The Feminine Nature
Solipsism ( from Latin solus, meaning “alone”, and ipse, meaning “self”) is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.”
— Hillary Clinton
There was a time I had planned on using Hillary’s now infamous quote for an essay outlining the distinction between women’s innate solipsism and a learned, acculturated narcissism. However, fate delivered me a much more profound use for this quote here.
Before I dig in, I feel it’s kind of incumbent upon me to point out that I in no way align with, nor endorse Hillary’s political or ideological perspectives, and I think it should go without saying that I disagree with her feminine-primary social agendas.
That said, if you ever need a better quote to explain the realities of feminine solipsism I think I’d be at a loss to give you one. A lot of men, even Red Pill aware men, have a hard time understanding how women’s innate solipsism fits into the feminine psyche. The social conditioning and upbringing that predisposes us to an egalitarian-equalist mindset conflicts with the thinking that women and men would have different psychological firmware. Equalism teaches us to expect that men and women’s needs share mutual origins and our impulses are so similar that any difference is insignificant. Biologically and sociologically this is provably untrue.
That same egalitarian frame predisposes us to consider that ’not all women are like that’ or to disassociate the idea that men and women could be anything but functionally equal agents. As a result we get convenient distractions to confuse our looking for comparative states should anyone (or thing) challenge an easy equalist answer.
Simply put, we get rationales like “Oh well, men do it too”, or worse. We’re taught to doubt any opposite comparison that leads us away from considering the truth that men and women are psychologically, biologically and sociologically different; with different motives and different strategies which we employ to meet different imperatives. And often these imperatives are at odds with the best interests of the other sex.
I’ve elaborated on this rule in The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine, but for now lets reconsider:
The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.
It is the fundamental differences in either sex’s imperatives, acculturation and biology that creates this conflict. Of course, men and women have come together for each other’s mutual benefit (and love, and enjoyment) to create families and sustain our race for millennia, however, this mutually beneficial union does not originate from mutual imperatives or mutually beneficial sexual strategies between the sexes.
In my first book when I explained how women hold an opportunistic concept of love, while men hold an idealistic one, the resistance to accept that this observable, behavioral, reality is rooted in a blank-slate belief that men and women are fundamentally the same. So, when we read a statement from a woman of Hillary Clinton’s status, we either scoff at the oblivious audacity of it (because it is so counter to our (male) imperative’s interests) or we nod in ascension in the feminized belief that what best serves the female imperative necessarily is the best interest of the male imperative. This is the logic which Hillary hopes men will concur with.
Hillary’s is an illustration of the fundamental difference in the interpretation of experience between the sexes. From a solipsistically oblivious female perspective what Hillary is expounding on here is entirely true. From a perspective that singularly prioritizes feminine Hypergamy above all else, these three sentences make perfect, pragmatic sense. The idea that men losing their lives in warfare would make them victims at all (much less the primary victims) isn’t even an afterthought; all that matters is the long term security and continued provisioning of women and their imperatives.
Solipsism, not Narcissism
A lot of newly Red Pill aware men get confused at my using the term ’solipsism’ when I refer to this female-specific obliviousness to any concern — or lesser prioritized concern — of anything outside their immediate existential needs. The confusion comes from men who want for a similar justice where women are responsible for their own moral agency. Self-importance, arrogant self-interest or narcissism would seem to be a more appropriate term for this dynamic, but I disagree. All of these terms carry a negative connotation and with them the obligation of women (hopefully) bearing the burden of personal responsibility for their behaviors based on them.
As Red Pill aware men, we need to guard against attributing to social constructivism that which is better explained by women’s innate, evolved predisposition.
Female solipsism in and of itself is not necessarily a net negative in the larger scope of human survival and evolution. On the surface that may seem a bit outrageous, but it’s only outrageous insofar as women’s solipsistic natures come into conflict with the biological and social imperatives of men. Much of what constitutes women’s solipsistic nature today is founded in evolved self-preservation (and by extension the preservation of any of their offspring). This solipsism is the necessary result of a feminine survival instinct that’s helped preserve women and their offspring in the violent, chaotic and uncertain environments of pre-modern eras.
A lot of my critics take me to task on this, however, it’s important to keep in mind that recognizing the importance of feminine solipsism is not an endorsement of the anti-social, and often cruel, byproducts of it. Acknowledging women’s solipsistic nature is not an endorsement or license for behavior or decisions it influences.
No doubt, men who’ve been on the sharp end of this nature will grind their teeth at the inevitable narcissism that becomes an extension of women’s solipsism. I’ll agree. Socially we’re living in an era of unprecedented (western) narcissism manifested in a vast majority of women.
At no other time in history have women become more accustomed to perceived entitlements of personal security, ubiquitous social control and relative assurances of optimizing Hypergamous imperatives. At no other time have women’s sexual strategies been of such primary importance to collective society. However, this narcissism is the result of an acculturation and learned social priorities that predispose women to expectations that border on arrogance. Over recent generations that narcissism has become learned and fostered in women to the point that narcissism is openly embraced as a feminine strength — women believe it’s their due after a long suffering.
Women’s solipsistic nature however is an integral part of their evolved psychological firmware. Solipsism is the evolved, selected-for result of self-preservation necessities that ensured the survival of our species. As men we get frustrated by this intrinsic nature; a nature that puts women’s imperatives as their primary mental point of origin. As any newly aware Red Pill man will attest, coming to this realization is a very hard truth to accept. It’s cruel and contrary to what the First Set of Books have taught him he should expect and to build his life around. Furthermore, it’s cruel in the respect that this solipsism neither aligns with the romantic, Blue Pill hopes he’s been raised to accept, nor the egalitarian, equal and level playing field ideology he’s been conditioned to believe he can expect from women. As I stated earlier, coming to terms with men and women’s differing concepts of love is a tough disillusionment, but this difference in concept is simply one of many a man must come to terms with in his Red Pill awareness.
When I debunk the myth of women having some supernatural empathy I often get taken to task about women’s capacity to feel empathy to a greater degree than do men. It’s not that women cannot feel empathetically (a shared experience), my argument was that the idea that women feel a ’greater’ empathy than men is a social convention with the latent purpose of masking women’s innate solipsism. That wasn’t a very popular idea either. The notion that women are mothers and nurturers was predictably spelled out, but with regards to empathizing and caring for men, the primary concern of women was worry over their own and their children’s well being before that of their men should they become injured, incapacitated or killed. Again, this is a cruel truth, but also a pragmatic and survival based one.
Mental Point of Origin
Women’s mental point of origin begins with their own self-importance, and the overriding importance of their own and their offspring’s survival. I’ve had women readers lambaste me that they couldn’t possibly be so influenced by solipsism because they put their children’s wellbeing before their own. However it is just this solipsism that predisposes women to seeing their children as extensions of themselves and their own identities. And the good news is that this dynamic is one reason the human species has been so successful.
Women are bad at reasoning, but good at rationalization.
Let that sink in for a minute. One cannot rationalize without the faculty for reason. So are women really bad at reasoning? No, actually they’re great at it. The difference is that women don’t place as much value on truth as they do upon self-preservation, and therefore their reasoning processes do not abort when self-contradiction and cognitive dissonance is reached. They’ll just rationalize their way out of that too, if exposed.
Ultimately, this rationalization reflects an underlying difference in value systems more than in reasoning ability. Women can and do learn to sublimate their solipsism. In fact, cultures and progressive societies have been founded on sublimating female solipsism. Women can and do learn critical thinking quite regularly. Women can learn and function within a society that forces them to compromise their sexual strategies and mitigates the worst abuses that solipsism would visit on men (and themselves). Women can learn to be empathetic towards men as well as live within a social order that looks like mutual justice and fairness.
However, the fact that these civil dynamics should need to be something a woman learns only reinforces the biological and evolved influences of female solipsism as women’s mental point of origin. The need for security in a chaotic environment has led to women’s solipsism being a selected-for, self-preservation adaptation. This firmware can be overridden by learned behavior. The parallel to this is men’s learning to sublimate intrinsic parts of themselves — primarily their sexuality — to reinforce pro-social interaction in society.
Women dislike the idea that their experience is colored by solipsism. It sounds bad, and it runs counter to what they believe are sacrifices on their own part to help others. That may be so, and I’m certainly not going to attempt to discount those investments, but they come from a learned compassion that must overcome an innate solipsism. That ’me and my babies first’ mental point of origin isn’t necessarily a bad thing either — it’s only when that learned compassion and humility are superseded by it that anti-social behaviors and hubris arise.
I expect the predictable criticism will be that men are also self-important, and / or all humans are intrinsically selfish fucks. I’ll elaborate more on this, but for now it’s important to grasp that female solipsistic nature is less about selfish individualism and more about pragmatic survival.
Many a male reader of my Hierarchies of Love series (Preventive Medicine) grated against the idea that a conventional model of love would progress from men to women, then women to children, and children to puppies, etc. That model is a direct reflection of a uniquely female solipsism that seemingly discards men’s reciprocal emotional investment in women. This conflicts with Beta men’s investing of themselves in the myth of Relational Equity. However, this is also the same dynamic that predisposes women to desire men who can decisively control their environment as well as dominate them sexually and emotionally.
A reader once asked me,
Rollo, it would be great if you could provide some evidence for female solipsism beyond a few examples. From my own experience I could name a few solipsistic women, but I could do the same for men as well, and I’m far from convinced that the trait is universal in women, or even that it’s more prevalent in women than in men.
I anticipate criticism of this sort of example-seeking. And to their credit my more vocal female commenters never disappoint me with (sometimes over the top) illustrations. Another reader had a great example I have to quote here:
One of the most eye opening of the solipsistic world of females was when a plate of mine was giving me directions on where to pick her up. It went something like this:
Her: “When you come to that traffic light, turn over to me.”
