“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”
- Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead
Sheryl Sandberg, the C.O.O. of Facebook, provides us with a unique illustration of the prevailing feminine psychology that’s been evolving since the sexual revolution.
In this statement she is blissfully ignorant of her blatant admission of the reality of feminine Hypergamy, but I felt her ’advice’ to women here represents so much more than just a display of her solipsistic ignorance.
For as long as I’ve butted heads with many obstinate deniers of Hypergamy’s influences, on women personally and society on whole, I’m not sure I’ve read a more damning indictment of Hypergamy from a more influential woman. Sand-berg’s advice to the next generation of women essentially puts the lie to, and exposes the uncomfortable truth of, women’s efforts to deny the fundamental dynamic of dualistic female sexual strategy — Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.
Even if you want to argue the evolutionary psychology and biological origins of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, the Feminine Imperative has progressed to the point that the fact is now socially evident; women have come to a point where they’re comfortable in openly admitting the truth that Red Pill awareness has been drawing attention to for well over a decade now.
Courtesy of Sheryl Sandberg, the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks basis of women’s sexual pluralism is now publicly recognized. It’s kind of ironic considering that what the manosphere has been trying to make men aware of for years is now being co-opted, embraced and owned as if women had always practiced an open sexual pluralism — incredulous to any man’s shock over it.
However, the truth is that a feminine-centric social order can no longer hide the increasingly obvious fallout and consequences of a society restructured to accommodate women as the predominant sexual interest.
Ironically the best spokeswoman to illustrate the dichotomy between both sides of women’s Hypergamy should be Sheryl Sandberg — the voice and embodiment of several generations of women raised on the Feminine Imperative and unilateral-ally unrestrained Hypergamy. So oblivious is Sandberg to her feminine-primary, solipsistic confirmation of Hypergamy that it never occurs to her that men would be anything but accommodating of her life-plan advice for younger generations of women. It never occurs to her that a “man who values fairness” would ever reject her (much less despise her) for the duplicity that women’s dualistic sexual strategy disenfranchises men of.
So you see, it’s not a Red Pill awakening that predisposes men to believing they’re ’owed’, ’entitled to’ or ’deserving’ of sex, love, adoration, affection or anything else from women — it’s the generations of women like Sandberg who unabashedly exploit the old order conditioning of Beta Bucks men, while expecting them to dutifully accept their open or discrete cuckoldry with Alpha Fucks men — and then tell them that “nothing’s sexier” than their complacency in it with a wriggle of their nose.
Sandberg is ignorant of the feminine-primary implications that her statements draw attention to — and I’m still of the opinion that an innate feminine solipsism motivates more and more women to this admission — but it’s impossible to ignore the new degree of comfort in which women feel in laying bare their dualistic sexual strategy.
To some significant extent the Feminine Imperative no longer needs to keep the ’Good Genes’ / ’Good Dad’ dichotomy ugliness a secret from men any longer.
There is a new ambient sense of an assured long-term security in the feminine mind that is predisposing women to prioritize the ’Best Genes’ (Alpha Fucks) side of feminine Hypergamy. Sandberg’s ’advice’ is a vital confirmation of this, however, she tacitly acknowledges a window of opportunity during which women possess a better capacity to pursue this side of Hypergamy.
“The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good hues-bands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner.”
In these two sentences Sheryl (and by extensions the Feminine Imperative) essentially confirms women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, my sexual market value graph depicting women’s peak SMV and decay, and the first half of the time line of women’s phases of maturity.
Selling the Beta
With regards to men, I believe the most salient part of Sandberg’s admission is found at the end.
“These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”
For the better half of the time since the sexual revolution it was necessary for the Feminine Imperative to convince a majority of men that their eventual Beta providership for women was not only their duty, but also a prime aspect of Femi-nine attraction. Under the (pre-sexual revolution) old-order attraction model this may have been the case to a large degree. However after the revolution, and as women’s Hypergamy prioritized towards ’Good Genes’ (Alpha Fucks) short-term sexual partners, the ’Good Dad’ (Beta Bucks) men needed an ever increasing ’sell’ of their own attractiveness by women.
