Rollo — You’ve been a major help to my understanding the underlying dynamics between men and women. I’ve observed them in bits and pieces over the years but never really understood the whys behind them or how to turn them in our favor.
It seems like one mid-term focus you have is on male-male dynamics, specifically fathers and sons. But I also wonder whether you’d consider writing more about bonding and support between men and how those relationships can anchor men’s lives at a time when male relationships are regarded with skepticism by larger society. Lately it’s struck me that men tend to innately trust the men they know and distrust those they don’t (and that it’s often the reverse for women). This inclines us to believe women when they decry the “assholes” who have mistreated them in the past while women are empathetic and credulous toward women whose character they don’t know and whom they’ve never met.
Many of us out here are lacking strong male relationships, and our small social circles translate to fewer men we innately trust and more men we innately don’t. Women seem to regard male friendships as a luxury at best — we should be focusing on career, family, and her needs — while women’s friendships are seen as a lifeline in their crazy, have-it-all world. Indeed, a man discouraging his wife/girlfriend’s friendships is widely seen as a sign of emotional abuse, whereas the reverse is “working on the relationship.”
This strikes me as a deep but largely untapped Red Pill well and could provide essential guidance for men looking to live a proud, constructive Red Pill life however women and children might fit into it. I’d definitely welcome your insights in future entries.
Back in February of 2016 blogger Roosh proposed (and attempted to initiate) a worldwide event that would be a sort of ’gathering of the tribes’ with the intent of having men get together in small local gatherings to “just have a beer and talk amongst like-minded men.” My impression of the real intent behind putting this together notwithstanding, I didn’t think it was a bad idea. However, the problem this kind of ’tribes meeting’ suffers from is that it’s entirely contrived to put unfamiliar men together for no other purpose than to “have a beer and talk.” The problem with unfamiliar men coming together simply to meet and relate is a noble goal, however, the fundamental ways men communicate naturally makes the function of this gathering seem strange to men.
Women Talk, Men Do
The best male friends I have share one or more common interests with me — a sport, a hobby, music, art, fishing, lifting, golf, snowmobiling, etc. — and the best conversations I can remember with these friends occurred while we were engaged in some particular activity or event. Even when it’s just moving a friend into his new house it’s about accomplishing something together and in that time relating about whatever is relevant. When I lived in Florida some of the best conversations I had with my studio guys were during some project we had to collaborate on for a week or two.
Women, on the other hand, make time for, and with the expressed purpose of, talking between girlfriends. Over coffee perhaps, but the act of communication is more important than the event or activity. Even a ’stitch-and-bitch’ where women get together socially to knit, is simply an organized excuse to get together and relate. For women, communication is about context. They are intrinsically rewarded by how that communication makes them feel. For men communication is about content and they are rewarded by the exchange of information, solutions to problems and ideas.
From an evolutionary perspective, it’s likely that our hunter-gatherer tribal roles had a hand in men and women’s communication differences. Men went to hunt together and practiced the coordinated actions for a cooperative goal. Bringing down a prey animal or building a communal shelter would likely have been a very information-crucial effort. In fact, the earliest cave paintings were essentially records of a successful hunt and instructions on how other men might do it too. Early men’s communication would necessarily have been a content driven discourse or the tribe didn’t eat.
Similarly women’s communications would’ve been during gathering efforts and childcare. It would stand to reason that due to women’s more collectivist roles they would evolve to be more intuitive, and context oriented, rather than object oriented. A common recognition in the manosphere is women’s predisposition toward collectivism and/or a more socialist bent to thinking about resource distribution. Whereas men tend to distribute rewards and resources primarily based on merit, women have a tendency to spread resources collectively irrespective of merit. Again this predisposition is likely due to how women’s psychological ’hard-wiring’ evolved as part of the circumstances of their tribal roles.
From this perspective it’s a fairly easy follow to see how the tendency of men to distrust unfamiliar (out-group) men might be a response to a survival threat whereas women’s implicit trust of any member of the ’Sisterhood’ would be a species-survival benefit for the sex that requires the most parental investment and mutual support. There is also a notion that early men’s predisposition towards the infanticide of his rivals children, and the uncertainty of paternity within a tribal collective made covert communication and collusion among women a survival necessity.
Divide & Conquer
In our post-masculine, feminine-primary, social order it doesn’t take a Red Pill Lens to observe the many examples of how the Feminine Imperative goes to great lengths to destroy the intrasexual ’tribalism’ of men. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution the social press of equalism has attempted to force a commonly accepted unisex expectation upon men to socialize and interact among themselves in the same, socially ’correct’ way that women do.
The duplicity in this striving towards “equality” is, of course, the same we find in all of the socialization efforts of egalitarian equalism — the emasculation of men in the name of equality. A recent (2015), rather glaring, example of this social push can be found at Harvard University where more than 200 female students demonstrated against a new policy to discourage participation in single-gender clubs at the school. Women were very supportive of the breaking of gender barriers when it meant that men could no longer discriminate in male-exclusive (typically male-space) organizations, but when that same equalist metric was applied to women’s exclusive organizations, then, the cries were accusations of insensitivity and the banners read “Women’s Groups Keep Women Safe.”
That’s a pretty fresh incident that outlines the dynamic, but it’s important to understand the underlying intent of the “fine for me, but not for thee” duplicity here. That intent is to divide and control men’s communication by expecting them to communicate as women do, and ideally to do so of their own accord by conditioning them to accept women’s communication methods as the normatively correct way to communicate. The most effective social conventions are the ones in which the participants willingly take part in and willingly encourage others to believe is correct.
Tribes vs. The Sisterhood
Because men have such varied interests, passions and endeavors based on them it’s easy to see how men compartmentalize themselves into various sub-tribes. Whether it’s team sports (almost always a male-oriented endeavor), cooperative enterprises, cooperative forms of art or just hobbies men share, it is a natural progression for men to form sub-tribes within the larger whole of conventional masculinity.
“Four experiments confirmed that women’s automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men’s and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes”
This quote sums up the results of Rudman, L. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men? Journal of personality and social psychology, 87(4), 494.
Because of a man’s’ outward reaching approach to interacting with the world around him, there’s really no unitary male tribe in the same fashion that the collective ’Sisterhood’ of women represents. One of the primary strengths of the Feminine Imperative has been its unitary tribalism among women. We can see this evidenced in how saturated the Feminine Imperative has become into mainstream society and how it’s embedded itself into what would otherwise be diametrically opposed factions among women. Political, socioeconomic and religious affiliations of women (various sub-tribes) all become secondary to the interests of ’womankind’ when embracing the collective benefits of just being women and leveraging both their default victimhood and protected statuses.
Thus, we see no internal disconnect when women simultaneously embrace a hostile opposition to one social faction while still enjoying the benefits that faction might offer to the larger whole of the ’Sisterhood’. The Sisterhood is unitary first and then it is broken down into sub-tribes. Family, work, interests, political / religious compartmentalizations become sublimated to fostering the collective benefits of womankind.
Speculatively, I can understand the evolutionary benefits of how this psychological dynamic came to be, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out just how effective this collectivity has been in shaping society towards a social ideal that supports an unfettered drive towards women’s need to optimize Hypergamy. This unitary, women-first, tribalism has been (and still is) the key to women’s social power — and even in social environments where women genuinely do suffer oppression, the Sisterhood will exercise this gender-tribalism.
Given this collectivist, female gender tribe vs. atomized male tribes we begin to see why men organizing what might be a ’Brotherhood’ is so difficult and discouraged.
Asserting any semblance of a unitary male tribalism is a direct threat to the Feminine Imperative.
Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.
That quote is from a section called The Threat in my first book, The Rational Male. When I wrote this essay I did so from the perspective of women feeling vulnerable about interacting intimately with men who understood their own value to women, but also understood how to leverage it. One of the reasons Game is so vilified, ridiculed and disqualified by the Sisterhood is because it puts this understanding and awareness into practice with women and, in theory, removes some degree of control from women in the optimization of Hypergamy. Red Pill awareness and Game lessens women’s control in that equation and makes intersexual dynamics adversarial. Men who just get it is sexy from the standpoint of dealing with a self-aware, high SMV man, but also threatening from the perspective that her long-term security depends on him acquiescing to her Frame and control. Women are conditioned to expect men to be ridiculous, untrustworthy and lacking any capacity to provide them with the long-term security they need, so it follows that the Sisterhood would balk at the idea of men coming into an awareness of their value to women and using it on his terms.
Up to this point, Game has represented an individualized threat to women’s Hypergamous control, but there has always been a larger majority of men (Betas) who’ve been easily kept ignorant of their true potential for control. However, on a larger social landscape, the Feminine Imperative understands the risks involved in men forming a unitary tribe — a Brotherhood — based solely on benefiting and empowering men. The manosphere, while still effectively a collection of sub-tribes, represents a threat to the imperative because its base purpose is making men aware of their true state in a feminine-centric social order.
As such, any attempt to create exclusively male-specific, male-empowering organizations (such as the Men’s Rights Movement) is made socially synonymous with either misogyny (hate) or homosexuality (shame). Ironically, the shame associated with homosexuality, that a fem-centric society would otherwise rail against, becomes an effective form of intra-gender shame when it’s applied to heterosexual collectives of men. Even suggestions of male-centered tribalism are attached with homosexual suspicions, and these come from within the collectives of men themselves.
This picture is from an “academic” conference (class?) called Mediated Feminisms: Activism and Resistance to Gender and Sexual Violence in the Digital Age held at UCL in London. There’s quite a bit more to this than just collecting and codifying the sub-tribes of the manosphere.
Now, granted, this conference was replete with all of the uninformed (not to mention willfully ignorant) concern to be expected of contemporary feminists, but this does serve as an example of how men organizing for the exclusive benefit of men is not just equated with misogyny, but potential violence. As a unitary collective of men, a growing manosphere terrifies the Feminine Imperative. That fear, however, doesn’t stem from any real prospect of violence, but the potential for a larger ’awareness’ in men of their own conditions and the roles they are expected to play to perpetuate a feminine-centric social order. They fear to lose the control that the ’socially responsible’ ignorance of men provides them with.
Men’s predisposition to form sub-tribes and intrasexual competition (“lets you and him fight”) have always been a means of covert control by women, but even still the Feminine Imperative must insert its influence and oversight into those male spaces to make use of them. Thus, by assuring that feminine primacy is equated with the idea of inclusive equalism, all Male Space is effectively required to be “unisex space” while all-female sub-tribes must remain exclusively female. For an easy example of this, compare and contrast the reactions to Harvard’s unisex institution of campus club equalism I mentioned earlier to the worldwide reactions to, and preemption of, the “Tribe” meetings only just attempted to be organized by Roosh in February, 2016.
By controlling men’s intrasexual communications with each other the Feminine Imperative can limit men’s unified, collective, understanding of masculinity and male experiences. Feminine-primary society hates, and is terrified of, men defining and asserting masculinity for themselves (to the point of typifying it as “toxic”), but as connectivity progresses we will see a more concentrated effort to lock down the narrative and the means of men communicating male experiences.
I’ve detailed in many essays how the imperative has deliberately misdirected and confused men about a unified definition of masculinity. That confusion is designed to keep men guessing and doubting about their “security in their manhood” while asserting that the feminine-correct definition is the only legitimate definition of healthy, ’non-toxic’, masculinity. This deliberate obfuscation and ambiguity about what amounts to ’authentic masculinity’ is another means of controlling men’s awareness of their true masculine potential. This potential they rightly fear will mean deferring to men’s power over their Hypergamous social and personal control. Anything less than a definition of masculinity that fosters female primacy and ’fempowerment’ is labeled “toxic masculinity” — literally and figuratively, poisonous.
This is the operative reason behind the obsessive, often self-contradicting, need for control of traditionally male spaces by the Feminine Imperative. Oversight and infiltration of male sub-tribes and instituting a culture of men who will self-police the narrative within those sub-tribes maintains a feminine-primary social order.
Building Better Betas
Since the time in which western(izing) societies shifted to unfettered Hypergamy on a social scale there have been various efforts to de-masculinize — if not outright feminize — the larger majority of men. Today we’re seeing the results, and still persistent efforts, of this in much starker contrast as transgenderism and the social embrace of foisting gender-loathing on boys becomes institutionalized. A deliberate promotion of a social constructionist narrative about gender identity and the very early age at which children can “choose” a gender for themselves is beginning to be more and more reinforced in our present feminine-primary social order.
As a result of this, and likely into our near future, today’s men are conditioned to feel uncomfortable being “men”. That discomfort is a direct result of the ambiguity and misguidance about conventional masculinity the imperative has fostered in men when they were boys. This feminization creates a gender loathing, but that loathing comes as the result of an internal conflict between the feminine-correct, “non-toxic”, understanding of what masculinity ought to be and the conventional aspects of masculinity that men need to express as a result of their biology and birthright.
Effectively, this confusion has the purpose of creating discomfort in men among all-male sub-tribes. These masculine-confused men have difficulty with intersocial communication within the male sub-tribes they’re supposed to have some sort of kin or in-group affiliation with. Even the concept of “male bonding” has become a point of ridicule (something typical of male buffoons) or something suspiciously homosexual. Thus, combined with the feminine identification most of these men default to, today’s “mangina” typically has more female friends and feels more comfortable communicating as women communicate. These men have been effectively conditioned to believe or feel that uniquely male interaction or organization is inherently wrong. It feels uncomfortable or contrived, possibly even threatening if the organizing requires physical effort. Consequently, interacting ’as a male’ becomes ridiculous or superficial. For the past 60 years of social feminization, all-male connection has been effectively suppressed.
What then is to be done about this conditioning? For all the efforts to destroy or regulate male tribalism, the Feminine Imperative still runs up against men’s evolved predispositions to interact with the extrinsic world instead of fixating on the intrinsic world of women. I’ve pieced together some actionable ideas here that might help men come to a better, unitary, way of fostering a male tribalism the Feminine Imperative would see destroyed or used as a tool of socio-sexual control:
· While it is vitally important to maintain a male-specific mental point of origin, together men need a center point of action. Women talk, men do.
Men need a common purpose in which the tribe can focus its efforts on. Men need to build, coordinate, win, compete and problem solve amongst themselves. The ’purpose’ of a tribe can’t simply be one of getting together as like-minded men; in fact, groups with such a declared purpose are often designed to be the most conciliatory and accommodating of the Feminine Imperative. Men require a common, passionate purpose to unite for.
· Understand and accept that men will naturally form male hierarchies in virtually every context if that tribe is truly male-exclusive. There will be a reflexive resistance to this, but understand that the discomfort in acknowledging male hierarchies stems from the Feminine Imperative’s want to make any semblance of male authority a toxic form of masculinity. Contrary to feminine conditioning male hierarchies are not necessarily based on Dark Triad manipulations. That is the ’fem-think’ — any male created hierarchy of authority is by definition evil Patriarchy.
· Recognize existing male sub-tribes for what they are, but do so without labeling them as such. Don’t talk about Fight Club, do Fight Club. As with most other aspects of Red Pill aware Game, it is always better to demonstrate rather than explicate. There will always be an observer effect in place when you call a male group a “male group”. That tribe must exist for a mutual goal other than the expressed idea that it exists to be about men meeting up. Every sub-tribe I belong to, every collective interest I share with other men, even the instantly forming ones that arise from an immediate common need or function, all exist apart from “being” about men coming together. Worldwide “tribe” day failed much for the same reasons an organization like the Good Men Project fails — they are publicized as a gathering of men just “being” men.
· Push back on women’s invasion of male space by being uncompromising in what you do and organize with passion. Make no concessions for women in any all-male space you create or join. There will always be a want to accommodate women and/or the fear of not being accommodating of feminine-primary mindsets within that all-male purview. Often this will come in subtle forms of anonymous White Knighting or reservations about particular passions due to other men’s Blue Pill conditioning to always consider the feminine before considerations of themselves or the tribe. It is vitally important to the tribe to quash those sympathies and compromising attitudes as these are exactly the designs of the Feminine Imperative to destroy a tribe from within. Make no concessions for competency of women within the tribe if you find yourself in a unisex tribal situation. Even the U.S. military is guilty of reducing combat service requirements for women as recently as the time of this writing. If you are a father or you find yourself in a role of mentoring boys or young men, it is imperative that you instill this no-compromise attitude in them and the organizations that they create themselves.
· The primary Red Pill awareness and Game tenets that you’ve learned with respect to women are entirely applicable in a larger scope when it comes to resisting the influences of the Feminine Imperative. Frame control and a return to a collectively male-exclusive Mental Point of Origin are two of the primary tenets to apply to non-intimate applications of resistance. Objective observations and an internalized Red Pill perspective should inform your interactions with women and men on a social scale.
My approach to resisting the influences of the Feminine Imperative on a meta social scale is the same bottom-up approach I would use with unplugging men from their Blue Pill conditioning. Once men have taken the first steps in Red Pill awareness this new perspective has a tendency to expand into greater social understandings and a want for applications that go beyond hooking up with desirable women. Red Pill awareness becomes a way of life, but moreover, it should inform us as men, as tribes, about how best to maintain ourselves as masculine-primary individuals and organizations.
Individually men are competitive. It’s part of our survival instinct to desire to win. Studies prove we get a rush of testosterone when we are the victors over some adversary or adversity — a fact that coincides with women’s sensitivity to, and arousal for the winners. However, we are also cooperative in our victories. Men banding together to overcome adversity or to create magnificent achievements of humanity are also characteristic of conventional masculinity.
As the social influences of feminine-primacy has spread over the last 60 years the effort to separate and isolate men from this conventional cooperation has become more and more evident. There’s no shortage of concerned bloggers lamenting the ’drop out’ generation of young men who’ve become so disenfranchised from conventional masculinity that they content themselves with video games and online porn. What they fail to consider is that these young men have been deliberately isolated in order to contain their masculine potentials. As a result these young men have no male-only purpose or endeavor to apply themselves to. With a lack of purpose comes a lack of male communication and engagement, and with that comes the atrophy of understanding masculine ways of interacting with each other.
Rites of Passage
In the past I’ve discussed the hesitancy of young men to refer to themselves as ’men’ or to really even embrace what might be considered a ’conventional’ idea of masculinity. You’ve probably read me using that word before. I use the word conventional because I feel it conveys a better understanding of a naturalized expression of masculinity in a way that men evolved into. Occasionally I have a reader ask me why I don’t use the term ’traditional’ with respect to masculinity, but I’m not sure they really mean the same thing.
It’s easy to think of masculinity in terms of tradition, but whose tradition are we really referring to? ’Traditional Masculinity’ as a term has assumed a derogatory meaning in a feminine-primary social order. It’s become one of those catchterms that we’re all supposed to understand as being characteristic of backward mindsets. It’s part of the social convention that seeks to ridicule, shame and confuse boys who later become men about what masculinity ought to mean to them. So, it’s for this reason I use the word ’conventional’. It conveys the idea that masculinity in a binary sense has evolved aspects that are inherent and unique to men. So while certain cultures may have had different traditions and traditional roles for men, there is a unifying conventionality of masculinity that relates to all men and maleness in general.
Feminine-centrism doesn’t like this idea. It doesn’t like the idea that masculine characteristics or behaviors are the sole propriety of men. The reflex then is to paint any conventionally masculine attribute, way of thinking, aggression, passion or aspiration as either representative of ’toxic’ harmful or anti-social, or, depending on its usefulness in securing power, it’s cast as something “not necessarily masculine” (i.e. strength) since some women can lay claim to that trait.
I’ve outlined before how boys are taught from a very early age to gender-loathe their maleness. It’s part of Blue Pill conditioning, but more so, I think it’s important for Blue Pill or unplugging adult men to understand the mechanics and reasoning behind why it’s in the Feminine Imperative’s interests to keep conventional masculinity something ambiguous, arbitrary or something men ought to be able to fluidly define for themselves. That last part there is important, because what most men of today think is their own self-generated definition of masculinity is generally founded in what the Feminine Imperative has conditioned him to believe is healthy and correct.
In a social order that’s ostensibly founded upon a baseline equalism (in principle) among men and women we have to look at why it might be necessary for boys to be taught that ’traditional’ masculinity is toxic. The easy answer is that it stems from a want for control, but not so much in the terms of convincing boys to become men who will loathe their maleness. Remember, there are many aspects of conventional masculinity that are conveniently useful to further the interests of women and Hypergamy — but the conditioning becomes one of selectively classifying the useful aspects as ’healthy’ and the non-useful ones as ’toxic’.
The most important thing to consider here is that, for future men, egalitarian equalism’s (the Village’s) purpose in boy’s upbringing is to prevent them from ever internalizing the idea that they should be their own mental point of origin. This, I think, is one of the fundamental issues most Blue Pill men struggle with in their own unplugging; unlearning the deeply embedded idea that his wellbeing must always come after that of women’s.
One of the Old Books, traditional, understandings is that men, by virtue of being male, can expect a degree of authority in their lives and in their families. A man may not be the boss at work, but the traditional understanding was that he could expect to be the head-of-household in his own home. Feminine primacy, under the auspices of equalism, has effectively conditioned this idea out of men over the course of generations. If men and women are blank-slate functional equals, ideally, there will never be a default authority in an intersexual relationship.
From a conventional, evolutionary perspective we know this baseline equalism is not just false, but we also understand that it serves as a control over the masculine nature men are born into. Men and women are different; cognitively, neurologically, biologically and psychologically, but our feminine-socialized presumptions with regard to how boys are raised to be men deliberately conditions them to believe we are the same — or at least functionally so.
The Crime of Being Male
There’s been some push-back to this in our Red Pill awakening, and not all of it is the result of the manosphere. As Hypergamy becomes more openly embraced in a larger social respect, more men are made aware of their deliberate conditioning to accommodate it. What men choose to do with that awareness is up to them, but the response from the Feminine Imperative to this awareness is to criminalize or make ’toxic’ the embrace of conventional masculinity on the part of men. It becomes a hate-crime to express any conventionally male attribute, but moreover it’s a hate-crime to foster those attributes in boys/men.
This is a potential danger for Blue Pill men in that the expressions of maleness that they display are on one hand desired by women, but also a risk to their reputation or livelihoods if that expression is offensive to womankind. Red Pill aware men may have the advantage of knowing women’s nature well enough to mitigate the risks, but Blue Pill men will be stuck in a paradigm that puts them at risk for wanting to be conventionally masculine men.
Again, equalist Blue Pill conditioning’s purpose is to prevent men from assuming themselves as their mental point of origin, but once a man’s disabused himself from putting the feminine as his primary internal concern there must be an opposite, contingent, reaction on the part of the Feminine Imperative to put him back into compliance. Thus, we see the criminalization of maleness.
For some time it’s been a manosphere staple to tell guys to take the girl off the pedestal if he wants to be successful with women. We call it pedestalization, but one reason that dynamic, to put a woman on a higher order than oneself, is so pervasive among men is due exactly to this “equalist” conditioning. The internalization is one of making that girl, that woman, that mother, that female boss, the centerpiece of a man’s headspace. This becomes who he is and it’s the result of a childhood that taught him he must place the concerns of girls above his own on many different psychological levels. Ostensibly this is sold to men as being ’honorable’ in putting others before himself, however the latent purpose of ’being a good servant’ has been bastardized by the Feminine Imperative to be defined as being ’supportive’ of women. And men are to be supportive of women’s interests at the risk of being considered a misogynist.
Once that guy becomes Red Pill aware, no matter who does his unplugging, not only does he remove girls from the pedestal personally, but also in a larger, sociological scope. And this scope is what the Feminine Imperative must pushback against.
Blue Pill conditioning teaches boys/men to cast doubt on their own masculinity. What constitutes masculinity? Is it a mask or a performance they put on? Is it something to be proud of, or some problem/privilege to keep in check? Should boys/men feel insecure or secure about it? These are the consistent ambiguities the Feminine Imperative wants to invest into the next generations of men because it keeps women on the pedestal. In this social paradigm only women possess the solution to men’s problem of maleness.
But the Blue Pill also conditions boys/men to never presume to consider themselves as a “man”. The joke is that men are never really men, but rather they become ’bigger boys’. This is a social convention that attempts to keep men in a juvenilized state and thus ensuring women are the only ’adults’ to make the judgment call. This ridicule has the purpose of denying men their status of ’manhood’. If men are perpetual boys, they can never assume the default ’headship’ of being men. It is a control for authority.
This is another reason men are conditioned to keep women on the pedestal; only women can confirm ’manhood’ from a superior (mental) position in that man’s mind. When a woman is at the top of a man’s mental point of origin — and not even a specific woman, but womankind — she decides and confers his status of being a man. So it follows that men ought to be raised to internalize the doubt of understanding manhood or conventional masculinity.
The struggle men have in coming to a Red Pill awareness is one of removing women from this pedestal, but also one of giving oneself permission to be a man. This may seem kind of simplistic, but to a guy who’s been conditioned to put women before himself in his own internal, mental, conversations it’s a very tough challenge. Blue Pill conditioning invests a doubt into boys and then men. They are conditioned to self-regulate on many levels, but to generally put their own concerns beneath those of others and largely the feminine. They are taught to self-sublimate by never giving themselves permission to be “men” in a conventional sense.
Iron Rule of Tomassi #9
Never Self-Deprecate under any circumstance. This is a Kiss of Death that you self-initiate and is the antithesis of the Prize Mentality. Once you’ve accepted yourself and presented yourself as a “complete douche” there’s no going back to confidence with a woman. Never appeal to a woman’s sympathies. Her sympathies are given by her own volition, never when they are begged for — women despise the obligation of sympathy. Nothing kills arousal like pity. Even if you don’t seriously consider yourself pathetic, it never serves your best interest to paint yourself as pathetic. Self-Depreciation is a misguided tool for the AFC, and not something that would even occur to an Alpha mindset.
One important reason I made this an Iron Rule (see The Rational Male) was because it is almost a default response of men to presume the validity of their own ridiculousness. The reflexive response is, of course, “not to take yourself so seriously” and have an ability to laugh at yourself when it’s merited. That’s all fine and well, a necessity for a healthy sense of self, but few men realize their ease with self-deprecation is a result of their conditioning to find themselves ridiculous as men. The concept of “Men” is associated with “ridiculous”.
It’s very easy for Red Pill aware men to lose sight of what the Blue Pill conditions men for and how this conditioning has evolved over the course of generations. The latent purpose remains the same (preventing men from adopting their own mental point of origin), but the methods and social mores change fluidly with what the Feminine Imperative finds most efficient for the time. For the past 20 years there’s been a concentrated effort to remove men from deciding their own manhood for themselves.
Remove the Man
In 2013, Washington state Governor Jay Inslee signed off on the final installment of a six-year effort to make language in the state’s copious laws gender-neutral. The sponsor of the bill, Senator Jeannie Kohl-Welles’ reasoning for initiating the six-year endeavor was,
“It brings us to modern times, to contemporary times, why should we have in statute anything that could be viewed as biased or stereotypical or reflecting any discrimination?”
Thus, words such as ’freshmen’, ’fireman’, ’fisherman’ and even ’penmanship’ are neutralized to ’first year student’, ’fire-person’, ’fisher’ and ’writing skill’. Perhaps the easiest way to grasp the process the committee used in their six-year effort is to presume that any noun or verb with the successive letters of ’m-a-n’ in its syntax was replaced with ’person’ or a substitution for a term that excluded the offending ’m-a-n’ letters.
This hasn’t been the only effort to geld the English language under the guise of a want for avoiding legal repercussions. The University of North Carolina has initiated a similar effort in their school’s by-laws. Kent Law, Marquette and virtually every state college in the union, while not mandating the ’manless’ language, has made efforts to encourage linguistic androgyny.
The Washington state initiative is really just the next predictable progression in this gelding, however the six-year effort represents something more endemically hostile; the Feminine Imperative, in its inconsolable insecurity, would re-engineer the very language society uses in order to feel more secure.
Now granted, this is English, the second most commonly spoken language in the world, but in order to fully appreciate the scope of the Feminine Imperative and the lengths to which it will go unhindered to assuage the need for feminine-security, a Red Pill man has to recognize the importance language represents to the human race as well as the removal of male, not masculine, influence from that language.
In all Latin-based languages there are gender associations with definitive articles. Nouns (and many adjectives) are specifically feminine or masculine as part of their intrinsic qualities. In Spanish ’La Casa’, the home, is a feminine association. ’El Toro’, the bull, is a masculine association. Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of a Latin-based language understands that millennia ago the Latin culture found gender differentiation so important that it attached gender associations to the words, written and spoken, that represented the ideas and articles each word meant.
This might seem like a remedial review of language and society, but it’s important to understand what it is the Feminine Imperative hopes to undo, and the magnitude of its insecurities. The six-year effort of gender-abridgment in the Washington state law is really an illustration of the lengths to which the Feminine Imperative would re-engineer society; from the very foundations of human communication, language, by eliminating masculine associations with any article or quality. The Feminine Imperative, that is dependent upon men being Men when convenient, simultaneously makes herculean efforts to remove men from its idealized environment and society.
“But if thought can corrupt language, language can also corrupt thought. Bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation,even among people who should and do know better.” — George Orwell
Be a Man
There used to be a time when some cultures had a rite of passage into manhood or a passing into adult responsibility and masculine respect. In Latin cultures a young woman becomes a woman on here quinceñera — her fifteenth birthday. Jewish boys have a Bar Mitzvah, certain Native American tribes had similar traditions, etc. I think that if there’s a modern social complaint about men remaining perpetually juvenile this is the root of it — we don’t respect Manhood enough to define what’s expected and when that adult, masculine respect is due.
A lot has been written on my blog and many others about the ceaseless efforts of the feminine to marginalize and ridicule anything masculine. It’s easy to find consistent examples of this in the past 50 years of popular media, movies, TV sitcoms, music, etc. While masculinity is ridiculed, there’s more to it than this. It’s not simple masculine ridicule, because the same masculine attributes and qualities that make women ’strong’ are the same that make men strong. The difference is in the application — it wasn’t enough to implant the seeds of masculine self-doubt into men, the Feminine Imperative had to make men, not necessarily masculinity, the problem to be solved.
In all of the examples of masculine gender reversal in popular culture, men are the unique problem, to which only women have the resources, wisdom and intuition to correct. The men of today are characterized as the Lucy Ricardos of the 50’s, requiring women’s guidance to avoid, often mutually destructive, disasters. However, the key to solving those problems, characterized as uniquely male, still require masculine-associated, mindsets, skills and applications.
Guys vs. Men
I was participating in a conversation with a young woman of 26 and a young man of 18. The conversation itself wasn’t important, but at one point the young man referred to himself as a ’Man’. He said something to the effect of, “Well I’m a man, and men do,..” At the word ’man’ she cut him off with the unconscious snigger that’s resulted from years of feminine ridicule conditioning. Just the mention of a man self-referencing as a “man” is enough to inspire feminine ridicule. It’s laughable for a man to consider himself a man.
