REJECTION & REGRET
“There’s not a lot of money in revenge” — Inigo Montoya
Either directly or indirectly, I wrote a lot about rejection in The Rational Male. Usually this is due to rejection, and the fear of it, being the root cause of so very many mental schema, behaviors, rationales, etc. for guys. The chapter Buffers from the first book outlines many of these rationales and conventions used to deaden or minimize the impact of rejection, but it’s rejection, and how one accepts it, which makes for a healthy or unhealthy response to it.
I wish I could claim authorship of this, but an enigmatic member of the SoSuave forum, Pook, had it right — Rejection is Better than Regret.
However, for all the wisdom in that simple truth, applying it, learning from rejections and accepting rejection is what primarily trips men up.
I use men exclusively in this context because, for the better part of your life as a Man, based on gender alone, you will experience rejection far more than any woman ever will. If that sounds like a bold statement let me clarify that — you should experience rejection more than any woman.
In sports, in your career, in education, in personal relations, and with the opposite sex, you will statistically experience more rejection than a woman. That understanding isn’t intended to wave the male power banner, or make Men the champions of virtue. Neither is it to presume women don’t experience rejection themselves; it is a simple observance of fact that rejection is an integral aspect of being male. Get used to it.
So, rejection is preferable to regret, we get that. What we don’t get is how to accept and deal with that rejection. I’m not going to type away here and pretend that I have it figured out yet, however I can tell you how men, boys, Betas, and even PUAs will refuse to accept and/or deal with that rejection.
Habits and mindsets that constitute buffers are how men prevent rejection, not how they deal with it once they’re experiencing it. But just as men (and women) employ rationales and conventions to prevent or blunt a potential rejection, so too have they developed coping strategies, rationales and techniques that afford them the least amount of discomfort when they have been rejected — or in the case of women, when they are delivering that rejection.
Remember, rejection isn’t limited to just inter-gender instances. In fact that’s almost a more interesting aspect; your reaction to being rejected for a potential job will be far more measured than if you were rejected for intimacy with a woman. One reason we go to such great lengths to buffer ourselves against rejection is the fear of having to experience it, but often the fear of it is more debilitating than the actual experience.
I mention revenge in particular because it’s easily the most common, and potentially the most damaging reaction men have with rejection. This can be from en-acting something petty and annoying to the actual murder of the rejecting woman. This is the “how can I get back at her?” response, and while it may seem satisfying to ’teach her a lesson’ trust that this lesson will never be taught by revenge, no matter how justified or deserving she is of it.
Indifference, not revenge, speaks volumes.
The very consideration of revenge is a waste of your time and a waste of your effort that would be better spent learning and bettering yourself from that rejection. I can personally relate a story of a young man who was just released from prison. He killed the boyfriend who his ’soul mate’ replaced him with when he was 16 by stabbing him 32 times. That was his revenge. If he’d been 2 years older he would’ve been put to death or served a life sentence. You may not be that extreme in pursuing a course of revenge, but the consequences are similar. For as long as you consider revenge, no matter how petty, you’ll still be attached to the emotions of that rejection.
Accept the rejection, move on, rejection is better than regret — literally in this case.
Men aren’t being prepared, aren’t being raised to be Men. In the manosphere we constantly belabor this to the point that we make it a matter of personal pride and duty to instruct our fellow men less fortunate to realize it. Dealing with rejection is the lynch pin to this.
When I read posts from Men I’d otherwise consider Red Pill aware contemplate how best to enact their ’revenge’ upon a woman who refused his approach, or in retaliation to a woman’s infidelity, I wonder if they are as enlightened as I gave them credit. In facing rejection, you have no choice but to accept it. How you’ll do so is a matter of your character.
It’s important to cultivate an almost third-person approach to accepting rejection. For a lot of people, particularly those unaccustomed or new to deep personal rejection this is a tough order — and particularly so for men just beginning to put what they’ve learned of the Red Pill into practice. We get emotionally invested and that’s never conducive to making good decisions, especially for men who’d do better to rely on rationality and pragmatism. And we’re particularly susceptible to that emotionalism when we’re adolescents and young adults with a more limited capacity for thinking in abstracts.