This persistent sell was a necessary element of ensuring a future long-term security for women while pursuing increasingly more short-term breeding opportunities as feminine-primacy expanded into society.
The future ’Good Dads’ would need to be patiently waiting out women’s “indiscretion years” during their SMV peak, so the sell became an ever-evolving definition of what women found attractive in men based on that old-order model of depend-ability, patience, industriousness, and every other characteristic that defined a good provider.
The following quote is from Why Muscularity is Sexy by David A. Frederick and
Dr. Martie G. Hasselton:
According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market.
More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.
From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.
Strategic pluralism theory is a functional definition of feminine Hypergamy, but what this theory hadn’t yet accounted for (at the time it was published) was the necessitousness of women with regards to short-term mating strategies and long-term parental investment opportunities over the course of their various phases of maturity as they aged.
The Beta investment sell was necessary because it ensured male parental investment at a later (usually the Epiphany Phase) time in a woman’s life. Thus, Sandberg’s praise of men “who think women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. [Men] who value fairness and expect or, even better, want to do his share in the home” will eventually be sexier than the Alpha “bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys” she encourages women to have sex with earlier in life is an excellent example of this sell.
Ironically it’s exactly with this sell that women encourage the very transactional nature of sexual relations with men they’re screeching about recently. It’s the ’Choreplay’ fallacy on a meta scale — do more around the house, play into the equalitarian schema women think they need in a provider, support her ambitious-ness and opinionatedness and you’ll be considered “sexier” and get her Best Sex she’s been saving just for a guy like this.
Building the Beta
The problem the Feminine Imperative runs into with selling the Beta is that as women’s “independence” expands this sell becomes less necessary and less effective. Less necessary because women’s personal, social and legal long-term security insurances have become almost entirely disconnected from men’s direct (not indirect) provisioning. Less effective because men have become increasingly aware of their disenfranchisement of the old-order provisioning model as being something they might equitably be rewarded for with a woman’s intimate interest and genuine sexual desire.
As the consequences and repercussions of women’s hypergamous priority shift to Alpha Fucks becomes more evident and real for men; and as their capacity and comfort with connecting and relating these shared experiences with other men becomes more widespread, the less effective the sell is for Beta men awaiting their turn to enter into a pre or post Wall monogamy with the women attempting the sell.
Throughout the 70s, 80s and most of the 90s, the sell was effective because men were isolated socially and technologically from each other’s relative experiences. From the late 90s onward that isolation has diminished while the societal results of feminine-primacy have become more glaringly, and painfully, evident to men.
In its ever-reinventing fluidity, the Feminine Imperative found it necessary to transition from selling men on being later and later life long-term providers for women into building a generation of men who would expect it of themselves to fulfill that role when the time came. These men would be raised and conditioned to be the patient Beta providers women would need once they had followed the Sandberg model of Hypergamy.
These would be the boys / men who would be taught to “naturally” defer to the authority and correctness of women under the auspices of a desire to be an equal partner. These are the men raised privately and created socially to be ready for women, “when it comes time to settle down, and find someone who wants an equal partner.”
These would be the men ready to expect and accept a woman’s proactive cuckoldry of him in the name of being a pro-feminine equal. These are the men raised to accept a socially exposed, proudly open, form of Hypergamy in place of the selling of it to an old-order Beta provisioning model.
The Hypergamy Schism
The problem this creates for women becomes one of dealing with the men they need to sell a secretive Hypergamy to and the men they build to accept an open form of Hypergamy to. The increasing comfort with an open admission of Hyper-gamy is relative to a woman’s capacity to get away with it.
A woman like Sheryl Sandberg has the means to decisively ensure her future independence and long-term security (at least in the financial sense) whether she’s married or not. She could very well return to the Bad Boys she found so arousing and advises women to ’date’ but never rely on for direct provisioning. As such she’s very comfortable in publicly revealing the ins and outs of post-sexual revolution Hypergamy without so much as an afterthought.