This exchange got me to wondering about the turning point at which I began to self-reference as a “Man”. In the face of a constant conditioned ridicule, it’s almost an uncomfortable recognition to distinguish yourself as a Man. It’s too easy to just think of yourself as a ’guy’ and never be so presumptuous as to insist upon your manhood. In girl-world, to claim to be a Man is to accept one’s own arrogance — it’s to embrace a flawed nature.
It’s important to note here that in embracing your status as a Man, instead of ’just a guy’, you are passing a meta-shit test. By embracing self-referenced manhood, you are rejecting what a world aligned against you would like you to believe about yourself. You’re endorsing yourself as a Man with self-assurance despite the self-doubt the Feminine Imperative relies upon men believing about themselves — masculinity and the dubious state of manhood as a whole.
By flagrantly referring to yourself as a Man you are passing the meta-shit test, you’re overtly declaring you’re a Man, but you you’re covertly stating “I Just Get It.”
The Man Removed
The Feminine Imperative perceives your Manhood as a Threat. By endorsing yourself as a Man, on some level, whether you’re cognizant of it or not, you’re alluding that you have an inkling of your own personal value as a Man. You’re expressing a self-awareness that is attractive and terrorizing for women, but due to the constant influence of feminine primacy you’re perceived as arrogant, self-serving and prideful. Even in the most innocuous context, insisting upon your status as a Man is inherently sexist to a world defined by the Feminine Imperative.
But the imperative needs masculinity. To insure its (temporary) satisfaction of security a masculine element is required. Strength, confidence, determination, a capacity for risk taking, dominance and the comfort in security that women naturally derive from those masculine attributes are necessities of a healthy, secure, existence for women and the feminine. However, brutish, ridiculous and stupid men can’t be trusted to universally provide this masculine security that every woman has been taught she deserves irrespective of attractiveness or merit by the Feminine Imperative. So Men must be removed from masculinity.
No longer are Men allowed a monopoly on masculinity. Domineering, “Alpha Women” as a default status in heterosexual relationships pushes masculinity into her domain. Dominant masculine partners in Sexually Fluid lesbian relationships are similarly, unironically, re-characterized.
These are the easy examples. Volumes have been written in the Manosphere about how feminine-primary government assumes the masculine providership role in modern relationships, thus freeing an already unhindered Hypergamy even more so, but the effort to remove the Man goes far beyond this obvious institution. The fundamental restructuring of gender reference in our very language — in the way we are to communicate appropriate thoughts — attempts to, literally, remove the Man from the equation.
I can remember an instance at a former workplace where some coworkers were organizing a team to run in a Breast Cancer awareness walk/run. At one point a particularly ’mangina’ coworker suggested we all wear the prerequisite pink color at the event, and needless to say I arrived in a black T-Shirt amongst a sea of pink. The predictable accusation of my sexual security came up: “What, aren’t you secure enough in your manhood to wear pink?” to which I answered “I’m secure enough in my Manhood not to wear pink.”
What the guy was obliviously parroting back is the same social tool that’s been used by the Feminine Imperative for the past 60 years; inspire self-doubt in male-specific masculinity. By making compliance with the Feminine Imperative a qualification of masculinity, men assign the power to define masculinity to the Feminine Imperative. My answer to him was simply taking that power of definition back into a male-controlled frame — “I’ll tell you what manhood is, your conditioned grasp of manhood doesn’t qualify you to tell me.”
This power of defining the masculine isn’t limited just to snarky, subconscious referencing; it’s simply one aspect of a greater effort to remove men from masculinity. While the efforts of certain women bloggers and psychologists (both within and without the Manosphere) to build better betas seems ennobling to White Knights, the unifying purpose behind their efforts is really one of apportioning masculine authority to men in as convenient a way as would satisfy their immediate needs for those masculine aspects. Be Alpha as needed, but Beta for the greater part so as to allow for feminine-masculine dominance and primacy.
I’ve explained this previously as the Male Catch 22 in my first book (The Honor System), but it’s important to understand that this Catch isn’t some unfortunate byproduct of male inheritance; it’s a careful, calculated feminine social dynamic with the latent purpose of making men accountable for masculine responsibilities while simultaneously making them shamed and guilty of ’male privilege’ when that masculinity conflicts with the dictates of the Feminine Imperative. That’s the crux of the dynamic, but the mechanics of it are still rooted in specifically male masculine self-doubt.
For the Feminine Imperative to sustain itself men can never be trusted with masculinity. Solution: remove men from being the definers of masculinity and apportion them only enough authority of it that would benefit the Feminine Imperative as necessary.
Rites of Passage
One of the key elements to unplugging is changing your mind about yourself. This is one of the biggest obstacle to guys coming to accept a Red Pill aware reality. This self-denial of their own ’manhood’, which becomes a resistance to embracing anything conventionally masculine as being positive, is a foreign thought.
There used to be a time when boys would go through some rite of passage and be considered a ’man’ by his family and peers. It’s important for Red Pill men to realize how this passage into a state of manhood has been deliberately confused or shamed out of significance to all but the most traditional of cultures.
Most male rites of passage are painted as cruel and barbaric hazing rituals in a fem-centric society. That’s a popularized and easy connection to make, but what underlies this effort to disqualify manhood as legitimate is a push to force men into compliance with the Feminine Imperative and feminine-primacy.
I would suggest that men coming into a Red Pill awareness need to embrace being a “man”. Red Pill men need a rite of passage of some sort. In the Manosphere we sometimes ask about when a guy finally came into his Red Pill awareness. We compare stories about what we were like when we were still living in a Blue Pill paradigm and then what form of trauma (or not) triggered that Blue Pill disillusionment. We discuss the various stages of grief for our past Blue Pill idealism, the nihilism, the anger, the disbelief, then the acceptance and the new enthusiasm of being Red Pill aware and the potential it proposes.
But there needs to be a rite of passage for passing from that Blue Pill state to a new Red Pill awareness and part of this should be a conscious acknowledgment of giving yourself permission to be a man. This needs to be part of changing your mind about yourself as you become more aware of the agency you have in a conventionally male respect. You need a baptism of sorts; a point at which you set yourself apart from Blue Pill men and a feminine-primary social order.
Most (Beta) guys have a difficult time embracing the authority and due deference that being a conventional man conveys to him. They’re uncomfortable on an ego-personality level with accepting this dominant male role because it goes against everything their feminine-centric upbringing has taught them.
However, with that authority comes responsibility. I would argue that many a Blue Pill guy is comforted by the lies of equalism because he believes that egalitarianism and the expectations that men and women are functional equals in some way exempts him from his uniquely male burden of performance. On some level of consciousness, even the Beta men who are comforted by equalism still realize that their maleness will only ever be merited and judged by his performance. And that performance is firmly grounded in conventionally male tests.
The Second Set of Books
One of the cornerstones of Red Pill truth lies in men coming to terms with what amounts to (in most cases) half a lifetime of feminine conditioning. It’s interesting to consider that there was a time (pre-Sexual Revolution) when a man wasn’t in someway socialized and acculturated in his upbringing to give deference to the feminine or to become more feminine-identifying. There are plenty of other manosphere bloggers who’ll run down in detail all of the many ways boys are now raised and educated to be what a feminine-primary world would like them to be, but at the heart of it is a presumption that boys should be raised and conditioned to be more like girls; conditioned from their earliest memories to be better providers for what women believe they will eventually want them to be as adult ’men’.
For men who’ve become aware of this conditioning through some trauma or personal crisis that prompted him to seek answers for his condition, we call this period our Blue Pill days. I think it’s important to make a distinction about this time — whether or not a man is Alpha or Beta doesn’t necessarily exclude him from the consequences of a Blue Pill conditioning. That isn’t to say that a more natural Alpha Man can’t see the world in a Red Pill perspective by his own means, but rather that his feminine-primary upbringing doesn’t necessarily make a man Alpha or Beta.
I’m making this distinction because there is school of thought that being Blue Pill (unaware of one’s conditioning) necessitates him being more Beta. To be sure, feminine-primary conditioning would raise a boy into a more feminine-pliable man — ready to serve as the good Beta provider when a woman’s sexual market value declines and she’s less able to compete with her younger sexual competitors.
However, there also exist more Alpha Men conditioned to be servants of the
Feminine Imperative. These men make for some of the most self-evincing White Knights you’ll ever meet and are usually the first men to “defend the honor” of the feminine and women for whom they lack a real awareness of. Binary absolutism and an upbringing steeped in feminization makes for a potent sense of self-righteousness. Blue pill Alphas live for the opportunity to defend everything their conditioning has taught them. To the Blue Pill Alpha, all women are victims by default, all women share a common historic suffering and any man (a White Knight’s sexual competitors) critical of the feminine are simply an opportunity to prove his worth to any woman in earshot he believes might at all find his zealousness for feminine identification attractive.
The Second Set of Books
On June 15th, 2011, a man by the name of Thomas Ball set himself on fire in front of Cheshire Superior Court in New Hampshire after a particularly ugly divorce proceeding. Prior to his suicide, Ball left a lengthy manifesto outlining his disillusionment with the government process, but more importantly it outlined his eyes being opened to a great deal of the more discomforting aspects of Red Pill awareness. I’d encourage readers to look up his last testament online. Unfortunately, Ball’s manifesto is a bit too long to include in its entirety here, but I will quote the operative point here:
Any one swept up into this legal mess is usually astonished at what they see. They cannot believe what the police, prosecutors and judges are doing. It is so blatantly wrong. Well, I can assure you that everything they do is logical and by the book. The confusion you have with them is you both are using different sets of books. You are using the old First Set of Books - the Constitution, the general laws or statutes and the court ruling sometime call Common Law. They are using the newer Second Set of Books. That is the collection of the policy, procedures and protocols. Once you know what set of books everyone is using, then everything they do looks logical and upright. And do not bother trying to argue with me that there is no Second Set of Books. I have my own copies at home. Or at least a good hunk of the important part of it.
While I strongly disagree with his decision to self-immolate, I do understand his sentiment. I’ve had many a Red Pill critic attempt to call me to the carpet over how a man might come to the conclusion of suicide or murder once he’d become confronted with a total loss of all his personal and emotional investment in life:
But Rollo, you just justified murder as “logical”, by illustrating that insecurity is the prime motivator for this man’s life. The decision may have be understandable in an empathetic sense, and he might have seen it as logical at the time, but there is nothing logical about it. You are making extreme beta-ism seem more and more like a mental disorder.
Just for the record, I’ve argued in the past that ONEitis, or a life founded on the idea of the Soul-Mate Myth, however extreme, is in fact a mental disorder.
However, I haven’t justified anything, murder or suicide, I’ve simply outlined the deductive process men use when confronting the actualized loss of their most important investment (or perceptually so) in life. They are convinced and conditioned to believe that women are playing by a set of rules, and will honor the terms of those rules; but only after ego-investing themselves for a lifetime in the correctness and appropriateness of those rules do they discover women are playing by another set of rules. They then wonder at how stupid they could’ve been to have ever believed in the rules they were conditioned to expect everyone would abide by. When critics label Red Pill men as characteristically ’angry’ or bitter, this is the source of that sentiment — their anger isn’t directed at women, but rather themselves for having been so blind.
Suicide or murder certainly is a deductive and pragmatic end for some men, but by no means is it justified nor would I advocate for it. Thomas Ball, for all of his due diligence in uncovering the ugly processes of the American divorce industry, was far more useful alive than dead in some symbolic suicide. Now, in passing, he wasn’t the martyr he probably expected he’d be, he’s just another footnote. A casualty of the Feminine Imperative.
For all of that, Thomas Ball and his last message to humanity serves as an excellent illustration of a man coming to terms with his own conditioning. In his message Ball makes a very important observation about his legal ordeals. He comes to understand that there are two sets of books rather than the one he’d been led to believe that everyone understood as ’the rules’ everyone should play by.
Ball was largely making a political statement in his account of going through the legal system and the cruel education he got in the process, but when men transition from their comfortable Blue Pill perspective into the harsh reality that the Red Pill represents, the experience is a lot like Ball discovering that the set of books (the set of rules) he’d believed everyone was using wasn’t so. Likewise, men who’ve been conditioned since birth to believe that women were using a common set of rules — a set where certain expectations and mutual exchange were understood — were in fact using their own set. Furthermore, these men ’just didn’t get it’ that they should’ve known all along that women, as well as men’s feminization conditioning, were founded in a second set of books.
In my estimate, that first set of books — the Old Books — represents the social contract of an era before the Sexual Revolution. It was an old set of rules men were taught they could expect women and other men would honor in exchange for accepting a burden of performance that was itself an extension of those rules. The second set of books, the new set, represent the true rules a man is playing by whether he’s aware of it or not. These are the post-Sexual Revolution rules that serve the Feminine Imperative and unfettered Hypergamy; the rules that are extensions of the social re-engineering necessary for a feminine-primary social order.
Coming to terms with this separation of rule sets is an integral part of a man’s unplugging himself and becoming Red Pill aware. Men are expected to abide by the second set of books, while still being held accountable for the liabilities of the first set. Much of men’s disillusionment with notions of Chivalry comes from this serving of two masters. The old social contracts are an anachronism, but men are still taught to respect them while at the same time are persecuted according to the second set of books if they step over a line they may not ever be aware of.
This is a difficult lesson for young men to learn and then disabuse themselves of before they’ve invested their most productive years into what their Blue Pill conditioning has convinced them they can expect from life and women. However, when a mature man, who’s based the better part of his life, and invested his future, into the hope in the first set of books is disenfranchised by the second set of books, that’s when all of the equity he believed he’d established under the first set of books counts for nothing. Literally his life (up to that point) counted for nothing. This is the foundation of what I termed the Fallacy of Relational Equity in my first book.
When a man is faced with the prospect of rebuilding himself after living so long under false pretenses, after having all he believed he was building turn up to be a lifetime of wasted effort, he’s faced with two real options; recreate himself or destroy himself. Needless to say suicide statistics among men (5:1 over women) are a strong indication that the majority of men (Betas) more commonly don’t have the personal strength to recreate themselves. Thomas Ball didn’t.
There’s usually a lot of disillusionment that comes with making the transition to Red Pill awareness. Guys get upset that what they now see was really there all along, but it’s not so much the harshness of seeing Red Pill dynamics in women or a feminized society play out with such predictability, it’s the loss of investment that causes the real sense of nihilism.
The overarching reason most men experienced what they called a righteous anger, isn’t directed at how the second set of books had been directing their lives behind the scenes for so long, but rather it was anger at having invested so much of themselves in the first set of books and losing that very long term investment.
The good news is you can rebuild yourself. A lot gets written about how nihilistic the Red Pill is, but this is due to a lack of understanding that you can recreate yourself for the positive with the knowledge of both sets of rules. One common thread I see come up often on the Red Pill Reddit forum is how Game-awareness has completely destroyed a guy’s world view. I get it, I realize it’s a hard realization, but their depression is only for a lack of understanding that they can become even better in this new understanding than they were in their Blue Pill ignorance.
A foundation of internalizing a new definition of positive masculinity for yourself begins in coming to terms with the reality of your situation. And this is in respect to how these conflicting sets of rules have influenced the course of your life up to this point. Rebuilding sucks. I’ve done it enough times myself to feel exactly this sense of loss at many points in my life. And the older a man gets the more grave that loss will seem. Any sense of equity we believe we’ve merited must be valued by us first, but that value will always have a context.
The value of what we make of ourselves in an old books context has to be set and compared against what that value is in a second books context. Much of what we believed would be valuable in our Blue Pill existence, the equity we believed would get us closer to Blue Pill idealist goals, is expected or taken for granted. Yet we think it’s some kind of insurance against the worst of what those operating in the new social contract (if it can be called that) would use it for.
Understand now that you’re living on the cusp of deciding what aspects of conventional masculinity are valuable to you, and yet you must still operate in the knowledge of the second set of rules being used all around you. I use this comparison of the old and new sets of books in many of my essays, but this is really a convenience, a tool, to set a contrast in the ideas I’m exploring. Just like Alpha, Beta, Red Pill, Blue Pill, etc. the old and new sets of books are abstracts to describe an idea of two states.
I don’t think men ought to pine for some return to the good ole’ days — most of which are simply romanticizations of times that never really existed — but rather to accept the nature of how the Blue Pill conditions us, emancipate ourselves from it, and use the second set of books to our own best advantage. Once we become aware of our misguidance in basing our masculinity on the false terms of a social contract, a rule set, no one is playing by, then we can begin to effectively direct ourselves towards a positive, new conventional masculinity.
The Red Pill Balance
I had a reader hit me with this meta-scale Red Pill question that dovetails very nicely into what I proposed in the Second Set of Books.
A lot of what you’ve said echoes my own thinking to such a degree that it’s as if you read my mind. I agree 100%.
What you’re talking about here, I think, is the inherent value of goodness or justice. I think Plato took up this question in the Republic and nailed it better than most.
In the beginning of the dialogue the question is “what is justice?” But it quickly transforms into “what is the value of justice?” In other words, if goodness wins us no reward, then what value does it have? Is it valuable in its own right? Would it have value even if it cost us something, or indeed cost us everything?
Glaucon puts the question like this (paraphrasing): “What if the perfectly just man is seen by everyone as perfectly unjust, while the perfectly unjust man is seen as perfectly just?” He then puts it on Socrates to effectively prove that, even in this scenario, justice would be worth it.
We could gender this question and simply ask “what if the perfectly good man is seen as perfectly unattractive to women, while the perfectly evil man is seen as perfectly attractive?”
Is goodness worth it even if it isn’t profitable sexually or socially? It’s the same question.
Why be a ’good’ man when what we consider good by both personal and social measures isn’t rewarded (or only grudgingly rewarded), while what we consider ’bad’ is what is enthusiastically rewarded with women’s genuine desire and intimacy? In other words, Hypergamy doesn’t care about what men consider to be good or bad.
It seems like this is the predicament Red Pill awareness puts us in when we have to consider the value of our formerly Beta self. What makes the Beta the Beta is his weakness, of course, but it is simultaneously his civility. We’re not defective people for wanting or even needing the possibility of love, empathy, truth, friendship, kindness, and — above all else — trust in our lives. It just makes us human. If we project our deeply rooted desires for these things and treat others the way we want to be treated, wouldn’t society be better off for it? And isn’t this what the supplicating, loyal Beta does when latches on to a woman he believes to be “the One?”
No Quarter Given
In my post (and book chapter) Of Love and War I quote a reader who summed up this want for relief from men’s inherent Burden of Performance:
We want to relax. We want to be open and honest. We want to have a safe haven in which struggle has no place, where we gain strength and rest instead of having it pulled from us. We want to stop being on guard all the time, and have a chance to simply be with someone who can understand our basic humanity without begrudging it. To stop fighting, to stop playing the game, just for a while.
We want to, so badly.
If we do, we soon are no longer able to.
When I consider this perspective I begin to see a stark paradox; mens’ want for a relief or a respite from that performance burden tends to be their undoing. I wont get too deep into this, but one reason I see the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) sphere being so seductive is the hopeful promise of that same relief from performance. Simply give up. Refuse to play along and reject the burden altogether. The culture of Japan’s herbivorous men crisis is a graphic example of the long term effects of this.
However, this is the same mistake men make in their Blue Pill, Beta conditioning. They believe that if they meet the right girl, if they align correctly with that special ONE, then they too can give up and not worry about their performance burden — or relax and only make the base effort necessary to keep his ONE happy. The Beta buys the advertising that his Blue Pill conditioning has presented to him for a lifetime. Find the right girl who accepts you, independent of your performance, and you can let down your guard, be vulnerable, forget any notion of Red Pill truths because your girl is a special specimen who places no conditions on her love, empathy, intimate acceptance or genuine desire for you.
This is also very seductive and inuring for the Beta who’s been conditioned to believe there can realistically be a respite from his burden. My reader continues:
That’s how it seemed to work in my own life. Looking back on it, I was so grateful to my ex, who was easily the most attractive girl I’d ever been with, that I would have taken a bullet for her. I didn’t want anybody else. I didn’t even think about other girls — the first time that had ever happened to me in a relationship. I can remember thinking that even if she gained weight, lost her looks, and got old, I’d still want her. I would have “loved” her forever. I was good and ready to cash in my chips, exit the sexual marketplace, and retire. I would have arranged my whole life around making her happy and would have felt lucky to have had the privilege.
At the time, all of that felt noble and brave, but looking back on it now, it just seems pathetic and pathological; the result of my neediness. But the thing is, what if she had reciprocated it? Wouldn’t it have been a relationship worth having? Had she reciprocated it — if any woman was capable of reciprocating that — it wouldn’t have been Disney movie bullshit, but the real thing. We’re supposed to think such a thing is possible and that’s what keeps us playing along. The Red Pill is really about recognizing its impossibility, I think. There is no possible equity. To be sure, a woman can be loyal and dedicated to you, in theory, but she’ll only give that loyalty to the guy who needs it least. It’s like a cruel, cosmic joke.
Such as it is, that girl lied to me, ran for the hills the moment I showed weakness and needed her the most, and cheated on me. Big surprise, right? With a red pill awareness now I can see how predictable that result was, but at the time I was blindsided by it. I never saw it coming. I couldn’t understand how she could do such a thing when I’d invested so much in her, when I was so willing to give her all the things I’d always wanted most. I assumed she wanted the same things — men and women are the same, right? That’s what the egalitarians tell us. I couldn’t understand how those things could be so valueless to her that she would just throw it all away like that. She didn’t value them at all.
On occasion I’ve suggested that men watch the movie Blue Valentine. You can check out the plot summary on IMDB, but you really need to watch the movie (on Netflix) to appreciate what I’m going to relate here. The main character suffers from the same romantic idealism and want for a perfected, mutually shared concept of love between himself and the single mother he eventually marries.
It follows along the same familiar theme of Alpha while single / Beta after marriage that most men experience in what they believe is their lot. More often than not the Alpha they believed their wives or LTR girlfriends perceived they were was really just a guy who’d do for their needs of whatever phase of maturity she found herself in.
By itself this would be enough for me to endorse the movie, but the story teaches a much more valuable lesson. What Dean (Ryan Gosling) represents is a man who idealistically buys the Blue Pill promise that men and women share a mutual love concept, independent of what their sexual strategies and innate dispositions prompt them to. Because of this misbelief Dean gives up on the burden of his performance. He drops his ambitions and relaxes with his Soul Mate girl, contenting himself in mediocrity, low ambitions and his idealistic belief in a woman sharing and sustaining his romanticized Blue Pill love ideal — in a word, “performancelessness.”
He relaxes, lets his guard down and becomes the vulnerable man he was taught since birth that women would not only desire, but require for their false, performanceless notions of mutual intimacy. The men of this stripe who don’t find themselves divorced from their progressively bored wives are often the ones who trade their ambitions and passions for a life of mediocrity and routine,… so long as the security blanket of what they believe is a sustainable, passable semblance of that love (but not desire) exists in their wives or girlfriends.
Their burden of performance is sedated so long as their women are reasonably comfortable or sedate themselves. That false sense of contentment is only temporary and leads to their own ruin or decay.
No Quarter Expected
I’ve since watched something similar happen to a friend not once but twice. It’s textbook, standard shit.
Cultivating these unrequited beta aspects of somebody’s character, if we did it on a mass scale, creates a society worth living in. It’s a civilized society where these things are most possible and it’s a truly worthwhile relationship where both parties regard each other this way and can full expect it to be reciprocated. It requires faith and trust, but we all know better. Our survival depends on knowing better, post sexual revolution. Women were never worthy of such trust and they’re entirely incapable of it. They were never capable of it. We were just supposed to think they were and cultivate the better aspects of our natures in order to be worthy of them.
The ugly truth of it is that women were never worthy of us.
Women’s sexuality doesn’t reward justice or goodness — if it did, reciprocity would be the norm and none of us would be confused about relational equity. Women reward not goodness, but strength. And strength is amoral, meaning it can be either just or unjust, good or bad. The guy with strength can either be the villain or the hero — it makes no difference to women. They can’t tell the difference and in truth don’t care anyway.
There is a set of the Red Pill that subscribe to what I’d call a ’scorched earth’ policy. It’s very difficult to reconcile the opportunistic basis of women’s Hypergamous natures with men’s hopeful, idealistic want for a love that’s independent from their performance burden. So the idea is again one of giving up. They say fuck it, women only respond to the most base selfishly individualistic, socio or psychopathic of men, so the personality they adopt is one that hammers his idealism flat and exaggerates his ’Dark Triad’ traits beyond all believability. This assumes those traits aren’t some act he’s adopted to present the appearance.
It’s almost a vengeful embrace of the most painful truths Red Pill awareness presents to us, and again I see why the scorched earth PUA (pickup artist) attitude would seem attractive. Women do in fact observably and predictably reward assholes and excessively dominant Alpha men with genuine desire and sexual enthusiasm. Agreeableness and humility in men has been associated with a negative predictor of sex partners.
The problem inherent in applying reciprocal solutions to gender relations is the belief that those relations are in any way improved by an equilibrium between both sexes’ interests. Solution: turn hard toward the asshole energy. Once men understand the rules of engagement with women and they know Game well enough to capitalize on it, why not capitalize on that mastery of it?
The dangers of this are twofold. First, it lacks real sustainability and eventually becomes a more sexualized version of MGTOW. Secondly, “accidents” happen. MGTOWs will warn us that any interaction with a woman bears a risk of sexual harassment or false rape claims, but for the scorched earth guy a planned unplanned-pregnancy on the part of a woman attempting to lock down the guy she’s sure is Alpha is far more likely to be his long term downfall. Emotional and provisioning liabilities for a child tends to pour cold water on the scorched earth guy.
It wouldn’t be inaccurate to say that women are philosophically, spiritually, and morally stunted. They have a limited capacity for adherence to higher ideals and this is why they don’t know or care what actual justice or goodness is. Like Schopenhauer said, they “mistake knowledge for its appearance.”
It took me a long time to be able to accept this. That is women’s true inferiority — and women are profoundly inferior. And I take no pleasure in recognizing that, as if I’m somehow touting the superiority of team-men. It’s awful, in fact. Dealing with it is the ultimate burden of performance for us as individual men, but also as a society. At some point we’re simply going to have to confront women’s moral inferiority. If we look at our institutions, the very same that are crumbling now all around us, we can see that previous generations of men already figured this out. We just forgot what they knew.
So what’s the answer? Is justice valuable for its own sake? All of us would probably on some level want to be able to say yes and argue the case, but I don’t know if I can do so convincingly.
I’m with you on this, part of me thinks “Fuck this. It can’t be like this.” But it is. I wish I had the answer.
There are men who attempt to redress the assumption that men feel some necessity to be someone they really aren’t. The Feminine Imperative is only too willing to exploit this self-doubt by labeling men as existential posers and their conventional masculinity is a ’mask’ — a false charade — they put on to hide the real vulnerability that lies beneath. Unfortunately many men accept this as gospel. It’s part of their Blue Pill upbringing and is an essential aspect of their feminine ’sensitivity training’ and gender loathing conditioning. When masculinity is only ever a mask men wear the only thing real about them is what real women tell them it should be.
What we don’t consider is the legitimacy of our need for strength, independence, stoicism, and yes, emotional restraint. That need to be bulwark against women’s emotionality, that need to wear psychological armor against the Red Pill realities of women’s visceral natures is legitimate and necessary. If a man’s vulnerability is ever valuable it’s because his display of it is so uncharacteristic of his normal impenetrability. Women’s contempt is palpable for the weak, vulnerability they expect from lesser child-men — and a commensurate expectation of him to just get that he needs to be strong. Women hate to have to explain to men how to be masculine.
That’s the inconsistency in women’s Hypergamous nature and the narrative of the Feminine Imperative’s messaging. Be sweet, open, vulnerable; it’s OK to cry, ask for help, be sick and weakened, we’re all equal and empathetic — all new books rules — but, Man Up, “what, you need your mommy?”, assert yourself, the asshole is sexier than you, where’s your self-discipline? — all old books expectations — but, your masculine identity is a mask you wear to hide the real you,……
I play many roles in the male life I lead today, and I’ve played many others in my past. I’m Rollo Tomassi in the manosphere, I’m a father to my daughter, a husband and lover to my wife, a brilliant artist and pragmatic builder of brands in my job, an adventure seeker when I’m on my snowmobile and a quiet contemplator of life and God when I’m fishing. All of those roles and more are as legitimate as I choose to make them. Do I have moments of uncertainty? Do I waiver in my resolve sometimes? Of course, but I don’t let that define me because I know there is no real strength in relating that. And strength is all that matters.
The Red Pill Balance
Red Pill awareness is both a blessing and a curse. The trick is balancing your Red Pill expectations with your previous Blue Pill idealism. It’s not a sin for you to want for an idealistic reality — that’s what sets us apart from women’s opportunism. You do yourself no favors in killing you idealistic, creative sense of wonderment of what could be. The trick is acknowledging that aspect of your male self.
If men did not hold heroism as a higher ideal, we wouldn’t be here. If women did not hold survival as a higher ideal, we wouldn’t be here.
Men’s idealism and idealistic concepts of love are the natural counterbalance to women’s pragmatic, Hypergamously rooted opportunism and opportunistic concepts of love and vice versa. Those differing concepts can be applied very unjustly and very cruelly, or very judiciously and honorably, but they are the reality of our existence.
Red Pill awareness isn’t just about understanding women’s innate natures and behaviors, it’s also understanding your own male nature and learning how it fits in to that new awareness and living in a new paradigm.
Is something like justice valuable for its own sake? I’d say so, but that concept of justice must be tempered (or enforced) in a Red Pill understanding of what to expect from women and men. Red Pill awareness doesn’t mean we should abandon our idealism or higher order aspirations, and it certainly doesn’t mean we should just accept our lot in women’s social frame because of it. It does mean we need to balance that idealism in as pragmatic a way with the realities of what the Red Pill shows us.
When Neil Strauss was writing The Game there was an interesting side topic he explored towards the end of the book. He became concerned that the guys who were learning PUA skills and experiencing such success with women of a caliber they’d never experienced before would turn into what he called “Social Robots.” The idea was one that these formerly Game-less guys would become Game automatons; mouthing the scripts, acting out the behaviors and meeting any countermanding behaviors or scripts from women with calculated and planned “if then” calibration contingencies.
The fear was that these Social Robots “weren’t themselves”, they were what Mystery Method, Real Social Dynamics, etc. were programing them to be and the relative success they experienced only reinforces that “robot-ness”. My experience with guys from this blog, SoSuave and other forums has been entirely different. If anything most men transitioning to a Red Pill mindset tenaciously cling to the ’Just Be Yourself and the right girl will come along’ mentality.
A strong resistance guys have to Red Pill awareness will always be the “faking it” and keeping it up effort they believe is necessary to perpetuate some nominal success with women. They don’t want to indefinitely be someone they’re not. It’s not genuine to them and either they feel slighted for having to be an acceptable character for women’s intimate attention or they come to the conclusion that it’s impossible to maintain ’the act’ indefinitely. Either way there’s a resentment that stems from needing to change themselves for a woman’s acceptance — who they truly are should be enough for the right woman.