It’s part of the human condition to desire what we think is justice. It’s our nature to make comparisons, and in the instance of inequality, to see them corrected. And although we rarely consider the ultimate consequences of our actions, this isn’t the reason we should temper a desire for revenge. The thing we ought to consider is the overall efforts and resources necessary in order to exact revenge and weigh them against the things we might achieve for our own betterment by redirecting them to our own purposes. Even the efforts required for a slight revenge are better spent with concerns of our own.
This might seem like a long-winded way of saying “Living well is the best revenge”, and to a degree I think that’s true, but beware the ’Well-lived’ life spent in pursuit of revenge.
Revenge should never be your motivation for success. Even the time and mental effort needed to consider some appropriate way of making a woman aware of how she made you feel are resources better spent on meeting new prospective women who will reciprocate your interest. The root of confidence is developing, recognizing and acknowledging as many personal options as possible. Any effort you’d expend on revenge is a wasted opportunity to better yourself. Indifference to detractors and personal success are a far better revenge than any one sided injury you could inflict on them in return.
One of my favorite ways of helping young men understand how unimportant their immediate concerns are over rejection is to put things into a larger perspective. When you’re in the moment and unable to see the forest for the trees, rejections seems so crushing. It’s when you look at things in terms of how they play out in the course of time you realize that instead of some horrible soul-destroying rejection you really dodged a bullet that would’ve radically altered the progression of the better person you become.
When I was 15 or 16 I was in total love (teenage lust) with this girl named Sarah. I did everything in the AFC handbook to get with this girl — ’played friends’ with her after a LJBF (“lets just be friends”) rejection, wrote to her, called her all the time, etc. I got the “I’m not ready for a relationship now” line right before she had hot monkey sex with one of my best friends.
He was the Alpha Bad Boy and she couldn’t get enough of him even after he’d dumped her, and I of course played right along. Flash forward to when I was 22. I had gotten my shit together, I was in the gym religiously, I played in a very popular band in the area and I was walking through the outdoor halls of the college I attended when I heard some girl’s voice say “Rollo, hey!” I looked around and literally looked right past her at first wondering who was calling for me. Then she says, “Hey it’s me Sarah.” I look down, and sitting on this bench is this 300+lbs morbidly obese woman with the barely recognizable face of this girl I’d obsessed over about 6 years earlier.
I was floored. Apparently she’d gone through rehab for a cocaine addiction and ballooned after it because she replaced the drug with food. For the first time in my life I was speechless.
My second story was about this one girl Bridget who I also had a major Beta crush on in high school and I lacked even the confidence to really approach.
I self-rejected and disqualified myself horribly with her.
Again, flash forward to about 22 and I pull this exact same girl in a club (who actually still looked pretty good), only now I can’t keep her off of me. I ended up turning her into a fantastic booty call after the first night. This girl would literally knock on my window and climb in through it to fuck me in the morning before I left for class.
However, later, it got to the point where I dumped her, because she insisted on never taking birth control while reassuring me she was and I thought I had a close call with her being pregnant,…that and I was tapping 4 or 5 other girls at the time that I thought were better plates to spin (even though I didn’t know what plate theory was then). The lesson learned; What I couldn’t get in high school ended up my leftovers just 5 years later.
Lastly, I had my first ’real’ girlfriend look me up online once. This was the girl I first had sex with at 17 and I ended up moving to the college town she was enrolling into so I could keep fucking her. I basically altered the course of my life for 2 years to accommodate her life decisions, only to have her cheat on me and break up with me after I’d moved.
She was my ’first’ so like a well conditioned Beta I naturally assumed she was the ONE, and the better I “supported” her the more she’d appreciate me (i.e. fuck me), so I took it pretty hard. I had still tapped her once or twice after all this, but she dropped off my world for over 20 years.
In my late 30’s I get this email from her. I guess she’d looked me up. I checked out pictures of her on a vanity site she had (not Facebook), and I can’t say time had been kind to her. At 37 she looked about 55, made about $32K tutoring kids how to read (after that terrific degree I moved to ’help’ her get), she’s “married” to another woman (an open lesbian marriage I was told). It was kind of an eerie feeling just barely being able to make out the girl I’d known at 17, now at 37.
In all of these situation, but particularly this one (after 20 years), it’s hard not to feel more than a little self-satisfied and think karma’s a bitch, but I wonder how many women I’d been rejected by who are doing better now after the years. I’d also like to think that men tend to do better with age, but I know this isn’t always the case. Though I’m aware that living well is the best revenge, I think that living well in order to exact that revenge is misguided. Things like this will happen regardless so long as you put the emphasis on your own betterment.