While she publicly affirms the build model of Beta provisioning (under the guise of equalism) and expects “those guys will be awaiting you” this doesn’t hold true for a majority of women. Women with affluence enough, or a physical attractiveness sufficient to virtually ensure their future provisioning are much more comfortable with the build-a-better-Beta model than women who find themselves more lacking in this assurance.
The more necessitous a woman finds herself in the sexual marketplace, the more likely she is to deny the mechanics of her own Hypergamy.
A woman less confident in consolidating on her future long-term security (and / or cooperative parental investment) has a much more personal investment in keeping the ugly, duplicitous truths of Hypergamy a secret from men. As such, these women will be more predisposed to misdirecting the men becoming more aware of this truth and relying more on the selling model of Beta provisioning.
Needless to say this split between women comfortable in open Hypergamy and women reliant upon secretive Hypergamy is a point of conflict between the haves and have not women in the sexual marketplace. The more men become aware of women’s Hypergamy and strategic sexual pluralism, (through women’s open me-brace of it or the manosphere) the more pressure the ’have not’ women will feel to also embrace that openness.
It’s gotten to the point now that the Feminine Imperative is comfortable in ridiculing men for not already being aware of the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks dynamic of Hypergamy, as well as ridiculing them for going along with it anyway.
The expectation that men should already know this dynamic and be ready to unconditionally accept it, and commit themselves to it, engenders genuine shock when a man deviates from that script.
In 2014 there was a popular, salacious story about the ’Spreadsheet Guy’ who logged his wife’s rejecting his sexual advances and her reasoning for doing so. After making this log public and having it go viral on the internet the anger female commenters expressed over his logging his wife’s excuses for turning him down sexually was not due to his actions, but rather what those actions represented for the greater whole of men.
Women’s indignation over this was rooted in a perceptually Beta man not already being aware of the new role he is expected to play. The new order feminine group-think presumes that any guy who follows the old order socio-sexy-al contract should already know he’s been cast as a dutiful, providing Beta — he ought to follow the prepared script and plan to be the guy who responsibly proves he’s a ’better man’ for having forgiven her sexual indiscretions with prior Alpha’s and accepting the role of being relegated to her emotional supporter and hand-holder.
And all of this after she’s had her “self-discovery”, Epiphany Phase and then knows who “she really is.”
Genies and Bottles
This expectation of men being preconditioned to follow a feminine-primary social order is not just limited to women’s expectations. We’ve progressed to the point that Blue Pill men are themselves becoming vocal advocates for this same acceptance of open Hypergamy.
Under the dubious pretense of concern for the general lack of gallant chivalry and Beta Bucks-side provisioning women are entitled to, these watered down ’purple pill’ “Dating Coaches” suffer from the same shock and indignation that a woman, somewhere, might not be given her life’s due of having a dutiful Beta awaiting to fulfill the provisioning side of her sexual strategy when her SMV begins to decay in earnest.
In a feminine centric social order, even men are required to be strong advocates for open Hypergamy, and ultimately their own proactive cuckoldry. That a woman may be better prepared than most Beta men to provide for her own security is never an afterthought for them — their sales pitch is the same old-order lie that women will reciprocate intimacy for a man’s good nature and virtuous respect for the feminine if he’ll only accept open Hypergamy.
But Spreadsheet Guy went off the reservation, “how dare he keep track of his wife’s sexual frequency!” The general anger is rooted in his ’not getting’ the pre-fabricated social convention that sex (for consummate Beta providers) “just tapers off after marriage”, but if he would just Man Up and fall back into his supportive, pre-established role, and learn to be a better, more attentive ’man’ for his wife, she would (logically) reciprocate with more sex.
For what it’s worth, the men women genuinely want to fuck wouldn’t keep track of sexual frequency because a woman’s dread of missing out on a sexual opportunity with a desirable Alpha is usually enough incentive to ensure frequency. Alpha Men don’t complain about sexual frequency, they simply move on to a new woman. Betas complain about sexual frequency because they are expected to know and accept (now via open Hypergamy) that they will never enjoy the type of sex their women had with the Alphas in their Party Years. Rather, they are led to believe they would get it (and better) if they accept their new role and commit to a woman’s provisioning.