I’ve written more than a few essays about this dynamic and the process of internalizing Red Pill awareness and Game, but what I want to explore here is the root idealism men retain and rely on when it comes to their unconditioned Game. A lot of what men invest their egos in with regard to the old set of books is rooted in men’s innate idealism. In truth this Game is very much the result of the conditioning of the Feminine Imperative, but the idealistic concept of love that men hold fast to is what makes that conditioning so effective. Thus, men’s unplugging becomes a conflict between conviction in old books idealism and new books opportunism that serves the feminine.
What’s Your Game?
I’ve written before that every man has a Game. No matter who the guy is, no matter what his culture or background, every guy has some concept of what he believes is the best, most appropriate, most effective way to approach, interact with and progress to intimacy with a woman. How effective that “Game” really is is subjective, but if you asked any guy you know how best to go about getting a girlfriend he’ll explain his Game to you.
Men in a Blue Pill mindset will likely parrot back what their feminine-primary conditioning had them internalize. Just Be Yourself, treat her with respect, don’t objectify her, don’t try to be someone you’re not, are just a few of the conventions you’ll get from a Blue Pill guy who is oblivious to the influence the Feminine Imperative has had on what he believes are his own ideas about how best to come to intimacy with a woman.
For the most part his beliefs in his methodology are really the deductive conclusions he’s made by listening to the advice women have told him about how best to “treat a woman” if he wants to get with her. A Blue Pill mindset is characterized by identifying with the feminine, so being false is equated with anything counter to that identification.
When you dissect it, that conditioned Blue Pill / Beta Game is dictated by the need for accurate evaluation of men’s Hypergamous potential for women. Anything that aids in women’s evaluating a man’s hypergamous potential to her is a tool for optimizing Hypergamy. The dynamics of social proof and preselection are essentially shortcuts women’s subconscious uses to consider men’s value to her. Likewise the emphasis Blue Pill Game places on men’s ’genuineness’ is a feminine conditioning that serves much the same purpose — better hypergamous evaluation. If men can be conditioned to be up front about who they are and what they are, if they internalize a mental point of origin that defers by default to feminine primacy, and if they can be socially expected to default to full and honest disclosure with women by just being themselves, this then makes a woman’s hypergamous evaluation of him that much more efficient.
This is where most Blue Pill men fail in their Game; who they are is no mystery, their deference and respect is worthless because it’s common and unmerited, and just who he is isn’t the character she wants him to play with her. So even in the best of Blue Pill circumstances, a man is still playing at who he believes will be acceptable to the feminine. His genuineness is what best identifies with the feminine. Blue Pill / Beta Game is really an even more insidious version
of social robotics; the script is internalized, the act is who he is. However, it’s important to consider that this genuineness is still rooted in his idealistic concept of a mutual and reciprocal love.
What we need to consider here is that Beta Game stems from old books idealism being repurposed by the Feminine Imperative for its own usefulness. The message to men is this; hold fast to your idealism, but only express it in ways that are useful in terms of Hypergamous opportunism.
As with the opportunism that Hypergamy predisposes women to, men’s idealistic concept of love stems from his want for genuineness and a want for what could be. I’d suggest that men’s idealism is a natural extension of the burden of performance. From a Beta perspective, one where women are his mental point of origin, that burden is an unfair yoke; one to be borne out of necessity and ideally cast off if he could change the game. To the Alpha who makes himself his mental point of origin, that burden is a challenge to be overcome and to strengthen oneself by. In either respect, both seek an idealistically better outcome than what that burden represents to them.
In and of itself, a man’s idealism can be a source of strength or his greatest weakness. And while unfettered Hypergamic opportunism has been responsible for many of women’s worst atrocities with men, in and of itself Hypergamy is the framework in which the human species has evolved. Neither is good nor bad, but become so in how they are considered and how they are applied.
Men’s idealistic concept of love is a buffer against women’s opportunistic concept of love. When that idealism is expressed from a Beta mindset, women’s opportunism dominates him and it’s debilitating. When it’s expressed from an Alpha mindset it supersedes her opportunism to the relationship’s benefit.
If you want to use Blue Valentine (the movie) as an example again, the guy in the relationship abdicates all authority and ambition over to his wife’s opportunism. He idealistically believes “love is all that matters” and has no greater ambition than to please her and ’just be himself’, because his conditioning has taught him that should be enough. His Beta conditioning convinced his idealism that his wife would share in that idealistic concept of love despite his absence of performance. Consequently, she despises him for it. She’s the defacto authority in the relationship and he slips into the subdominant (another child to care for) role rather than his ambitious Alpha idealism caring for her.
Now if a man’s mindset is Alpha, willful idealism propels him to greater ambition, and to prioritize his concept of love as the dominant, and places himself as his mental point of origin. When a woman accepts it, you can see how this leads to the conventional model of masculinity. His idealism is enforced by how he considers it and how he applies it — irrespective of his woman’s direct interests.
Men’s idealistic concept of love can be the worst debilitation in a man’s life when that idealistic nature is expressed from a supplicating Beta mentality. It will crush him when that idealism is all about a bill of goods he idealistically hopes a woman shares and will reciprocate with. This is predominantly how we experience idealism in our present cultural environment of feminized social primacy.
From an Alpha perspective that idealism is a necessary buffer against that same feminine opportunistic concept of love that would otherwise tear a Beta apart There was a time when men’s idealistic concept of love was respected above the opportunistic (Hypergamy based) concept of love.
Under the old set of books, when a man’s attractiveness (if not arousal) was based on his primary provisioning role, his love-idealism defined the intergender relationship. Thus, we still cling to notions of chivalry, traditional romance, conventional models of a love hierarchy, etc. These are old books ideals. The main reason I’ve always asserted that men are the True Romantics is due exactly to men’s idealism as it translates to their concept of love.
There was a time when men’s idealistic love concept pushed him to achievements that had social merit and were appreciated. Ovid, Shakespeare and the Beatles would not be the humanist icons they are if that idealism weren’t a driving force in men and society. Likewise, women’s, hypergamy-based concept of love, while cruel in its extremes, has nonetheless been a driving motivation for men’s idealistic love as well as a filter for sexual selection.
Under the new set of books, in a feminine-centric social order, the strengths of that male idealism, love honor and integrity are made to serve the purpose of the Feminine Imperative. Men’s idealistic love becomes a liability when he’s conditioned to believe that women share their same idealism, rather than hold to an opportunistic standard.
Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically. The Red Pill aware man realizes that men are the “romantics pretending to be realists” and women; vice versa.
What we have today is generations of men conditioned and feminized for identifying with the feminine. These are the generations of men who were conditioned to internalize the equalist lie that men and women are the same and all is relative.
From that equalist perspective it should follow that both sexes would share a mutual concept of love — this is the misunderstanding that leads men to expect their idealism to be reciprocated and thus leads to their exploitation and selfabuse.
A man’s idealism becomes his liability when he enters a woman’s opportunistic frame still believing they both share a mutual concept of love. Men and women are different. Both sexes are incentivized to differing concepts of love by way of differentiated experiences, outlooks, in-looks and necessities. This isn’t to say that both sexes cannot find a mutual, symbiotic reference for love between them, it’s that both begin from differing concepts. The problem arises when men are conditioned to believe women share that concept and that women’s conditions and experiences are the only valid definition of love.
And this then brings us back full circle to the confusion men experience when they attempt to balance the old books expectations of love with the new books, feminine-primary definition of love based on their own concepts of it. And all of this in the context of an equalism that neither acknowledges men’s experience as individuated from women, nor that love could be anything but what a woman’s experience necessitates it begin as and culminates as.
Over the years I’ve done my best to explain the differences between equalism and complementarity in Equalism and Masculinity (Preventive Medicine) and Positive Masculinity vs. Equalism (The Rational Male) My detailing the social dynamics and psychological influences men face in an equalist headspace has been a recurrent theme in many of my essays as well. On occasion I’ve made contrasting comparisons to Complementarity, but until the Red Pill Parenting series I hadn’t gone into the detail I’d like to.
As many readers have already mentioned in the stories they’ve shared, it is usually the father who pushes their children towards a higher standard of success. This is critical for the child to develop into a successful adult that excels in society.
It is usually the mother who coos and coddles their children. This is also necessary, as it’s vitally important for children to feel loved and accepted by their parents. This shows the necessity of the roles of both mothers and fathers in the development of children. If a child faces only criticism, it may have lasting effects on their self esteem. If a child is never criticized, they may never grow up into an adult.
The negative effects of too much coddling are so widespread, that we actually have sayings that illustrates it. “A ____ only a mother could love”
To understand the dynamic of complementarity first it’s important to consider the theology behind egalitarianism. I tend to use the term egalitarianism and equalism interchangeably, but I do so because I see them both as stemming from the same tree of blank-slate humanism. In the first Red Pill Parent section I made the following case against of a single parent, single gender upbringing of children:
Parenting should be as collaborative and as complementary a partnership as is reflected in the complementary relationship between a mother and father.
It’s the height of gender-supremacism to be so arrogantly self-convinced as to deliberately choose to birth a child and attempt to raise it into the contrived ideal of what that “parent” believes the other gender’s role ought to be.
This should put the institutionalized social engineering agenda of the Feminine Imperative into stark contrast for anyone considering intentional single parenthood. Now consider that sperm banks and feminine-specific fertility institutions have been part of normalized society for over 60 years and you can see that Hypergamy has dictated the course of parenting for some time now. This is the definition of social engineering.
The idea that a single mother is as co-effective as a father stems from the blank-slate belief that gender is a social construct rather than the physical and psychological manifestation of humans’ evolved mental firmware. While the foundations of this blank-slate theory originated with John Locke in in the 17th century it would take the anima/animus theories of Carl Jung to cement egalitarian equalism into the popular conscious with regard to gender relations.
Tabula Rasa (blank-slate) refers to the epistemological idea that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that therefore all knowledge comes from experience or perception. With the scientific and technical advancements of the 20th and 21st centuries we now have a better understanding of how the human brains of men and women operate from a far more advanced perspective than Jung or Locke ever had knowledge of. To be fair, Jung’s presupposition was one that humans possess innate potentials for both the masculine and feminine (thus the “get in touch with your feminine side” feminist trope for men), but those potentials derive from a presumed-accepted egalitarian base.
Yet still, from a larger social perspective, western(izing) culture still clings to the blank-slate models from Jung inspired by Locke and other tabula rasa thinkers of old.
Why is that? Why should it be that for all of our greater understanding of the biomechanics of the human body and its influences on behavior that the greater whole of society persists in the belief that men and women possess co-equal gender proficiencies based on an outdated, largely disproved Tabula Rasa model?
I would argue that the more obvious and practical model of evolved gender differences presents an uncomfortable proposition of biological determinism to people conditioned to believe gender is a nurture, not nature, proposition.
One of the key elements Jung introduced into western culture’s popular consciousness is the theory of anima and animus; that each individual, irrespective of sex, possesses greater or lesser degrees of association and manifested behavior of masculine and feminine psychological affiliations. In 2017, when you hear a 6 year old girl tell a 6 year old boy “you need to get in touch with your feminine side” in order to get him to comply with her wishes for him, you can begin to understand the scope to which this idea has been internalized into society’s collective consciousness.
So long and so thoroughly has this theory been repeated and perpetuated that we can scarcely trace back its origins — it’s simply taken as fact that men and women possess varying degrees of masculine and feminine energies. First and second wave feminism founded their psychological premises of gender on Jung’s ideas and so evolved the reasonings for a push towards the social feminization we know today. The seeds for the feminine-centrism we take for granted today were planted by a Swiss psychiatrist in the early 1900’s who really wanted to nail his female patients.
It’s important to consider Jung’s bi-gender individualities within the individual person in context with Locke’s Tabula Rasa theory because in tandem they constitute the basis of the egalitarian equalism which feminism and our present feminine-primary conditioning rely upon. To the modern egalitarian mind, inequalities in social dynamics, gender conflicts and economic disparities are the result of a deliberate (if not malicious) intent on the part of individuals to limit the presumably ’equal’ potentials of others. Social ills are the conflict between the selfish need of the one versus the equalized needs of the many.
There is very little headspace given to the material, innate, mechanics that make up the condition of the individual. Natural talent, innate ability, in-born predispositions, and physical and adaptive advantages stemming from evolved differences — whether a boon or a burden — are either disqualified or marginalized in an egalitarian mindset. The egalitarian, while very humanistic, leans almost entirely on the learned behavior model of human development. It’s Tabula Rasa, social constructivism, and the zeroed-out-at-birth content of the individual is filled by the influence of a society that is corrupted by those who don’t agree with an idealized egalitarian imperative.
However, a second model exists, that of Complementarity. Complementarity acknowledges the importance of the inborn differences between the sexes that egalitarianism marginalizes or outright denies exist while recognizing and embracing the strengths and weaknesses those differences represent.
There are many well documented, peer reviewed, scientific studies on the neurological differences between men and women’s brain structure. The easiest evidence of these differences is the cyclic nature of women’s sexuality (versus men’s always-on sexuality) and the neurological/hormonal influences on beliefs, behaviors and the rationalizations for those behaviors prompted by the innate drive to optimize Hypergamy.
Women experience negative emotions differently from men. The male brain evolved to seek out sex before food. And while our feminine-centric social order insists that, in the name of equalism, boys should be forced to learn in the same modality as that of girls, the science shows that boys brains are fundamentally wired to learn differently.
Yet, stark differences exist in the wiring of male and female brains. In a 2013 PNAC brain study, maps of neural circuitry show that on average women’s brains are highly connected across the left and right hemispheres, in contrast to men’s brains, where the connections were typically stronger between the front and back regions.
Ragini Verma, a neurological researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes, with men’s brains apparently wired more for perception and co-ordinated actions, and women’s for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking.
“If you look at functional studies, the left of the brain is more for logical thinking, the right of the brain is for more intuitive thinking. So if there’s a task that involves doing both of those things, it would seem that women are hardwired to do those better,” Verma said. “Women are better at intuitive thinking. Women are better at remembering things. When you talk, women are more emotionally involved — they will listen more.”
“I was surprised that it matched a lot of the stereotypes that we think we have in our heads. If I wanted to go to a chef or a hairstylist, they are mainly men.”
Ironically, in an egalitarian gender-neutral social order, a college professor publicly suggesting that men are more adept at mathematical thinking gets him fired from a lengthy tenure, but when a female researcher suggests the same she’s rewarded with professional accolades and grant money.
As you might expect, this study focuses primarily on the triumphant advantages of the female brain structure, but the studies themselves are revealing of the empirical evidence that men and women are not the functional equals that egalitarianism would insist we are.
The scans showed greater connectivity between the left and right sides of the brain in women, while the connections in men were mostly confined to individual hemispheres. The only region where men had more connections between the left and right sides of the brain was in the cerebellum, which plays a vital role in motor control. “If you want to learn how to ski, it’s the cerebellum that has to be strong,” Verma said. Details of the study are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“It’s quite striking how complementary the brains of women and men really are,” Ruben Gur, a co-author on the study, said in a statement. “Detailed connection maps of the brain will not only help us better understand the differences between how men and women think, but it will also give us more insight into the roots of neurological disorders, which are often sex-related.”
These distinct neurological differences between men and women are evidence of a an evolved intersexual complementarity that has manifested in both the personal and social dynamic of intergender relations for millennia. Conventional gender roles where there is a defined interdependence between the sexes is reflective of precisely the hardwired “stereotypes” researchers were so shocked to discover in men and women’s neural wiring.
Talents and Deficits
I’m often asked what the complementarian model looks like and it’s all too easy to not want to fall into the perceived trap in defining gender roles for men and women as they’ve been for centuries before our own era. Conventionally feminine women and masculine men are ’shocking’ stereotypes to a society steeped and conditioned to accept the egalitarian model as the norm. The simple fact is that equality is only defined by the conditions and environmental circumstance that make something equal or unequal. It is the task, the challenge, presented to either sex that makes inherent ability an advantage or a disadvantage.
Men and women are biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally and sexually different. This presents a very difficult proposition to an egalitarian mindset — men and women are simply better suited for, better wired, better enabled and more physically capable of succeeding in different tasks, different environments, different socialization, different mental or emotional demands as those circumstances dictate.
We simply evolved for a symbiosis between the sexes; the strengths of one compensate for the weakness of the other. Depending on the challenge presented, yes, this means that in our complementarity the differences between a man and a woman are going to be unequal. Much of the gender discord our present society suffers is due primarily to the intentional rejection of this evolved, symbiotic complementarity and its replacement with the fantasy of a blank-slate, uninfluenced, independently sustaining equalism. From the egalitarian mindset, the genders are presumed to be self-sustaining and independent, thus men and women simply have no need for the other. Or, in a feminine-primary social order, men become superfluous to women — the prime agent in society.
Though egalitarians will argue it does, complementarity doesn’t imply a universal superiority of one gender above the other. Rather, depending on the task at hand, one sex will be better predisposed to accomplishing it. Furthermore, this isn’t to say that the gender-specific deficiencies of one gender cannot be overcome by learning, practice and brain plasticity to achieve the same ends — it is to say that men and women’s brains, and the task-specific adaptations in them, predispose them to being better capable of achieving them.
I’ve outlined the process of how the Feminine Imperative conditions men to embrace their “feminine sides” and create generations of ready-made Betas. Most Blue Pill men will fail to identify with the more masculine specificity I’ve outlined above. It’s important to remember that learning to be better at non-gender specificity in an attempt to override this natural gender-wiring is not always a voluntary effort on the part of a person — especially when egalitarian Mom and Dad are in on the conditioning of their offspring.
When we see the recent popular social effort to embrace transsexual acceptance what we’re being asked to do is accept a learning process that countermands a male or female’s evolved neural architecture by presuming that gender is strictly a social construct. Brain plasticity is a marvel of evolution, but it is subject to external manipulation and the ideologies of those doing the manipulating.
Natural proclivities can be overridden by learning. There’s been a criticism of western public education’s push to force boys to learn like girls — we treat boys like they are defective girls. This is a prime example of not just a social engineering effort, but an effort in reprogramming boys to override their natural, neurological maleness. Thus, they become less effective girls because they are required to think, emote and react in way their brains never predisposed them to.
Likewise there is a popular push to encourage girls to adopt male modalities of thinking — thus, masculinizing women. In the hopes to make mathematics and technology fields more gender-equal egalitarian society will make special compensation and establish exclusive academic rewards for girls who teach themselves to override their intrinsic mental proficiencies and find intrinsic reward in adopting the proclivities of boys. Male sexism is always the presumed foil for women’s natural disinterest in conventionally male proclivities.
The egalitarian mindset simply denies the foundational truths that decades of evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology and anthropological research indicate about our present state of intersexual relations. In so doing, they reject a natural complementary model and embrace an ideologically egalitarian one. Their mistake is presuming that evo-psych necessitates a biological determinism and thereby absolves an individual of personal responsibility for their behavior. It does not, but it does provide a framework that more accurately describes the natural mental state, sexual strategies and social environment in which men find themselves with women.
When you hear or read the trope that “women are just as sexual as men” what’s being related to you is founded in the same egalitarian root that teaches us to believe that “women are just as good at fathering as any man”. All are equal, but men’s sexuality seems like a boon that egalitarian women would like to adopt. Thus, if a conventionally male proclivity seems like an advantage, egalitarianism will fluidly redefine what is equal and what is not according to what benefits the Feminine Imperative best — or at least perceptively so.
One reason egalitarianism is an appealing cover story for feminism is because its primary goal is leveling the sexual competition playing field for all women to optimize Hypergamy at the expense of men’s own sexual strategy interests. If all is equal, if men’s basic biological impulses are reduced to shamed criminality or an illness, if women can expect men to be aroused by their perceived value of their self-defined self-worth, then all material and physiological deficits can be effectively dismissed.
Under the guise of egalitarianism, feminism has effected feminine social dominance for over half a century now.
Likewise egalitarianism is appealing to evo-psych detractors because a belief in egalitarianism should mean that men can escape their burden of performance.
The presumption is that if the more intrinsic, ephemeral aspects of men’s higher-order thinking and personal worth is appreciated as a sexual attraction, then all deficiencies in meeting his naturalistic burden of performance can be rescinded. Game, physique, personality, status, success, achievement, essentially all of the most conventional aspects of masculinity that make a man an attractive mate choice are superseded by his equalist belief system. And this is sold to him as the new order upon which women should find him attractive. Men adopt equalism because it presumably excuses him from having to perform for a woman’s intimate acceptance.
Complementarity is the evolved interdependence between the sexes and it’s been a responsible element of how the human race has risen to be the apex species on this planet, but it doesn’t ensure an optimal breeding schedule for either sex. So long as men and women are mired in a denial of the evolved psychological differences between the sexes, their only alternative is to embrace egalitarianism.
The reason feminism hates the Red Pill — in its concrete sense — is because it more accurately predicts human behavior than feminism and equalism have ever been capable of. A return to a true complementarity model for the sexes is part of a Red Pill awareness. Adopting this model is key to Game and successful interacting with the opposite sex.
The Red Pill Lens
One of the results of becoming Red Pill aware is a larger, meta “awareness” of the feminine centric social order we live in today. On this side of the Red Pill, and a bigger understanding of intersexual dynamics, it’s almost routine for me now to filter what’s presented to me in popular media, social doctrine or even casual conversation through a Red Pill Lens.
Whether it’s the latest pop hit lyrics of a song my daughter is listening to in the bathroom, the latest movie or book, or just listening to someone rattle off an old Blue Pill trope in casual conversation, my sensitivity to how thoroughly immersed in feminine-centric narratives our (western) society has become is overwhelming.
I’ve had guys in the manosphere joke with me that having this ’lens’ is like having the special glasses that let you see the alien/zombies and propaganda in the campy 80s movie They Live. While I get a laugh out of this I also have to think that those glasses never really come off. So when the holiday season comes around this awareness manifests itself more for me since I’m generally reacquainting myself with family and friends who are themselves immersed in this Matrix and don’t realize they’re mouthing the meme’s and social focus of a feminine centric order.
I think it’s kind of ironic that during the holidays we’re expected to lock horns with our relatives over the latest social generational, political or ideological differences, yet these all take place in a common, feminized social narrative. Your uncle may not agree with you politically, but he’ll slap you on the back while you both drink a beer and say, “Women ’eh? I guess we’ll never figure ’em out” and expect you to have some common agreement with him in spite of those differences.
I bring this up here because it was due to this seasonal Red Pill awareness that I was better prepared to appreciate the holiday classic, It’s a Wonderful Life from a Red Pill perspective.
I’d just returned from a work trip the week before Christmas and my daughter informed me that the movie was being shown in our local metroplex theater on Christmas eve. Of course, I’d seen it before on TV with all the intermittent commercials, and remembered how tedious I thought it was (it’s a pretty long movie for 1946), but she insisted and I wanted to do something Christmas-ish with the family. I’ve never watched the movie start to finish, and when I did pick up scenes on TV during Christmas time back in the day, it was long before I had any Red Pill inclination.
Needless to say I was shocked (pleasantly) by how thoroughly ’Red Pill’ I found it. If you want to see what a pre-sexual revolution gender dynamic is like, this is your movie. Yes, it’s idyllic, but its idealism is founded in a social order, an ’old books’ social order, that reveals what our new feminine-primary social order is today. It shows you what we’ve become, but unfortunately the greater whole of our contemporary society lack the special glasses to really appreciate this distinction.
Some notable scenes were:
· George Bailey, the cab driver Ernie and the cop Bert ogle the sexy Violet Bick after she flirts with George and just flows down a busy street to be checked out all the more by every man on the street. In modern terms these men are all guilty of sexual harassment, but in 1928 (the film’s beginning) and viewed from a 1946 perspective of that time, there is nothing harassing about it. It’s de rigueur, and she enjoys the attention. Had this scene been considered in our era the catcalls would be nothing short of sexual harassment worthy of protesting the movie.
· The family interaction between George, his brother Harry, and their father with Ma Bailey just prior to Harry’s graduation party; there is matronly deference to their mother, but both of the boys are being boys and there is no expectation for them to ’settle down’. Both the brothers are naturally and effortlessly, cocky & funny with the maid and their mother. This isn’t a forced attitude, it comes off as both positively masculine and fun at the same time. Also, their father is the respected head of the household, both by virtue of his social status and integrity as well as his position as ’father’. Needless to say, he’s never ridiculed as the buffoon he’d be portrayed as on a post-sexual revolution social order, and in fact dispenses a wisdom that benefits George later in life.
· After the graduation party George and Mary walk home in the odd dry clothes they were able to find after having fallen into the school pool. Mary is in a bathrobe and George in a football outfit. This flirtation and interaction is perhaps one of the best examples I can think of as an old order form of
Game. George is cocky, funny, confident, ambitious, playfully teasing and yet still conscious of Mary’s perception of him as he effortlessly delivers a positive masculine vibe. Again, it’s idyllic, and men being the true romantics will want to believe such receptivity could actually take place without any confusion of mixed signals with an idealized, Quality Woman woman like Mary, but it’s the atmosphere and the attitude of expecting Mary to respond to George’s delivery that belies the era this scene and story was written in. Nothing seems forced at all, and we don’t expect Mary to match George’s masculine Game with one of her own feminine-empowered forms of Game. She doesn’t try to ’one-up’ George or prove her moxie by acting like a man herself as we’d expect from a feminized Hollywood script today. There is no thought of making Mary into the Strong Independent Woman® trope, but she exemplifies strength in her role as a woman in deferring to her man and a devoted mother. From a Red Pill perspective, we want a gal like Mary to exist, but you wont find her in 2017.
These were just a few scenes I thought stood out, but this film is an essay in the old order social structure a lot of well meaning Red Pill advocates would like to believe is still a possibility today.
I’m often asked the question whether an Alpha man could also be a provider. A lot of criticism of the manosphere is that Alpha men are being painted as caricatures of cads, assholes and bad boy players women want to bang as part of their Hypergamous mating protocol. Betas are the opposite of this; good for provisioning only — cuckolds to be used for parental investment with only a perfunctory servicing of mediocre ’duty’ sex as an intermittent reward to keep him pulling the cart. Thus, ’Beta Provider’ becomes an easy label for those men.
If there are caricatures of Alpha and Beta being drawn I’d suggest this is due more to women and their comfort with an embrace of Open Hypergamy and men deductively modeling their gender expectations as a result. That said, the criticism is not wrong. It is entirely possible for an archetypal Alpha Man to be an upstanding member of society, provide for his family and be well respected both by his peers and his wife (or the women in his life). The character of George Bailey is an old order example of exactly this kind of man.
In our era women have an unprecedented facility for providing for their own security needs, but that doesn’t eliminate the root level, emotional need for optimizing Hypergamy with a man who is an Alpha provider. For the most part women simply don’t expect to find this optimization in the same man. There are men they want to fuck and men they want to consolidate monogamy with, and finding this satisfaction in the same man is so rare, so unexpected and so unlooked for that his character becomes unbelievable. The George Bailey of 1928 is an unbelievable character in 2017.
As I’ve illustrated in many a prior essay, Alpha is a state of mind, not a demographic. Just because the Alpha energy of an older order scoundrel will get him laid without trying doesn’t preempt a woman from being aroused by, and attracted to a George Bailey archetype. Context is king of course, but what matters is that self-interested Alpha mindset. The dialog between George and Mary when they’re first getting together is textbook pickup artist Cocky & Funny Game, with a natural, unforced Amused Mastery on George’s part.
While many a convicted felon possesses an Alpha mindset, and receives women’s sexual interests as a result of it, I’d still encourage men to use that Alpha energy to a positive, self-benefiting effect. It is entirely possible to direct an Alpha energy in a pro-social manner. In this era, the natural default is to play the Sigma, Lone Wolf role with respect to how we apply our Red Pill awareness. Adopting the role of the anti-hero is easy when we see how effective Dark Triad personality traits trigger women’s arousal and attraction.
That said, I would also offer that a positive Alpha mindset can still be effective insofar as a man is diligent in maintaining himself as his mental point of origin.
So now the questions I’ll put to you is what Red Pill observations do you find unignorable in contemporary society? It’s always going to be dangerous to attempt to make others aware of this perception, but do you try anyway?
Do you see examples of the old order as I have in It’s a Wonderful Life? Understanding the idealisms inherent in it, what other examples of this old order to you know? What media or aspects of popular culture do you see your old Blue Pill conditioning manifested in? Popular music is an easy example, but are you sensitive to more the more subtle way this condition still persists even after you’re become Red Pill aware?
Alpha providers, while being an idealistic character, can exist, but are they realistic? I’d propose that embodying this role has become one of being seen too readily as a Beta by women due to the unbelievability of it. Does men’s romantic nature predispose them to thinking they can adequately fulfill this role? Does that romanticism expect women to be receptive and appreciative of it? Is that expectation based on investing in Relational Equity?
Myth of the ’Good’ Guy
For as often as I’ve made my best attempts to define what I believe constitutes feminine Hypergamy in all my writing, it seems that critics of the Red Pill, and even newer, well-meaning Red Pill advocates, are beginning to think of Hypergamy as some convenient trope that manosphereans refer to when they want to explain away some annoyingly female trait.
Is she shit testing you? Must be Hypergamy. She broke a nail? Must be Hypergamy.
There is a very real want for understanding things in as simplistic a solution as possible, but feminine Hypergamy isn’t a dynamic that lends itself to a simple definitions. One of the reasons the early proponents of PUA ran into issues with legitimizing their ideas was due to so many of their ’students’ seeking out easily digestible answers to solve their ’girl problems’. As I laid out in Dream Girls and Children with Dynamite from the first book, these guys wanted the TL;DR (too long; didn’t read) footnote version of what to do in order to get to the silver bullet, magic formula part of the lesson to either get with their dream girl or “start fucking hot bitches”.
It is exactly this mentality that’s now causing such frustration in understanding Hypergamy and seeing how it works, not just in individual women’s personal decisions, but as a societally influencing force of the Feminine Imperative. Hypergamy is not a “math is hard” dynamic, but because it requires a comprehensive (and evolving) understanding it seems like the go-to throwaway answer to women’s behaviors and mental schema to men (usually new to the Red Pill) without the patience to really invest themselves into grasping it.
I’ve defined Hypergamy so often on my blog that if you search the term “hypergamy” in Google, the Rational Male blog is the number two return below the Wikipedia definition. As I wrote my way through the second volume of the Rational Male book I found that a concise understanding of feminine Hypergamy is vital to grasping so much of the social and psychological dynamics that are a result of it. Every PUA technique, every common frustration MGTOW experience, and every gender-biased social injustice MRAs set themselves against, all find their roots in feminine Hypergamy, women’s pluralistic sexual strategy and the social and legal efforts employed to ensure maximal feminine social primacy in optimizing Hypergamy.
Looks vs. Character (Game)
In many of my blog posts, the topic of discussion in the comment threads eventually finds its way back to the basics of Looks versus Character (or Game, depending on your perspective of how learning affects character). Only the discussions over what constitutes ’Alpha’ in a man are so contentious as the importance with which women prioritize physical arousal in men.