Me: “What do you mean?”
Her: “Just turn here towards me.”
Me: “How the hell am I supposed to know which way is that? Left or right?”
Her: “I don’t know. Just turn my way”
She eventually gave directions, but it amazed me how hard it is for a woman to put herself in someone else’s shoes, even if she wants to.
Women’s mental point of origin (solipsism) presumes the entire world outside of her agrees with her imperative and mutually shares the importance and priorities of it.
Just like The Red Pill Lens, it takes a sensitivity to it, but you will begin to notice instances of that solipsism all around you if you pay attention. An equalist’s feminine-primary acculturation predisposes men to accept the manifestations of this solipsism as something ’normal’, so we blow it off or nod in agreement without really considering it. Most plugged-in Blue Pill men simply view this as a standard operating condition for women to such a degree that this solipsistic nature is pushed to the peripheries of their awareness.
It’s just how women are and women are more than happy to have men accept their solipsism as intrinsic to their nature. It’s excusable in the same sense that women hold a “woman’s prerogative” — she always reserves the right to change her mind. When your default is to accept this social imperative any greater inconsistencies fall into line behind it.
Both men and women are conditioned to accept that what best benefits women’s sexual strategy is necessarily what benefits men. On both a social and personal level women’s solipsistic importance presumes, by default, that what best serves themselves automatically best serves men — even when they refuse to acknowledge it. Remember, nothing outside the female existential imperative has any more significance than an individual woman will allow it. So, perceptually to women, if a man suits a purpose in her self-primary requirements she presumes he must also mutually share in that awareness of his purpose to her. Thus, she maintains that his imperatives are the same as her own and a society based on blank-slate equalism only serves to reinforce this presumption.
Social reinforcement of women’s solipsistic nature is a self-perpetuating cycle. A feminine-primary social order reflects in itself, and then sustains, female solipsism. For most Red Pill aware men this cycle is apparent in women’s exaggerated self-entitlements, but there’s far more to it than this.
When men accept and reinforce this socially, we feed and confirm women’s solipsistic natures define our social narrative. When men are steeped in a Blue Pill acceptance of what they believe should be men’s condition, and defend (or ’empower’) women’s solipsistic behaviors or manifestations of it, that’s when the cycle of affirming this solipsism comes full circle.
Solipsism on a societal level will collectively prioritize the self-preservation efforts of the Sisterhood on whole. This is what I often refer to as the Sisterhood Über Alles — women’s needs come before all other concerns or directives. This is another instance of solipsism; that a woman’s first directive is to defend her sex’s imperatives even above considerations of religious conviction, marriage vows or espoused personal ideology. That’s the depth and breadth of feminine solipsism, and again, this reinforces a cycle of affirming it in women. If there is a fundamental principle upon which the Feminine Imperative is founded solipsism is its root.
One of the easiest ways to identify women’s solipsistic nature is manifested in their communication style. Specifically, this is an inherently inward, self-focus to internal conversations. I’ve outlined many times how women’s communication style is covert, reserved and subject to contextual cues and nuanced meanings, while men’s is overt, blunt and content, or information driven. Much of women’s inward facing existence is manifested in the socialized ideal that women can (should) be islands unto themselves; requiring nothing from an outside agency for self-fulfillment.
I’m not lonely, I enjoy solitude…
I am a whole person who needs no other for my own completion. No man, no woman. The qualities identified by different cultures as male and female…are all mine. Your obsession with division….is absurd.
I’ve dug into women’s communication styles on more occasions than I can account in my essays, and with regard to how women defer to their solipsistic nature there is no better way to identify it than in the priorities they give to communicating with men and other women.
It’s endlessly entertaining (and predictable) to see how often women and feminized men’s default response to anything they disagree with in regards to gender dynamics is met with a personalization to the contrary. It’s always the “notin-my-case” story about how their personal anecdotal, exceptional experience categorically proves a universal opposite. By order of degrees, women have a natural tendency for solipsism — thus, any dynamic is interpreted in terms of how it applies to themselves first, and then the greater whole of humanity.
Men tend to draw upon the larger, rational, more empirical meta-observations and decide whether they agree or not, but a woman will almost universally rely upon her individual personal experience and cling to it as gospel. If it’s true for her, it’s true for everyone, and experience and data that contradict her self-estimations? Those have no bearing because ’she’s’ not like that. All larger experiences necessarily pass through her filter of self-reference.
This personalization is the first order of any argument proffered by women just coming into an awareness of long standing conversations and debate in the Manosphere. It is so predictable it’s now cliché, and each woman’s reflexive retort invariably responds with personalized anecdotes they think trumps any objective, observable evidence to the contrary.
It might be entertaining for Red Pill men to count the instances of personalization in a woman’s rebuttal comment, but it’s not about how many “I”s or “me”s a woman brings to any counterargument — it’s that her first inclination for a counterargument is to use her solipsistic personal experience and expect it to be accepted as a valid, universal truth by whomever she is presenting it to. I’s, Me’s and Myself’s are simply the vehicle and manifestation of women’s first directive — a solipsistic mental point of origin; any challenge to that self-importance is invalidated by her personal self-primacy. This mental origin is so automatic and ingrained to such a limbic degree that consideration of it is never an afterthought for her.
This is common to feminine communication preferences (and men who’ve been conditioned to opt into a feminine-primary communication mode). Women focus primarily on the context of the communication (how it makes them feel while communicating), while men focus primarily on the content (the importance of the information being communicated). This isn’t to exclude men from using personal experiences to help illustrate a point, but the intent comes from a different motive. That motive is an attempt to better understand the content and information of that issue, not an exercise in self-affirmation that feminine solipsism requires to preserve a woman’s ego-investments (usually her solipsistic mental point of origin). The most visible manifestation of women’s rudimentary solipsism is the importance to which they expect their personal, existential, experience to be considered the most valid, legitimate and universal truth apparent in any debate.
Middle of the Story Syndrome
One thing I’ve been frustrated with by virtually every woman I’ve ever known in my life is their tendency to begin a conversation in the middle of a story; all the while expecting men to understand every nuance and be familiar with all the minute ’feely’ details that made up a back-story that’s never forthcoming.
I swear, every woman I’ve known has done this with me at some time. The presumption is that their story is of such importance that bothering with any pretext, or outlining and describing the events and information that led up to that mid-way vitally important element that made them feel a certain way is all that should matter to a listener. Women have an uncanny way of accepting this when they relate stories among themselves; gleaning incidental details of the back-story as the teller goes on.
There’s an ironic feminine-operative social convention that complains that “men aren’t good listeners” or “men don’t listen” to what women are telling them. This convention is really another manifestation of a solipsistic mindset with regard to communication.
It isn’t that men don’t listen, it’s that our communication styles focus on content information, not the contextual ’feel’ of what’s being communicated by women. Women, above all else, hate to repeat themselves. Not because of the inconvenience, but because men ’not listening’ and requiring a repetition of that information conflicts with her own self-primary solipsism. The want of a ’good listener’ is really the want for a man who affirms her self-priority by not needing to be told something that confirms that priority more than once. And this confirmation should never require explanation or an understanding of the back-story of events that made it feel important to her.
Women have an inherent pretext in communication that always begins with themselves. In fact, most are so sure of their solipsistic, personal truth that glaring objectivity never enters their minds; at least not initially. Women are entirely capable of applying reason, rationality and pragmatism, it’s just that this isn’t their first mental order when confronted with a need for it. Just as a girl can be taught to throw an object as well as it comes naturally to a boy, a trained transcendence above her solipsism, one that considers the individuated existences of others’ experiences takes a learned effort.
I had reader give me a great illustration as well:
I asked my ex if her kids came first or if I did. She paused and said “I really don’t know. That’s a hard one.” I replied “Then it’s your kids.” I recall my ex-wife reading one of those save your marriage books right after I made it clear I was leaving. She read me a line in it and said she sees how she was wrong. The line went something like this: “If you want to have a strong marriage, you need to understand your husband comes first, even before your children. They must be taught by you, their mother, that he is head of the household and respect must be given. The only way they’ll see that is by your demonstrating by your actions that this is so.” I still left though.
The irony in this instance is that for all of the humble deference this seemingly good advice promotes, it still presumes a woman is already the primary source of authority who ’allows’ her husband to be “the man”. I’ve heard similar advice espoused by evangelical pastors making Pollyanna attempts at ’granting headship’ to husbands and fathers from their reluctant wives. The inherent flaw is that these men already begin from a perspective that women are in a position of unquestioned primacy and require their permission to be ’men’.
In a way they are unwittingly acknowledging women’s solipsism (and perpetuating the cycle) as a default source of authority. That a woman would need to be taught to defer authority to her husband belies two things; first, her solipsistic mental point of origin and second, that her man isn’t a man who inspires that willing deference.
It’s easy to see how a Beta man wouldn’t be someone that would naturally prompt a woman to go against her natural solipsism, but in this guy’s position (I presume Alpha since he walked) there is a conflict women have to confront in themselves.
In a social order that reinforces the entitlements presumed by women’s solipsism there develops an internal conflict between the need for an optimized Hypergamy and the ego-investments a woman’s solipsism demands to preserve it. As a woman progresses towards the Wall and a lessened capacity to optimize both sides (Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks) of Hypergamy this conflict comes to a head. The necessities of long term provisioning war with the self-importance of solipsism at the risk of her losing out on preserving both (and having a guy simply walk away from her).