Nobody marries their ’best sex ever’
According to a recent study by iVillage, less than half of wedded women married the person who was the best sex of their lives (52 percent say that was an ex.) In fact, 66 percent would rather read a book, watch a movie or take a nap than sleep with a spouse.
Amanda Chatel, a 33-year-old writer from the East Village, says, “With the men I’ve loved, the sex has been good, sometimes great, but never ’best.’ It’s resulted in many orgasms and was fun but, comparatively speaking, it didn’t have that intensity that comes with the ’best’ sex.
“I knew [my best sex partner] was temporary, and so the great sex was the best because the sex was the relationship,” she adds. “We didn’t have to invest in anything else.”
As you can see here, the incremental problem that advocates of the ’Man Up and accept your duty to open Hypergamy’ meme will find is that reconciling the old-order social contract they need to balance Hypergamy will become increasingly more difficult as example after example like this become more evident and more commonplace.
These ’Dating Coaches’ are hocking advice from the perspective of an old-order social contract for men, in order to reconcile the well earned, well deserved con-sequences women are now suffering as a result of a new-order, feminine-primary social contract that has embraced unrestrained Hypergamy.
Getting the Best of Her
The following was quoted from a popular ’advice’ column in 2014. Emphasis my own:
Dear Carolyn (Hax):
After multiple relationships not working out because both parties were dishonest in one way or another, I decided to use a new approach to my current relationship. I am 23, met my current boyfriend (also 23) online, and decided to be COMPLETELY HONEST.
This was meant to mostly cover my feelings, as I tended to hold things in unhealthily, but I let it fold over to all aspects, including the disclosure of my sexual history. I have now learned this was a mistake.
Not to make any Beta leaning guy even more depressed, but I read this and couldn’t help but see how the Sheryl Sandberg ’Open Hypergamy’ model is only going to aggravate more and more unplugged, Red Pill aware Betas.
Consider how disenfranchised that dutiful Beta is going to be when he is flat out told to his face by a woman — a woman he was conditioned to believe would appreciate his unique old order appeal — that he’ll never be getting the ’sexual best’ he believed his wife would have waiting for him in marriage.
It’s one thing to read article after article detailing the triumphant aspects of a new open Hypergamy, and it’s one thing to see it blatantly used in commercial advertising, but it’s quite another to experience it firsthand, viscerally, in your face.
Besides the fact that she’s had multiple “relationships” at age 23, I find it interesting that today’s woman recognizes this ’openness’ as a mistake. Not a mistake with regards to her own choices, but rather the mistake is in feeling comfortable enough to lay bear her sexual strategy for a guy who she expects should already be “accepting of who she is.”
In feminine-primary society men are constantly and publicly demonized as the ’manipulator’ sex.
The default presumption is to assume men are the one’s to watch out for. Men are the sex with the most dishonest nature, with the most to gain sexually by playing games to trick women into believing they’re something they’re not in order to fuck them and leave them.
This presumptions is really a generalized, meta social convention that builds a foundation for more specific social conventions women need in order to exercise feminine-primary control with men and culture on whole. It’s actually a rudimentary convention that’s easy to accept for women since feminine Hypergamy has evolved a subconscious ’vetting’ mechanism into most women’s psyches.
While it’s giggly fun and entertaining for women to categorize men into Cads and Dads, the irony of their doing so is that this only highlights women’s life-long patterns of deception and the manipulation efforts necessary to effecting their own dualistic sexual strategy.
That sexual selection ’firmware’, the one that predisposes women on a limbic level to evaluating mating options of short term breeding opportunities (Alpha Fucks) with parental investment opportunities (Beta Bucks), is the same mechanism that made women the more deceptive sex when it comes to sexual strategies. The problem now is that this hypergamous deceptiveness is being replaced with ’complete honesty’ from a macro-societal level down to an interpersonal one.
Ironically, it will be the most stubborn of Blue Pill Beta men, advocating for a return to an old-order social contract, who are destroyed by the very women they hope will respond to it; who will be the last to finally accept and respond to the new-order of open Hypergamy.