First and foremost it’s important to understand the part that women’s biologies play in influencing Hypergamy and how women’s biology is more or less the point of origin for how they conduct their sexual strategy. To review, I’ll ask that readers refer to the first chapter in my second book, Preventive Medicine. Your Friend Menstruation, but the basis of women’s sexual pluralism is found in the natural attraction predispositions that women experience as a result of (healthy) ovulation. Also known as ovulatory shift.
In her up cycle (proliferative) phase of ovulation, women are psychologically and behaviorally motivated to prioritize physical arousal with more masculinized men above all other breeding considerations. In her down cycle (post-ovulation, luteal phase) women are similarly motivated to prioritize comfort, rapport, and long term security to ensure parental investment and benefit survival.
What I’ve described here, in as brief a fashion, is the foundation of Ovulatory Shift. There exists over a decade’s worth of experimental psychological and biological evidence supporting this theory. Due to biological and psychological influence, women become subliminally predisposed to behaviors which maximize fertility odds with the best available breeding opportunity, and maximize the best potential for long term provisioning and parental investment.
Whether this behavior is manifested in a preference for more masculinized male faces and body type, greater ornamentation and lower vocal intonation for women during ovulation, or a predisposition for more comforting, nurturing and supportive male characteristics during her luteal phase, the end result is optimizing Hypergamy, and ultimately reproduction. From an evolutionary standpoint this is the basis of women’s dualistic sexual strategy euphemistically referred to as Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks in the manosphere.
For further reading on Ovulatory Shift, see the research of Martie Haselton.
Arousal vs. Attraction
Females only receive two quantities of evolutionary value from males — direct benefits (observed in long-term mating, with implications for the survival of offspring), and genetic benefits (observed through indications of physical attractiveness in her mate). And since females can receive genetic benefits outside of a monogamous social contract or marriage (i.e. through extra-paired sexual encounters), and no longer need rely upon mates for the survival of their offspring, there is no pressure for them to compromise on holding out for an unlikely (long-term) fantasy partner.
This current social pattern increases male variance in mating success, because female sexual choices always tend towards small male breeding populations (narrow range of male phenotypes), while male ’preferences’ are inclusive of a broad range in female variance.
One of the main contentions this understanding kind of needles with is that, as described, modern conveniences of female social empowerment (actual or imagined) discounts the need for Hypergamic assurances of long term security. I’m not so willing to accept an overall disregard for the provisioning aspect (Beta Bucks) — you’re not going to reprogram millennia of psychologically evolved firmware overnight — but in discounting this need, the characteristics for which women would seek out a male exemplifying the best long-term security are deemphasized if not unconsidered entirely.
If you read through any woman’s online dating profile you undoubtedly come across some variation of what’s described as the “483 bullet point checklist” of stated prerequisites a man must possess in order for her to consider him a viable candidate for her intimacy. While I don’t think there are quite that many items on the checklist, you’ll find a host of common-theme personal qualities a guy has to have in order to “be her boyfriend” — confident (above all), humorous, kind, intelligent, creative, decisive, sensitive, respectful, spiritual, patient,..
The point is that all of these characteristics that women list as being ’attractive’ have absolutely no bearing on how sexually, physically, ’arousing’ a woman finds a man. While Game and personality can certainly accentuate arousal, all of these esoteric personal qualities have no intrinsic “’vagina tingle” value if a man isn’t an arousal prospect to begin with.
The confusion that most Beta men make is presuming that what women list as being necessarily ’attractive’ is what makes him ’arousing’. So when he models himself (often over the course of a lifetime) to personally identify with this checklist of attractive prerequisites he’s often frustrated and angered when all of that personal development makes for little difference when a woman opts to regularly fuck men of a better physical standard. It’s duplicity of a sort, but it is also a strategy of deliberate confusion.
It may not be a woman’s conscious plan, but this deliberate confusion makes the best pragmatic sense to effect an optimized Hypergamy. Remember that Hypergamy is not just Alpha Fucks, it’s also Beta Bucks … if a bit delayed in her life in order to maximize Alpha Fucks. So when a woman describes what she finds “attractive” in a man this list will include all of the above bullet point characteristics because they “sound right” — because they shine her in the best light, yes, but also because in being so concerned she imputes the idea that she’s following the ’right’ plan of looking for a good man to have a future with, and raise kids with. That is the impression we are supposed to be left with in spite of all the behavioral evidence that tells us the real, evolved, reasons for those behaviors.
Then and Now
This is going to sound like I’m glossing myself, but bear with me — I can remember how effortless sex used to be for me when I was in my 20’s. I had sex outdoors, in cars, hotel rooms, in hot tubs, in the steam room of an all women’s gym (after hours), I even got after it with a girlfriend in the balcony of a church in Los Angeles once (again after hours, no one around, only for convenience I assure you). Mostly I didn’t have a dime to my name, but I still had one of two fuck-buddies who would literally come to the bedroom window of my studio to fuck me in the morning once or twice a week before I went off to the community college I was going to.
The point is there was no pretense of ’attraction’ being anything other than a girl and I enjoying ourselves then. There was no ’checklist’ of acceptable prequalifications for intimacy. The providership necessity that dictates a need for longterm consideration wasn’t even an afterthought; in other words, the Beta Bucks / Character / Integrity aspect of Hypergamy that women publicly claim is a deal breaker for real intimacy was prioritized far below Alpha Fucks sexual urgency.
You can say these were just the types of girls I was getting with at the time, but courtesy of social media, I assure you, you would think these women would never have had that capacity now. They were all “sooo different when they were in college.”
It’s not until after a woman’s Epiphany Phase at around the time she becomes aware of her SMV decline that she begins to consider making that Beta Bucks checklist any kind of prerequisite for sex and intimate partnering. However, this epiphany isn’t the sudden revelation women would like men to believe it is.
For the life of me I can’t remember where I read the link, but I was reading a ’Dear Abby’ sort of advice seeking article from a young girl (early 20’s) who was exasperated over finding the “perfect guy” only she couldn’t ’get with him now’. Her words were something like “He’s so great, awesome personality, funny, in love with me, supportive, etc., but I wish I could freeze him in time so he’d be the same guy and waiting for me when I turn 29 or 30.”
On some level of consciousness, like most women, she knows the dictates of what her own Hypergamy is predisposing her to. She knows she’ll eventually need that ’perfect’ supportive, in-love guy to live out the long-term aspect of her Hypergamy with,…after she’s exhausted her short term breeding potential with men who better embody the Alpha Fucks dictates of her Hypergamy.
Arousal Preparation vs. Provisioning Preparation
The balance between women’s short term breeding impulse and the long term provisioning needs Hypergamy predisposes them to now strongly favors the Alpha sex side of that optimization. We see this realization in otherwise high status, high functioning men today. The emphasis on becoming an attractive mate is no longer the old books preoccupation with status and success, but men pursuing an optimal physique.
In Open Hypergamy I made a case for the aspect of an ’old order’ of Beta Provisioning being a previously ’attractive’ element for women’s determining long term suitability with a man, and that this old order was being replaced with other, extrinsic means of ensuring a woman’s security needs. Whether by social funding, or by indenturing men to provide for women’s wellbeing through other social conventions (alimony, child support) the effect is an imbalance between the dual nature of women’s sexual strategy.
However, I also feel it goes beyond just the social element now. Men are still confused by a feminine conditioning that wants to ’freeze’ him in time in order to be the dutiful ’perfect’ guy, ready to be thawed out and ready to serve the Feminine Imperative at a woman’s convenience.
While it’s still convenient, a man must be conditioned to confuse him that ’attraction’ qualities are ’arousal’ qualities in order to have him ready to be ’perfect’ at his appointed time — and it is women who need to believe for themselves that this is what they think should be true.
The Myth of the ’Good’ Guy
In the beginning of one of my earliest essays, Schedules of Mating, I briefly refer to the ideally balanced guy who would satisfy the optimization purpose of women’s Hypergamy:
There are methods and social contrivances women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male’s genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she’s capable of attracting. Ideally the best Man should exemplify both, but rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by an innate need for security, the feminine as a whole had to develop social conventions and methodologies (which change as her environment and personal conditions do) to effect this.
There is a dichotomy that exists for men in this respect, which really has no parallel for women.
I am aware of certain (formerly Red Pill) writers who promote the archetype of a ’Good’ guy as some role for men to ideally aspire to. The ’Alpha Cad’ archetype must necessarily become the ’douchebag’ caricature of an overtly distasteful hyper-masculinity (for men less able to embody it) and yet, the opposite caricature of the doormat, supplicating ’Beta Dad’ is equally distasteful and certainly untenable when we consider that ’attractive’ qualities are never necessarily ’arousing’ qualities.
So the archetype of the ’Good’ guy is offered up as some sort of livable, compromised ideal. If men could aspire to embody the best of the Alpha and temper that with what they define themselves as the best of the Beta, well then he’d be the ’perfect’ catch for any woman of course.
The problem with this ’Good Guy’, best of both men, myth is not because men can’t or wouldn’t want to try to balance those halves to accommodate women’s Hypergamy for them, but simply because women neither want nor expect that balance in the same man to begin with. We’ve reached a point in our socio-sexual environment where not only do women not need, or need less, the old order ’good provider’ they also compartmentalize men into sets of Alpha and Beta. The guy they want to fuck and the guy they see as “relationship material”.
The man who rides the cusp of both influences isn’t believable.
It comes back to the Just Get It principle for women — any guy who needs to make a concerned effort to become what he expects women will want from him to be ’the perfect guy’ doesn’t get it. They want Mr. Perfect because that is who he already is, without having to be told, without making a conscious effort.
I mentioned above that there really is no parallel for this in women (the Madonna / Whore dichotomy not withstanding), but allow me to point out that there is no concerted parallel social effort on the part of women in which women prompt each other to become a ’Good Girl’ in order to satisfy the ideals of men. If anything a hostile opposite resistance to this is most true — women are conditioned never to do anything to better please a man. Yes, they do so anyway, but this is in spite of that conditioning.
Women neither expect nor want a ’Good Guy’ because he’s not believable, and his genuineness is always doubtable. That may sound jaded, but throw away any idea of being a ’Good Guy’ balance of Alpha and Beta, because the Beta side of ’good’ is so reinforced and common in men that it’s become the default template for women’s perception of you.
There is no mid point that is sustainable, there is only the man whose genuine concern is first for himself, the man who prepares and provisions for himself, the man who maintains Frame to the point of arrogance because that’s who he is and what he genuinely merits. There is only the Man who improves his circumstance for his own benefit, and then, by association and merit, the benefit of those whom he loves and befriends. That’s the Man who Just Gets It.
Up the Alpha
I’ve been taken to task about this assertion in the past. The idea that the ’Good Guy’, the guy who is the perfect balance of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks is an unsustainable myth always rubs guys the wrong way. Particularly the guys who’ve taken to heart that they can mold themselves into this feminine-fantasy ideal.
Do you disagree that the best option for a woman is a man with both alpha and beta traits?
That is to say, wouldn’t a man with great genes/physicality/confidence as well as financial stability and kindness be the “perfect man” for a woman?
Wouldn’t that satisfy both her short term and long term mating strategies?
I get the sense that it is in absence of men that have both traits that women seek out these different qualities in separate men under short and long term circumstances.
This want for the perfect amalgam of hot Alpha and parentally invested Beta is literally hard-coded into women’s brains and endocrine system. From the most rudimentary level, the conflict that Hypergamy instills in women is due to this want of fusing together the arousing Alpha with the attractive Beta in the same man. Thus was women’s pluralistic sexual strategy evolved.
The problem that confounds Hypergamy is that the arousing Alpha and the attractive Beta rarely exist in the same male, at the same time, yet also at the most opportune time for women to appreciate and capitalize on it. By this I mean that as women proceed through their peak SMV years, they place higher priorities and higher mating value upon predominately Alpha traits. These are the ’fuck me now’ Party Years, and Alpha seed far out-values Beta need.
As I wrote in Schedules of Mating, on a macro level this translates into a proactive form of cuckoldry. Even if it doesn’t result in a pregnancy, the latent urgency in a woman’s peak is to ’get the seed first, find the provider later’ (i.e. protracted cuckoldry).
The fantasy for women of course is to ’tame the savage Alpha’ and convert him into a parentally invested partner by encouraging Beta traits in him as he matures, and hopefully prospers. This is a prime fantasy in most romance literature; the otherwise unmemorable woman becomes the object of an untamed Alpha wild-man for whom she is his only source of civilizing.
Many a thwarted single mommy knows the unfortunate outcome of attempting to ’fix’ their Bad Boy Alpha into the Good Dad Father, but this is the emphasis, assuming a woman pauses long enough to invest in one particular Alpha during her peak years. The base strategy is to maintain that hot Alpha arousal, while developing him into a more attractive Beta provider while still sustaining that Alpha sexual urgency.
As a woman approaches the downturn of her SMV, that hypergamic urgency shifts to favor Beta providership traits as the prospect of long term security alters the priorities of her Hypergamy. Now the script changes to one favoring the nice, dependable, and necessarily resourceful man with all the attractive features she needs for a commitment to long term security. It’s not that she doesn’t still become aroused by the physicality and charisma of a predominately Alpha male (particularly in her proliferate menstrual phase), but she is more aware of the balance between her lessened ability to attract that man (post-Wall) and the need to pair-bond with a man who can provide for her and her offspring. Women will mitigate this arousal-attraction imbalance with their own forms of pornography or self-initialized rationalization about their ’deeper maturity’, but in essence the doubt that Hypergamy seeds in them has to be held in check either through self-repression or by dread of loss.
There is also the fantasy for women in this instance to hope that their predominately Beta partner will “Man Up”, Just Get It on his own and develop more arousing Alpha traits as he matures. The base strategy here is to maintain the sweet Beta provider attraction, while developing him into a more arousing Alpha as her needs demand.
Beta with a Side of Alpha
To compound this confusion we also have to bear in mind that women themselves believe, or want to believe that this perfect balance of man is something within the real of possibility for them.
They want to believe that the true ’Manicorn’ can exist. A “greater Beta with fries” seem like something that might quell a woman’s innate doubt about her optimizing Hypergamy with a man.
Women say they want this balance, in spite of the unbelievability of it, but they don’t know what they’re praying for. Women who endlessly kvetch about the ’overly sensitive men’ they committed to probably wished for the same thing once. In fact I’d argue that the majority of married men now looking to the manosphere for insight also believed once that they were Greater Betas with a side of Alpha.
These are women in a stage of life when the Beta providership male makes far better practical sense to pair off with. Around her Epiphany Phase, women’s definition of attraction and ’a good relationship’ is biased by the personal conditions of her present SMP valuation. She understands this from her age, SMV and necessity perspective, but this undoubtedly wasn’t her perspective when she was in the prime of her SMV years.
This then is the ’build-a-better-beta’ paradox. The overarching point is to create a more acceptable man for a female defined goal, not to truly empower any man. There is no feminine opposite to this; there is no counter effort to make women more acceptable to men — in fact this is actively resisted and cast as a form of slavish subservience. This is the extent of the feminine reality; it’s so instaurating that men, with the aid of “concerned women”, will spend lifetimes seeking ways to better qualify themselves for feminine approval. That’s the better Beta they hope to create. One who will Man-Up and be the Alpha as situations and use would warrant, but Beta enough to be subservient to the Feminine Imperative. They seek a man to be proud of, one who’s association reflects a statement of their own quality, yet one they still have implicit control over.
Whether their reasonings are based on morals, entitlements or some ideal of being ’honor bound’ in nature, the end result is still feminine primacy. The sales pitch is one of manning up to benefit yourself, but the latent purpose is one of better qualifying for normalized feminine acceptance. What they cannot reconcile is that the same benefits that are inherent in becoming more Alpha (however you choose to define that) are the same traits that threaten his necessary position of subservience as a Beta.
This is precisely why ’real’ Game, and truly unplugging, cannot be sanitized. In its truest sense Game cannot serve men and women. This social element wants to keep you plugged in; more Alpha, more confidence, more awareness, is a threat to fem-centrism. “It’s great that all this Game stuff has finally got you standing up for yourself, but remember who’s got the vagina. Remember who makes the rules.”
The problem I see with the approaches in balancing Alpha with Beta is that they begin from a fem-centric origin. By and large, the men seeking advice about how to better their lot with women are Beta men who’ve been red-pill enlightened to the fact that they need to up the Alpha — presuming they had an Alpha element to start.
Women who still want a degree of control simply want a Beta, who’s an Alpha at a woman’s convenience. But there is no ’side of Alpha’.
The conflict most women don’t grasp is that Alpha demands dominance, and this doesn’t fit very well with the Feminine Imperative’s false religion of equalism. In any relationship one partner is the dominant personality, the other the submissive. Even homosexual couples recognize this order, but the women and men of the feminine Matrix resist this with the delusion of an equalist utopia amongst the genders.
So when I read about a desire for achieving some balance of Alpha to Beta traits in the ’perfect man’ I realize that this is an extension of this feminine-primary equalist want for balance amongst the genders; which really equates to women wanting a perfected security.
In their need for control (dominance) they want hypergamy definitively settled in the perfect man, for the perfect occasion, and at every stage of their SMV maturation. Men, mangina sympathizers or otherwise, are simply the means to that end. That end may be with the perfect husband, or via cuckolding or through fem-side pornography (romance or divorce porn), or any other methodology women’s sexual pluralism will help her invent.
I’ve written this before, but it bears repeating: for men wanting to change their lives and relationships, working up from Beta to Alpha is a far tougher row to hoe than tempering Alpha dominance with a personalized touch of Beta. How many of the simpering, socially conditioned, Betatized men that women seethe about would make for believable Alphas once they had a Red Pill epiphany? It is precisely because of this impressionistic, binary solipsism that women will never be happy with ’fixing’ their Beta. This is why he has to Just Get It on his own.
It is a far better proposition to impress a woman with an organic Alpha dominance — Alpha can only be a man’s dominant personality of origin. There is no Beta with a side of Alpha because that side of Alpha is never believable when your overall perception is one of being Beta to begin with.
This is why I stress Alpha mindset above all else. It’s easy and endearing to ’reveal’ a flash of Beta sensitivity when a woman perceives you as predominantly Alpha. If your personality is predominantly Beta, any sporadic flashes of Alpha will seem like emotional tantrums at best, character flaws at worst.
Women may love the Beta, but they only respect the Alpha.
The Perfect Man
When we consider the biological and behavioral influences of women’s Ovulatory Shift dynamic we begin to see how this manifests itself on an individual and societal level as Hypergamy — or simply put in the vernacular of the Manosphere, the Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks sexual strategies of women. For more information on this topic I’ll again suggest my second book The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine wherein I detail this more fully.
With both an individual and social grasp of how Hypergamy influences women, the most deductive solution to men’s breeding and long term relationship strategy (presuming you go that route) is a want to embody both of these disparate aspects of women’s sexual strategy. Deductively it seem like the best plan; become the best of either side of Hypergamy and women will think you’re the perfect guy, right? This is really a fool’s errand, but it’s important that we explore this foolish errand in order to better understand why it is so.
So, then how would someone reconcile the two characteristics… Is there some sort of balance of Alpha and Beta traits? Should we show Alpha and Beta traits on different times of the month according to the influence of women’s Ovulatory Shift needs? In strict Game terms as well as in a marriage or long-term relationship it’s always an advantage to calibrate for a woman’s behavioral fluctuation per their ovulatory shift cycle, even if it’s only with a woman you happen to work with. But in a larger scope, the key to answering this question is found in how women perceive attraction versus how they feel when sexually aroused. I think where most Beta men lose the trail is in the belief that Beta attraction is (or should be) synonymous with Alpha arousal. Each of these concepts is representative of a different facet of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy — Alpha seed, Beta need. Women’s sexual imperatives can be defined by the degree to which her short term mating strategy can be justified, or offset, by her long term mating strategy. And even this is modified by what her most pressing needs may be at the various stages of her maturity and how she prioritizes them.
For women, and most plugged-in men, what I’m illuminating here probably seems like an effort in semantics, but it’s important to make a separation between what conditions and cues a woman is sexually aroused by and what traits make for her overall attraction for a man.
Attraction is not Arousal
Women love to be asked about what they look for in a man. It’s kind of like imagining what you’ll do with all your lottery winnings after you buy a quickpick — you want the mansion and the yacht, but, of course, you’ll also give some to charity so as not to seem like money could fundamentally change you into a greedy prick. Women’s hind-brains understand the necessity to rationalize that their most self-indulgent wants need to be tempered with some measured appearance of prudence. This is a kind of meta-scale Anti-Slut Defense. But while ASD is an individual private dynamic, on a socialized, public scale this translates into women presenting a perception of judiciousness in explaining what they find “attractive” in a man — without being burdened with the perception of ’shallowness’ for what they find arousing in a man.
You also have to consider that when women list their prerequisites for their ideal man, they are approaching this question from the perspective of whom they would like to pair off with for committed long-term security and provisioning — entirely sidestepping women’s innate pluralistic sexual strategy and what really turns them on for a short-term sexual experience. This is how women’s subconscious reconciles Alpha Fucks with Beta Bucks. On a limbic level women know there is a dichotomy between their dualistic sexual strategy, thus, they opt for the more socially acceptable of the two, provisioning/attraction, while their behaviors reveal the visceral side of sexuality/arousal.
Most of what a woman will list as redeeming attributes on her ’attraction list’ are what Red Pill men would describe as Beta traits. In fact, most of these attraction cues would be best expressed while a woman is in her luteal phase. In this frame of mind she says she wants comfort and trust endearing qualities — sensitivity, empathy, familiarity, humor, charm, compliments, caring, etc. — in other words, the Beta traits the average chump has in spades as the result of his constant immersion in a fem-centric acculturation.
While an open embrace of Hypergamy continues in our present-day social context, women will always default to attraction cues as being paramount to their sexual selection process because they know in the long term they will need provisioning longer than they will need breeding opportunities.
One of the most resounding themes in the manosphere is that the vast majority of guys are Beta chumps. A lot of men and women outside the ’sphere bristle at this Pareto Principle (80/20 rule) estimation because it sounds callous and accusatory — all coming at them from the end of a pointed arrogant Alpha’s finger.
But the root of their anger really comes from being made to understand that the overwhelming mass of average frustrated chumps are actually the direct result of the feminization they thought would benefit humanity. The idea was simple enough. Let’s level the playing field and play by women’s standards for a change, lets see what they’d like men to be, lets identify with the feminine more and the world will, of course, be a better place.
Only it turned out not to be a better place. It turns out women didn’t know what was best for men as based on their own inadequate (really solipsistically indifferent) understanding of masculine nature and the results are summed up in articles written by feminized men bemoaning the feminization of men. All as a proxy for women complaining about how the feminized men they created are now too feminine for them to be attracted to, much less be aroused by.
As you can see, the world is actually awash in Beta men; and all so well conditioned to be in touch with their feminine sides that they seek out the guiding dominance of masculinized women (by choice or by perception) to do the providing for them with a direction in their life. Beta Game is a dead end (sometimes literally), so unsurprisingly it’s a painful realization for the majority of men to have this spelled out for them in no uncertain terms. At the same time it comes as a stinging retribution for women who see what’s become of the men they created — they got the docile men they deserved.
More Beta is not a Sexual Strategy
There are certain femosphere bloggers who’d advocate the building of a better Beta. Their presumptions are based on the same misguided feminization that resulted in the greater feminization of the men they themselves complain about. They fear a push back towards masculine Alpha dominance will result in a new generation of arrogant assholes, devoid of the nurturing Beta qualities they thought women could identify with more, and mistakenly believed should be a source of physical arousal (not necessarily attraction). Yet, they simultaneously bemoan the absence of dominant, arousal inspiring, Alpha aspects of masculinity in men today. We can go on and on about how most women love good Beta traits, but they simply are not turned on by them.
This encapsulates the conflict between Attraction and Arousal for women. When women say “they want the whole package” they enumerate the qualities of what makes for their best long term provisioning, however, this conflicts with what arouses women sexually. The guy who exemplifies the best Beta male characteristics isn’t getting the same play as the guy exemplifying the best Alpha arousal cues. This is precisely the duplicity men experience when women mislead them to believe that Beta provisioning traits are equatable with Alpha arousal cues. This is the ’just get it’ part of intersexual dynamics that women hope men will come to, yet they continue to mislead men because their innate solipsism presumes men should already know this about women.
A stay at home Dad might have himself convinced that he’s more fulfilled in his new mothering role, but he’s gravely mistaken in convincing himself that women find his fatherly efforts sexually arousing. They may find it attractive in the “whole package” sense, but ultimately Hypergamy doesn’t care how great a father you are.
For the better part of the last 70 years men have been conditioned to think that more Beta equals more pussy, and the results of this social experiment are now manifest in the pathetic feminized men women themselves complain of. The greater problem women face now is accepting the genuineness of an Alpha transformation of so many men.
Women love the concept of tempering the dominant asshole Alpha. It’s a common romance novel fantasy for women to be the uniquely soothing influence over the rebellious jerk who wets her panties with her arousal. It’s self-affirming for women to think their Alpha superhero would only show his Beta side to her. Unfortunately the reverse of this situation is the reality — the vast majority of men must fight an uphill battle from Beta origins to Alpha transformation. It is Game and Red Pill awareness that aid in upping the Alpha, but for women conditioned to expect Beta male frailty from men, for women whose lives have been defined by male submissiveness, this transformation will largely continue to seem disingenuous.
Women would rather share a high value Man than be saddled with a faithful loser. The easier path for women is to ditch the primarily Beta man in favor of holding out for and taming an arousing, primarily Alpha man.
I’ve had guys ask me why would a woman stay with a guy she knows is a chump? How is it women will stay with their boyfriend’s/husband’s regardless of how Beta they are. There will be those guys who will say they get with these men for their money, or stay with them for financial security. They’ll say, “come on, we all know women will generally only give their intimacy to men who have their game down tight and fit the profile — doesn’t matter how much they make. We know you don’t need to make a lot of money to get laid or to develop relationship with a woman. There are plenty of guys who have had shit for resources develop long term relationships with hot women. So how do these mostly Beta men get with these women in the first place if they’re Betas to begin with?
Why would a woman stay with a guy she acknowledges as an overall Beta? A lot of reasons actually, but there are some commonalities. First, there’s the guy that was once the Jerk, who had been attractive enough, or played the role well enough, to get involved with a woman who successfully “changed” him. And in an effort to better identify with what she’s convinced him (and herself) that he ought to be living up to, he reverts to being the Beta he always was in the relationship. She can’t complain because he’s changed into what she thought she was supposed to want in a guy, but he’s turned into the kind of guy she’d never have been attracted to if she were to meet him while single. So she stays with him up until the point that she meets another Jerk who she wants to fuck and eventually ’fixes’ him too.
Second, lets not forget that some of the most wealthy and physically attractive men also happen to be the worst cases of Blue Pill conditioning you’ll ever meet. I realize that sounds odd, but the wealthy man and the attractive man have little to prompt them to re-think their own behaviors. Because they are more readily rewarded with female intimacy, there’s less reason to question the framework of intergender relations, and / or their own predispositions and conditionings that would make them Beta.
I once worked with this guy named Jake who was model tier good looking. He had no trouble with attracting women, and most would regularly approach him, but Jake was probably the worst Blue Pill tool I’d ever met. He used to complain that he couldn’t get a girlfriend or keep a girl interested in him, even though he was tapping beautiful women every other weekend. Once he opened his mouth and spilled his life story out on the restaurant table on the first date these girls would treat him with pity and gradually fade away on him. He literally had ONEitis for any girl he was dating at the time and swallowed hook, line and sinker the soul-mate mythology. He tried to be friends, tried to be sensitive, tried to be funny, tried to be a savior and every other Beta Game technique in the book, but all this did was push these women away from him. They enjoyed being fucked by the guy, but when he started up the ice cream cones and puppy dogs, cuddle-bitch mentality, they moved on to other guys.
In other words, Beta men aren’t all dorks and geeks, and being attractive doesn’t insulate you from internalizing stupid, feminized romanticisms. Nice Guys may finish last, but that doesn’t mean they don’t finish at all, and some manage to get laid occasionally along the way.
The problem with guys like Jake is that they strive to fit a feminine-centric idealization. They want to be ’perfect’ for her. But Mr. Perfect is neither realistic or expected. A Telegraph poll in 2015 showed that three in four women believe there is no such thing as the perfect man, with most seeing their own long-term partner as only 69% perfect. The poll of 2,000 women also showed more than 75% believed the perfect man did not exist. Women are actually quite realistic on what they look for from their partner.
“While they might happily overlook a few common flaws from their guys, there are certain behaviors that men just won’t get away with.” The results showed one in five women think their partner only pretends to listen to them while leaving clothes on the bedroom floor and snoring were among other gripes. The perfect man would be expected to make an effort with his partner’s friends, avoid using her toothbrush, stay clean-shaven and not be lazy. Perfect is Boring.
Say that again, Perfect is boring. It seems counterintuitive, but it’s your imperfection that makes you attractive. There’s an implied, ambient confidence that’s radiated from a Man who knows what a woman’s stated ideal of perfection would be and yet refuses to embody it for her. That underlying message to her is “I know you hate having the toilet seat left up, but I’m supremely confident enough in your attraction, and other women’s attraction, to me that I’ll ignore your silly pet peeves rather than pander to them.” It’s the guy who engages in this pandering by attempting to be a woman’s stated ideal who sends the message that he is really optionless. It’s essentially a failed meta-shit test. It says to her that he’ll be a willing participant in his own manipulation.
As I’ve written in many an essay, women will never substantively appreciate the efforts a man makes to facilitate her reality. A feminine-centric reality means that any extraneous attempt he makes to appease her will be interpreted as the new normative. It’s just expected that he’ll do her bidding, because that’s just what guys are supposed to do. Yet, it is the Man who refuses, either consciously or as a matter of course, to engage in trying to appease her who holds women’s attentions the most. If there is a categoric Alpha trait it’s just this obliviousness to the wants of a feminine-centric norm.
Mr. Perfect doesn’t get extra points for being perfect because the aspects of that “perfection” is the expected norm. It’s boring because it’s mundane. The problem of a feminized norm is that it makes feminine similarities between the genders the ideal state.
Androgyny is homogeny. It ignores, willfully or otherwise, that biomechanics have evolved an appreciation for the differences in the genders to be primarily attractive to one another. The more like we become — men becoming feminine, women becoming masculine — the more we lose that innate attraction. This goes for the aspects we both love and hate about the other gender.
In defying this inborn attraction, and making attempts to socialize it to better fit the feminine sensibility, we grate against what is really characteristic of each gender. In the natural world Men will be Men and despite the protestations, women really don’t want it any other way.
For as long as I’ve been writing in the Manosphere, the definition of ’what is Alpha?’ has been the number one point of contention I’ve had to state and restate most often. I’m not going to rehash this here as I have several essays on the nature of Alpha on my blog and in the first volume of The Rational Male, so if you’re looking for my take on Alpha that’s where you’ll find it.