Women cannot bear to see a Man experiencing negative emotions such as extreme anger, rage, fear, despair, despondency or depression for extended periods of time. You say you want to “be there” for your Man; but you cannot do it. If it goes on long enough, it kills the attraction; it sets off your hypergamy alarms; and subconsciously causes you to start hunting for a replacement Man.
A woman seeing a Male go through the above will seek to replace that Male immediately.
Women cannot listen to Men talking about or working out their dating/ mating/relationship issues or problems. Women reflexively view a Man discussing such issues as “whining” or “complaining” or “bitterness” or “sour grapes” or “well, you just chose poorly, so sucks to be you” or “suck it up, no one wants to hear you bitching about it”.
As to both of the above principles; when a Male is involved, ratchet up by a factor of 5 the disdain and repulsion a woman experiences when seeing a Male do or experience the above.
Around the first week of August in 2013 I suffered what’s commonly known as a ’dancer’s fracture’. For all of the risk taking activities I’ve engaged in over my life, I’d never had more than a hairline fracture on any bone in my body before this. This fucking hurt. Like edge of the bed, don’t turn the wrong way or you’re in agony kind of hurt. Forget about putting weight on it for 4-6 weeks, “holy shit I have a two story home” and my bed’s upstairs kind of hurt. The Doc explained that there’s really no way to set a dancer’s break so I’d just have to “tough it out” and take it easy. I refuse to take any kind of narcotic painkiller (Vicodin, etc) so it was ibuprofen and Tylenol for the better part of the first month.
After the first week, the pain went from “holy shit” to “ok, ow, ah fuck, yeah I can do this if I grit my teeth.” If a wild animal wanted to eat me, there’d have been no way for me to avoid it; I was literally hobbled for the first time in my life.
Sack up ya big pansy!
Now, do I sound like a big pansy to you? In my time I’ve squatted well over 400 lbs. I have benched 305 lbs. I’ve leg pressed the weight of small cars in my younger days. Most of the guys I know who’d broken a bone, or torn a bicep, or slipped a disc knew, and could empathize with, exactly what I was describing to them in great detail. However, my loving wife of 17 years and my fifteen year old daughter’s first reaction to my pain was “Oh, men are such babies! They all make such a big noise about how much it hurts. You think that’s hurt? That’s not hurt.” It was as if by their dismissing my injury I would get up and say “yeah, ok it’s really not so bad” and go back to mowing the lawn or something.
This has been a pretty consistent theme for Mrs. Tomassi — and every single woman I’d been involved with before her — women don’t want to accept that their man could ever be incapacitated. Before I was Game-aware, I took this with a grain of salt. My wife has been a medical professional since she was in her early 20’s and she’s seen some pretty gnarly shit in various trauma centers so I had to take that into consideration. There’s a certain disconnect from human suffering in that line of work that has to be made or you lose it — I get that — but that still didn’t account for the default indifference to pain most every other female I know, including my own daughter and mother had ever had with regards to a man in legitimate physical pain.
The Mother-Nurturer Myth
One of the classic perceptions women, and even well-meaning men, perpetuate is the idea that women are the nurturers of humanity. They take care of the children, home and hearth. Theirs is the realm of the private, and men’s that of the public — in fact this was one impression that early feminism took as its primary target, they wanted it all, private and public. Despite the statistics about abortion, despite the realities of Hypergamy and the War Brides dynamic, the classic characterization of woman as mother, nurturer, nurse and caregiver have endured, even as a complement to the Strong Independent® characterization feminism would re-imagine for women.
Perhaps it’s due to a deeply enrgamatic hard-wiring of the importance of Hypergamy into the feminine’s psychological firmware, but women cannot accept that any man, and in particular a Man worth considering as a suitable hypergamic pairing, might ever be incapacitated. The feminine subconscious refuses to acknowledge even the possibility of this. Perpetuating the species and ensuring the nurturing her offspring maybe part of her psyche’s hard-code, but ensuring the survival and provisioning of her mate is not. This isn’t to say that women can’t learn (by necessity) to assist in her mate’s wellbeing, it’s just not what evolution has programmed her for — it requires effort on her part.
I propose this because women’s solipsistic nature (predicated on Hypergamy) necessarily excludes them from empathizing with the male experience — and this extends to men’s legitimate pain. The idea that a man, the man her Hypergamy bet its genetic inheritance on for protection and provisioning, could be so incapacitated that she would have to provide him with protection and provisioning is so countervailing to the Feminine Imperative that the feminine psyche evolved psychological defenses (“men are just big babies when it comes to pain”) against even considering the possibility of it. Thus, due to species-beneficial hypergamy, women fundamentally lack the capacity to empathize with the male experience, and male pain.
Empathy vs. Sympathy
I very specifically used the term empathize rather than sympathize in my evaluation of women’s psychological coping dynamics here. There is a universal and comparative difference between sympathy and empathy:
Empathy is the ability to mutually experience the thoughts, emotions, and direct experience of others. It goes beyond sympathy, which is a feeling of care and understanding for the suffering of others. Both words have similar usage but differ in their emotional meaning.
Sympathy essentially implies a feeling of recognition of another’s suffering while empathy is actually sharing another’s suffering, if only briefly. Empathy is often characterized as the ability to “put oneself into another’s shoes”. So empathy is a deeper emotional experience.
Empathy develops into an unspoken understanding and mutual decision making that is unquestioned, and forms the basis of tribal community. Sympathy may be positive or negative, in the sense that it attracts a perceived quality to a perceived self identity, or it gives love and assistance to the unfortunate and needy.
Women do not lack a capacity to sympathize with male hardship or pain, but they categorically lack a capacity to empathize with uniquely male experiences. This needs to be made clear to both sexes. While I have no doubt that many a woman may have experienced the pain of a dancer’s fracture they’ve never experienced that pain as a man, and therefore cannot empathize with that experience. Now, extrapolate this pain to other aspects of a man’s life, or his idealizations about how he would want a woman to love him.
I constantly see the term empathy supplant the term sympathy when used by women; as if their feminine character uniquely transcends merely sorrow or compassion for someone in pain, but becomes somehow magically equitable with feeling that person’s pain. As an insulation against the cruel realities that their own Hypergamy demands and exacts on men, women convince themselves that their sympathy is really empathy, and their innate solipsism only serves to further insulate them from even having the curiosity to attempt real empathy towards men.
It’s the Just Get It dynamic I go into in the first book, but on a more subliminal level; if a woman has to put forth the effort to truly attempt to empathize with a man, he just doesn’t get it, she marginalizes his experience and continues her hypergamous search for the Alpha who doesn’t force her to real empathy.
This fantasy of feminine-specific empathy can be traced back to the Mother-Nurturer myth attributed to the feminine as well as the mysticism of the Feminine Mystique. If women are the unquestionably, unknowable forces of nature that the Mystique constantly batters into popular consciousness, it’s not too far a stretch to accept that the mythical feminine intuition might also stretch to their literally experiencing the pain of others in an almost psychic fashion. If women are the “life-givers”, (Mother-Goddesses?) how could they not have some quasi-psychic connection to that which they’ve birthed?
That all makes for good fiction, but it hardly squares against the “oh, men are such big babies when it comes to pain” trope, or does it? If women are granted the authority to define what really hurts and what doesn’t for men — due to a socially presumed ownership of empathy — then this puts them into a better control of which men can best qualify for feminine Hypergamy. In other words, women own the selective-breeding game if they can convince men that they know, by literal experience, what really hurts a man and what doesn’t, or what shouldn’t.
Appeals to Reason
“A woman in love can’t be reasonable, otherwise she wouldn’t be in love”— Mae West
The Château Heartiste (formerly known as Roissy) once posted an article about a Beta male openly asking girls for the reasons why they rejected him. In the typical deductive logic that most Betas are prone to use, he runs down a checklist of questions regarding what he thinks killed his chances with the girls he thought he could get with. He petitions four women with questions about themselves, which, being women, all are more than eager to answer.
Do you usually figure out if you wanna do more than make out with someone pretty instantly? Or, is it a slow burn?
Was there anything I did wrong that turned you off?
If you had advice for any guy looking to meet a girl, what would it be?
What makes someone attractive to you? Do you have any types?
Do you feel that you could never date someone shorter than you?
Am I an unattractive person to you?
These are some of the more common questions the guy puts to the girls, and true to form the girls answer with the standard feminine boilerplate responses that absolve themselves of their part in his rejection, while trying not to hurt the feelings of a guy they knew would never see them naked.
Questioning like this is what I’ve come to expect from most chumps mired in their Blue Pill bubble of applying logic to their sexlessness, but it’s not the guy’s overt grilling of these women that’s keeping him trapped in the Matrix — it’s his buildups and follow ups to those questions. He wasn’t just interviewing them to ’get to the bottom of things’ so he could solve his sex problem, he began leading these women with ’if then’ logic in an effort to convince them that, by their own words, they should be attracted to him.
The guy is making the most fundamental error every plugged in chump makes — he makes appeals to women’s reason.
Why Women Can’t ’Just Get It’
Appealing to women’s logic and relying on deductive reasoning to sort it out is the calling card of a Beta mind. There is nothing more anti-seductive for women than appealing to her reason. Arousal, attraction, sexual tension, subcommunication of desire, all happen indirectly and below the social surface for women. It’s not that women are incapable of reasoning (hypergamy is one logical bitch) or are crippled by their emotion-based hind-brains, it’s that, if you’re asking her how to be more attractive you don’t Get It. It’s in the doing, not the asking. The process of attraction isn’t something that can be broken down into a logical process for women to deductively follow — the process is men organically knowing how to be attractive and arousing and acting it.