Rejection is better than regret.
Keep this in your mind, particularly if you’re a younger reader. There are no real failures in rejection, only opportunities to learn. In fact it’s your unexamined successes and acceptances that will be more of a challenge to learn from when you’re in the middle of relishing them. We tend not to consider what created our successes as carefully and as insightfully as we do our rejections.
It’s better to accept a rejection that be tied to a regret you succeeded at.
Our great danger is not that we aim too high for lofty goals and fail, but we aim to low for mediocrity and succeed.
* * *
THE BURDEN OF PERFORMANCE
Men are expected to perform.
To be successful, to get the girl, to live a good life, men must do. Whether it’s riding wheelies down the street on your bicycle to get that cute girl’s attention or to get a doctorate degree to ensure your personal success and your future family’s, Men must perform. Women’s arousal, attraction, desire and love are rooted in that conditional performance. The degree to which that performance meets or exceeds expectations is certainly subjective, and the ease with which you can perform is also an issue, but perform you must.
One of the most fundamental misconceptions plugged-in men have with regard to their intersexual relations with women is the issue of performance. Back in late March of 2014 I read an interesting article from manosphere blogger Roosh. His premise in that post was that men are nothing more than clowns to the modern woman and it struck me that although I certainly agreed with him in the context he presented it, there was more to the ’entertainment’ factor than simple amusement on the part of women.
“In our contemporary world, women no longer seek out comfort or stability in men as they used to — they seek entertainment. They seek distraction. They seek hedonistic pleasure. This is why provider men (beta males) are so hopelessly failing today to secure the commitment of beautiful women in their prime, and this is why even lesser alpha males fail to enter relationships with women beyond a few bangs. Once the entertainment or novelty you provide her declines—and it inevitably will—she moves on to something or someone else. In essence, the only way you can keep a girl is if you adopt the mentality of a soap opera writer, adding a cliffhanger to the end of each episode that keeps a woman interested when being a good man no longer does.”
After reading this I tried to imagine myself being a recently unplugged man or a guy just coming to terms with the uncomfortable truths of the Red Pill and learning that all of the comforting “just be yourself and the right girl will come along” rhetoric everyone convinced me of had been replaced by a disingenuous need to transform oneself into a cartoon character in order to hold the attentions of an average girl.
That’s kind of depressing, especially when you consider the overwhelming effort and personal insight necessary in realizing Red Pill awareness. Roosh later tempered this with other posts and although he clarifies things well in Game terms, the root of the frustration most guys will have with the ’clown factor’ is that, in these terms and in this context, their performance isn’t who they feel they are.
In this environment it’s easy to see why the MGTOW (men going their own way) movement seems like an understandable recourse for Red Pill men. It’s a very seductive temptation to think that a man can simply remove himself from the performance equation with regards to women. I’ll touch on this later, but what’s important here is understanding the performance game men are necessarily born into. Like it or not, play it or not, as a man you will always be evaluated on your performance (or the convincing perception of it).
I think what trips a lot of men up early in their Red Pill transformation is sort of a sense of indignation towards women that they should have to “be someone they’re not” and play a character role that simply isn’t who they are in order to hold a woman’s interest. In some respect women are like casting agents when it comes to the men they hope will entertain them.
Women’s prerequisite “character” role they expect men to perform changes as their own phases of maturity dictates and their SMV can realistically demand for that phase. In other words the “characters” they want performed in their Party Years will be different than the ones they want after their Epiphany Phase, which may be different than the character they want for their midlife years.
How realistic it is for men to be that character becomes less and less relevant as women are socialized to expect disappointment from men actually living up to the characters they’re conditioned to believe they should realistically be entitled to at various stages of their maturity.
Right about now I’m sure various male readers are thinking, “fuck this, I’m gonna be who I am and any girl who can’t appreciate me for me is low quality anyway.” This will probably piss you off, but this is exactly the Blue Pill mental-it most ’just be yourself’ Betas adopt for themselves.
It’s actually a law of power to despise what you can’t have, and deductively it makes sense, but the fact still remains, as a man you will always be evaluated by your performance.
So even with a ’fuck it, I’ll just be me’ mindset you’re still being evaluated on how well ’you are just you’.