However, for now I need to address the basis of what I believe are the most common misunderstandings about the term Alpha.
Well before the inception of my blog, in the early beginnings of what would evolve into the Manosphere, there was a need of terminology to describe the more abstract concepts developing in the Red Pill ’community’. Some of these analogies and terms are still with the Manosphere today, others have morphed into more useful abstractions; Alpha Widows, Hypergamy (in its expanded definition), the Feminine Imperative, even Red Pill awareness are all examples of established terms or analogies for understood abstractions. Among these are also the concepts of a man being Alpha and Beta.
One of the most common disconnects men encounter with the Red Pill for the first time is equating the term Alpha with its usage in describing the mating habits of Lions, Wolves or Silver Back Gorillas. It’s easy to ridicule or simply dismiss a valid, but uncomfortable, Red Pill truth when you’re simplistically comfortable in only ever defining ’Alpha Male’ in literal, etymological, terms.
This is the first resistance Blue Pill men claim they have with the Red Pill. They have no problem understanding and using abstractions for Blue Pill concepts they themselves are ego-invested in, but challenge that belief-set with uncomfortable Red Pill truths and their first resort is to obstinately define Alpha (as well as Hypergamy) in as narrow, binary and literal a sense as they can muster.
“Get in Touch with Your Feminine Beta Side”
The next most common misunderstanding comes from conflating the abstractions of Alpha and Beta with masculine and feminine traits. In this (often deliberate) misdirection, the concepts of being Alpha or Beta become synonymous with being masculine or feminine. This is the personal basis of Alpha and Beta many Purple Pill ’life coaches’ (really Blue Pill apologists) comfortably redefine for themselves, to suit themselves.
This Purple Pill conflation is really just a comforting return the curse of Jung — Anima & Animus — if the complete man is an even mix of Alpha and Beta, masculine and feminine, then all the worst aspects of his “betaness” can’t be all bad, and he reinterprets what really amounts to a complete androgyny as “being the best balance”.
Unfortunately, and as Blue Pill chumps will later attest, the feminine expects to find its paired balance in the masculine, not an equalist idealization of both in the same man. Thus, women, on a limbic level, expect men to be Men.
This one of the missives of an equalitarian mindset; that an individualized, egalitarian balance of masculine and feminine aspects in two independent people should replace the natural complementary interdependence of conventional masculine and feminine attributes in a paired balance that humans evolved into.
What Purple Pill temperance really equates to is a 21st century return to the 20th century feminized meme “men need to get in touch with their feminine sides”… or else risk feminine rejection. Sixty-plus years of post sexual revolution social engineering has put the lie to what an abject failure this concept has been.
What they failed to grasp is that an Alpha mindset is not definitively associated with masculine attributes. There are plenty of high-functioning, masculine men we would characterize as Alpha based on our perception of them in many aspects of life, who nonetheless are abject supplicating Betas with regard to how they interact with, and defer to women. Whether that disconnect is due to a learned, Beta deference to the feminine (White Knighting), some internalized fear of rejection, or just a natural predisposition to be so with women, isn’t the issue. What matters is that the abstraction of Alpha isn’t an absolute definitive association with the masculine.
Likewise, Beta attributes are neither inherently feminine. As has been discussed ad infinitum in the Manosphere, 80%+ of modern men have been conditioned (or otherwise) to exemplify and promote a feminine-primary, supportive Beta life-role for themselves and as many other men they can convince to identify more with the feminine. The Beta mindset isn’t so much one of adopting a feminine mindset as it is a deference to, and the support of, a feminine-primary world view.
The reason Purple Pill (watered down Red Pill) ideology wants to make the association of Alpha = Masculine, Beta = Feminine is because the “get in touch with your feminine side” Beta attributes they possess in spades can be more easily characterized as “really” being Alpha if it helps make him the more androgynously acceptable male he mistakenly believes women are attracted to (if not directly aroused by).
The sexual alphaness of a male towards a female is exhibited by her wanting to please him, and the sexual betaness of a male is exhibited by him needing to please her. A man’s alphaness obviously, and by definition, does not cause her to more require him to please her (i.e. alphaness does not rub off like that). And also, betaness is not transferable, no matter how much Betas wish that their women-pleasing caused women to want to please them.
Moreover, the social dominance of a male in a male dominance hierarchy is barely correlated with his sexual alphaness, and certainly not causal. There are far too many counterexamples, such as Bill Gates, Napoleon Bonaparte, Horatio Nelson, and the list is very long.
However, and this is a key empirical point, the social dominance of a female human in a female human hierarchy is correlated, in this precise way: A woman to whom women cater to will 99% of the time demand to be catered to by her man. This is why women believe man-pleasing women are “lesser” women. It is also why men who have tended to be mated to females who are socially dominant in a female hierarchy are invariably Betas. It’s simply false that female-dominant women tend to choose men who demand pleasing. What critics of an Alpha/Beta dichotomy conveniently sweep under the carpet is that the dichotomy they want to debate only exists in what their convenient, personal interpretations of Alpha or Beta mean to them.
From a male perspective we can endlessly debate (from our own personal biases) what we believe constitutes an Alpha state (remember, Alpha is an abstract term, stay with me here) and the expectations of which we think women should respond to according to those expectation. But it’s women’s instinctive behaviors around Alpha men (or men they contextually perceive to be Alpha) that provide us with the tells as to how she perceives a man’s Alpha or Beta status.
For as much as we believe women should respond to our definition of Alpha
— and despite how women will explain they agree with those self-prescribed definitions — as always, it is their behaviors when in the presence of, or in a relationship with men they perceive as being Alpha (or of higher sexual market value than themselves if you prefer) that they bely their true, instinctual recognitions of Alpha.
In a social environment where men are conditioned to believe that women are as equal, rational agents as men, the belief men put their faith into is that women will appreciate their intrinsic qualities and base their sexual selectivity upon a man’s virtue, bearing, intelligence, humor, and any number of attractive intrinsic qualities. However, the truth of what women base their sexual selectivity upon (arousal) is far more evident in their instinctual, unconditioned behavior when around Alpha men — as well as men’s instinctual sensitivity to that behavior.
There are many examples of this Alpha reflexive behavior. I’ll make an attempt to illustrate a few of them here, but I expect there’ll be many more offered by my readers. I encourage a discussion among men about the behaviors that serve as Alpha tells. Long time Red Pill blogger, Roissy/Heartiste, has made a kind of sport with his ongoing “spot the Alpha” series of posts in which he analyzes a picture or video of a woman’s reaction to a man whom she obviously has an Alpha interest in as her body language and subcommunications suggest. The common criticism of these images is that Red Pill men would read too much into these displays, but the underlying message in that criticism is rooted in understanding and willfully ignoring what our instinctual perceptions of them are. We know Alpha when we see it, but need an explanation to protect our own ego’s Alpha assessment of ourselves.
The Real Selection
For all the delighted ego ’empowerment’ of women boasting they are the sexual selectors in this life, there is still a nervous uncertainty about being found acceptable themselves to an Alpha lover of higher SMV status than they might otherwise merit. This is where the illusions of an assortive mating model break down for women. If feminine-primary sexual selection were the only element to mating there would be no need for the behaviors women are subject to in seeking the approval from men they perceive as Alpha.
There’s a look, an attitude and a presence women will give off to Men for whom they have a natural deference to. I don’t just mean blatant sexual subcommunications like casually biting her lower lip, or the hair twirling that’s almost cliché now. It goes beyond the sexual into a kind of meta-attraction/arousal. While the sexual urgency for an Alpha is strong and manifests in a woman’s forwardness toward him, the meta-attraction is both one of submission and a subconscious desire for his approval of her.
Men predisposed to a Beta mindset also display many of these same behavioral cues with the women they hope will appreciate them in the same fashion a woman does for a Man that her hind-brain instinctually knows is of a higher SMV. In Beta men we see these behaviors as evidence of “clinginess” or “neediness” and is an identifiable Beta tell; but in women this natural and unprovoked leaning in to a Man, this desire to submit for his approval, is a positive indicator of Alpha attraction.
As third party observers, we instinctually find such behavior in men distasteful; we subliminally sense a complementary imbalance between the man and woman. When a woman makes an unforced effort to please a man with subtle words, unintentional wide-eyed contact, and body positioning / posture you’re dealing with a woman who is compelled to defer to you as Alpha.
That isn’t to say this can’t be faked. In fact strippers, good ones at least, are not just physically arousing, or more sexualized, but are in tune with the deficit most men feel when it comes to this Alpha deference. Beyond just the sexual aspect, one thing that makes strippers so enticing and seductive is that the majority of men are simply unused to the fawning affections and Alpha interest (albeit feigned) of any woman, much less an attractive one.
This is also one reason men become so prone to ONEitis both inside and outside this contrived, transactional, sort of attraction. Men are the True Romantics, they want to believe a woman’s sincerity in her Alpha deference to him.
Does the girl you’re interested in come to you, or do you go to her?
I’ve emphasized the importance of establishing and maintaining Frame for years now, but I sometimes wonder if the importance of holding Frame isn’t lost on most men. To an equalist mindset, this Frame establishment seems like I’m advocating men be domineering in their relationships and a man rely on some dark manipulative psychology to enforce his will in that relationship. That’s not what I’m suggesting for the simple reason that it’s too effort consuming, and genuine desire is unsustainable within that constant effort. Maintaining Frame demands a voluntary, uncoerced, desired compliance on the part of a woman.
What I’m suggesting is that men simply not invest themselves in women whose Alpha interest in them is mitigated by doubt or any obvious SMV imbalance.
This is difficult for most men as it conflicts with our want for an idealized romance with a woman — a want for a love that requires a mutual definition with a woman lacking the capacity to realize this with him, or at least in the way he believes should be possible for her. And it’s within that idealized desire men lose Frame and excuse the lack of Alpha deference on her part.
The Medium IS the Message
In The Rational Male you’ll find a section called, the Medium is the Message. It would be good to review it if you have the book. On some level of consciousness men instinctually understand their relative status with a woman based on the medium of women — the behaviors she directs toward him.
· Is she affectionate without being prompted or only when circumstance makes your comfort needed for her?
· Is Amused Mastery an easy default conversational technique for you, or does she resist even your playful attempts at it?
· Does she initiate sex with you, or is your initiating it only ever the precursor to sex?
· Is sex even a priority for her (with you)?
· Does she make efforts to make things special for you or is your relationship one of her grading your efforts in qualifying for her Alpha approval of you?
What most guys think are ’mixed messages’ or confusing behavior coming from a woman is simply due to their inability (for whatever reason) to make an accurate interpretation of why she’s behaving in such a manner. Usually this boils down to a guy getting so wrapped up in a girl that he’d rather make concessions for her behavior than see it for what it really is. In other words, it’s far easier to call it ’mixed messages’ or fall back on the old chestnut of how fickle and random women are, when in fact it’s simply a rationale to keep themselves on the hook, so to speak, because they lack any real, viable, options with other women in their lives. A woman that has a high interest level (IL) in a guy has no need to engage in behaviors that would compromise her status with him. Women of all ILs will shit test, and men will pass or fail accordingly, but a test is more easily recognizable when you consider the context in which they’re delivered.
Are you making psychological concessions with a woman who’s never displayed an Alpha deference to you? What would change in your relationship if she did?
Knowing your woman’s menstrual cycle can be extremely powerful.
During the fertile stage of her cycle, thousands of years of evolution means her body is screaming at her to get knocked up by an alpha male. A simple test to determine is she sees you as her alpha fucks is to not initiate during the fertile period of her cycle and observe her 'margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom: 12.0pt;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none'>You obviously can’t draw conclusions from a single cycle but you should eventually see a pattern — and the more she values you sexually during her fertile period the better. If she isn’t doing anything differently or reacting to you differently when she’s fertile, something’s up.
This test can have false negatives but not false positives. There’s no false positive case where she suddenly starts riding you while you’re watching the Packers game but she doesn’t see you as her alpha. But it can have false negatives where she doesn’t initiate but still sees you as her alpha. If she isn’t initiating when she’s fertile (and you aren’t initiating in order to test her reaction), it could be due to stress, lack of time, being too used to you doing the initiation, etc. But at the very least she should be demonstrating increased passion and sexual ecstasy during her fertile period.
The best case: She initiates during her fertile period if you don’t. She gets cravings for your dick.
The OK case: She responds more passionately and orgasms more easily during her fertile period.
The uh-oh, something might be wrong case: No observable change during her fertile period.
The beta case: Dead bedroom, what the fuck are you even doing (sorry if you got married and you can’t get out).
Of course if she’s an extremely sexual being and all of the above describes your sex life 24/7, then none of this should even concern you.
Disclaimer: Once again, this test is a tool that works best for women with higher sex drives (who really wanna get fucked when they’re fertile). If your 37 year old wife of 15 years fucks you when you want and isn’t cheating, you’re fine. I don’t think test applies to all women (LOL, broke /trp/ rules oops) but it’s useful nonetheless.
This quote was from a guy on the Red Pill Reddit forum. It provides a good, if somewhat raw, perspective of indicators of a woman’s hind-brain perception of a man she’s paired herself with. For the moment remember this, marriage, monogamy, commitment, etc. will never be any insulation from the sexual marketplace and no insurance against a woman’s innate Hypergamy, no matter how reassuring your pastor, life coach or dating guru sounds when they tell you it is.
Lets presume for a moment that neither a controlled experiment nor an uncontrolled, but documented, sociological field study has ever been performed to test the principle of feminine Hypergamy. For a moment, as a man, imagine yourself living in a period of time prior to any formalized school of psychology; before the turn of the 20th century. There is no Pavlov, there is no Skinner, there is no Freud, there is no Jung.
Using only personal observations — that is observations of learned behaviors related by your father and brothers, male friends and the intergender experiences of a very socially isolated (by today’s standards) group of people who make up your peers, and a restrictively limited access to any classic philosophical literature beyond the Christian Bible — what would you presume would be the nature inimical to women and the feminine?
Would your observations, intuition and the education proffered by your father, brothers and other influential male friends and relations lead to an insight to know what Hypergamy is, how it motivates women and how to control for, or capitalize on it?
Not only do I believe it would, but I would argue that, up until the sexual revolution and the past 60 or so years, men have had both an innate and learned understanding of Hypergamy, how it functions, and how to control for it.
To be sure, it didn’t have the formal name of ’Hypergamy’ — in fact that term was until recently, strictly defined and reserved for “women with the tendency to marry above their socioeconomic level” in polite, pop-psychology circles — but men knew Hypergamy before the Manosphere (re)exposed its true definition.
Resistance to the uncomfortable truths innate to the female experience is to be expected from women — until the advent of Open Hypergamy, the Feminine Imperative needed the Sisterhood to be united and its secrets jealously guarded to the point of cognitive dissonance. My guess is that most of my female critics would still agree with the basic parameters of Hypergamy, but what I doubt they’re aware of is that in denying the inherent biological nature of female Hypergamy women must also reject the sociological, psychological and (observably) behavioral aspects of Hypergamy inherent (and largely subconscious) in women.
“As women approach the Epiphany Phase (later the Wall) and realize the decay of their SMV (in comparison to younger women), they become progressively more incentivized towards attraction to the qualities a man possesses that will best satisfy the long-term security of the Beta Bucks side of her Hypergamy demands.”
Did your woman say, “you’re (so much) different than the guys I used to date.” Or, “I finally got smart and found a good guy.” If so, this is clear evidence that you are her Beta Bucks guy. Maybe she used to date DJs, NFL players, drug dealers, whatever. If these guys are different types of guys than you, do NOT continue the relationship. She has no clue, but she is rationalizing her choice in her mind. You will pay a severe price later, as in cheating, nonstop bitchiness, or sudden divorce. Find a girl that always dated guys like you. She may have swooned for the lead guitarist, but if she didn’t devote her early 20s to chasing him, you’re okay.
One of the more common questions I’m asked in consults is whether something a guy did was ’Beta’ or not. Usually it was a situation wherein the guy was instinctually sensitive to his own behavior in context to his Frame and how the woman he was dealing with perceived him. In most cases a man knows when he’s slipped in his perception of dominance with a woman, they just look for a third party confirmation of it — which is then followed by more rationalizations for why his behavior shouldn’t be considered Beta because they believe women are equally rational, equally forgiving, agents as men (really he is) are.
Whenever you feel something isn’t quite right in your gut, this is your subconscious awareness alerting you to inconsistencies going on around you. We tend to ignore these signs in the thinking that our rational mind ’knows better’ and things really aren’t what they seem. It’s not as bad as you’re imagining, and you can even feel shame or guilt with yourself for acknowledging that lack of trust. However, it’s just this internal rationalization that keeps us blind to the obvious that our subconscious is trying to warn us about. Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. So when that predictable behavior changes even marginally, our instinctual perceptions fire off all kinds of warnings. Some of which can actually effect us physically.
It’s at this point most guys make the mistake of acting on the “good communication solves everything” feminized meme and go the full disclosure truth route, which only really leads to more rationalizations and repression of what’s really going on. What they don’t realize is that the medium is the message; her behavior, her nuances, the incongruousness in her words and demeanor (and how your gut perceives them) is the real message. There is an irregularity in her behavior that your subconscious is alerting you to which your consciousness either cannot or will not recognize.
I began Alpha Tells with the intent of recognizing how a woman behaves when she’s in the presence of a Man she perceives to be Alpha. A lot of men get hung up on trying to ’act’ Alpha; wanting to ape (and later hopefully internalize) the behavioral tells a more confident Alpha displays.
Consequently there’s a lot of debate about how men posture and how they naturally display these Alpha cues, but I think the best gauge of what defines those cues is not in men’s displays, but women’s behaviors and attitudes that are prompted by a perception of Alpha-ness.
And, just as women will respond viscerally to an Alpha perception, they will also manifest behaviors which indicate her subconscious knows she’s dealing with a Beta aligned male.
It’s easy to pick apart what a guy thinks are his own Alpha tells, but it’s far more uncomfortable to dissect women’s Beta tells when they’re in the presence of men they perceive to be Beta. Much of what I’ll outline that follows will be hard to read for many guys, and as always you’re free to disagree.
My purpose here isn’t to bash Betas, rather it’s to increase awareness of women’s reflexive behaviors toward them. Try to put these behaviors into a Hypergamous context and how they would be perceived by women who’ve evolved to have an instinctual sensitivity to these Beta behaviors, as well as expressions of Beta attitudes in your words and emotional emphasis.
I could very easily compile a list of behaviors that are simply the reverse of the Alpha Tells I noted in the previous section, but it’s much more important to address the root reasons for these Beta Tells:
· Does she initiate sex or affection spontaneously?
· Does she entertain a large pool of “male friend” orbiters with the expectation of you being ’mature enough’ to accept it?
· Does she keep a core peer group of ’girlfriends’ she insists on prioritizing over being with you? Does she make frequent habit of Girl’s Night Out?
· Has she explained to you how she was so different in college and how she’s glad those days are behind her now?
· Is she experiencing her Epiphany Phase?
· Does she cite “mismatched libidos” as a reason for her lack of sexual interest in you now that you’re married or living together (even after she’s had better sex with you or a former lover when single)?
· Is she averse or repulsed by your ejaculate being on her skin, in her mouth or overly concerned with soiling a bed sheet?
· Will she have sex with you anywhere besides the bed?
· Do you perform oral on her to get her off more than you have intercourse?
· Is she a wide-eyed lover or does she squint her eyes closed while having sex? Is sex a chore for her to perform?
· If you’re married, did she take your last name, or did she insist on a hyphenated surname for herself?
· When you’re together does her regular, unpracticed body posture indicate an openness or are you always having to break into her intimate space?
· Is she preoccupied with her side of the family or a certain pet in preference to being concerned with your well-being?
· Is she consciously aware of being 1-2 points above your own relative SMV? Is she overt about it?
· Does she presume authority in your relationship? Do you concede this authority as a matter of (equalist) belief?
There are many more tells of course, but it’s important to understand that these behaviors and attitudes are manifestations of a woman who on some level of consciousness understands that she’s dealing with a Beta man.
I should also mention that, there are particular phases of a woman’s life when she becomes more attuned to dealing with Beta men due to perceived necessities on her part. A clear understanding of how these phases predispose women to convince themselves to be more accepting of Beta behaviors and a Beta mindset is imperative to avoiding the common pitfalls men encounter with regard to issues of holding Frame in their relationships.
Beta men are all too eager to believe they’ve matured into being a self-defined Alpha when a semi-attractive 29 year old in the midst of her Epiphany Phase is giving him wide-eyed indicators of interest in him. Only after she’s consolidated on that long-term security does he realize the plans her sexual strategy had for him.
Predisposition for Mate Guarding
One of the best Beta tells is how defensive a guy gets about the subject of mate guarding. An Alpha has little preoccupation with mate guarding because subconsciously he knows he has sexual options. That applies both within and without monogamy. I’m presenting this here because the majority of what motivates Beta tells (and really a Beta mindset) is rooted in how men deal with a scarcity mentality. Beta tells are almost always indicators that a man believes he needs to guard his paired-with woman and thus telegraphs a Beta status to that woman as well as other women in her peer clutch.
Mate guarding, and its intrinsic set of subconscious suspicions and behaviors, is an evolved adaptation of ensuring paternity for a Beta-provider. These men must rely upon exchanging resources and external benefits for women’s sexual fidelity. In essence, it’s an unspoken awareness that Beta men must negotiate for what they hope will be a woman’s genuine desire in exchange for his provisioning, parental investment support and emotional involvement. Beta men are aware on a limbic level that Hypergamy dictates an Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks tradeoff in women’s sexual strategy — thus, a subconscious ’mate guarding’ mindset evolved from Beta men’s heightened awareness of women’s preference for Alpha Fucks, particularly around the proliferative phase of women’s ovulation.
Paradoxically, the best assurance you have of fidelity with a woman is simply not to allow yourself to become exclusively monogamous with a woman and rather, have her make the efforts to pair with you under her own auspices of you being Alpha. Romance is not required from a lover a woman perceives as Alpha, only his sexual interest — this represents a confirmation of Hypergamous optimization for a woman. The fuck-buddy dynamic — all sexual interests with no reciprocal expectation of emotional investment — is a strong Alpha tell for a man.
The best gauge for determining a woman’s perception of you as either an Alpha or Beta type is examining yourself and your feeling a ’need’ to mate guard her, to appease her, or an impulse to correct yourself in order to align with her terms for intimacy. A scarcity mentality is the mental point of origin for a Beta mindset — and that internalized mental model will manifest itself in a predisposition for Beta behaviors.
There’s a common belief that even the most Alpha of men will at times slip into a Beta behaviorism. You can’t be ’on’ your game all of the time, and while that’s true it doesn’t invalidate that women have a mental model of your overall, predominant condition being either Alpha or Beta. A predominantly Alpha frame and mindset (and yes, looks), plus an acknowledged (real or perceived) SMV primacy above her own will cover a multitude of Beta sins, but the predominant Beta has the Sisyphean task of convincing a woman he’s more Alpha than she pegs him for.
So, to answer the man asking whether or not something he did was Beta, your answer really lies in your motivation for behaving ’Beta’ as you did in comparison to how a woman perceives your predominant character.
One of the most common misconceptions of guys coming into a Red Pill awareness experience is an expectation of being able to use that awareness and Game to reconstruct an old relationship. Most often this hope is about a guy wanting to ’fix’ his broken relationship with a girl who dumped him. This is easily the most common reason Blue Pill guys make themselves open to what the Red Pill has to reveal to him. They are desperate, not so much for the intergender truths that the Red Pill presents, but rather for a solution to their hearts being crushed by a girl.
This is understandable when you consider that these men are still very steeped in the Blue Pill idealism they’ve yet to unlearn (or understand why they need to unlearn it) and haven’t made the connection that their idealism is part of the reason why they were dumped. All they feel is a desperate longing to reconnect to a girl who was their ’One’, and only now they are desperate enough to seek answers from the Red Pill.
It’s funny how some of the most ardent Red Pill deniers will be open to listening to its truths about men and women if it presents the possibility of them getting back with a former lover they invested themselves in. This is a good illustration of the degree of control Blue Pill idealism has over guys; that they would be open to amending their beliefs if it means reconnecting to those feelings they’ve been cut away from.
Unfortunately, the Red Pill is not a salve for Blue Pill disillusionment. It’s a cure, not a band-aid. I tried to succinctly address this in the 7th Iron Rule of Tomassi:
Iron Rule of Tomassi #7
It is always time and effort better spent developing new, fresh, prospective women than it will ever be in attempting to reconstruct a failed relationship. Never root through the trash once the garbage has been dragged to the curb. You get messy, your neighbors see you do it, and what you thought was worth digging for is never as valuable as you thought it was.
Another Red Pill reconstruction attempt is men who make it their goal to ’re-seduce’ a woman they failed to effectively Game while still wrapped up in their Blue Pill mindset. The first presumption is that revenge might motivate a guy to want to pump and dump a girl who once blew him off back when he was locked into his Blue Pill mentality. Women like this idea because they think it confirms men’s egos being easily bruised, but I don’t think this is always the case.
It’s entirely possible that some past coquette has taken an organic liking to “the new him” now that his Red Pill transition and better grasp of Game has made him attractive to her. I’ve had several guys relate to me about how they have turned a former ONEitis into a plate they were spinning along with others. The experience of doing so will often solidify Red Pill/Game principles for him — the act of cycling an old ’soul mate’ into a guy’s roster of non-exclusive lovers is a lesson in taking women off a formerly idealistic pedestal and helps humanize women for him in the process.
I should also add that there’s usually a period of time necessary to effect this. Too many men will see Red Pill awareness and just the loosest form of Game as some magic formula for pulling this off too soon. A sudden incongruent shift in his demeanor only puts her off more and leaves him discouraged.
Doing Everything Right
The third type of Red Pill reconstructionist is the married man — or the guy in a multi-year LTR — seeking to find the secret to remedy his dead bedroom. There was a time (pre-internet, pre-Red Pill) when these men were reluctant to even voice the problem they were having with their sexually indifferent wives. Generally, this was due to a couple of specific fears.
The first is that most Blue Pill men are conditioned from a very early age to always find fault in themselves before they would ever imply that it would be a woman’s. This was especially true if it was about sex. If you can’t satisfy a woman, it’s your fault. If a woman isn’t aroused or attracted by you, it’s your fault, so the presumption used to be that a man could only better himself as a means to reestablish an attraction that (presumably) he had with his wife before they were married.
Back in the day this ’improvement’ could be defined in various old books ways. He might get a promotion at work, a shift up in status and pay. He might lose weight or find some form of competition he might possibly do well in. He might change his beliefs or accede to better identifying with his wife, or do more chores around the home, help with the kids, arrange more ’date nights’.
He might go to marriage counseling or participate in his church’s “men’s spiritual retreats” in order to show that he’s growing.
All of these ways of “rekindling the old flame” are essentially a man’s effort in acquiescing to his woman’s Frame while keeping him in a perpetual state of negotiating for her genuine desire. From a Red Pill perspective we understand this, but there was a time, not so long ago, when men’s preoccupation was all about doing everything right in order to get his wife to fuck him like she used to, or with something resembling genuine enthusiasm.
The second fear men of that time had was admitting to their inability to satisfy their wife (LTR) sexually. Again, this was all about a female-dominant Frame, and his qualifying for her pleasure, but we’re talking about a time when men’s interpretation of their own masculinity was always being questioned. It’s interesting to see how times have changed with communication technology. I can remember a time when it would’ve been taboo to be too direct about sex in church. Now it’s unavoidable and we have pastors encouraging sex quota months in order to spur the sexually indifferent wives in the congregation.
In a Blue Pill social order, men learn to always qualify for women. So the natural, male-deductive response has always been to ’do everything right’ in order to keep the sex faucet flowing. Sacrifice dreams, belay ambitions, get the right job with the right status and become a person who a woman would want to bang. These are all old books presumptions based on the Beta Female-Identifying Provider archetype, but it’s important to keep this in mind today because this same ’do everything right’ presumption still persists for men today.
The following is a post from the Married Red Pill Reddit:
I moved out a few months ago in exasperation after following my married Red Pill path to a T and seeing little to no improvement in our relationship. I’ve “fixed” myself in ways I never thought I could and moving out was me punting the final decision for a bit before I blow my beautiful children’s lives to pieces.
Things are calm, peaceful, friendly and kinda fun at “home” but the sexual dynamic hasn’t changed at all despite all odds. I’ve finally reached the point that I give 0 fucks either way and every day that goes by makes me a bit more ambivalent to the whole deal.
It’s taken a long time to get here but something happened last week that opened my eyes to how shitty my life has been for a looooong time and how at this point she is the only “problem” left in my life and I can’t “fix” her.
The quick back story is that I was a fat, beta fuck for a long time and have been on this journey for about 2 years. I am fairly ripped now and have “fixed” myself to the point that I feel comfortable saying I’m a top 5-10% guy in my metro. Good looking, successful business, dress well…etc.
Last week I initiated with the wife while I was over at our house helping get the kids to bed. She shot me down like she has been for months. We still fuck here and there but the quality has been shitty for a while.
I laughed, told her goodnight and went back to my house. I actually prefer being there now. I’ve come to love the solitude too as the loneliness and missing the kids has worn off a little.
I worked out and read for a while and got bored so I decided to download Bumble and Tinder to get a no risk gauge of where I’m at if I end up nexting her. I’ve been getting plenty of IOI’s in public but I live in a small town so pursuing them would eventually lead to big problems. I also downloaded a GPS location faker and put myself in a state far, far away to make sure I don’t get doxxed by one of her shitty, single friends…
Gentlemen…It’s been 4 days and I currently have over 60 unsolicited messages from all kinds of women. My inbox is full of unsolicited titty and pussy shots from women waayyy hotter than my wife. I’ve got 5 women literally begging me to come fuck them and another 5 or so I’m confident I could fuck within a week if I wanted.
It’s a good thing I put myself so far away or the temptation would probably be way too much to handle. I deleted the apps this morning as I’m not ready to blow everything up yet and I want to give the marriage every last chance for my kids sake. I know myself well enough to know that once I taste some strange there will no turning back. The constant buzzing of the burner phone was also killing my productivity.
The end result is that this whole experiment has killed off any last shred of oneitis I had and opened my eyes to what my life will look like going forward if this goes the way it’s heading. My wife is a good woman and is fairly hot but it appears that she may not be able to see past all those years of beta shittiness from me and that’s ok.
I didn’t tell you my story to brag but to re-affirm that only you can change and determine the quality of your life. I can tell you that 2 years ago I was a mess trying to hang on to the shreds of my marriage while my wife was pretty much repulsed by me. My wife will or will not change into the sexy woman I want over the next few months but now I really don’t care because I have painfully built myself into a man that the world will treat very well either way.