On an intrinsic, subliminal level, women understand that their genuine desire, their genuine arousal and attraction, has to be an organic process. When a guy makes attempts to convince a woman that by her own reasoning (and led by his) she should be with him intimately, it offends and then cancels that process for her.
For women, one of the qualities of the Alpha her Hypergamy demands is a guy who Just Gets It. An Alpha would intrinsically know what women’s arousal and attraction cues are without being told and without even the inclination to ask about them. The guy’s issue of overtly confirming for himself ’what women want’ is really an abdication of a Beta who doesn’t get it. And true to form, for Betas like him, the next logical resort is to rationally convince a woman (preferably using her own words) to be attracted to him by attempting to re-impress her of his status.
Betas like this generally end up as the infamous emotional tampon, or the Surrogate Boyfriend to a woman who’s banging the most Alpha man her looks can attract. However, this appeal-to-reason rationale filters into other aspects of men’s lives. The logical progression for him would be to better identify with the women (really the Feminine Imperative) he hopes to bang in the future — embody the feminine prerequisites, get the intimate approval. For married or monogamous men this appeal-to-reason may come as a mistaken belief that doing more chores around the house will lead to more (or any) sex for him.
The fallacy of Relational Equity (The Rational Male) is essentially founded on men’s dependency on appeals to women’s reason. Your doing homework with your children to better their lives (while very ennobling) doesn’t make your wife any hotter for you in bed, nor will it be any bargaining tool should she decide to leave you. Women don’t fall in love with who you are, they fall in love with what you are, and no appeal to their reason will convince them otherwise.
As always it is better to demonstrate than to explicate with women. You simply wont intellectualize a woman to become sexual with you because women are more interested in playing the game than having it explained to them. Far too many men are conditioned to believe that “open communication is the key to a good relationship”, and the guy asking the questions here is a prime example of this mindset. Equalism teaches men that women should be functionally equivalent and equally as reasonable as they are. This leads them to believe that, given the proper reasonable appeals they would use in negotiating other aspects of life, they can be equally effective in attraction.
This is false, but it is also why Game, understanding the female nature and creating rationalizations for why appeals to reason are so counterintuitive for men.
Female Dating Advice
The prey does not teach the hunter how better to catch it.
Why do women give bad dating advice?
I find it ironic that the same guys who whole-heartedly agree with the idiom “believe what she does, not what she says”, are often the same men who really want to believe that, select, special women actually do give other men advice that has merit.
The problem is most guys simply parrot the words women have told them over the years when they asked them “What do women want in a guy?” and then think it works since they got it straight from the horse’s mouth. Unfortunately, too many guys, especially recently, have bought the same line women have been repeating for ages thinking it’s a way to put themselves at an advantage when all it does is disqualify not only them, but the poor suckers who hear ’chick advice’ from another guy, repeat it, and the cycle continues.
My take is that the ’chick advice’ phenomenon is a socio-evolutionary fail-safe mechanism meant to filter women’s selection process of less desirable men from more desirable (competition worthy) men. Think about this — women almost uniquely own “relationship advice” in popular media. There are a few notable feminized male exceptions (i.e. the Dr. Phils), but the ones who don’t align their opinions along a feminine-first priority are surreptitiously tagged as misogynists and marginalized or ridiculed.
On some level of consciousness women know they’re full of shit when they offer up the ’standard’ chick advice. To greater or lesser degrees, they know they’re being less than genuine when they see this advice regularly contradicted by their own behaviors. Women (and now men) repeat in article after article how well developed the female capacity is for communication, so it follows that they must know to some, maybe subconscious, degree that they are being less than helpful if not deliberately misleading. Even the mothers with the best interests of their son’s at stake still parrot these responses. It’s like a female imperative.
For the answer, all you have to do is look at the bios of single women on any online dating service. When asked to describe the characteristics they find desirable in a man, the single most common responses are confidence, decisiveness, independence. Traits that would require a man to be a Man and have the foresight and perseverance not to take things at face value. The guy with the capacity to call a woman’s bluff with a confidence that implies she is to be worthy of him rather than the other way around is the Man to be competed for. Essentially the ’chick speak’, ’chick advice’ phenomenon is a shit test writ large on a social scale. And even your own mother and sisters are in on it, expecting you to ’get it’; to get the message and see the challenge for what it really is, without overtly telling you.
Most guys are natural pragmatists, we look for the shortest most efficient way between two points. The deductive reasoning that follows is that if we want sex, and women have the sex we want, we ought to ask them what conditions they require from us in order for us to get it. The problem is that women don’t want to tell us this, because in doing so it makes us less independent and more compromising (and lazy) in our own identities in order to get at her sexuality. This is counter to the decisive, independent and masculine Man they really want and is evidenced in their behaviors. He should know what women want without asking because he’s observed them often enough, been successful with them often enough, and taken the efforts to make decisions for himself based on their behaviors, especially in the face of a world full of women’s conflicting words. This makes him the commodity in the face of a constant, overwhelming contradiction of her own and other women’s motives, words and behaviors.
She wants you to ’get it’ on your own, without having to be told how. That initiative and the experience needed to have had developed it makes you a Man worth competing for. Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ’the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be.
Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shit test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.
2014 saw the publication of a paper by Dr. Steven W. Gangestad and Dr. Martie Haselton titled Human Estrus: Implications for Relationship Science. Anyone who’s read the Rational Male for more than a year is probably familiar with my citing Dr. Haselton in various essays (her catalog of research has been part of my sidebar links since I began the blog), but both she and Dr. Gangestad are among the foremost notable researchers in the areas of human sexuality and applied evolutionary psychology. In this section I’ll be riffing on what this paper proposes with regard to a condition of estrus in women.
In the introduction section of The Rational Male I relate a story of how in my
Red Pill formative years I came to be a connector of dots so to speak. While I was studying behavioral psychology and personality studies a great many issues jumped out at me with regards to how many of the principles of behavioral psychology could be (and were already being) applied to intersexual relations. For instance, the basic concepts of intermittent reinforcement and behavioral modification seemed to me an obvious link and learned practice of women in achieving some behavioral effect on men by periodically rewarding (reinforcing) them with sex ’intermittently’. Operant conditioning and establishing operations also dovetailed seamlessly into the Red Pill concepts and awareness I’d been developing for several years prior to finishing my degree.
Since then, the ideas I formed have naturally become more complex than these simple foundations, but what I only learned by error was how thoroughly disconnected both students and my teachers were with what I saw as obvious connections. I met obstinate resistance to flat denial when I wrote papers or gave a dissertation about the interplay between the foundations of behaviorism and interpersonal relationships. It was one thing to propose that men would use various aspects to their own advantage (men being expected to be sexually manipulative and all), but it was offensive to suggest that women would commonly use behavioral modification techniques to achieve their Hypergamous ends.
This peer resistance was especially adamant when I would suggest that women had a subconscious pre-knowledge (based on collective female experience) of these techniques. I never thought I had brass balls for broaching uncomfortable topics like this — I honestly, and probably naively, assumed that what I was proposing had already been considered by academia long before I’d come to it.
I was introduced to the work of Dr. Martie Haselton during this time, and along with Dr. Warren Farrell, she’s gone on to become one of my go-to sources in respect to the connection between contemporary behavioral ’dots’ with theories of practical, evolved, functions of intersexual dynamics. I owe much of what I propose on Rational Male to this interplay, and while I doubt Haselton would agree with all of what I or the manosphere propose, I have to credit her and her colleague’s work for providing me many of the dots I connect.
I understand that there are still evo-psych skeptics in the manosphere, but I find that much of what passes for their piecemeal “skepticism” is generally rooted in a desire to stubbornly cling to comforting Blue Pill idealisms. That said, I’d never ask any reader to take what I propose here on faith, but personally I’ve found that the questions proposed by evo-psych reflect many of the observations I had in my college days.
For the social theater of the Feminine Imperative, one of the more galling developments in psychological studies to come out of the past fifteen years has been the rise of evolutionary psychology. The natural pivot for the Imperative in dealing with evo-psych has been to write off any concept that’s unflattering to the feminine as being “speculative” or proving a biased positive (by “misogynistic” researchers of course), while gladly endorsing and cherry-picking any and all evo-psych premises that reinforce the feminine or confirm a positive, flattering, feminine-primacy.
Up until the past two years or so, there was a staunch resistance to the concept of Hypergamy (know as sexual pluralism in evo-psych) and the dual natures of women’s sexual strategy. Before then the idea of Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks was dismissed as biased, sociologically based and any biological implications or incentives for Hypergamy were downplayed as inconclusive by feminine-centric media.
However, the recent embrace of Open Hypergamy over the last four years has set this narrative on its head; the empowered women who found the idea of their own sexual pluralism so distasteful are now openly endorsing, if not proudly relishing, their roles in a new empowerment of Hypergamous duplicity.
Your Beta qualities are officially worthless to today’s women
The following question was from a female reader on the Red Pill Reddit forum:
For those of you that aren’t aware, women now are often out earning men and more of them receive college degrees than men. As of now there aren’t really any programs to help guys out. Assuming this trend continues what do you think will happen to dating? I think that attractive women, will have their pick regardless.
However, for a lot of women, trying to lock down a guy in college will be more of a big deal. I don’t think hook up culture will disappear, but it will definitely decrease.
With the exception with my current boyfriend, I have always earned more than any guy I have dated. It has never been an issue. I just don’t have to think about their financials, my attraction is based on their looks and personality. I am guessing the future will be more of that.
I thought this quote was an interesting contrast to the Estrus theory proposed in the Gangestad-Haselton paper. This woman is more than a bit gender-egotistical, and yes, her triumphalism about the state of women in college and their earning is built on a foundation of sand, but lets strip this away for a moment. The greater importance to her in relating this, and every woman embracing open Hypergamy, is the prospect of better optimizing the dual nature of her sexual strategy.