The simple fact is that you must actually be your performance — it must be internalized. In truth, you already are that performance whether you dictate and direct that, or you think you can forget it and hope your natural, undirected performance will be appreciated by women (and others), but regardless, women will filter for hypergamous optimization based on how well you align with what they believe they are entitled to in a man in the context of their own perception of their SMV. That perception is modeled upon what phase of maturity a woman finds herself in.
Looks, talent, tangible benefits and other core prerequisites may change depending on the individual woman, but to be a man is to perform. Even if you’re a self-defined man going his own way who enjoys escorts to fulfill his sexual needs, you still need to perform in order to earn the money to enjoy them.
It Doesn’t Get Easier, You Get Better
For Men, there is no true rest from performance. To believe so is to believe in women’s mythical capacity for a higher form of empathy that would predispose them to overriding their innate hypergamous filtering based on performance.
Women will never have the same requisites of performance for themselves for which they expect men to maintain of themselves. Hypergamy demands a constant, subliminal reconfirmation of a man’s worthiness of her commitment to him, so there is never a parallel of experience.
Women will claim men “require” they meet some physical standard (i.e. performance) and while generally true, this is still a performance standard men have of women, not one they hold for themselves. There simply is no reciprocal dynamic or prequalification of performance for women, and in fact for a man to even voice the idea that he might qualify a woman for his intimacy he’s characterized as judgmental and misogynistic.
Social conventions like this are established to ensure women’s hypergamous sexual strategy is the socially dominant one. Expecting a woman to perform for a man is an insult to her ’prize status’ as an individual that feminine-centrism has taught her to expect from men.
From a humanist perspective there’s a want for a rational solution to this performance requirement, but appeals to women’s reason are no insulation against the subliminal influences of Hypergamy.
I’ve read the works of many a ’dating coach’ who’s approach is complete honesty and full disclosure in the hopes that a like-minded, co-equal, co-rational woman will naturally appreciate a man’s forthrightness, but this presupposes a preexisting equal playing field where subliminal influences are overridden by mutual rationalism.
The real hope is that women will drop their innate hypergamous performance requisites in appreciation of this vulnerable, inadequate honesty.
What they sweep under the rug (and what I’ll elaborate on later) is that you cannot appeal to a woman’s reason or sentiment to genuinely forgive a deficit in a man’s performance. Love, reason; both demand a preexisting mutual appreciation in a common context, but neither love nor reason alleviate the necessity of performance for a man.
Women simply have no incentive to compromise Hypergamy on their own accord. They will not be reasoned into accommodating a situation of mutual needs by overt means.
It is a Man’s capacity to perform and to demonstrate (never explicate) higher value that genuinely motivates women to accommodate mutual needs in a relationship, not communication or reasoning — whether that’s a same night lay or in a 50 year marriage.
Demonstrating Higher Value
I get the impression that demonstrating higher value tends to get a bad rap both from Blue Pill critics as well as Red Pill aware men. A lot of that gets wrapped up in Pick Up Artist technique and practice. It’s easy to dismiss this concept as posturing or bluster, but DHV, as a principle isn’t defined by egotistical measures or how well a guy can ’showboat’ himself around women.
Much of what constitutes a demonstration of higher value for men is casual and unintentional. In fact the best, most genuine forms of DHV are exhibited when a Man doesn’t realize he’s actually performing in a way that demonstrates his higher value. This can be as simple as walking into a room in the right context or environment. Evident social proof and a confirmed status he takes for granted is DHV. Even humility can be DHV in the proper context.
What I’m driving at here is that after reading all of this you might think I’m saying you need to be superhuman to qualify for women’s performance standards, and again that’s kind of depressing — that’s not what I’m getting at.
A woman’s performance standards are dependent on many varied contexts and according to the priorities she places on the type of character she finds both arousing and attractive and according to what her maturity phase conditions dictate for her.
In many instances it’s not how you perform so much as that you perform.
Ambition and personal drive to perform and be the best and most successful you that you can be may have absolutely nothing to do with your intention of attracting a woman, but you are still performing and you will be evaluated on that performance.
Demonstrating higher value or demonstrating lower value is performance whether intentional or not. You cannot remove yourself from this performance equation. You can cease to direct your part in this performance, but until you die you cannot exit the game.
* * *
One of the most endemic masculine pitfalls men have faced since the rise of feminine social primacy has been the belief that their ready displays of emotional vulnerability will make men more desirable mates for women.
