry on, babysit 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, loyal AFC suffering from a Savior Schema, because there is no obligation.
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 deductively 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 placed their
attentions and intimacies as unassailable resources, so valuable that no effort on a man’s part can overtly 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 possessing 12-17 times the testosterone levels of women, 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.
The Savior Schema
Ever since “When Harry Met Sally” was released there’s been a constant droning about the validity of intergender friendships. To even suggest that men and women couldn’t be strictly platonic, mature friends is to invite reproach from a society that’s been steeped in notions of egalitarian equalism. If men and women are fundamentally “the same” there should be no impediment to developing and maintaining a friendship in like terms to a same sex friendship.
While it would be foolish to think intergender friendships aren’t possible, it’s important to understand that men and women cannot be friends in the way or to the degree that most people perceive same-sex friendship to be.
Now the natural response to this is “I have lots of female friends” or “what are you trying to say, I can’t have female friends, they all haffta be enemies?”
Which of course is the standard binary (black or white, all or nothing) retort and the trained AFC thinks anyone suggesting that men and women’s relations as friends could be anything less than equitable and fulfilling is just a Neanderthal chauvinist thinking. However, they are incorrect — not because you wouldn’t want to actually be a woman’s friend. There are fundamental differences in the ways men and women view friendship within the framework of their own sex and the ways this transfers to the concept of intergender-friendship.
Quite simply there are limitations on the degree to which a friendship can develop between men and women. The easy illustration of this is that at some point your female “friend” will become intimately involved with another male; at which point the quality of what you perceived as a legitimate friendship will decay. It must decay for her intimate relationship to mature. For instance, I’ve been married for 17 years now; were I to entertain a deep friendship with another female (particularly an attractive female) other than my wife, my interest in this woman automatically becomes suspect of infidelity — and of course the same holds true for women with man-friends. This dynamic simply doesn’t exist for same sex friendships because the sexual aspect is inconsequential.
I understand how stupidly obvious this seems, but remember we’re qualifying the characteristics of intergender friendships in the face of a social undercurrent that wants to convince us that men and women are fundamentally equal. According to this precept, men should essentially possess the capacity to repress their sexual impulse to the point that it should have no bearing on his rational decision to engage in a platonic friendship. Likewise, a woman should be able to dissociate herself from her hypergamous nature to pursue a completely asexual friendship. And both genders should maturely pursue the friendship for their mutual enrichment, however, reality tells a different story.
All of this isn’t to say that you cannot have female acquaintances, or that you must necessarily be rude or ignore all women with contempt (that is binary thinking once again), but it is to say that the degree or quality of friendship that you can experience with women (as a man) in comparison to same sex friendships will always be limited due to sexual differences.
Most men will only ever engage in friendships with women that they initially find attractive which then, of course, is colored by their attraction to that woman. I’m sure the “not in my case” card will get played and attempt to make an anecdotal case for how much an exception to the rule you are. To which I’ll say, even if you legitimately are, it makes no difference because the very nature of an intergender friendship is always going to be limited by sexual differences. Even if you can legitimately make the case that you aren’t now, or weren’t in the past, attracted to your opposite sex friend, your other intimate, intergender relationships will still modify and/or limit the depth of that friendship.
Even the best, most asexual, platonic, male-female friendships will be subject to mitigation based on sex. The easy example is; I’m sure you’d be jealous and suspect of your girlfriend were she to be spending any “quality time” with another ’male-friend’. It’s simply time spent with another male who isn’t you and you’ll always question her desire to do so in favor of spending time with you.
Bear in mind that it’s also important to consider how women relate with their same-sex friends as a template for their intergender friendships. Remember each sex uses it’s same-sex model of friendship on which to base their understandings and expectations for an opposite sex friendship. Very few men have the patience to sort out how women interact with their women friends, so they opt for the easy answer that equalism gives them — we’re all the same, so your male buddies are the same as women.
Any guy that’s been in the circular hell of being a woman’s “phone-friend” knows this isn’t true. Girl-friends have a much different dynamic for friendship than do men, but likewise, and by way of her innate solipsism, she’s presuming her intersexual friendships will follow along a similar template to that of her girl-friends.
And why wouldn’t women expect their male friends to conform to their template for friendship? In a feminine-centric world it makes practical sense for men to realign themselves to women’s friendship frame. Men will all too readily tolerate behavior and
attitudes from girl-friends that they’d come to physical blows with their male friends were they to do the same. Since the prerogative of maintaining that friendship is, by
default, cast in a feminine-centric frame, women (generally) wouldn’t even think of
altering their own interpretations of friendship to accommodate a male perspective.
Get it out of your head now that you’re even in a so called “friend zone” with any
woman. There is no friend zone — there is only the limbo between you being fooled that a girl is actually a friend on an equitable level to your same sex friends, and you understanding that as soon as she becomes intimate with another guy your attentions will become a liability to any relationship she might want to have with the new sexual interest and she puts you off, or you do the same when you become so involved with another girl.
The Female Wingman
A lot of guys cling to this mistaken notion that they can parlay a female friendship into action with one of her hot friends. You may even have legitimate examples where that might’ve happened, but for each one, I’ll show you a girl who would’ve fucked you irrespective of whether or not you had a mutual female friend to vouch for you. That friendship may have been a convenient pivot into another hot girl, but it wasn’t the prior intergender-friendship that got you laid; it was that the girl who banged you found you attractive enough to fuck.
I’m not denying the utility of ’Social Circle Game’, nor am I ignoring that the
conspicuous attention of hot women is good social proof — that’s not what the friend pivot is about. It’s about assuming a girl-friend will endorse you as a preselected, potential sexual partner.
You may think it’s great social proof to have some hot friend endorse you as a good lay for her other friends, but women talk. In fact it’s all they do most of the time. Your status as a friend gets transferred to her girlfriends. Why?
First, if she was a prior target for you who turned into a LJBF, you already have that as an association of your friendship. Any of her girlfriends that would subsequently date you will know that she was your primary interest initially — not them. Secondly, assuming you even could have a completely innocuous, asexual, platonic beginning to your inter-gender friendship, there will be competition anxiety with the other girlfriends. This will result in a tendency for the original friend to filter your exposure to which of her girlfriends she finds the least threatening. You have to consider the balance between your value to her as another friend / orbiter against her endorsing you as a potential intimate for one of her girlfriends. Just because you have a girl-friend with a social circle of attractive female friends doesn’t mean you’ll get her endorsement for the one you’d prefer to get with.
To complete the circle here, all of this leads up to understanding that your female friend will never be one of your guy friends. This silly notion is founded on the expectation that your female friend will hold the same interests and have the same reactions that your male friends will. Women are never going to be your wingman. One of the great downfalls of men today is too much female influence in their lives, to the point that it’s become stigma. Beware the guy with too many or exclusively female friends. This might make for the plot of stupid movies, but most women are wary of guys with so many female friends that they question their being able to relate with and be Men.
Part of being Alpha is your facility with male interactions. If all your friends are women this calls your Alpha cred into question for a woman.