Today the hope for bettering a man’s sexual prospects in marriage is found primarily in Red Pill awareness. I would daresay that the Red Pill, Game and the Manosphere have done more in improving men’s sexual access in marriage than contemporary marriage counseling for about 10 years now. That’s to be lauded I think, but it also has to come with the understanding that no man’s experience, no man’s situation with his wife/woman, is ever the same, nor is it ideal.
There is a set of Red Pill men (usually married) who also attempt to do everything right — according to Red Pill awareness and applied Game — and, as per this man’s story, the situation is such that it is still ’not enough’.
These men become Red Pill aware, they unplug, they struggle to accept it while disenfranchising themselves from their Blue Pill conditioning. They put in the time for insight and soul-searching, they deal with the uncomfortable truths of what they’ve been all their lives. They deal with the anger that inspires and they come out on the other side and begin to remake themselves. They self-improve.
Roosh once had some Dali Lama moment in a video about how he believes self-improvement is some Zen preset channel for men, and they ought not worry about bettering themselves. I say bullshit. Self-improvement itself is a state of being. Once a man applies himself, invests more in himself than he ever has, changes his mind about himself, etc. he becomes his own mental point of origin.
These men begin to see the results of their efforts; efforts often unbeknownst to his woman. She may witness the outward changes, but only he knows the experience of his inward changes. Now he’s got to deal with new experiences that were previously foreign to him in his old, Blue Pill self-identity. Some are uncomfortable and require him to use judgment he’s never had to before. Others are temptations or opportunities he’s never had access to before.
All of what’s led to this transition required a lot of personal investment on his part, and by his Red Pill awareness he’s ’done everything right’. This transformative experience becomes a kind of Relational Equity for him; equity he believes his wife, his ex, the old high school girl who ignored him, should have some appreciation for. Just like the old books men who believed that building themselves up in their careers or getting more in touch with their feminine sides would be the key to doing everything right, the Red Pill aware guy finds that it’s not him, it’s her.
Why Men Are The Way They Are
One of the most influential books I’ve ever read I picked up from my father’s home library when I was about 24. That book was Dr. Warren Farrell’s Why Men Are The Way They Are. At the time it didn’t strike me as odd that my father would have this book in his collection — my clinically depressed, 3rd wave feminist, aging hippy of a step-mother had eventually roped him into reading it for some Unitarian book club they belonged to in the early 90s. I still have it. It’s even got her penciled-in liner notes scribbled in the margins with all the feminist outrage I imagine it must’ve inspired in her. It’s sort of a cosmic irony that the book she raged over would be instrumental for my own writing and online persona.
People always ask me when my point of unplugging came about, but if I’m honest, it was a gradual process that required a lot of bad experiences to learn my way out of the Matrix. However, Farrell’s book was a turning point for me. Unfortunately, I’ve since had to reassess my opinion of Dr. Farrell — he’s still very much Blue Pill and will likely go to his grave never making the connection that a belief in egalitarian equalism (as taught to him by early feminism) is what’s kept him blind to really accepting Red Pill awareness. But if I had a moment of unplugging I’d say it was directly attributable to this book.
I think what got me the most about it at the time were the many stories of the men Farrell had done ’men’s group’ sessions with while doing his research for the book. It was published 1986 (about 7 or 8 years before I read it) so it was already kind of dated when I read it, but for the most part these men sort of had these sit-ins with other men to relate with each other. If you’ve read the Tribes section at the beginning of this chapter you’ll understand why these new-agey get together seem very contrived to me, but the stories these guys were relating in the early to mid 80s were about what I’d expect coming from my own Dad.
They all did everything right. Some were the products of the free love generation or the hedonistic 70s, but overall these guys were caught in the perfect storm of still clinging to the old books Beta-provisioning social contract and the expectation of 3rd wave feminists that they be ’evolved males’. More than a few were attending these men’s groups at the behest of their empowered wives in the hopes that they’d learn to get in touch with their feminine sides or at least find some better way to meet their “needs”. I could see my father as one of these men. Papa Tomassi was a very confused man with regard to women as it was, but to be caught on the cusp of an era when feminine social primacy coming into its own and still being part of the ’do everything right’ social contract and the belief system that was doomed to fail in the decades to come, I can understand a lot of that confusion. One man in the book described it thusly:
“I feel like I’ve spent 40 years of my life working as hard as I could to become somebody I don’t even like.”
Each one of these guys related a similar frustration. They busted their asses for decades to fulfill the old books social contract, the one that had been the way you did the right thing in order to have a life with a woman, a family, kids, maybe grandchildren, and all of that was no longer working for men. The 24 year old Rollo Tomassi reading this book didn’t know what Hypergamy really was back then, but as I recount these men’s confusion today I can see that it was a result of being the first men to realize that institutionalized Hypergamy was erasing that old social paradigm for them.
I’ve covered the fallacy of Relational Equity in my first book, but I think it’s necessary to revisit the idea here to understand how it still undermines men in an era of Open Hypergamy and feminine social primacy. These men, most of whom are likely into their 70s now, had a preconception of what it meant to ’do everything right’; to play by an understood rule set that women were supposed to find attractive, to acknowledge and honor. Furthermore, they were taught to expect a degree of mutual equalitarian reason from these new, empowered and evolving women. If needs weren’t being met, well, then all that was necessary was a heart to heart and open communication and negotiation would set things back on track because women could be expected to be the functional equivalents of men. This was the golden, egalitarian, sexual equality, future that feminism promised the guys in the 70s and 80s.
Relational Equity is the misguided belief that ’doing everything right’ would necessarily be what ultimately attracts a woman, kept a woman, a wife, an LTR, from both infidelity, and was an assurance of her continued happiness with her man. Needless to say, the collected experiences of men that’s led to the praxeology of what we know as Red Pill awareness puts the lie to this — but as men, we expect some kind of acknowledgment for our accomplishments. Rationally, in a male context, we expect that what we do will at least be recognized as valuable, if not honored, by other men. So by extension of our equalist social contract, women, whom we are told we should expect to be co-equal agents with men, should also be expected to see past their emotional Hypergamous natures and make a logical conclusion to be attracted to men who are good fits in a mutually understood sense.
This, of course, is nonsense for the same reason that expecting that genuine desire can be negotiated is nonsense, but essentially this is the idea the shifting social contract of the time was trying to convince men of. And as you might expect, those men, the ones with the insight to recognize it, saw it for the opportunism it really was. Even if they ended up at 40 hating who they’d become. From Relational Equity:
This is a really tough truth for guys to swallow, because knowing how Hypergamy works necessarily devalues their concept of Relational Equity with the woman they’re committed to, or considering commitment with. Men’s concept of relational equity stems from a mindset that accepts negotiated desire (not genuine desire) as a valid means of relationship security. This is precisely why most couples counseling fails — its operative origin begins from the misconception that genuine desire (Hypergamy) can be negotiated indefinitely.
When we become Red Pill aware there is also a kind of Relational Equity we need to acknowledge and manage. Once we’ve unplugged it’s easy to get caught up in thinking that because we know the game, because we’ve gone through the trials, because we know we’re higher value men — if for no other reason than that we no longer subscribe to the misgivings of our Blue Pill conditioning — because of that awareness we tend to think that this should be consciously or tacitly appreciated by a wife, a girlfriend or the women we’re sarging in the club.
This can be kind of tough for a Red Pill aware man because it’s often something we need to keep latent in ourselves. Being overt about Red Pill awareness with women is almost always self-defeating because it exposes the Game. Women want to play the game, they don’t want to be told how it operates. In our everyday lives it’s necessary to reserve and observe or we risk changing the process.
Openly acknowledging the value a man believes he ought to inspire in a woman will alter her perception of that value. Most men who resort to forcing a woman’s hand by laying bare all the qualities of himself (real or imagined) he believes she should recognize and appreciate are only exposing their belief that Relational Equity and an old paradigm mindset is his mental point of origin. In truth, guys who attempt to set themselves apart by listing all the ways they’re valuable for playing by the rules generally get shamed by women in the end because those qualities have become so common place and expected that they’ve become debased.
So, you’re a great father to your kids and a devoted husband who built himself into the guy that any woman should be attracted to, who should be a great catch?
That’s great, but that’s what you’re supposed to do. And all those things you’re supposed to do, those aren’t what engender a woman’s genuine desire. In a feminine-primary social order — the same order that deliberately misinterprets masculinity for men — all men need to do, endlessly, is just a bit more to ’do everything right’.
On both the Married Red Pill and MGTOW Reddit forums there’s been discussed the concept of being ’awakened while married’. Hopefully I wont butcher that concept too badly here, but I think one aspect of becoming Red Pill aware, whether you’re a young single guy or an older, mature, married one is that there comes a point when you are awake and aware of the conditioning and the intersexual paradigm you truly live in. Honestly, I envy the younger men who come into this awareness early in life, but I also recognize that theirs is a greater responsibility to the truth for the rest of their unplugged lives. Men awakened while married at least have the excuse of having been deluded by Blue Pill conditioning for most of their lives to that point.
For younger men the Red Pill presents challenges with each new prospective woman a man applies himself with. For the awakened married man, his challenge is reinventing himself in a Red Pill aware paradigm with a woman who is already intimately aware of his persona, possibly for decades. We always say that once you’ve become Red Pill aware there is no going back. Even for men who go into total denial and choose to live with the cognitive dissonance of what they know about their own Blue Pill conditioning and the socio-sexual game going on around them there will always be reminders of Red Pill awareness he’ll notice on his peripheries.
For a man awakened to his condition while married, his state is a never ending reminder of what his Blue Pill indenturement has made of him. Like the guy in Dr. Farrell’s men’s group, the Blue Pill husband has spent most of his life trying to become someone he may or may not like, but that process of becoming was prompted by his Blue Pill conditioned existence. Once that man becomes Red Pill aware he’s now faced with two problems — how will he remake himself and how will his wife accept that remaking?
From the earliest posts of my blog I’ve always stressed that a man’s dominant Frame in his relationship is vital to the function of that relationship. Unfortunately, most men who were awakened while married began their relationships with a strong Beta perception for their wives. We can debate as to whether just the commitment of marriage itself makes for a predominantly Beta perception of a man, but in an era of masculine ridicule, Open Hypergamy and Alpha Widows it’s a good bet that women’s impression of their husbands is rarely one of reserved Alpha confidence.
This is a tough position for a Red Pill aware husband to confront. Sometimes a wife’s impression of his Beta-ness is too embedded, or she’s built a relational framework around expecting him to be a hapless Beta. Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. Your predictability gives them a sense of control. I should add that this expectation of predictability isn’t just limited to a wife’s perception of her Beta husband. That can, and often does, extend to a man’s family or friends who also expect him to be the Beta he’s always been. This then presents another challenge in remaking himself into something new, dominant and respectable in his Red Pill awareness.
Many of the men I used to do peer counseling with back in the early 2000s only wanted one thing; they wanted their wives to have a genuine desire to fuck them with either an enthusiasm they’d never known (but believed was possible) or they hoped to re-experience (and hopefully sustain) a genuine sexual desire they’d enjoyed with their wives while they were dating. None of them wanted (at least at first) to abandon their marriages, they just wanted to do thing right so their wives would fuck them, love them, respect them. They really wanted things to work, and so much so that they would overtly ask their wives “what do I have to do to get you to love/fuck/respect me and I’LL DO IT!” Which of course was precisely the thing that turned their wives off even more.
Their overtness and desperation was only more reinforcement and confirmation of these men’s wives perception of their Beta statuses. However, these men are the descendants of the generations that convinced them that ’open communication’ solves all relationship problems, but here they were, being open, direct, expecting a rational, negotiable solution to their problem only to have it drive their disgusted wives further from them.
Hypergamy doesn’t care when a woman’s lasting impression of a man is his
Beta status. How a man’s Red Pill awareness and the changes it brings in him will be accepted depends largely on his predominant condition. What husbands want is a sea change in their wives’ impression of them once they adopt a Red Pill / Game aware way of life. Most husbands have to weigh their emotional and personal investments in their wives with the reality that their wives’ impressions of them may simply never change. Becoming Red Pill aware forces husbands into a position of having to judge whether their marriages are even worth the considerable effort of trying to improve.
The Sexiest Man Alive?
When we consider that western cultures have consolidated on feminine social primacy, and a women’s-needs-first way of interpreting any social dynamic, things get a bit easier when you distill the intent down from a social scale to a personal scale. What’s being related is the desire to socially, culturally, change the definition of what should be considered “sexy” by women in spite of all evolved arousal and attraction cues they’re subject to. The presumption this is based upon is that attraction is a social construct and therefor something that can be changed.
This is the paradox men find themselves in; they are trapped in trying to appease deliberately manipulative, but deliberately conflicting social paradigms to be ’successful’ with women. As the narrative goes, if a man does everything by the book, if he does everything right, if he accepts the responsibilities feminine-primacy expects of him, he can be considered to be an adult, and he can assume his chances of being considered ’sexy’ by women and certainly his own wife. In so accepting this definition of his burden of performance he is taught that women will necessarily appreciate the equity he accrues in the relationship by investing himself in it. If he holds to the old books paradigm, eventually, once a woman has got her Party Years indiscretions ’out of her system’ he can expect to be found “sexy” by women.
From a Red Pill perspective we see this for what it is, the old books social contract that is still being sold to a generation of men who increasingly are seeing it for the life-changing lie it is. Men are encouraged to see adulthood as getting married, becoming a father and working hard to buy a home. I could argue that there are no June Cleavers left in the world or that getting married is a high-risk, low yield gamble. I could argue that becoming a father only makes a man fall in line with the ridiculous or hated caricature popular culture has made of them. I won’t even start on the risks of the housing market.
For all of this, the desire is still a return to a social contract wherein men are conditioned to believe that they will be rewarded for doing everything right. That old school notion has become the Beta bait of the past three generations.
Most men who are ’awakened while married’ want to apply their Red Pill awareness in such a way that they might achieve this idyllic state that we’re assured is possible if we’d all just Man Up. Most married Red Pill (MRP) men are looking to save their marriages. They see it as a key to getting a woman to appreciate his investment in her, in their kids, in his marriage, his dedication to ’doing everything the right way’,
Much in the same way that single Red Pill guys will (initially) focus on Red Pill awareness and Game in order to eventually connect with their ill-fated Dream Girls, so too does the MRP guy. The difference being that he’s convinced he’s already married to his dream girl and the only thing between him and that ideal life with her is finding the formula to achieve the life-plan this paradigm sells us.
As I said before, most married men’s first intent when they unplug isn’t to divorce their wives, hit the clubs and spin plates. His first thought is “how do I get her to come around to appreciating me?” or “How do I get back to the kind of sex we had (or I think we could)?” I think it’s important for men, both Red Pill singles and MRP to disabuse themselves of the Blue Pill goals they think might ever be achievable with Red Pill awareness. I say this because it’s put Red Pill awareness into the perception of it being a cure to their problems. While it may seem noble to a newly unplugged guy to want to use his new superpowers of Red Pill awareness for good (not for evil) and valiantly use it to do the right thing for his wife, his desire to do so is still founded in a Blue Pill conditioning that’s taught him that she’ll be receptive to it and he’ll be appreciated for it.
It may be that his new Alpha impression on his wife isn’t something she will ever recognize or accept as ’the real him’. And while this frustration plays out in his marriage, he also sees the positive responses from women outside his marriage — women unfamiliar with his Beta past — who readily respond to the Game he applies. That new positive reinforcement with outside women contends with his wife’s negative reinforcement inside his marriage.
What man sees a woman as a viable long term option and is eager to please (in fact has pleased on many occasions) but is aware she may never reciprocate in kind? Will he waste his best years coveting something he may never have?
Wouldn’t it be better to entertain a slightly lesser, woman and be her top priority?
If a wife can no longer give of herself, does she still see fit to demand the level of investment as when she did? Can a man still appreciate the tacit approval his wife offers him, in not questioning his whereabouts when he’s engaged in an extramarital affair. Does she show affection and support in other ways? The truth is most women under the influence of the Feminine Imperative don’t support their partners, nor do they cultivate an understanding with them in regards to the limits of their sexual capacity.
Men, for their part, like to think sexual intercourse with their partners, will always be available, given time and circumstance. The reality is, it isn’t. Our biologies weren’t meant to tolerate these conditions. Especially with a woman who will constantly shit test you and emasculate you, in every conceivable way she can divine.
A woman will invariably condemn you for your weakness, but expect understanding for hers.
There is a school of thought about being Red Pill and married that believes that getting a wife (or LTR girlfriend) to accept the ’new you’ as being impossible. Things may nominally improve due to a Dread dynamic working, but your new Red Pill marriage will never be what you want it to be because you have improved, she hasn’t and she never wanted you this way in the first place.
I don’t accept this assessment in its entirety, however I do see where this sentiment comes from. Most men who are awakened while married are men who followed the same script as the men I illustrate in Betas in Waiting. These are the men who have ’done everything right’ for the better part of their lives. They cultivated themselves to be the perfect providers that Sheryl Sandberg would have women believe will be waiting for them when their looks begin to fade and it’s time to cash out of the sexual marketplace. These are the men who believe their hard work and perseverance is finally paying off with the women who now find him irresistible because he represents their salvation in long term security and parental investment.
Most women entering their Epiphany Phase are expressly looking for a Beta to take care of them now that the Party Years are coming to an end for her. They’re (ostensibly) done with the Bad Boys (something they had to ’grow out of’) and now want to do things ’the right way’. This, of course, suits a Beta in Waiting just fine because his Blue Pill conditioning has prepared him by expecting him to ’do things the right way’ as well and to believe any woman wanting to do the same must be a mythical Quality Woman.
These men believe their ship has finally come in, but because of this these men are often the most difficult to unplug. They have the hardest time with Red Pill awareness because in accepting it they must also accept that what led up to their marriage to that Quality Woman was also a result of their Blue Pill conditioning. A lot of their ego is invested in Beta Game and Blue Pill convictions, but also a forced-convincing of themselves that they did everything right and were rewarded for it.
This is why it’s a bitter pill to swallow when that guy’s wife drip-feeds him sex, or he discovers her sexual best was reserved for another man in her past, or she tells him she loves him, but she’s not in love with him. Even in the face of outright disrespect or his Beta confirmations of failed shit tests, he’ll still refuse to acknowledge his state. Often it’s only prolonged sexlessness (and even this is rationalized for a long time) that motivates him to seek the answers of Red Pill awareness.
The Beta in Waiting never had Frame before or during his marriage. In fact, it was just that lack of Frame that made him marriage material for his wife. He was never “Alpha” for her, and in his equalist mindset he believed this was what set him apart and made him attractive then. Thus, going from this very strong Beta initial impression to an Alpha position of dominance can be all but impossible — particularly if his self-confirmed status was that of being a proud Beta to begin with.
There are other men who’ll report having had an Alpha status prior to their marriage, but they lost it somewhere along the way. They were the Alpha ’backsliders’ who, possibly, entered into the marriage with a dominant Frame, but this dissolved as his wife’s Frame or insecurities about him came to dominate their relationship. I think this is likely the scenario that seems the most comfortably believable when a man becomes awakened while married. It is a return to a prior impression (or one his wife had hoped he’d find) and therefor more believable when he does. The ’tamed’ Alphas are also the guys with wives who’ll try to actively minimize his Red Pill transformation. Their wives are simultaneously aroused by this rekindling of his Alpha dominance, but fearful that he will come to see her as the failed investment she likely is for him. That may or may not be the actual case for him, but for her it will prompt possessiveness and a control over how he’s allowed to ’appropriately’ express this dominance — which in turn disqualifies it.
The Red Pill shows you the dark side of women. Not so that you will hate them but so you appreciate them for what they are, not what they’re not.
I think one of the harder aspects of the Red Pill for men who get awakened-while-married (or while monogamous) to accept is seeing the disillusionment of their Blue Pill idealism about women confirmed for them in the behavior and mindsets of their wives. Breaking the Blue Pill ego-investments of single men who unplug is a difficult task, but their investment risk in women (real or imagined) they believe might make acceptable long-term mates is far less than a man who’s been married for more than 4 or 5 years.
For the single Red Pill guy with the option to simply walk away from a less than optimal situation, his conflict becomes one of potentials and weighing them against his Blue Pill ideals — ideals his unplugging should rid him of. His struggles is one about the “what ifs” and disabusing himself of the scarcity mentality that the Blue Pill has conditioned him for. While Hypergamy inherently instills in women a persistent doubt about a man’s quality, the Blue Pill instills in men a doubt about “quality” women’s scarcity and his capacity to find and maintain a ’soul mate’.
However for married men, with a considerable amount of emotional, social, financial and familial investment at stake in his marriage, there’s a natural resistance that comes in the form of denial. What’s tough is that, within this initial state of denial, a husband accepts the Red Pill truths about women and then has those truths confirmed for him by the woman he’s been sleeping next to for a number of years. All of the awareness about men and women’s differing concepts of love, the truth of women’s Hypergamously motivated opportunism, her confirming her open Hypergamy, all of the events that led up to his committing himself in marriage to her while he was still effectively Blue Pill — all of that gets confirmed for him when he puts into practice the concepts he learns from the Red Pill.
For all of the supposed ’anger’ that profiteering critics would like to wipe off on Red Pill thought, that anger finds its base in men’s confirming their own role in what was (or would’ve been) a life-long strategy for him to fulfill the dictates of women’s Hypergamy as well as the larger scope of the Feminine Imperative. When we put this into the perspective of a married man who unplugs, you can see why this is such a threat to the imperative. That man must reassess his life from the position of his being an unwitting participant in his Blue Pill conditioning, but furthermore, he becomes a constant caution, a warning, for men who have yet to make the same uneducated decisions he has.
There is nothing more depressing to me than to listen to a married man parrot back all of the tropes the Feminine Imperative has taught him to repeat about why he’s in the subservient role in his marriage. These are the guys who’ll laughingly tell single men how they must “clear everything with the Boss” before they are allowed (or will allow themselves) to participate in anything remotely masculine or self-entertaining. These are the men who prattle about their ’honey-do’ lists, the men who count themselves fortunate to have such a ’great wife’ who’ll allow him to watch hockey or football on a weekend.
These husbands are depressing to me because, in their Blue Pill ignorance, they represent the summation of their roles according to the strategies of the Feminine Imperative. They’ll gladly White Knight for their wives’ right to the Frame of their marriage (under the pretense of equalism). They’ll laugh and commiserate with other husbands sharing their position of powerlessness-but-with-all-accountability. They’ll chirp with funny little Facebook memes that share their ridiculous, married state, but for all of that acquiescing to their ’fates’ what they really represent is the goal-state of men in the Feminine Imperative’s plan for their lives.
Men generally come to the realization of their appointed role at some point in their lives. Whether it’s Red Pill awareness or coming to a mid life crisis epiphany, men get ’woke’ in some respect. The few who don’t are men whose existence literally depends on their not coming to terms with how the Blue Pill has made them what/who they are. The most common way for men to come into this awareness has been that mid-life epiphany, but in order for men to reconcile that awareness with maintaining a comfortable sense of self they become men who readily abdicate Frame. They really don’t know anything else but what the Blue Pill has created them to be, so they go into denial and add some self-deprecating humor to it to cope with the dissonance of knowing they’ve been played by the Feminine Imperative for the better part of their lives. So you get the ’Yes Dear’ husbands; the men who realize the truth too late, but that same scarcity mentality forces them to go along to get along.
The rise of Red Pill awareness of intersexual dynamics on the internet has made for a community of men who find this denial distasteful. Rather than abdicate to the imperative and their wife’s Frame they look to the Red Pill and Game for a remedy to that state. Sometimes that’s getting their wives to have sex with them more frequently or they’re looking to better themselves in a Red Pill context to gain women’s (their wives’) respect. As I’ve mentioned many times before, the Red Pill represents a threat to the Feminine Imperative keeping men ignorant of their roles in women’s Hypergamous plans. Now that threat comes to fruition in the context of men’s marriages.
One way or another, men will become aware of their role, how that man goes about dealing with it is another story. Most (being Blue Pill) abdicate and accept their powerlessness in their relationships. It’s the other men who choose not to just cope, but to reconstruct themselves that the Red Pill will have answers for.
Break Up with Your Wife
In various comment threads on my blog and on the Red Pill Reddit forums readers had a discussion about how any marriage (at least in the contemporary sense) is always founded on a Beta status for the husband. I don’t entirely agree with that assessment, but considering how the large majority of marriages are the culmination of Blue Pill conditioned men fulfilling their role as semi-cuckolded provider for women cashing out of the sexual marketplace it’s certainly an understandable presumption. I won’t elaborate too much on the particulars, but the very act of committing to a woman monogamously implies a man (even one with an Alpha persona) is leaning towards a predominantly Beta perception. As the logic goes, Alpha’s don’t commit to anyone but themselves, Betas are eager to commit from necessity and scarcity. The act becomes the confirmation.
If we follow this binary logic, the only solution to a man’s condition within his marriage — the only way to institute a real change — is to reject and break that commitment. Personally, I have lived out what most men would envy in my marriage for over 21 years now, so the idea of leaving Mrs. Tomassi would only seem like a good idea if I weren’t satisfied sexually, psychologically and lifewise with her. But, as I always repeat, don’t use my marriage as a benchmark. There was a point where I needed to break up with her, if only by adopting my own mental point of origin above that of hers or women in general as my own Blue Pill conditioning would expect of me.
I mentioned in the beginning of this section that married (committed) men seeking to reconstruct themselves within that context ought to read the post for the Iron Rule of Tomassi #7:
Iron Rule of Tomassi #7
It is always time and effort better spent developing new, fresh, prospective women than it will ever be in attempting to reconstruct a failed relationship. Never root through the trash once the garbage has been dragged to the curb. You get messy, your neighbors see you do it, and what you thought was worth digging for is never as valuable as you thought it was.
I mention this as a starting point because when you’re making the decision
to reconstruct yourself you must ’do it for you’. Once again, any real change always beggars the question about who you’re really changing for. Nothing is an act of unguided, unbiased, self-initiated change — there is always some ancillary influences as well as consequences. This is the crisis of motive — who are we really doing something for?
However, if you find yourself awakened-while-married and you want to remake yourself, know that this change must be for yourself and not for your wife. This decision to reconstruct your life, your persona, your belief set, etc., and reject what the Blue Pill has made of you must come as a result of making yourself your mental point of origin. This ’new you’ precludes any consideration of your wife’s interests. It must be in order for your transformation to be genuine to both yourself and those who know the ’old’ you. As I mentioned earlier, the likelihood of your wife accepting your new persona is dependent upon whose dominant Frame you entered that relationship with as well as what you’ve surrendered of your self-respect to her.
This is the most difficult part for Blue Pill men wanting to reconstruct themselves. Their mental point of origin doesn’t change. They want to change because they want to be “more Alpha” for their wives, not themselves. The Purple Pill hope is to adopt just enough Alpha that their wives turn the sex spigot back on for them, but never really internalize the Red Pill to the point that is fundamentally changes who they are. Thus, it becomes an act not unlike newbie Pickup Artists (PUAs) aping the behaviors of their mentors, but never internalizing the deeper meanings of why they work or making them part of ’who’ they are as a person.
This is what kills a man’s reconstruction before it ever starts. That change must be a self-first proposition. Your Red Pill self-work must be intrinsically rewarding because there is absolutely no guarantee that a man’s wife / girlfriend will ever reimagine him from a different perspective. Particularly if that woman entered into that marriage/LTR because she’d hoped to maintain Frame indefinitely due to him abdicating it.
You must become Red Pill aware for the sake of knowing the larger truth, internalize it and then apply it without the pretense of believing it can be used to achieve Blue Pill ideals. Those ideals must be replaced with new ideals founded on what a Red Pill aware reality makes possible.
With this in mind, you must presume that you are breaking up with your wife / girlfriend. It is far better to approach your reconstruction from the idea that the new Red Pill you would likely have nothing to do with a woman like your wife. If you were a single man, Red Pill aware and Game savvy, would you even approach your wife knowing what you do now about her personally as well as what you know about the Feminine Imperative and how it influences her? Would the juice be worth the squeeze with her knowing what you do about Red Pill truth?
Your reconstruction requires a radical shift that is only possible for you by breaking up with your LTR, at least in a subconscious respect. It is important to assess what, if anything, is worth rooting through garbage for. If you approach your reconstruction by first making yourself your mental point of origin, the next step is to assume you will be breaking up with your wife. In actuality it may never come to that, but this is the gravity which a man must bring to his reconstruction. The same reasoning I mention in Rooting through Garbage applies to your reconstruction:
Even if you could go back to where you were, any relationship you might have with an Ex will be colored by all of the issues that led up to the breakup. In other words, you know what the end result of those issues has been. It will always be the 800 pound gorilla in the room in any future relationship. As I elaborated in the Desire Dynamic, healthy relationships are founded on genuine mutual desire, not a list of negotiated terms and obligations, and this is, by definition, exactly what any post-breakup relationship necessitates. You or she may promise to never do something again, you may promise to “rebuild the trust”, you may promise to be someone else, but you cannot promise to pretend that the issues leading up to the breakup don’t have the potential to dissolve it again. The doubt is there. You may be married for 30 years, but there will always be that one time when you two broke up, or she fucked that other guy, and everything you think you’ve built with her over the years will always be compromised by that doubt of her desire.
You will never escape her impression that you were so optionless you had to beg her to rekindle her intimacy with you.
It is always time and effort better spent developing new, fresh, prospective women than it will ever be in attempting to reconstruct a failed relationship. This is the same rationale you will need to adopt when you transition into a new Red Pill aware persona. This is necessary because once you’ve become aware there is no going back to that previous state of ignorance. You will know what can be possible with or without your wife/LTR.
Thus, it is important to zero everything out in your own head and treat your old wife as a new prospective woman. This perspective may mean she becomes someone not worth your effort, but it might also mean she likes the prospect of a new husband. This may mean she too will have to undertake some kind of transformation in relating to a Red Pill aware husband, or it might be that this is something she never foresaw. Dread works best when a man understands the Cardinal Rule of Relationships: In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.
By adopting the mindset that you are breaking up with her you reclaim this power. You have nothing to lose and have no way of going back to unknowing the Red Pill awareness you have now.
For single men I often point out that breaking up with a girl is one of the best ways to demonstrate higher value (DHV). The downside to that is that by the time you get to the point of leaving demonstrating higher value isn’t what you really care about. For the reconstructing man, adopting the position that you are breaking up (or have broken up) harnesses some of this DHV.
Most women (wives) will interpret your new self-importance as some kind of phase or your reclaiming your independence (rather than her co-dependence) as some childish sulking behavior. Anticipate this. She will presume you’re ’going your own way’ within the marriage to force her to fuck you more or to get her to comply with your Frame. This is to be expected, but watch what her initial reactions to your takeaway are. This will give you an insight into how she perceives you.
If you’re predominantly Beta her response will be that you’re pouting or sulking by removing your attention. She’ll roll her eyes and reflexively respond with Beta Tells. If she sees you as Alpha her response will be much more serious and you’ll get the “what’s wrong baby?” reaction. This is a good starting point in determining her genuine perception of you.