In many a prior essay I’ve detailed the rationales women will apply to their sexual pluralism and the social conventions they rely upon to keep men ignorant of them until such a time (or not) that they can best consolidate on their dual-purpose sexual strategy. Where before that strategy was one of subtle manipulation and pretty lies to keep Betas-In-Waiting ready to be providers after more Alpha men decline her at 30, the strategy now is one of such utter ego-confidence in feminine social primacy that women gleefully declare “I’m not just gonna have my cake and eat it too, I’m getting mine with sprinkles and chocolate syrup” with regard to Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks.
The Estrus Connection
For all of the ubiquitous hand-wringing the Manosphere imparts to the social implications of today’s Open Hypergamy, it’s important to consider the biological underpinnings that motivate this self-interested conceit.
From Human Estrus: Implications for Relationship Science:
In the vast majority of mammalian species, females experience classic estrus or heat: a discrete period of sexual receptivity — welcoming male advances — and proceptivity — actively seeking sex — confined to a few days just prior to ovulation, the fertile window. Only at this time, after all, do females require sex to conceive offspring. The primate order is exceptional. Although prosimians (e.g., lemurs, tarsiers) exhibit classic estrus, the vast majority of simian primates (monkeys and apes) are sexually active for at least several days outside of the fertile period. Humans are an extreme case: Women may be sexually receptive or proceptive any time of the cycle, as well as other nonconceptive periods (e.g., pregnancy).
Do Women Retain a Functionally Distinct Fertile Phase?
Graded sexuality: Women’s sexual activity is not confined to an estrous period. But are women’s sexual interests truly constant across the cycle? Many female primates (e.g., rhesus macaques and marmosets) are often receptive to sexual advances by males outside of the fertile phase, but they initiate sex less.
In fact, women’s sexual interests do appear to change across the cycle. Women exhibit greater genital arousal in response to erotica and sexually condition to stimuli more readily during the follicular phase.
A recent study identified hormonal correlates of these changes by tracking 43 women over time and performing salivary hormone assays. Women’s sexual desire was greater during the fertile window, and was positively related to estradiol levels (which peak just before ovulation), but negatively related to progesterone levels (which rise markedly during the luteal phase).
Changes in the male features that evoke sexual interest: Since the late 1990s, some researchers have argued that what changes most notably across the cycle is not sexual desire per se but, rather, the extent to which women’s sexual interests are evoked by particular male features — specifically, male behavioral and physical features associated with dominance, assertiveness, and developmental robustness. Over 50 studies have examined changes across the cycle in women’s attraction to these male features.
The importance of behavioral features? Whereas preference shifts of major interest early on concerned male physical features (e.g., facial masculinity; scent), several recent studies have focused on women’s reactions to men’s behavior and dispositions. Previous research had found that women find male confidence, even a degree of arrogance, more sexually appealing during the fertile phase. Recent studies replicate and extend that work, finding not only that fertile-phase women are more sexually attracted to “sexy cad” or behaviorally masculine men (relative to “good dad” or less masculine men), but also that, during the fertile phase, women are more likely to flirt or engage with such men. Females of a variety of species, including primates, prefer dominant or high ranking males during the fertile phase of their cycles. These males may pass genetic benefits to offspring, as well as, potentially, offer material benefits (e.g., protect offspring). Women’s fertile-phase sexual attraction to behavioral dominance appears to have deep evolutionary roots.
Much of what’s explored here I laid out in Game terms in Your Friend Menstruation (Preventive Medicine) over four years ago, but the implications of the behaviors prompted by women’s menstrual cycle and biochemistry strongly imply an estrus-like predictability. This estrous state is a foundational keystone, not just to developing Game techniques based on Red Pill awareness, but a keystone to understanding the dynamics behind Hypergamy, women’s dualistic sexual strategy, Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks, and can even be extrapolated into the drive for ensuring feminine social dominance in both overt and covert contexts.
When women embrace a social order founded upon a feminine state of openly revealed Hypergamy they confirm and expose the reality of this estrous state.
Whereas before, in a social order based on concealed Hypergamy, this state could be dismissed as a social construct (and a masculine biased one at that), or one that had only marginal influence to reasoning women with a “higher” human potential. No longer. The confirmation of a true estrus state in women via open Hypergamy confirms virtually every elementary principle PUAs/Game has asserted for the past 16 years.
Within the dual sexuality framework (Alpha genetic and Beta provisional imperatives), fertile-phase sexuality and non-fertile-phase sexuality possess potentially overlapping but also distinct functions. In a number of primate species, extended sexuality — female receptivity and proceptivity at times other than the fertile phase — appears to function to confuse paternity by allowing non-dominant males sexual access. These males cannot rule out their own paternity, which might reduce their likelihood of harming a female’s offspring. In humans, by contrast, extended sexuality may function to induce primary pair-bond partners to invest in women and offspring.
I found this part particularly interesting when you contrast this dynamic with the social resistance that standardized DNA paternity testing has been met with recently. In a feminine-primary social order based on Open Hypergamy, the Feminine Imperative can’t afford not to legislate a mandated cuckoldry. If Beta provider males will not comply with the insurance of a woman’s long-term security (as a result of being made aware of his role in Open Hypergamy) then he must be forced to comply either legally, socially or both. The old order exchange of resources for sexual access and a reasonable assurance of his paternity is replaced by a socialized form of normalized cuckoldry. Thus, we get high social praise for the heroic men who will ’Man up’ and assume the responsibilities of parental investment by marrying a single-mother and raising a child he didn’t sire. Feminine-primary society attempts to make retroactive cuckoldry something of a social reward.
Some studies have found that women’s sexual interests in men other than partners are strikingly rare during the luteal phase (the down-cycle ’Beta Phase’), relative to the fertile phase. Other research has found moderating effects; for example, women who perceive their partners to lack sex appeal experience increased attraction to men other than partners, less satisfaction, and a more critical attitude toward partners, but only when fertile. Fertile-phase women in one study were more assertive and focused on their own, as opposed to their partner’s, needs, especially when attracted to men other than partners during that phase.
Most research on cycle shifts has been inspired by theory concerning women’s distinctive sexual interests during the fertile phase. One study explicitly sought to understand factors influencing women’s sexual interests during the luteal phase, finding that, at that time, but not during the fertile phase, women initiated sex more with primary partners when they were invested in their relationship more than were male partners. This pattern is consistent with the proposal that extended sexuality functions, in part, to encourage interest from valued male partners. Others have proposed that women’s estrus phase has been modified by pair-bonding.
Initiating sex or being receptive to a primary partner’s sexual interest during the luteal phase (the Beta swing of the ovulatory cycle) follows when we consider that a woman being sexual during this phase poses the least potential of becoming pregnant while simultaneously (rewarding) reinforcing that primary partner’s continued investment in the pairing with sex (intermittent reinforcement).
This is a very important dynamic because it mirrors a larger theme in women’s socio-sexual pluralism — it’s Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks on a biological scale.
Compare this intra-relationship predisposition for Beta sex and contrast it with the larger dynamic of a socially accepted, open, Hypergamy, Alpha Fucks during a woman’s prime fertility window in her peak sexual market value years, and her post Epiphany Phase necessity to retain a comforting (but decidedly less sexually exciting) Beta provider. When we look at an estrus phase extrapolated to a sexual strategy for women in the long term it comes very close to the “Sandbergian” sexual strategy promoted by Sheryl Sandberg, CEO of Facebook:
“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”
― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead
Women’s sexual strategy on a social scale, mirrors her instinctual, estrous sexual strategy on an individual scale.
Cues of Fertility Status
Females across diverse species undergo physical and behavioral changes during estrus that males find attractive: changes in body scents in carnivores, rodents, and some primates; changes in appearance, such as sexual swellings, in baboons and chimpanzees; changes in solicitous behavior in rodents and many primates. Because women lack obvious cyclic changes, it was widely assumed that cycle shifts in attractiveness were eliminated in humans, perhaps with the evolution of pair bonding.
In 1975, a pioneering study documented increased attractiveness of women’s vaginal odors midcycle. A quarter century later, research revealing other detectable fertile-phase changes began to accumulate, including increased attractiveness of women’s upper torso odors, increased vocal pitch and attractiveness, and changes in women’s style of dress and solicitous behaviors. Meta-analysis of this literature confirms that changes across the cycle in women’s attractiveness are often subtle, but robust).
A notable recent study demonstrated that hormones implicated in attractiveness shifts in non-humans also predict attractiveness shifts in humans. Photos, audio clips, and salivary estrogen and progesterone were collected from 202 women at two cycle points. Men rated women’s facial and vocal attractiveness highest when women’s progesterone levels were low and estrogen levels high (characteristic of the follicular phase, and especially the fertile window).
Emerging evidence suggests that these changes affect interactions between males and females. During the fertile window, women report increased jealous behavior by male partners. A possible mediator of such changes — testosterone — is higher in men after they smell t-shirts collected from women on high- than on low-fertility days of the cycle. A recent study examined related phenomena in established relationships by bringing couples into the lab for a close interaction task (e.g., slow dancing). Following the interaction, male partners viewed images of men who were attractive and described as competitive or unattractive and noncompetitive. Only men in the competitive condition showed increases in testosterone from baseline — and only when tested during their partner’s fertile phase.