You will effectively be NEXTing your wife so be prepared for her post-NEXTing behavior-set (extinction burst behavior) in the same way you would if you dropped a Plate you were spinning. This will be a tough transition for men who have invested themselves emotionally in their wives (which is to say most men). You’ll want to come back to that place of comfort, but always remember that place is one of disrespect and sexlessness.
Most men will go half-way in their reconstruction and this is usually the result of having played a game of relationship ’chicken’. Men have their bluff called because it was always a bluff to begin with them — they never made themselves their mental point of origin so they go back to the safety of their Blue Pill disrespect. Their wives respond to the takeaway of their attention, but never really connect with being attracted to his new self-respect and self-importance. Once that woman even marginally steps up her sexual frequency — motivated by her wanting him to return to her Frame — the guy gets comfortable and wants to go back to his comfy wife while feeling validated by thinking he made a genuine change that she responded to.
You must go all the way. If you don’t, the next time you attempt to exercise your Red Pill awareness in the hope that she’ll accept the new you, you’ll be that much more laughable to her. In fact, you’ll only further cement her perception of your whiny Beta status. The first time it’s Dread, the second time it’s you being pissy.
All that said, the real authenticity of your Red Pill transformation is ultimately up to you. I’ve read the testimonies of men who’ve completely redirected the course of their lives and their marriages because they stuck to their guns (usually had nothing to lose) and went through the fire of having their wives resist their transformation. These men went from a predominantly Beta perception to at least a lesser Alpha one and were surprised that the lackluster wives they’d been married to for years responded with an eager submission to a dominance they never knew she truly wanted. Their equalist mindset had taught them never to experiment with assuming a dominant Frame with a women who would be their wives, but were surprised that authentic dominance was exactly what she wanted from a husband.
Then there are the men like the one whose story started us off in this section. The men who made an authentic reconstruction of themselves, but their predominantly Beta impression with their wives was to great an obstacle for her to overcome. Even in these instances that Red Pill transformation is always a net positive since that man is much better prepared for the new prospective women he will eventually find himself with. It may be depressing that he was unable to reinvent his relationship with a woman he’d had so much emotional investment in, but in the long term that Red Pill awareness made him a greater man than the Beta husband he’d been before.
The Power of NEXT
The opposite of love is not hate — the opposite of love is indifference.
I think one of the biggest mistakes guys against a Three Strikes rule make is assuming that it means a guy would be so preoccupied with sex that you couldn’t wait for 4-6 dates. They assume that a Three Strikes rule (or any rule dependent upon sexual reciprocation) makes them Players at best, superficial and overly sex-concerned at worst. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The mistake is to presume that a 3 date policy is some form of punishment for the girl for not having ’put out’ soon enough to verify interest. It’s not punishment, it’s a fail-safe that serves to protect a guy from some protracted personal investment for a very limited return. For example, I play golf and when I want to improve my game I hire a golf pro. I pay him $120 for 3 lessons, so $40 per lesson (very similar to the $40 per date rule). At the end of my 3rd lesson I assess whether or not my game’s improved and I can decide to continue with him or, if I see no improvement I can choose to find another pro and do the same. There are a lot of golf pros ready to work with me. I’m not punishing the pro for doing this, I’m simply looking for the best value in an area I wish to improve in. If I think my swing has improved or I notice my average go up, I’ll continue with the pro.
The misunderstanding is to see a Three Strikes rule as a threat. “She’d better put out after tonight or I’m outta here”. I can see why that would place a burden upon a woman, but you must take into account why a Three Strike rule would even be a necessary concept. Three dates (and I mean real dates, none of this coffee / lunch crap) over the course of three weeks should be ample time to make the assessment as to whether a woman has interest and attraction enough to become intimate. Anything beyond this is indicative of filibustering on a woman’s part and usually points to an only lukewarm interest level if at all. In this way a Three Strike rule benefits both men and women; why would either sex want to engage in a relationship that was lackluster from the start? Why would either want to be involved with a person who was settled on or settled for?
It’s urgency and anxiety that makes for genuine, chemical-fueled sexual desire — not comfort, not familiarity. This is precisely why I say “any woman who makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex; the sex is NEVER worth the wait”. It’s not that you can’t have sex with her, it’s that the sex is compromised, filibustered, internally debated, choice-of-necessity sex. It becomes mundane before anyone’s clothes come off.
The Power of NEXT
I used the above situation as a prelude to illustrate the power of tapping into one of the most elusive and difficult to internalize principles of Game — the power of NEXT. It’s very easy to casually type, “just NEXT her man” when you have no personal investment in the advice you give. It’s standard male deductive pragmatism, and rightly so, to solve the problem by eliminating the source of it. Likewise when you lack a real understanding of the personal conditions and mental schema the average guy (i.e. Matrix-Beta) is predisposed to, telling him to simply NEXT the only plate he’s got spinning is about as useful as telling him to Just Be Himself with the next girl he happens into.
Spinning Plates is actually the best starting point for mastering the power of NEXT. When you have other irons in the fire it’s much easier to shift the focus of your attention to another woman; at least in theory. There’s a certain degree of emotional dissociation that needs to be made and this is usually dependent upon the personal investment a Man puts into any one woman. Far too many men, and even practiced PUAs, have a very hard time with NEXT not only because of this dissociation, but also the doubt that comes from “what might have been.” Couple this with a soul-mate myth inspired ONEitis and you can see why most guys will fight to their own bitter end not to NEXT the girl they’re with.
It’s exactly this doubt that makes men think they’d be throwing the baby out with the bath water by NEXTing a woman. A lot of men think that NEXTing a girl is some knee-jerk response from guys who don’t have any other ideas of what to do, when in fact it should be a practiced, default response for the first indication that a woman is insisting on setting the Frame in her favor by manipulating a guy using her intimacy as a carrot to pull the cart.
It’s men without options that find NEXTing a girl in some way ’wrong’, and to a man with only one plate spinning this is entirely counterintuitive, but it’s important to remember that Rejection is better than Regret — even if you’re the one doing the rejecting. It’s better err on the side of NEXTing than be dragged into the quicksand of a woman’s frame.
The opposite of love is not hate — the opposite of love is indifference. When your silence inspires more anxiety than any spoken threat, that’s when you’re approaching Alpha status.
Learning indifference is the key to mastering the power of NEXT. Women are masters of indifference for the same reason Men with options (i.e. Plate Spinners) find it useful; they derive confidence from having options. Since women (in their prime) are the primary sexual selectors, indifference is their natural default state. It’s only Men with options who make an impact enough to rattle a woman out of this default indifference and fire her imagination.
NEXTing as a tool is one of the best ways to determine real interest level in a woman. Dumping a woman is one of the highest forms of demonstrating higher value that a man possesses. Nine times out of ten the NEXTed woman will attempt to reconnect with the guy who’s got the personal confidence enough to walk away from her. Why is this? Because it shakes up the routine which you slip into by playing in her Frame. In behavioral psychology terms she’s about to go into what’s called an extinction burst. You’ve removed her source of reward (i.e. attention, comfort, familiarity) and now — if it was at all rewarding to her — she will frantically attempt to restore it.
Uncertainty is exciting, particularly after you’ve set a pattern of behavior that she thinks is secure. Unpredictability is good. The guy who can walk away from a less than optimal situation is a man communicating that he believes he has options and the confidence to be uncompromising (or at least less compromising) in what he’s willing to accept. The secret is that pussy is an easily had commodity and it’s up to a woman to convince you that her intimacy is in someway uniquely valuable among all others.
The hard truth, that she’s well aware of, is that no amount of sex is an equitable trade for a man’s complacency and/or compromising his identity. That’s always going to be the paradox of walking away from sure-thing pussy; what degree of sexual access is your lowest bidding point with regard to compromising your authentic identity and your own wants and needs?
In fact, a woman wants you to walk away; it communicates that her intimacy has no control over you putting you decisively in control (where she wants you to be), increases her desire by planting a seed of doubt of her estimation of you, proves you to be a man with other irons in the fire, and confirms for her that your attentions are valuable to other (potentially competing) women.
Permanent NEXTing — Going Dark
There will come times when NEXTing a poisonous woman becomes a necessity. For any number of reasons, extracting her from your life may be essential to saving your own life. NEXTing under these conditions (really a break up) takes on much more gravity since the woman you’re cutting off will still experience the same extinction burst despite the factors (perhaps her own fault) that led to it. The same basic principles of emotional dissonance apply, but the emotional investment may make it impossible to achieve true indifference. It’s during these extinction burst when she opens up sexually to retain a failing interest that prove the most difficult for men to resist. A starving man can’t help but want to eat from the most convenient buffet prepared for him, even when arsenic is on the menu.
As I mentioned in War Brides in my first book, women have an innate psychological facility in achieving a degree of indifference that men can scarcely believe they’re capable of — even after decades of an LTR or marriage. So imagining and enacting a disconnect of this emotional magnitude is kind of a foreign concept for men to embrace themselves. It not only goes against our deductive, problem solving natures, but it also conflicts with our idealistic concept of love that teaches us to stick with her no matter what, “all for love.”
Keep that in mind; the intent of your leaving isn’t punishment for her misbehavior, nor is it meant to teach her a lesson to learn from —you’re not leaving her ’better than you found her’ — it’s to save your own life from further damage. As I stated earlier, NEXTing a woman is demonstrating higher value of the highest order. True or not, It implies you have other, better options than her. NEXTing her implies you’ve just gone from a comfortable, familiar Beta to the indifferent Alpha that she never appreciated you had a capacity for. What serves as a benefit in Tactical NEXTing is liability in a Permanent NEXT. You will hear from her again. At first it will be desperate and crying, later it will be casual with feigned nonchalance, then it moves to anger and spite — don’t take the bait.
The best thing you can do is go dark. Block her calls / texts, drop her from Facebook if you have one, cut off all contact. No messages via friends, no “hey howya doing?”, nothing but indifference. You’re off the grid for her.
Learning indifference is the key to the power of NEXT. Presuming and cultivating that presence of indifference makes your attention that much more valuable and makes a permanent NEXT a much easier transition.
The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies
When I first began writing on the SoSuave forums well over a decade ago I used to get into what I consider now some fairly predictable arguments about monogamy. It was an interesting time since it was around then I was getting into some heated arguments in my behavioral psychology classes in college.
I had just written what would later become my essay, There is no One and a good majority of my classmates and all of my teachers but one were less than accepting of the theory. I anticipated most of the women in the class would be upset — bear in mind this was around 2001-02 and the Red Pill was yet to be a thing — what I was surprised by was how many men became hostile by my having challenged the soul-mate myth.
I got a lot of the same flack from women then that I get from uninitiated women when they read my work now; “Aren’t you married? Isn’t she your soul-mate? Don’t you believe in love? You must’ve got burned pretty bad at some time Mr. Hateful.” Those were and are what I expect because they’re the easy subroutine responses a Blue Pill ego needs to protect itself with.
There was a time I probably would’ve mouthed the same. That’s how the conditioning works; it provides us with what we think ought to be ’obvious’ to anyone. And at the same time, we feel good for ’defying the odds’ and believing in what we take for granted, or common sense.
This is how deep the subconscious need for assuring our genetic heritage goes. For women this assurance is about optimal Hypergamy, for men, it’s about assurances of paternity. In either case, we need to believe that we will reproduce, and so much so that we will attribute some supernatural influence to the process of doing so. The fulfillment of your own sexuality is nothing less than your battle for existence, and on some level, your subconscious understands this. Thus, for the more religious-minded it gets attributed to fate and faith, whereas for the more secular-minded it’s about the romanticized notion of a soul-mate.
Monogamy & ONEitis
I contemplated the idea of ONEitis for a long time back then. I’d most certainly been through it more than once, even with the BPD ex-girlfriend I mention on occasion. By then I understood first hand how the soul-mate belief absorbs a Beta and how it is an essential element, effectively a religion, for a Blue Pill life experience. I didn’t realize it then, but I was maturing into a real valuation of myself and I had the benefit of some real-world experiences with the nature of women to interpret and contrast what I was learning then.
Honestly, I had never even encountered the term ’ONEitis’ prior to my SoSuave forum days. I referred to the soul-mate myth in my writing as best I could, but it wasn’t until (I suppose) PUA Mystery had coined the term. Outside the ’sphere people got genuinely upset with me when I defined it for them. Back then I attributed this to having their ego-investment challenged, and while that’s part of it, today I believe there’s more to it than this.
The old social contracts that constituted what I call the Old Set of Books meant a lot in respect to how the social orders prior to the sexual revolution were maintained. That structuring required an upbringing that taught men and women what their respective roles were, and those roles primarily centered on a lifetime arrangement of pair bonding.
It’s interesting to note that the popular theory amongst evolutionary anthropologists is that modern monogamous culture has only been around for just 1,000 years. Needless to say, it’s a very unpopular opinion that human beings are in fact predisposed to polyamory / polygamy and monogamy is a social adaptation (a necessary one) with the purpose of curbing the worst consequences of that nature. We want to believe that monogamy is our nature and our more feral impulses are spandrels and inconveniences to that nature. We like the sound of humans having evolved past our innate proclivities to the point that they are secondary rather than accepting them as fundamental parts of who we really are.
Women, in particular, are far more invested in promoting the idea of ’natural’ monogamy since it is their sex that bears the cost of reproductive investments. Even the hint of men acknowledging their ’selfish gene’ nature gets equated with being a license to cheat on women. This is an interesting conflict for women who are increasingly accepting (if not outright flaunting) of Open Hypergamy.
I’ve attempted in past essays to address exactly this duplicity women have to rationalize with themselves. The Preventive Medicine book outlines this conflict and how women internalize the need to be both Hypergamously selective, but also to prioritize long-term security at various stages of their lives. Ultimately a woman’s position on monogamy is ruled by how she balances her present Alpha Fucks with her future prospects of Beta Bucks.
Seed and Need
It might be that women would rather share a confirmed Alpha with other women than be saddled with a faithful Beta, but that’s not to say that necessity doesn’t eventually compel women to settle for monogamy with a dutiful Beta. In either respect, the onus of sustained, faithful monogamy is always a responsibility placed upon men. We’re the ’dogs’ remember? Our Masculine Imperative distills down to unlimited access to unlimited sexuality, and women innately presuppose this about us.
The indignation that comes from even the suspicions of a man’s “straying”, a wandering eye, or preplanned infidelity is one of the most delicious sensations a woman can feel. Suspicion and jealousy create a wonderful chemical cocktail women crave. Women will create syndicated talk shows just to commiserate around that indignation for the chemical rush. But in an era when the likes of Sheryl Sandberg encourages women to fully embrace their Hypergamous natures and expects men to be equally accepting of it, it takes a lot of psychological gymnastics to reconcile the visceral feelings of infidelity with the foreknowledge that a less exciting Beta will be the only type of man who will calm her suspicions — suspicion that make her feel alive.
It’s important to also contrast this with the socialization efforts to make women both victims and blameless. In a feminine-primary social order men who lack an appreciation of the necessity to prepare for a sustained monogamy with a woman are considered ’kidults’ or prolonging their adolescence. They are shamed for not meeting women’s definition of being mature; that definition is always one that centers on the idea that men ought to center their lives around being a better-than-deserved, faithful, monogamous potential for women’s long-term security and parental investment.
On the other hand, women are never subject to any qualifications like this. In fact, they are held in higher regard for bucking the system and staying faithful to themselves by never marrying or even aborting children along the way to ’empowerment’. So once again, we return to the socialization effort necessary to absolve women of the consequences that the conflict of Hypergamy poses to them — they become both victims and blameless in confronting a monogamy they expect from men, but are somehow exempt from when it’s inconvenient.
Arguably, pair bonding has been a primary adaptation for us that has been species-beneficial. It’s fairly obvious that humans’ capacity for both intra- and inter-sexual cooperation has made us the apex species on the planet. However, the Feminine Imperative’s primary social impetus of making Hypergamy the defining order of (ideally) all cultures is in direct conflict with this human cooperation. A new order of open Hypergamy, based on female primacy (and the equalist importance of the individual), subverts the need for pair bonding. There is no need for intersexual interdependence (complementarity) when women are socialized and lauded for being self-satisfying, self-sufficient individuals.
Add to this the conditioning of unaccountable victimhood and/or the inherent blamelessness of women and you get an idea of where our social order is heading. Both sex’s evolved sexual strategies operate counter to the demands of pair bonded monogamy. For millennia we’ve adapted social mechanisms to buffer for it (marriage, male protectionism of women, etc.), but the cardinal rule of sexual strategies still informs these institutions and practices:
The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.
In this respect, in this era, it is men who are expected to make the greater compromise due to an evolved sense of uncertainty about paternity and the social mandate to accommodate women’s sexual strategy. The counter to this is that women have always borne the responsibility of parental investment if they chose a father poorly (or didn’t choose at all), but in our post-sexual revolution social order, the consequences of this responsibility, for better or worse, have been virtually eliminated for women. In fact, those consequences are now viewed as evidence of women’s independent strength.
In our present social climate even aborting a child is a source of pride for a woman now.
Men bear the greater effect of compromising their sexual strategies to accommodate and resolve the strategy of women. When we account for the normalization of Open Hypergamy, soft cuckoldry, and the legal resistance to paternity testing (ostensibly centering on the emotional wellbeing of the child in question) it is much clearer that men bear the most direct consequences for compromising their sexual imperatives.
From Dr. Warren Farrell’s book. Why Men are the Way They Are:
Why are men so afraid of commitment? Chapter 2 explained how most men’s primary fantasy is still, unfortunately, access to a number of beautiful women. For a man, commitment means giving up this fantasy. Most women’s primary fantasy is a relationship with one man who either provides economic security or is on his way to doing so (he has “potential”). For a woman, commitment to this type of man means achieving this fantasy. So commitment often means that a woman achieves her primary fantasy, while a man gives his up. — P.150
Men who “won’t commit” are often condemned for treating women as objects — hopping from one beautiful woman to the next. Many men hop. But the hopping is not necessarily objectifying. Men who “hop from one beautiful woman to another” are usually looking for what they could not find at the last hop: good communication, shared values, good chemistry. — P.153
The meaning of commitment changed for men between the mid-sixties and the mid-eighties. Commitment used to be the certain route to sex and love, and to someone to care for the children and the house and fulfill the “family man image.” Now men feel less as if they need to marry for sex; they are more aware that housework can be hired out and that restaurants serve meals; they are less trapped by family-man image motivation, including the feeling that they must have children. Increasingly, that leaves men’s main reason to commit the hope of a woman to love. — P.159
Dr. Farrell is still fundamentally trapped in a Blue Pill perspective because he still clings to the validity of the old order books/rules, and the willfully ignorant hope that women will rationally consider men’s sexual imperatives as being as valid as their own. He also makes the same Apex Fallacy presumption women do in believing ’many men hop’. This is a common misplacement among women; many men would like to hop from woman to woman, but only the upper echelon (top 20%) of SMV men can actually do so.
That said, Farrell’s was the germ of the idea I had for the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies, he just didn’t go far enough because he was (and still is) stuck in Blue Pill idealistic hopes of equalist monogamy. Bear in mind, Farrell’s book is based on his intrasexual understandings (inspired by feminism) of everything leading up to its publication in 1986, however, this does give us some insight into how the old order evolved its approach to monogamy then into an open, socially accepted form of Hypergamy now.
He relies on the old trope that men are afraid of commitment by reasoning that men only want to fulfill a fantasy of unlimited access to unlimited sexuality — all shallow, all superficial, while women’s priority of commitment is ’correct’, selfless, valid and blameless. Farrell also reveals his Blue Pill conditioning by making the presumption that men only Game women in the hope that they’ll find a unicorn, and they’re endlessly fucking women for no other reason than to find a woman with good communication skills, shared values, good chemistry, etc. — all prerequisites for women’s intimacy.
I sincerely doubt that even in the mid 8os this was the case for men not wanting to commit to a woman, or essentially compromise his sexual strategy to accommodate that of women’s. Though he brushed on it, Farrell never came to terms with dual nature of women’s sexual strategy and how it motivates women over time because he believes men and women have, fundamentally, the same concept of love and mutually shared end-goals.
The presumption of equalist correctness is really an endorsement of feminine correctness. Because equalism presume a baseline, blank-slate equality between the sexes it also presumes an equality among experience for both sexes. Farrell falls into this trap, as most Blue Pill men do, by presuming a unitary long term goal of both sexes is essentially the fulfillment of women’s sexual strategy.
Mandates & Responses
In the decades since the publication of Why Men Are The Way They Are, the normalization and legal mandates that ensure men will (by legislated force if necessary) comply with this compromise is something I doubt Farrell could’ve ever predicted. Legal and social aspects that used to be a source of women’s stigmatization about this compromise have all been swept away or normalized, if not converted to some redefined source of supposed strength. Abortion rights, single parenting (almost exclusively the domain of women), postponing birth, careerism, freezing women’s eggs, sperm banks, never-marrying, body fat acceptance and many more aspects are all accepted in the name of strong independence® for women.
Virtually anything that might’ve been a source of regret, shame, or stigmatization in the old order is dismissed or repurposed to elevate women, but what most men never grasp (certainly not Dr. Farrell) is that all of these normalizations were and are potential downsides to a woman’s Hypergamous decisions. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution all of these downsides have been mitigated or absolved.
MGTOW/PUA/ The Red Pill, are all the deductive responses to this normalization, but also, they’re a response to the proposition of the compromise that the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies presents to men in today’s sexual marketplace. In all of these ’movements’ the fundamental, central truth is that they all run counter to the presumption that men must compromise (or abandon) their sexual imperatives — long or short term. Thus, these ideologies and praxeologies have the effect of challenging or removing some of the total control of Hypergamy which women now have mandated to them. Even just the concepts of MGTOW/PUA/TRP are equatable to removing this control.
However, it is still undeniable that there is a necessity for monogamy (even if it’s just temporary) or some iteration of pair bonding that ensures men and women raise healthier, stronger, better-developed children. We are still social animals and, despite what equalism espouses, we are different yet complementary and interdependent with one another. Mutual cooperation, tribalism, monogamy and even small-scale soft-polygamy have been beneficial social adaptations for us.
Gynocentrism and the respondent efforts against it defeat this complementary cooperative need. Gynocentrism / egalitarianism defeat this cooperation need in its insistence that equalism, self-apart independence, and homogeny ought to be society’s collective mental point of origin in place of the application of differing strengths to differing weaknesses.
I’m often asked by offended critics whether I believe in “equality among the sexes”. Even just the asking in an implied accusation of misogyny, but the answer is a resounding ’no’. I do believe in complementarity among the sexes, but equality always implies a belief in a homogeneous capacity for either sex to meet environmental and situational challenges to equal effect.
Men and women are fundamentally different, but by my sayings so the binary response is that I must believe that men are the superior sex. This is also untrue. I believe that for some environmental, situational or adaptive challenges, men’s strengths can make them superior or weaker than women. Likewise, women’s innate natures can make them greater or weaker than men meeting the same challenges. What egalitarian equalism presumes is that life happens in a vacuum and functionally equal women are as good as men within that vacuum.
But life is not a level playing field at all times in all ways and men and women have evolved differently and often cooperatively, to be complementary to the other in meeting the demands of an ever-changing reality. Either sex’s imperatives or life strategies is only superior or inferior insofar as it meets a challenge.
Presuming that men and women are standalone, autonomous, self-sustaining entities is one of the great lies perpetrated by egalitarian equalism. The meme of the Strong Independent Woman® is an indictment of an ideology that ostensibly rejects the need for complementary support between the sexes, but at the same time presumes a superiority of women.
So we come to an impasse then. It’s likely it will require a traumatic social event to reset or redefine the terms of our present social contract to ever make monogamy a worthwhile compromise for men again. We can also contrast this ’raw deal’ compromise against the Cardinal Rule of Relationships: In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. It’s easy to think women simply have no need of men when their longterm security is virtually assured today, but fem-centrism goes beyond just separating the sexes by need. It wasn’t enough to just separate male and female cooperation, fem-centrism has made men’s compromise so bad that they must be made to despise their sex altogether. Men had to be made not only to accept their downside compromise but to feel ashamed for even thinking not to.
SMV Ratios and Attachment
Since I produced the now infamous sexual market value (SMV) graph/time line I have had more than a few earnest readers and irritated critics call me to the carpet about the variables involved in estimating even a rough sketch of the modern, western, sexual marketplace landscape. Before I get in too deep, let me reiterate that my SMV chart is an imperfect tool; sexual market evaluation doesn’t happen in a vacuum, I know that, but it is a necessary starting point and framework against which we can better understand social, behavioral and psychological dynamics between the genders.
One of the larger messages this SMV life-overview brings to light is the rise and fall of an individual’s sexual market value according to their age and the personal implications that a phase of their life has on affecting that valuation. I originally published the SMV chart with the intent of enlightening men as to what their future SMV (should) will be in relation to women’s faster burning SMV, and the social conventions women, and the feminine imperative, have established in order to derail that awareness to better service women’s sexual priorities and Hypergamy. However, since then I’ve seen this chart passed around the Manosphere and into outside forums as an example of other related gender dynamics. The chart has other uses than my original idea.
The Ennobled Beta
With this in mind I was debating the idea of secure attachments in relationships with a friend during a summer hiatus. He’s what I’ll call an ’ennobled Beta’, not necessarily guilty of outright White Knighting, but he’s steeped in his Matrix conditioning enough to conflate a prescribed male role in egalitarian equalism with masculinity. In other words, to him, to be a ’supportive husband’ ® is to presume a position of absolute equalism in his relationship. Since he subscribes to the feminized notion of an historic condition of ’male privilege’, generally this means he believes that limiting his inborn masculine nature allows his wife to be “more equal”. To him, real manhood is repressing his innate masculinity (such as it is) so that his wife will feel less inhibited in becoming something more than what a ’masculine’ society will permit.
Yes, it’s classic Beta Identification Game; nothing I haven’t addressed already in the past decade. And yes, it’s also the classic feminist boilerplate that feminism has bred into contemporary males for over 60 years now. What hit me during this conversation is the presumption of an idealized equalism that can in some way be realized between a man and a woman in a long term relationship. The reason the topic came up with us was due to his wanting for his wife to be more aggressive with him sexually. He simply couldn’t grasp that his wife didn’t want to take the initiative with him in the bedroom. Here he was explaining the virtues of being a ’better male’ in his playing fair and even with his wife, yet for all his giving her space to grow, she wouldn’t be the sexual instigator with him despite his equalist expectations that she would feel comfortable being that instigator. In a way he subscribes to the Relational Equity fallacy — he believes she ought to appreciate him sexually because he’s invested so much of himself in ensuring she feels like his equal.
The problem he’s dealing with is the result of his belief in true gender neutrality. Learn this now, taken to its logical extreme, the end result of true gender neutrality is androgyny. No sexual dimorphism, just simple homogeneous androgyny. Fortunately for us, nature abhors homogeny and has always found dynamic ways around the dead ends that the inbreeding of androgyny produces.
My friend’s wife’s sexual passivity (and general disinterest) is one such dynamic. Try as he may, no amount of social equalization will prompt his wife’s biological sexual impulse — in essence he’s attempting to negotiate her desire with himself.
For all his frustration and inability to accept Red Pill truths I have to thank him because it was from this conflict that I had a starting point in estimating relationship attachment theory and its relation to SMV.
Blogger Roissy once proposed that the strength and security of any relationship rests in the disparity between each person’s sexual market value. While I endorse this principle, I’m going to take it a bit further. As a general principle it works well for the guy wanting to maintain his Frame in an LTR or marriage, however there’s more wrapped up in that SMV disparity than I think has been explored thus far.
As I stated, SMV doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Men may have an Alpha dominance established only to have it knocked back down after failing a particularly bad shit test. He may rate lower or higher depending on a social status that’s in flux. A woman must find ways to cope with an ever decaying SMV once she reaches her SMV peak and begins her decline towards the Wall. Childbirth and rearing, weight gain, satisfying a security need, and many other factors may also accelerate this process.
What I’m going to do here is propose a general outline for SMV disparity based on the ratio between both sexes. Before you read my outlines, keep in mind the Cardinal Rule of Relationships: In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. The overarching concept here is that the person in the relationship with the superior sexual market value will at least be perceived by the person of lesser value to need them less than the other. If it is established by concrete social proof that one person is of higher SMV than the other, it’s usually an accepted reality of that relationship, but bear in mind that it is the fluctuating perception of SMV that has more influence on the attachment and strength of that relationship.
Finally, from a feminine perspective it’s important to remember that Hypergamy is a game of perceptions, testing, confirmations and retesting new perceptions. This process has a pronounced effect on SMV evaluation, which is then influenced by a woman’s own self-perceptions.
This is the position of True Neutral I illustrated with my friend’s situation above. I’m starting here because this ratio is the mythological ideal every equalist will tell you they’re striving for. Be they male or female, what adherents of equal balance fail to consider is that real, sustainable equilibrium in SMV is an impossibility. What every modern woman and gelded male in an LTR will tell you is that they believe they are common examples of that SMV equilibrium. The truth is that their ego investment in that equalist idealism wont allow for the real introspect necessary to accurately evaluate what their true individual SMV really is —both in relation to themselves and the greater whole of society in their demographic. Hypergamy never seeks its own level, but this is what a True Neutral believes is possible.
A 1:1 SMV doesn’t exist. I’m sure there will be naysayers who feel they “play it fair” with their wives or girlfriends, but the fact remains that SMV is always in flux and doesn’t allow for a true, sustainable equilibrium. Hypergamy is an easy example; fail one too many shit tests and your equitable 1:1 ratio slips to 2:1 in a woman’s favor. A man getting to the gym more frequently or getting a promotion in status may be enough to raise that 1:1 balance. There are simply too many variables in a contemporary relationship to take the notion of SMV equilibrium seriously. Furthermore, we must consider the effect that social media plays in women self-evaluations of their own SMV. And this is only one (albeit significant) social distortion that can upset the idealistic equitable balance.
Even in the most stable and SMV balanced pairings, the simple fact that both sexes’ SMV peaks occur at differing phases of life makes the notion of a contented balance laughable. However, it is important for a Man to bear in mind that his SMV will eventually exceed that of any woman if he continues to improve himself and grows personally, physically and financially into his SMV peak years. There will eventually come a time when a woman’s SMV will decay to the point that her necessitousness will exceed her value. In other words, due to her fast burn-fast decay SMV, and recognized or not, she will eventually need a Man more than he needs her when he enters his peak SMV phase and she’s declined to the Wall of her own.
It’s during this critical phase that a woman must rely on her man’s socially expected love, charity, obligation and parental investment to maintain his secure attachment to her in the face of an obvious SMV imbalance. As I’ve covered before, women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices men make to facilitate women’s reality — and once those facial wrinkles and cellulite can no longer be disguised by makeup or collagen, women will still persist in the expectation of monogamous obligation, in preference to the genuine desire, love, devotion, etc. a man may legitimately feel about her regardless of her wrinkles.