What remains less clear is how we can understand shifts in attractiveness from a theoretical perspective. It is unlikely that women evolved to signal their fertility within the cycle to men. In fact, the opposite may have occurred — active selection on women to conceal cues of ovulation, which could help to explain weak shifts in attractiveness relative to many species. Concealment might have promoted extended sexuality with its attendant benefits from investing males, or facilitated women’s extra-pair mating. Possibly, the subtle physical changes that occur are merely “leaky cues” that persist because fully concealing them suppresses hormone levels in ways that compromise fertility. Behavioral shifts, by contrast, may be tied to increases in women’s sexual interests or motivation to compete with other women for desirable mates.
Usually after first-time readers have a chance to digest the material I proposed in my essay Your Friend Menstruation the first frustration they have is figuring out just how they can ever reliably detect when a woman is in this estrous state. On an instinctual level, most men are already sensitive to these socio-sexual cues, but this presumptuousness of sexual availability is rigorously conditioned out of men by social influence. In other words, most guys are Beta-taught to be ashamed of presuming a woman might be down to fuck as the result of picking up on visual, vocal or body posture cues.
Beyond this perceptiveness, there are also pheromone triggers as well as behavioral cues during estrus that prompt a mate guarding response in men.
I would however propose that the evolved concealment of an estrus-like state and all of the attendant behaviors that coincide with it are a behavioral mechanic with the purpose of filtering for men with a dominant Alpha capacity to “Just Get It” that a woman is in an estrus state and thus qualify for her sexual access either proceptively or receptively. Women’s concealed estrus is an evolved aspect of filtering for Alpha breeding potential.
In addition, this concealment also aids in determining Beta provisioning investment for the men she needs (needed) to exchange her sexual access for. A guy who “doesn’t get it” is still useful (or used to be) precisely because he doesn’t understand the dynamics of her cyclic and dualistic sexual strategy. Her seemingly erratic, but self-controlled, sexual availability becomes the Beta provisioning interest’s intermittent reinforcement for the desired behavior of his parental investment in children that are only indeterminately of his genetic heritage.
Evidence of this intermittent reinforcement can also be observed in what Athol Kay from Married Man Sex Life has described as wives “drip feeding” sex to their husbands. The confines of a committed monogamy in no way preclude the psycho-sexual influences of estrus. Thus, the placating of a less ’sexy’, but parentally invested man with the reinforcer of infrequent (but not entirely absent) sex becomes a necessity to facilitate the prospect of a future sexual experience with an Alpha while ensuring the present security of her Beta provider. Thus, the dual nature of her Hypergamous sexual strategy is, at least perceptually, satisfied for her.
I think the importance of how this estrous state influences women on both an individual and social level can’t be stressed enough in contrast to the social embrace of Open Hypergamy. The Hypergamy genie is not only out of the bottle, but women are, perhaps against their own interests, embracing the genie with gusto.
Blogger and author Vox Day once posted an article about how men are discovering that pornography is now preferable to relating with the average woman. In an era of Open Hypergamy I don’t believe this is a rationalized preference so much as it’s simply a pragmatic one. Men are rapidly awakening to a Red Pill awareness, even without a formal Red Pill education, and seeing the rewards (the intermittent reinforcement) simply aren’t worth the investment with women who blithely express their expectations of them to assume the role they would have them play in their sexual strategies.
Lastly, I think it’s important for Red Pill aware men to understand that the biological aspects of women’s estrus and Hypergamy is not something a Game savvy man should ever think is insurmountable. It’s not an uncommon occurrence for women to have sex with men in the middle of having their period. For the most part, women generally would prefer to get after it with men while they’re in their proliferative (ovulating) phase of their cycle, but when presented with an overwhelming prospect of locking down a high SMV Alpha man women cannot afford not to have sex with him expediently.
It’s my belief that women’s Hypergamy can be overridden by a man who triggers a woman’s cues for Alpha acceptance. From an evolutionary perspective, if a man represents a high enough Alpha perception, a woman will ignore the lessened libido that the luteal phase predisposes her to and have urgent sex with that man in order to establish a (hopefully) future sexual availability to him.
There are also studies which indicate that women have a tendency to fake orgasms with more sexually dominant, Alpha men. Beta men love to interpret this phenomenon as some proof that these men “don’t know how to sexually please a woman”, but the likely truth is that more Beta men are simply not worth the effort of having to fake an orgasm for. Just as Hypergamous proclivities can be bypassed by a worthwhile Alpha man, so too will women fake their own pleasure in order to foster the perception that she is sexually available to that man.
The take-home lesson here for Red Pill aware men is the necessity to understand the particulars of how women’s estrus can work in his favor rather than perceiving it as something deterministic for him. Understanding women’s menstrual cycle, their estrus phase, the behaviors it prompts, the larger sexual strategy it manifests, etc. should all be considered tools with which a man might better improve his Game as well as his relations with women.
The Epiphany Phase Revisited
One of the best things about the Red Pill being a praxeology is that nothing is set in stone. Like any good science there’s always room for reinterpretation and updating ideas per new information, or sometimes it’s simply something or some observation that seemingly went overlooked that adjust an old interpretation. One of my readers, Playdontpay brought something to light in an old essay I’d written:
I agree with the 3 Strike rule for younger chicks of 30 and under but once she hits about 32 something seems to flip in their heads, women of this age and up seem determined to hold out longer even if they want to fuck.
It’s probably because at this age her clock is ticking and she doesn’t have time to “waste” on flings that would won’t lead to commitment, so she re-invents herself as a “quality woman” in the hope of convincing you that she is LTR/ marriage material.
It’s up to you to decide if you can push the envelope to 5-6 dates max, but I would only do this if I was sure it was her ASD (anti-slut defense) holding her back and not down to a low interest level.
If you wait to date 5-6 and the sex is sub par, don’t stick around waiting for it to improve as you’ve been sold a lemon and the juice ain’t worth the squeeze!
This seemingly innocuous comment made me think a lot about some of my older material and how newer readers might interpret it. There’s actually quite a bit to unpack in this short response, so with the benefit of over a decade of hindsight I thought I might riff on it.
“…once she hits about 32 something seems to flip in their heads, women of this age and up seem determined to hold out longer even if they want to fuck.”
Any long time reader will immediately associate this phenomenon with the Epiphany Phase (Preventive Medicine) women enter when the reality of their lessened capacity to compete intrasexually with their younger sisters becomes unignorable. Generally this phase comes at or around the ages of 29-31, however, depending on circumstance this may come sooner for some women (those whose attractiveness is already understood to be suboptimal), and sometimes much later for others (women who bought into the lie that their attractiveness is subjective, nonperishable and indefinite). I’ve written many essays about this phase and dedicated two sections in Preventive Medicine to it. It’s very recognizable, and very understandable when you have a good grasp of how women prioritize the ’needs’ of their sexual strategy as they mature.
The Epiphany Phase is really a woman’s subconscious knowledge of The Wall coming into her cognitive acknowledgment. However, what’s not so easy to grasp is why a woman who’s come to this phase would actually make it more difficult for a prospective long-term, parentally invested, hopefully idealized, mate to become intimate with her?
On several occasions I’ve proposed just the opposite; that Hypergamy cannot afford to wait for 100% perfect confirmation of a man’s Alpha status before she has sex with him. This Hypergamic bypass is actually one vulnerability women have with respect to well calibrated Game. Even for women in the luteal phase of ovulatory shift, (when by all means she ought to be seeking the provisioning, comforting and rapport of more Beta men’s attentions) women will be prompted to sexual immediacy and urgency when presented with the prospects of fucking — and hopefully locking down — what she sees as an Alpha man. As I mentioned in the previous section, it is entirely possible to bypass women’s natural, ovulation-induced, Hypergamy when you present yourself as the right Alpha incentive to her (I’ve done this myself). This is the prioritization women’s natural sexual strategy has, and in reality, a woman faking an orgasm for a perceived Alpha, or having proceptive sex with him in her luteal phase only confirms the urgency women’s natural Hypergamy has with regard to locking down an optimal man.
But why would a woman, who for all intents, knows her capacity to attract men is waning, be so insistent on delaying her becoming intimate with him? This seems counterintuitive, particularly in light of the fact that most women in their younger, Party Years eagerly had sex with men for whom they made little or no ’rules’ for in order to become sexual with them. It’s a common enough idea in the manosphere that women will ride the ’cock carousel’ in their 20s until they realize a lessened capacity to attract guys and then seek to cash out of the sexual marketplace before or around 30. Usually this ends up with a girl settling for a Beta in waiting. Still, why would the rules and prerequisites be something she insists on now but didn’t while she was in her sexual peak years?
Vaginas and Moral Compasses
In 2017 there was article on the Huffington Post quoting actress Cate Blanchett saying “My moral compass is in my vagina“, and while this might be the red meat clickbait the HuffPo relies upon for revenue, it adequately sums up how Hypergamy, a woman’s sexual agency and a woman’s capacity to utilize it throughout her life directs women’s intrinsic and extrinsic priorities throughout their lives. I realize this wasn’t how Cate intended her comment to be taken; she wanted to express some inherent guiding principle for women in an era she believes women are still repressed in, but in doing so she illustrates the real compass women have with regard to moral interpretations of their ideas and behaviors. If something gratifies, optimizes or otherwise benefits a woman’s driving impulse of Hypergamy, it sets a rationale for moral interpretation by her. Or in other words, if it’s good for what optimizes Hypergamy, it’s good for women.
As men, we want the easy answer to be the best answer. So it seems obvious to us that a woman making arbitrarily ’new’ rules of intimacy for her prospectively long-term suitors would follow some epiphany where she comes to her senses, realizes the error of her ways and strives for being some new ’quality woman’ to represent herself as. As such, her quality should symmetrically be matched by a man’s quality. And that quality should logically take some time to determine. This is, in fact, most women’s self and public rationale for making a ’quality’ man wait for her sexually when in the past she had no such obstacles for the hawt guy she met on spring break in the Cancun foam cannon party.
Women will break their ’rules’ for Alpha men, but create more rules for Beta men, more hoops to jump through, in order to receive the (usually lessened) sexuality that an Alpha never had to make an effort to qualify for.
We want to believe in this ambiguous ’quality’ woman because we’re taught to expect such reasonings from a girl who now, at 29, wants to “get right with God” or “start doing things the right way” with guys. She’s ’learned from all the bad boys’ and now wants to settle down with the ’Good Guy’ or so the rationale goes. Social conventions abound that condition us to expect that once women, “get it out of their systems” (by following the Sandbergian sexual strategy) she’ll realize the errors of her youthful indiscretion and magically transform into a “Quality Woman”. We want to believe it, and it’s in women’s best interests that we do believe it.
Most Beta men (and not a few self-described Red Pill men) want to believe in a woman’s Epiphany about herself. They love nothing better than the idea of the reformed porn star who’s finally “grown up” and come to her senses about the error of her youth’s indiscretions with the guys they grew up to hate as an archetypal enemy. Better still, they’ll feed that rationale/fantasy in the hope that her Epiphany will include her saving her best sex for him since now she’s come to understand that it’s been the ’nice guys’ all along she ought to have been getting with if not for a superficial ’society’ convincing her otherwise.
The reformed-slut-with-epiphany archetype is a trope Beta men want to forgive because it represents a vindication of their self-image, Blue Pill conviction and perseverance (they never gave up on her). Women with the pasts that make them good candidates for eliciting this rationale know men well enough to see the utility it has in securing Blue Pill men’s resources and long term security.
Socially, she’s got countless sources of ’go grrrl’ moral reinforcement from both men and women. In fact, as a Man, just my bringing this to light makes me guilty of being “judgmental” in popular female-defined culture. And that’s the insurance women will always have in their Epiphany Phase — whether it’s a reformed slut coming to terms with the Wall at 29, or the ex-wife who frivorced her dutiful (but unexciting) Beta to have her own epiphany and discover herself a la Eat, Prey, Love, the social net of feminine-primacy is there with easy rationalizations to catch any and every woman’s Hypergamous fall.
Yet still that woman hesitates in giving herself to that Beta provisioner.
We excuse this hesitation by claiming it’s because, now, she wants to be extra sure about him. The Alpha men she so effortlessly gave herself to were all, of course, wolves in sheep’s clothing (e.g. men are evil) and in her epiphany she must exercise caution. And if you think it’s because of anything else, well, you’re a misogynist, so shut up.
A woman holding out on a guy during this phase of her life really isn’t about any moral epiphany, it’s about her hind-brain coming to terms with having to make herself become sexual with a type of guy whom previously she would never have naturally flowed into having sex with. We like to think a now ’quality woman’ is deserving of putting a man through a set of qualifying tests, that seems like appropriate prudence, but in fact her reservation about fucking him comes from a deep seated, subconscious understanding that, while the guy might make for an excellent parental investment, he’s not going to be someone she feels a sexual urgency to fuck.
Later she’ll bemoan that she’d rather cry over an asshole than date a guy who bores her, but in the Epiphany she has to force this understanding down into her subconscious in order to better insure her Hypergamous security into the future.
This latent, limbic, sexual uncertainty has nothing to do with vetting the ’perfect guy’ for the ’quality woman’ it’s about a woman, who likely for the first time in her life, is presented with the challenge of having to bypass her hind-brain Hypergamy in order to secure her long term security. Thus, we see this demographic of women make even more rules for a Beta to deserve her intimacy, while for a more Alpha tingle-generating man she was more than willing to break rules to get to bed with.
It’s important that we focus on the idea that a man, any man, ought to be deserving of a woman’s sexual ’gift’. We get this rationale from the affirmations of even the most well meaning of men. Even though the concept of Hypergamy is regularly proven through her Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks strategy prior to her epiphany, the Beta mindset is always ready to do more and expect more from men who would get with his idealized ’quality woman’. A woman bordering on the expiration of her sexual market value likes nothing more than to be told, and to encourage the idea in men, that “she deserves better” in spite of her past decisions. Still she hesitates having sex with the ’perfect’ guy who is ready to overlook all of it.
This is an internal conflict between what her psyche knows she needs to do to ensure her security, and what her hind-brain wants in an exciting Alpha lover. What “flips” in a woman’s head is her inability to resolve her sexuality with her self-consciousness in having to force it to be with a man who likely doesn’t merit it for her — but this meriting her sex, up to now, has always been a process she left to her hind-brain to decide. In a sense it is quality control, but not for the self-righteous rationales we’re supposed to believe it is.
There is a lot of inner negotiation on the part of women entering their Epiphany Phase, trying to reconcile the long term security needs of her Super Ego and the visceral short term sexual needs of her Id. At some point, what sexualized qualities satisfies a woman’s Id she no longer has the capacity to maintain so there comes an inner negotiation over what available man represents the best compromise depending on her need and her acknowledgment of it — and her true capacity to satisfy her long term security with or without him.
Now introduce a Beta man into this inner negotiation; one who’s been preparing his whole life to be the best, most dependable provisioner that his conditioning would make of him. His influence enters the negotiation process, but her Id can never find satisfaction. Thus, the negotiation becomes one of her Ego negotiating with her Id trying to convince it to re-figure its visceral Alpha Fucks needs to accommodate this guy since he represents just such long term security as the Super Ego needs.
There’s a bit more to this reevaluation of the Epiphany Phase, however, I think I should add here that a lot of not-so-genuine confusion on the part of well-meaning guys about why a woman would so easily break her own rules to fuck an Alpha guy while requiring them to jump through hoops to get to a mitigated sexuality with her is primarily due to a woman’s hind-brain expectation about what sex should be like with either type of guy.
I’ve related in the past how women will gladly engage in a same night lay with a guy they see as a hot Alpha sex opportunity, but would never consider if she saw the guy as “relationship material”. This situation is a clichéd joke now — we laugh at it as “chick logic”, but the more Blue Pill men become aware of the Myth of the Good Guy the more these quandaries will give them pause to think about the women whose pasts they’re ready to excuse and the women they’re simply never going to consider “relationship material” themselves. Hopefully they’ll think twice about the social order that’s encouraging them to “man up and marry those sluts”.
I’ve been writing in the Manosphere for so long now that the same predictable straw men arguments and out of context quotes have become de rigueur. Any objective observation of women’s sexual strategy by a man is always synonymous with misogyny.
What I’ve always found entertaining about Blue Pill critics of Plate Theory (The Rational Male) is that the concept of non-exclusivity always borders on the criminal when a man suggests men ought to pursue a non-exclusive dating (and sex), yet we hold women up as empowered, prudent and/or exemplary of bucking the repression of an imaginary patriarchy when they suggest the same.
Of course the quick retort to this is that women are ’slut shamed’ for being non-exclusive, but this is simply an old, convenient, sidestep to shame men while distracting from women’s practical sexual strategy.
As Open Hypergamy becomes more embraced among women the usefulness of drawing attention to ’slut shaming’ actually becomes a hindrance to justifying women’s Hypergamous priorities. When a high profile woman like Sheryl
“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”
Sandberg’s epitaph here is every bit as “objectifying” as anything you’ll find in the ’sphere, but the difference is we are expected to find her advice for assuming a state of sexual abundance practical as well as refreshingly progressive. I’ve stated this before, but it bears repeating that as women more proudly, openly, embrace the uglier aspects of Hypergamy it will be women who will prove the validity of Red Pill awareness far better than men could. Sample from the largest available pool of prospective sexual experience (Alpha Fucks) and presume that an ’equal partner’ (Beta Bucks) provisioner will make himself readily available to you when can no longer reliably attract the men who represent your sexual priorities.
I covered this in Plate Theory V: Lady’s Game; the natural extension of women’s sexual strategy is, at least practically, best served from a presumption of abundance. And as such we also find that the vast majority of feminine-primary social conventions center on facilitating this presumption of abundance for women. Pop culture, social media and a feminine-primary social narrative fosters an over-inflated SMV and an exaggerated sense of self-worth for women, but functionally it convinces women that they can perpetuate a condition of abundance with regard to their sexual viability almost indefinitely.
Even in a condition of committed monogamy that background sense of sexual abundance simmers in women’s subconscious. We laud women with the guts to pursue that abundance after divorce or even reward them with popularity and movie opportunities when they write books about pursuing it while married (i.e. Eat Pray Love). Either that or we pat them on the back for their ability to continually move the goalposts and convince themselves and others that spinsterhood is a goal state they sought to achieve their entire lives.
In all of these instances, whether legitimate or not, there is an impression that women can perpetuate a condition of abundance for themselves — and often far past their true sexual market viability. One reason I draw the ire of many a Blue Pill male and women is because my breakdown of the predictable schedule women follow throughout their lives with regards to their sexual market value (SMV) and their dualistic sexual strategy is that it directly confronts the doubt that they can perpetuate a condition of abundance in spite of their personal choices in life.
And that is the crux of women’s self-affirming social and psychological conventions; to avoid any accountability for the fallout that may be caused by the choices Hypergamy has led them to make. Blogger Roissy came up with the maxim that the end goal of feminism is to maximally enable women’s sexuality while maximally restricting men’s — and of course the consolidation of that enabling of women’s sexual strategy must also account for absolving them of misgivings and mistakes made in enacting it.
A majority of boys have, for several generations now, been conditioned to be serviceable providers for women once they enter a phase of life once women find themselves becoming less able to compete intrasexually. Anyone familiar with my second book, Preventive Medicine, understands this period as the point during which a woman’s Hypergamous priorities shift from short term Alpha Fucks to long term Beta Bucks.