This ratio has been defined in the past as the golden mean of SMV between the genders — so long as the man is on the beneficial side of it. The most successful, stable and loving relationships don’t result from being ’equally yoked’ — they result from a mutually acknowledged SMV superiority and masculine dominance of a positively masculine male and his adoring, yet subconsciously anxious, woman who is up to a point below him in her subjective SMV evaluation.
Some guys get to this position by default. Either aided by genetics, prior hard work or simply being single at the phase of life when his SMV is peaking while hers is in decline, a man can prolong this ratio far longer and far more realistically than the 1:1 idealization. This isn’t to say his SMV can’t be reduced by failing shit tests or by unfortunate personal circumstances, but the durability and resiliency of his higher SMV affords him more leeway in recovering from these missteps or calamities.
A man doesn’t necessarily need to be an Alpha cad to establish this ratio, all that’s required is an acknowledged recognition of this SMV imbalance and the appropriate recognition and adoration from the woman involved. There are plenty of Betas who enjoy the benefits of a 2:1 ratio even when they don’t (or refuse to) recognize an SMV imbalance that weighs in their favor.
From a female side a 2:1 ratio is generally what most modern women find themselves dealing with; through realized fact or by self-deluded overestimation of their own SMV, most women reflexively presume they are the party with the higher SMV. These are the naggers, the brow beaters, the women who wistfully to resentfully wish their men were more than they are. They crave the SMV imbalance that a dominant Alpha would satisfy, yet through their own ego investments, or due to their inability to lock that Alpha down, they must relegate themselves to being the less necessitous person in their LTR.
While this is a tenable situation for a Man it borders on the unhealthy. Marginal fame, notoriety or an actualized condition of widely acknowledged social proof can make for a 3:1 SMV ratio. These are the Men who other women can’t help but be attracted and aroused by, and other men aspire to be in one way or another. The women they do pair off with are faced with two options: either maturely accept this inequity and rely on feminine wiles (and sexual performance) to create a situation of ’value added’ emotional investment and secure his monogamy, or accept that she will only be a short term breeding option for him before a woman who’s a better SMV option presents herself to him.
Only the most secure of women in this ratio pairing don’t suffer from an state of passive Dread. While a 2:1 pairing may force a women to deal with marginal self-doubt and underlying competition anxiety, a woman in a 3:1 pairing will have to confront the dread of loss that accompanies a less stable pairing. From a Hypergamic perspective, she’s hit the evolutionary jackpot — sexual pairing with a mate she wouldn’t normally have access to. Fat women who garner the drunken attentions of an out-of-options man of higher SMV make for the most common occurrences of a 3:1 pairing. Irrational jealousy and ’accidental pregnancies’ are not uncommon in this pairing. I should point out that a 3:1 pairing may also be the result of a 2:1 pairing that lasted into a man’s peak years and bumped him up a point, or more likely, the woman depreciated down a point or more as she hit the Wall.
From the female side, a 3:1 ratio is generally only a temporary condition. Leaving a man who is recognizably a full 2 points beneath her in SMV is really only a formality. Women’s Hypergamous attraction floor simply doesn’t work like that of men’s. Generally this female-side pairing is the result of an extreme circumstance, a particularly materialistic woman or a man who convinced a woman he was more Alpha than he seemed only to backslide into Betaness once he mistakenly thought he could get comfortable with her and expected her to love him for just being himself. It should also be considered that a 3:1 female-side pairing may also be the result of a post Wall professional woman pairing off with the only Beta so intently conditioned in feminine-primary psychology that she would consider him preferable to celibacy.
We’re pushing into the improbable here, but these pairings do exist. Your first thought may be the famous celebrity or musician who marries a ’commoner’, but the more likely scenario is one where a previously more equitable pairing was solidified and one partner decayed so dramatically that this extreme imbalance resulted. It’s easy to find online before and after examples of women progressively fattening from a trim sexy girl of 19 to a 200lbs+ Landmonster of 26. I wish I could say these were outliers, but as all too many bloggers in the Manosphere will attest, it’s increasingly common.
Women in the ’before-and-after’ demographic who find themselves in a 4+:1 are often the most dependent upon the feminine social convention established to delimit men’s sexual selectivity. The Body Fat embracers and the ’shallow’ men shamers are the most obvious examples.
Other than for the most egregious of gold diggers a sustainable 4:1 balance from the feminine side is a virtual impossibility.
Humanism, Behaviorism and the Amorality of Game
Our great risk in life is not that we aim too high and fail, but we aim too low and succeed.
I think one of the major hurdles guys new to Game encounter is an inherent discomfort with experiencing just how raw and uncaring the motivators are behind intergender dynamics. I can’t entirely blame this on a naive, White Knight dependency on wanting to have things fit into their moral perspective, it’s something more than that. For men with some old books sense of honor or duty there also comes a need to enforce a perception of morality. Understanding the evolutionary psychology roots that drive what would be considered ’immoral’ behavior by their mental frame is often enough to have men reject Game and the Red Pill altogether. They believe that even attempting to understand the roots of that immoral behavior is tantamount to rationalizing a way to excuse it.
For all the accusations of my being a moral relativist, it’s still very hard not to see the latent purposes behind the behavior itself — this is cause for a lot of internal conflict for a morally predisposed man newly discovering the foundations of Game. In War Brides I made a case for women’s propensity to establish new emotional bonds after a breakup or a widowing with far greater ease than men due to a hard-wired psycho-evolutionary sort of Stockholm Syndrome. The implications of that is one of rationalizing a cruel, heartless bitch’s actions that could very well be considered amoral, if not immoral. There are plenty of other illustrations that to a newly Game-aware Man seem deplorable and duplicitous behaviors. Why can’t women just say what they mean and mean what they say, right? It seems like a horrible inefficiency to have to rely on women’s behaviors in order to really see their true motivators. What’s ironic is that much of what men have invented as moral considerations were designed to keep these behaviors and their functions in check.
All that said I can’t help but see a want for a higher order of self-image in understanding Game and how the visceral world of sexual dynamics operates. It’s raw behaviorism clashing with a desire to find a humanistic meaning in the cosmos, all set in the theater of intergender relations. I could simply take the easy way out and advise men to drop the pretense of morality altogether since it’s always subjective to whomever’s benefit the moralizing is done for. But that doesn’t remove the desire to see what we think is justice; the key being the desire for it, not necessarily the application of it. While I can certainly respect the aspirations of the nobler prospects of this approach, overall it’s a bit naive to nuts & bolts behaviorists. That’s not intended as a statement of fact, it’s just an observation.
From the humanist perspective you have to follow a linear, chronological advance in human understanding in many different realms — math, art, cultural ritual, science, societal conditions and any number of other ’advances’ we’ve made from our hunter gatherer, tribalist beginnings to our globally connected present. And while it is very ennobling and self-satisfying to see such achievements as evidence of our high-minded progress, it’s far too easy to overlook the root motivations for these advances that are anchored in the very evolution that the humanist perspective would like to claim triumph over.
For example lets consider Pablo Picasso. Not my favorite artist, but one of them and one most people recognize as a considerable personality in art. The humanist would likely hold Pablo up as the banner of human achievement — a fantastic artist as the result of our progress as a race and a tribute to our overcoming our brutish past. To which the behaviorist would ask, “why should it be that art is so highly valued among human beings?” For that answer we have to go back to the root causes for creative expression. Cavemen painted pictures of animals they’d killed on cave walls for millennia before Pablo arrived on the scene. Now you can argue that these drawings were communicative in nature, but the function of them was to convey a message — “Here is how we killed an antelope and you can too thusly.” Language then springs from this methodology and we progress, but the base function is communication that benefited the survival of the species.
Then you may ask why would Pablo personally want to be an artist? The humanist replies, “to fulfill his personal need for expression to become a self-actualized being” and the behaviorist answers “to make his life’s function easier.” I doubt that if any manifestation of creative intelligence wasn’t a precursor for sexual selection there wouldn’t be so many “artists” throughout history. I could easily make similar arguments for famous inventors, scientists or even Benjamin Franklin. It all returns to root motivations.
The self-actualized man still finds himself aroused by the Playboy Playmate irrespective of how much he convinces himself he should reserve his ’feelings’ for his wife or girlfriend to “morally” conform to his higher-order of self-expectations. Powerful establishing operations such as deprivation virtually ensure that he will have an ’inner conflict’ and to remedy this he will behaviorally condition himself to act accordingly. Regardless of the method, it’s still the biological root that has been hardwired into his mental firmware millennia ago by his hunting ancestors. Whether or not he acts on an opportunity to cheat on his wife, the base desire is still present and an undeniable motivation. A wife can close her eyes and imagine she’s fucking Brad Pitt when she’s with her husband — the motivation is still the same.
Over two-thirds of the American population is overweight, why do you suppose this is? According to the cognitive-humanist we’ve solved our hunting/gathering needs and can devote ourselves to ’higher pursuits’, but yet statistics confound us here. The behaviorist sees this and notices that our own evolutionary biology predisposes us to over-eat since in our evolutionary past we didn’t know whether or not we’d eat at all tomorrow or the next day (thus the ’gathering’ was invented I suppose). Our bodies process this food in such a way that we burn fat far slower than carbohydrates and protein is reserved for muscle building. All of this in an evolutionarily efficient manner to preserve us, but now once we’ve (more or less) mastered our environment and food is convenient and plentiful it becomes a disadvantage. It’s not right or wrong, it’s just our innate biological mechanisms motivating us to behave in a manner that will benefit us best.
Every vice you can point a negative finger at operates in precisely in this dynamic. Our morality, our intelligence, our sexuality and the behaviors that are manifested by them are all motivated by this base. It would be a pleasant fiction if we could all remove our consciousness from this and be these enlightened, self-actualized beings, constantly operating in a state of peak experience, but this damn testosterone in my body keeps pulling me back down to earth. It may be morally reprehensible for a woman to break her marriage commitment, divorce her husband and remarry a rich entrepreneur, but from a behavioral perspective it makes perfect long term pragmatic sense.
The problem that moral relativism poses to the humanist approach isn’t so much in recognizing this primitive base motivation, but an unwillingness to embrace it and live with it and use it. I want to run, I want to fuck and I want to fight. I want to feel the blood, testosterone and adrenaline in my arteries. I also want to write a sonata, paint a masterpiece and be a loving father to my daughter.
Behaviorism is the antithesis of putting angels wings on our backs and claiming we’ve evolved ’above all of that.’ I haven’t, you haven’t and no one has, and our behaviors will make hypocrites of us whenever condition and opportunity facilitate it for us. It’s not that behaviorism would have us all living like animals in the bush as an ideal state, nor does it deny that people have very ennobling qualities; it simply accepts the whole of what prompts us to do what, why & how we do things and explores the reasons why in a far more fundamental way than a romanticized humanism. I’m sure this is akin to atheism for people invested into humanism, but nothing could be further from the truth. It’s simply a more pragmatic, efficient and realistic approach for explaining behavior.
Moral to the Manosphere
Putting angel’s or devil’s wings on observations hinders real understanding.
I say that not because I don’t think morality is important in the human experience, but because our interpretations of morality and justice are substantially influenced by the animalistic sides of our natures, and often more than what we’re willing to admit to ourselves. Disassociating one’s self from an emotional reaction is difficult enough, but adding layers of moralism to an issue only convolutes a better grasp of breaking it down into its constituent parts. That said, I also understand that emotion and, by degree, a sense of moralism is also characteristic of the human experience, so there needs to be an accounting of this into interpretations of issues that are as complex as the ones debated in the Manosphere.
Although I’m aware that observing a process will change it, it’s still my practice not to draw moralistic conclusions in any analysis I make because it adds bias where none is necessary. The problem is that what I (and others in the Manosphere) propose is so raw it offends ego-invested sensibilities in people. Offense is really not my intent, but often enough it’s the expected result of dissecting cherished beliefs that seem to contribute to the well being of an individual.
Let that sink in for a moment; the reason that what I propose seems nihilistic, cynical and conspiratorial is because it’s analytical without the varnish of morality. For example, when I wrote War Brides, it was in response to men’s common complaint of how deftly and indifferently women could transition into a new relationship after they’d been dumped by a girlfriend or wife. I wanted to explore the reasons of how and why this functioned, but from a moralistic perspective it is pretty fucked up that, due to Hypergamy, women have an innate capacity to feel little compunction about divesting themselves emotionally from one man and move on to another much more fluidly than men. If I approach the topic in a fashion that starts with, “isn’t it very unjust and / or fucked up that women can move on more easily than men?” not only is my premise biased, but I’d be analyzing the moral implications of the dynamic and not the dynamic itself.
I always run the risk of coming off as an asshole because in analyzing things it’s my practice to strip away that moral veneer. It challenges ego-investments, and when that happens people interpret it as a personal attack because those ego-investments are uniquely attached to our personalities, and often our own well being. Although there’s many a critic on ’team woman’ shooting venom from the hip as to my emphasis on the feminine, don’t think that this iconoclasm is limited to the fem-centric side of the field — I catch as much or more vitriol from the Manosphere when I post something like the importance of looks for men.
If you choose to derive your personal value from some esoteric sense of what sex ’should’ mean, more power to you, but I find it’s a much healthier position to accept a balance between our carnal natures and our higher aspirations. It’s not one or the other. It’s okay to want to fuck just for the sake of fucking — it doesn’t have to be some source of existential meaning. If you think it means something more, then that’s your own subjective perspective — even in marriage there’s ’maintenance sex’ and there’s memorable, significant sex — but it’s a mistake to think that the totality of the physical act must be of some cosmic significance.
It is as equally unhealthy to convince oneself that self-repressions are virtues as it is to think that unfettered indulgences are freedoms. There is a balance.
For the longest time I never had a plan. Oh, I knew what I wanted to do in life; something artistic, publicly recognizable, flamboyant, but the path to get to that reality was never really concrete for my 17-19 year old mind. First and foremost I wanted to get laid. I had aspirations and I did recognize my innate talents, but I really had no plan.
At first I did what most conditioned Betas do at 17 and followed the ’official’ script approved by the feminine imperative — nice guy > rapport > comfort > commitment > monogamy > and if magical predestined sex happened to be graced upon me at one of these stages then it was all the confirmation of process any Beta required. But still I had no plan. It felt like a plan, but it never quite played out as a plan once that plan came together.
Serial monogamy with a ’ONEitis’ girlfriend seemed like a plan. That’s what the imperative had always reinforced and it seemed logical. Man, did I ever hate the guys who had the capacity (ability) to entertain multiple women concurrently. How could women be so enthralled by these ’players’ and not see their deviation from the ’official’ approved script of the feminine imperative? Didn’t they know they were wrong in their deviation? Why did women reward them with sex and intimacy, and why did they do so without the prerequisite steps laid out and approved by the imperative’s teachings? The Feminine Imperative had always taught me women were to be treated with default respect — as gender equals, as rationally acting an independent agent as my (equal) self. Could they not rationally conclude, as I did, that they themselves were rewarding the very Men who deviated from the plan that the imperative had set before all of us?
I didn’t realize it at the time, but what I failed to consider is that women’s innate Hypergamy was in conflict with the plan of the Feminine Imperative. Later in life, the male offspring of the Feminine Imperative (Betas) would come to realize the true plan of the imperative, and the supporting, provisioning role it conditions them for in raising other men’s genetic legacies, or their own, less than optimal ones. Either by self-realization or self-actualization men, even the most beta men, usually come to realize the plan of the imperative. For some it’s a sad realization, too late to really do much of anything but moderate the impact the plan had. For others, it might be freeing in a post-divorce separation from not just their wives but the plan the imperative convinced them of. And still for others, it’s the relief of having sidestepped the consequences of a life-impacting ideology.
Making a Plan
There’s a clever saying that goes, “Man plans, God laughs.” It’s kind of endearing in a patrician way, but it really amounts to another saying by the world’s most famous Beta, “Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.” Or in other words, ’it is what it is’ and you never really had any influence over the circumstances that have led to your present conditions.
I used to believe this. I used to think that having a plan was more or less irrelevant, because ultimately you’re really never in control of what happens to you. My Mother used to give me grief about being “obsessed” with bodybuilding and staying in shape. She’d say, “you never know what tomorrow will bring, you could get cancer or hit by a bus, and then all that fussing over your body will be a waste.” I remember telling her yes, but this is how I want to look now, I wont care about it in a casket.
Those were always some interesting conversations, but the fact of the matter is I really had no plan for myself of my own creation.
Failing to Plan
Failing to plan is planning to fail. My Marine buddies like this line. In the military I’m sure it was a great mantra, but how many of us allow things to happen to ourselves as the result of not having and sticking to a plan? I’m not saying we ever have a complete control over our circumstances, but when we don’t have a plan, the plans of others influence the consequences of our own conditions. As I illustrated above, when a young man has no plan the Feminine Imperative is already there with its own — ready to fill that void for its own purposes, ready to convince that young man that its plan was really his own concept.
One thing I’ve always advised the high school forum readers on the SoSuave forums is to plan for success when they sarge a girl they like. So many of these young Men get so absorbed in the mechanics and anxieties of asking a girl out, or maneuvering to become intimate with her that they don’t plan for success, they only plan to mitigate failure. I tell them to expect success, so plan for that eventuality, and there’s a foundational reason for this.
Suddenly a girl agrees to go out with him and he has no plan for a date. What this telegraphs to her is she’s agreed to a date, agreed to potential intimacy, agreed to a Hypergamous assessment, with a guy who hasn’t thought past the getting a date part. His lack of a plan revealed his Beta essence — he wasn’t expecting to succeed, she detects this on a limbic level, and the context, the frame, of the date becomes one of working back from a Beta presupposition.
An Alpha mindset expects success. One of the key tenets of Game is irrational self-confidence, and while this is a core element of Game, its successful application hinges upon follow through — and follow through requires a plan. Whether that plan is about a PUA on an insta-date after a successful ’sarge’ or that plan is about banging the wife you reserved your virginity for on your honeymoon night, the conditionality is the same — Alphas already know what they want and have a concrete plan of where they want to go.
One of the more frequent questions I’m asked on the SoSuave forums is,
“Rollo, I understand confidence is the most attractive aspect about men for women, how do I develop confidence?”
Confidence is an interesting concept, not just in it’s application with women, but in a meta-life sense. Confidence has been elevated to this mystical realm so we read, “The reason you fail is because you don’t believe in yourself enough.” This is a very similar mechanic to the ’Just Be Yourself’ line of reasoning. It’s something people say when they don’t know what else to say — “aww man you just need to be confident with her, that’s what the bitchez want, just look at any Plenty of Fish profile, confidence, confidence, confidence,…” What they’re not explaining is that confidence is derived from past successes and the inherent knowledge that you can repeat those successes again.
I understand the frustration; women say just be yourself, guys say just be confident, both imply some nebulous quality that only those in the know really have a grasp of. I’ve addressed the just be yourself principle in the first book, but how do you get this confidence women declare is so important in their list of demands?
Confidence is derived from options.
When you know you can repeat your past successes, or you have the resources to repeat concurrent successes already available to you, you have confidence.
This is the code women are asking for when they claim to want confidence: “I want a man who has the presence of a man that other men want to be and other women want to fuck.” The great irony of this is that the male confidence women want, that exceeds a woman’s deserving of that confidence, will always be considered conceit. Why? Because that confidence conflicts with the plan of the feminine imperative. It’s sexy as hell, but it represents too great a threat to the Feminine Imperative.
As I stated in my Plate Theory series in the first book, it’s much easier to have an ’I don’t give a fuck’ attitude when you really don’t give a fuck. If you maintain a presence of non-exclusivity with women, and down to each individual woman, the straight-jacket of the plan of the Feminine Imperative begins to loosen. Included in your plan is a sampling, and filtration of, women who have a genuine desire to be with you. Not a mitigated desire, not an obligated desire, but a genuine desire to associate themselves with the potential you represent, confidently, prospectively and sexually. It doesn’t seem like filtration or vetting in this sense that you’re cognitively looking for the perfect mate — the perfect mate presents herself to you.
Too many guys think they can’t spin multiple plates. They think it must mean they must bang every available woman at their disposal and wanton sex is the ultimate goal. This is the distortion my critics hope to attach to Plate Theory,..
“Rollo says to fuck anything that moves, that’s outrageous!”
No, but the concept of non-exclusivity does fundamentally disagree with the plan of the Feminine Imperative, which is why the Feminine Imperative and its agents rely upon those distortions to maintain the imperative’s social dominance.
If you have the confidence that comes from having succeeded at a task with predictable regularity in the past, you can say with a reasonable expectation that you are confident to repeat that task in the future. In the context of a career, a sport, a particular social engagement, or maybe a talent or skill we all stand up and applaud that individual’s confidence — they make it look easy. Say you’re confident with women, say you’ve had success in the past with them, and you are a Player, even when you are a devoted husband of many supportive years, make this declaration and you are a deluded, typical male.
But confidence is what chicks dig Rollo,..WTF?
It’s not the confidence, it’s the plan. Your plan. It’s easy to give illustrations about men having date plans beyond the approaching her, but this is only one example of the overall planning a man must have in his life. Alphas plan, Alphas act. That may be cognitively or not, but their confidence is evolved from a sense of others, of other women recognizing their unspoken, pre-recognized plan.
The reason that Frame is the first Iron Rule of Tomassi is that it relies so much upon a man having such a concrete plan that he will exclude others, even potential mates from it if situation warrants it. A Man’s plan needs to supersede his desire for sex, but also includes using sex to effect it.
“My God Rollo, are you suggesting that sex be an inclusive part of a Man’s plan even if he has no intention of long term commitment to her?”
In terms of a plan, yes. That may seem immoral or dehumanizing of me, but stop and think about it. Is it any more immoral or dehumanizing than the plan of the Feminine Imperative on a personal scale? What about a global, legalistic scale?
Is it beyond the pale of hypergamy?
Begin with the Ending in Mind
But we’re better than that right? We’re the noble, chivalrous, honorable sex. It’s our commission to ensure that women fall in line because they know not what is right for themselves. (insert Arthurian prose here)
That’s nice prose, but hardly a plan. For all of the control and guidance women really seek (a nice way to say dominance) in a man, it really comes down to the direction of his vision. Is she confident in you? The biggest meta-shit test you will ever face as a Man is in replacing the plan of the Feminine Imperative with your own. How audacious! How cocky! How dare you?!
Begin with the ending in mind. As per the first Iron Rule of Tomassi, she enters your Frame, she enters your reality, she is the curious actor, she is the inquisitive one, she explores the world you create for her, it’s your friends, family and cohorts she encounters. If you feel the reverse is true in your relationship, you’ve enter her reality, and the narrative, the question, of whose plan is in effect is answered for you.
As I mentioned in the introduction, my first impulse in deciding to publish a third book was prompted by a need to definitively outline just what the Red Pill is. I get asked quite often if I believe the Red Pill, as the Manosphere defines it, will ever go mainstream. In some respects it has, at least in a very bastardized sense. At the time of this writing there are several ideological factions that have appropriated The Red Pill as a moniker for their agendas.
The Red Pill as it refers to intersexual dynamics awareness does not preclude other men (and women) from attempting to profit by selling men a template upon which they believe others should follow. The term ’Red Pill’ has evolved to the point where it’s become a brand unto itself. This leaves its popularity up for exploitation and reinterpretation to suit the commercial interests of whomever has a personal agenda or ideology they wish to promote as ’Red Pill’. That term ’Red Pill’ (not the intersexual praxeology) then becomes a convenient substitute for whatever subjective truth the one (or party) appropriating it would have others believe.
This bastardization of the Red Pill is something I’ve predicted for some time now. In November of 2011 I wrote an essay titled Could a Man Have Written This? My concern then was that women would eventually appropriate and redefine ’The Red Pill’ to serve the Feminine Imperative by bastardizing it to mean whatever best fit women’s purposes. The point in that essay was that, in our feminine-primary social order, it is only women who are allowed to speak with authority about intersexual dynamics and that any man attempting to apply a measure of critical thought to those dynamics will immediately be accused of male bias and misogyny. As such, only women would be allowed to decide what aspects of the Red Pill praxeology ought to be part of the Red Pill brand.
This is what we’re beginning to see today. Just as in Male Space in this volume, the Manosphere is beginning to see this redefinition of what ’Red Pill’ should mean according to the dictates of what best serves the Feminine Imperative. The Manosphere is predominantly a Male Space and as such we’re beginning to see it being assimilated by female overseers in the locker room. Furthermore, we’re also beginning to see vichy-male enablers ready to water down the most unflattering aspects of the ’true’ Red Pill for women in order to advance their own commercial interests as “life coaches”. In the 15 or so years that the Red Pill has risen to what it is today the Manosphere has become a popular niche market for men and women whose profit model centers on accepting only the parts of the Red Pill that might lead men to a self improvement that would make them more acceptable to the Feminine Imperative, yet entirely dismiss the aspects that would in any way make women accountable for the misgivings of their own natures and their own sexual strategies.
As such it becomes easy to bash Red Pill men as bitter or angry. ’Angry truth’ is what I’ve heard it called, but it is truth regardless. We now have several other profiteers making similar claims about what the Red Pill really is and who ought to be able to redefine it to best serve their own motives. All of these factions have one common purpose; to reinterpret whatever bastardization of The Red Pill as a brand that will be a proxy for ’truth’ whatever it is they are selling or what would affirm their ideology. Usually this is focused on unresolved Blue Pill ideals that are just to comforting to let go of.
We have a blatant attempts to reinterpret what the “red pill” is really all about by conflating the Red Pill brand with being the opposite side of a White Knight® coin. And again, it’s packaged in TL;DR easily digestible feints at humor. Anyone versed in The Red Pill praxeology understands just how Blue Pill their assertions are, but this is the same Purple Pill sugar coating of Red Pill truths I’ve been warning against for years now. And it becomes potentially dangerous to men because it encourages them to follow the Children with Dynamite path with regards to Game. Learning Game becomes a quest of acquiring only enough understanding of the nature of women and intersexual dynamics (the ones that are palatable to the profit model) to achieve a Blue Pill idealistic goalstate monogamy that brought these men to look for their own answers in the first place. They believe they are selling the key to a Blue Pill dream.
Ultimately, they’re selling this same, comforting, Blue Pill idealism, and a means to achieving it packaged as Game, while personally defining the ’Red Pill’ based on little or no understanding of the praxeology of it.
I should add here that a lot of ideological factions have appropriated The Red Pill in recent years as a proxy for validating their own social agendas. The Red Pill was always about intersexual dynamics from as far back as I’ve been familiar with it. I can remember using it as a term for awareness about men’s feminine-centric conditioning from at least 2002 on the SoSuave forums. We didn’t even refer to it as “Red Pill” as such so much as we’d call what we know as Blue Pill men (AFCs) as being trapped in the Matrix — unaware of their conditioning.
I’ll still continue to use The Red Pill as a term for the praxeology we use to come into an awareness of true intersexual dynamics, but I realize it’s becoming a bastardization. However, the point is that whatever The Red Pill is renamed as it will still be a branding effort on the part of those who see it as a niche market opportunity.
The Red Pill is the theory while Game is the practice and the fieldwork experimentation. Both inform the other, and one suffers without the other. This is what is at the heart of The Red Pill and it’s what shocks men into a new awareness and a new experience in life. It is not founded in pessimism, cynicism or misogyny, but rather, honest, unvarnished assessments and correlated experiences of men. Those assessments are often disconcerting, but they are only upsetting to a mindset that holds Blue Pill conditioned ideals as a correct interpretation of them. That can lead to those outside a practiced knowledge of it to believe that the awareness the Red Pill brings is a net negative. What is undeniable is the appeal of the truth The Red Pill presents and that appeal is attractive to men who are still trapped in their Blue Pill idealism.
Their want is to find some way to achieve a Blue Pill idealistic goal with the very harsh reality a Red Pill awareness brings to them. They want to be reinserted back into the Matrix, but with just enough Red Pill awareness to make their Blue Pill hopes a reality. They don’t believe The Lady in Red is real, but they do believe that she’s attainable and can be made real because they have the Red Pill awareness to effect it. They want for a sort of lucid dreaming in a Blue Pill paradigm.
There really is no going back once you have a grasp of the praxeology of the Red Pill, but it’s a comforting fiction for Blue Pill men (who’ve yet to kill their inner Betas) to believe they can achieve those Blue Pill goals with just enough Red Pill awareness (the pro-feminine parts they think women will approve of).
This false hope, one that conveniently ignores the uncomfortable parts of Red Pill awareness, is what will be sold by profiteers no matter what title they apply to it.
I’m leaving you with this warning because I believe it’s vitally important for men to realize that there may come a time when the mainstream recognizes the significance of what the Red Pill really is and what the Manosphere has become, and will develop into. As I’ve mentioned in this book, it’s my belief that the Red Pill must remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment the Red Pill is associated with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it with an ideology, and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology. This association is exactly what we’re seeing play out in the mainstream in 2017. Political and social elements like the Alt-Right and the mens (human) rights movement appropriate the brand identity of ’The Red Pill’ and their personal ideology becomes an associated extension of what the Red Pill was never intended to be aligned with. The mainstream has accepted the “Red Pill”, but the mainstream also needs an easy foil; a perfectly hateable enemy for their narrative, one their audience can feel justified in hating.
The mainstream wants crazy, but the Red Pill isn’t crazy. It’s rational, it’s wellthought, it asks questions based on evidence that delivers uncomfortable, unflattering answers — particularly for women. The mainstream dismisses the real Red Pill as misogynists as it always does when men point out unflattering realities about women’s nature — but more so because it’s not interested in well-reasoned debate about them. It just wants crazy. So they conflate “Red Pill” with racism, sexism, conservatism, rape apologists, etc. They look for the outrage brokers who have little to lose and a lot to gain by selling themselves, the Manosphere and the true Red Pill out to the mainstream’s need for a villain. They cash in their association with ’The Red Pill’, some more successfully than others, to make a new name for themselves in a hope to rebrand themselves and garner some celebrity they can get paid for in their ’Red Pill’ association.
I wrote and compiled this book in an effort to give men some actionable ideas on how to better themselves with Red Pill awareness. I don’t hope to tell men how to live better lives, I hope I give them the tools and information necessary for them to build better lives themselves. While I believe mindset is a necessary component to men making themselves better men, I also understand that even ’mindset development’ is branching off as a market of its own within the Red Pill brand umbrella now. Practical, pragmatic Red Pill awareness becomes an aside to mindset motivators, again, cashing in on the identity of the Red Pill.
These are factions and elements I believe Red Pill aware men need to be aware of in the coming years we see the Manosphere and Red Pill (praxeology) awareness develop. I’m ending with this because I believe that men need to be wary of how the Red Pill can be distorted in the future. Red Pill awareness is a life-saving, life-changing set of information for men. While I don’t aspire to give men a formula to change their lives I hope the information in this volume has given you some actionable suggestions as to how you might go about changing your mind and changing your self to better benefit from a new reality, now and to come.
— Rollo Tomassi