I also outlined the underlying plan involved in ensuring this strategy in This is now:
That was then. Now, at 30, and (hopefully) with a learned and earned degree of merit, success, developed judgment, character and a reasonably well kept physique, a man finds himself in a position like no other — his options and agency to enjoy the attentions of women seem to suddenly be at an apex.
The planning women had at 19 when they told him to “wait for me at 30” now becomes more urgent as she becomes more viscerally aware of the Wall. She knew this day would come when she was just entering into her peak SMV years.
For men entertaining women embroiled in their Epiphany Phase inner conflicts, not only is this a very confusing phase for the uninitiated Beta, but it is also an equally precarious period with regard (once again) to the consequences of his life’s decisions with her. Most men find themselves players in women’s meta-sexual strategy at this time because they believe that their perseverance has finally paid off. All of that sacrifice and personal achievement has finally merited him the genuine interest of a “quality woman”.
For the men who never learn a Red Pill awareness what they fail to understand is that it’s at this point they’re are expected to abandon their own sexual strategy in order to complete that of the (now Epiphany Phase) woman they’re considering a pairing with. Whether they were literally asked to wait for a woman until she was 30, the effect is the same, they have waited their turn, they have waited to be of service, they have waited to fulfill a feminine primary sexual imperative.
Now, I’ll ask you to draw your attention to the statistics in the picture at the beginning of this section. There are actually several more studies just like this, but what it illustrates is an example of how women’s subconscious will prepare failsafe contingencies in the event that the Alpha lover they hope to convert to a Beta provider doesn’t comply with her sexual strategy.
Whether he’s the one that got away, the office husband, or a gym partner, chances are he is the “Plan B” man she fantasizes about running away with. Like an insurance policy, this man is the handpicked boyfriend or husband replacement women have on standby once “Plan A” starts to break down. According to a survey conducted by OnePoll.com, an online market research company, half of women who are married or in relationships have a Plan B man on standby who is “ready and waiting” because of “unfinished business.”
It’s important to pick this apart from the get go here because, like most female written articles that describe unflattering facts about female nature, the narrative must be shifted to be the burden of men. The presumption here is that the ’Plan A’ lover is always a woman’s preferred choice — thus pre-confirming women’s blamelessness from the outset — and that a ’Plan B’ should only ever be considered if the ’Plan A’ man somehow screws up in contenting to fulfill a woman’s sexual strategy.
This dynamic is founded on the principle of Dread — remember, the sort that when men use it they’re considered evil manipulators? However it should be noted that dread is always an element of any relationship, it’s just that since women’s imperatives are the socially correct ones today, only women can be held blameless in instituting it.
When there’s trouble in paradise, and eventually a break-up, women are left at the starting line again. This means there’s more ladies’ nights, late-night romcom marathons, and wine — lots of wine. However, to avoid playing the field and going through all the bases, women have taken a shortcut to get back to the finish line with a Plan B man.
“The saying that ’the grass isn’t always greener’ clearly isn’t deterring women of today. They understand that anything can happen and are ensuring they have a solid back-up plan should things go sour with their current man,” a spokesman for OnePoll.com told the Daily Mail.
As I outlined in Preventive Medicine, the makings of an Alpha Widow generally begin in a woman’s Party Years; during the period in which she is at her SMV peak. Hypergamy is always pragmatic. This Plan B insurance policy strategy is only further evidence of Hypergamy, but it is also pragmatic. Women’s hindbrains know that their SMV is a perishable asset, so yes, that back up plan makes sense. What’s not so obvious in this study is that women also cling to the hope that the Plan B man with whom they consolidated long term security with might someday be replaced by the fantasy of an Alpha she’s widowed herself over. Whether that happens with his Red Pill awakening and going more Alpha or her eventual divorce from him later in life remains to be seen.
I think the latter is not only a far more practical reasoning, but since it’s unflattering and exposing of the machinations of Hypergamy, the far more likely use of a ’Plan B’ alternate.
The narrative behind these studies is always a blatantly entitled male-qualification perspective and a bit more “you better not fuck things up” dread signaling, however, I think the last three stats are the most salient here. At least half of the men involved knew of the Plan B man, 1 in 5 was a friend of his, and 1 in 10 of the Plan B’s had already made an attempt to jump attraction ladders to be intimate with her.
A couple of things make themselves apparent here: in a social order that is made of at least 80% Beta men women can get an ego boost in real time from the default dread they can inspire without really trying. And second, in generation Beta a default form of soft Beta cuckolding is not just known to them, but apparently it’s become normalized for them.
All of this really comes back to, once again, quelling the constant state of internal doubt that Hypergamy instills in women. The Plan B dynamic, and the normalization of it in a feminine centric social order, is yet another play for assurances of security in both the sexual and provisioning aspects of Hypergamy.
Now, so as not to leave you hanging here, I have to end this with a bit of actionable advice. As always, your first order of business is to be aware that this dynamic is in play. Understand that this Plan B insurance tactic is not just reserved for married men with dead bedrooms. You will likely see variations of it in your dealings with women while you’re single. Any man who’s sexed a girl who depends on a bevy of male orbiters to bolster her self-esteem knows the utility of them. There are many ways you can leverage the Beta-ness of most men to elevate your own SMV.
Finally, if you are a married man experiencing this Plan B dynamic, you need to do some serious reassessing of your relationship and the status your wife holds you in. Are you one of the 50% of men who know who their wife’s Plan B is? Is he even a friend of yours?
What can you do to reinforce your Alpha dominance in this situation? Or maybe a better question is, is it worth your effort to do so? There will undoubtedly be the predictable comments about how marriage is never worth the effort, and I’ll acknowledge that here first, but are you a victim of endlessly rooting through garbage to reestablish an Alpha impression for your wife that she’s reserved for her Plan B alternate?
Ghosts of Epiphanies Past
In Preventive Medicine I go into a bit of detail about men in this increasingly common Plan B circumstance. There is a subconscious expectation on the part of Beta men who find themselves at or just past women’s Epiphany Phase, that predisposes them to believing that what they’ve become as a result of their perseverance throughout their 20’s has now come to fruition and the women who ignored them then have now matured to a point where he’s the ’sexy’ one at last.
Unless men have a moment of clarity or a Red Pill initiation of their own prior to this, what they don’t accept is that this expectation is a calculated conditioning of the Feminine Imperative to prepare him for women like this; women who can no longer sexually compete for the Alpha Fucks they enjoyed in their Party Years. The Feminine Imperative teaches him that he can expect a woman’s “real” sexual best from the “real” her — why else would she agree to a lifelong marriage if he weren’t the optimal choice to settle down with? Why wouldn’t she be even more sexual than in her past with the man she’s chosen to spend her life with and have children with?
That is the message the Feminine Imperative has used to subtly and indirectly imply to Betas-in-waiting. Now with the comfort of Open Hypergamy this message is published in best selling books by influential women.
“…in time, nothing’s sexier.”
Not to belabor Sandberg yet again, but this is essentially the outline of the script we’re reading for Plan B men today. The problem for him is that he took the “nothing’s sexier” part of her Open Hypergamy Schedule of Mating to heart only to find that someone else was sexier long before she’d convinced him otherwise. For what it’s worth, gynocentrism has far less to fear from the Manosphere revealing the ugly Red Pill truths about Hypergamy and more to worry about from pridefully self-indulgent women gleefully explaining it to the general populace themselves.
The more common Open Hypergamy becomes and the more proudly it’s embraced by the whole of women the less effective shaming men into acceptance of it will be. I think it’s much more prevalent than most men would like to admit; far more common for a majority of men who’ve tacitly accepted that the woman they married (or paired with) gave her best to her prior lovers and are too personally or family invested to extricate themselves from her after they’ve realized it. That investment necessitates them convincing themselves of the preplanned memes the Feminine Imperative has prepared for them — that they are doing the right thing by forcing that dissonance out of their minds.
A lot of Betas-in-waiting like to claim a personal sense of vindication about their successfully pairing and breeding with women who they believe are (and were) their SMV evaluated equals once those women have “got it out of their system” with regards to self-discovery and Alpha indiscretions. In a sense they’re correct; often enough these are the men who gratefully embrace a woman’s intimate acceptance of him precisely at the point when his SMV has matured to match this woman’s declining SMV. I call this crossover the comparative SMV point in my SMV graph.
Even women on the down-slide of their SMV like to encourage the idea that their post-Epiphany decision to marry the Plan B Beta provider (long term orbiter) is evidence of their newly self-discovered maturity. How could they have been so foolish and not seen how the perfect guy for her had been there all along? That consideration gratifies the ego of a Beta who’s been hammered flat by rejection or mediocre experiences with women up to that point.
The primary reason I wrote Preventive Medicine was to help men see past the compartmentalization of women’s phases of maturity, but also to help them see past their own immediate interpretations of those phases as they’re experiencing them. Long term sexual and intimate deprivation (i.e. Thirst) will predispose men to convincing themselves of the part they believe they should play in the social conventions of the Feminine Imperative. Their own cognitive dissonance is a small, subliminal price to pay when they believe they’re finally being rewarded with a woman who’s now ready to give him her best.
What inspired me to write this essay was reading a cutesy photo-meme on Facebook. The syrupy message was “My only regret was not meeting you sooner so we could spend more of our lives together” superimposed over some kids in black & white holding a rose. Then it hit me, this was a message a guy was posting to his girlfriend; the one he’d met after his second divorce was finalized. What he didn’t want to think about was that if he’d met her sooner she’d have been too busy “discovering herself” to have anything to do with him.