In an era when men are raised from birth to be “in touch with their feminine sides”, and in touch with their emotions, we get generations of men trying to ’out-emote’ one another as a mating strategy.
To the boys who grow into Beta men, the ready eagerness with which they’ll roll over and reveal their bellies to women comes from a conditioned belief that doing so will prove their emotional maturity and help them better identify with the women they mistakenly believe have a capacity to appreciate it.
What they don’t understand is that the voluntary exposing of ones most viler-able elements isn’t the sign of strength that the Feminine Imperative has literally bred a belief of into these men.
A reflexive exposing of vulnerability is an act of submission, surrender and a capitulation to an evident superior. Dogs will roll over almost immediately when they acknowledge the superior status of another dog.
Vulnerability is not something to be brandished or proud of. While I do believe the insight and acknowledgment of your personal vulnerabilities is a necessary part of understanding yourself (particularly when it comes to unplugging one-self), it is not the source of attraction, and certainly not arousal, that most well conditioned Beta men believe it is for women.
From the comfort of the internet, and polite company, women will consider the ’sounds-right’ appeal of male vulnerability with regard to what they’re supposed to be attracted to, but on an instinctual, subconscious level, women make a connection with the weakness and submission that vulnerability represents.
A lot of men believe that trusting displays of vulnerability are mutually exclusive of displays of weakness, but what they ignore is that Hypergamy demands men that can shoulder the burden of performance. When a man openly broadcasts his vulnerableness he is, by definition, beginning from a position of weakness.
The problem with idealizing a position of strength is in thinking you’re already beginning from that strength and your magnanimous display of trusting viler-ability will be appreciated by a receptive woman. I strongly disagree with assertions like those of various ’life coaches’ that open, upfront vulnerability is ever attractive to a woman.
The idea goes that if a man is truly outcome-independent with his being rejected by a woman, the first indicator of that independence is a freedom to be vulnerable with her. The approach then becomes one of “hey, I’m just gonna be my vulnerable self and if you’re not into me then I’m cool with that.”
The hope is that a woman will receive this approach as intended and find some-thing refreshing about it, but the sad truth is that if this were the attraction key its promoters wish it was, every guy ’just being himself’ would be swimming in top shelf pussy. This is a central element to Beta Game — the hope that a man’s open-ness will set him apart from ’other guys’ — it is common practice for men who believe in the equalist fantasy that women will rise above their feral natures when it comes to attraction, and base their sexual selection on his emotional intelligence.
The fact is that there is no such thing as outcome independence. The very act of your approaching a woman means you have made some effort to arrive at a favor-able outcome with her. The fact that you’d believe a woman would even find your vulnerability attractive voids any pretense of outcome independence.
Hypergamy Doesn’t Care About Male Vulnerability
In the Rational Male I described men’s concept of love as ’idealistic’.
Naturally, simple minds sought to exaggerate this into “men just want an impossible unconditional love” or “they want love like they think their mothers loved them.” For what it’s worth, I don’t believe any rational man with some insight ever expects an unconditional love, but I think it’s important to consider that a large part of what constitutes his concept of an idealized love revolves around being loved irrespective of how he performs for, or merits that love.
From Of Love and War, The Rational Male:
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.
The concept of men’s idealistic love, the love that makes him the true romantic, begins with a want of freedom from his burden of performance. It’s not founded in an absolute like unconditional love, but rather a love that isn’t dependent upon his performing well enough to assuage a woman’s Hypergamous concept of love.
Oh, the Humanity!
As the true romantics, and because of the performance demands of Hypergamy, there is a distinct want for men to believe that in so revealing their vulnerabilities they become more “human” — that if they expose their frailties to women some mask they believe they’re wearing comes off and (if she’s a mythical “quality woman“) she’ll excuses his inadequacies to perform to the rigorous satisfaction of her Hypergamy.
The problems with this ’strength in surrender’ hope are twofold.
First, the humanness he believes a woman will respect isn’t the attraction cue he believes it is. Ten minutes perusing blogs about the left-swiping habits of women using the Tinder app (or @Tinderfessions if you like) is enough to verify that women aren’t desirous of the kind of “humanness” he’s been conditioned to believe women are receptive to.
In the attraction and arousal stages, women are far more concerned with a man’s capacity to entertain her by playing a role and presenting her with the perception of a male archetype she expects herself to be attracted to and aroused by. Hyper-gamy doesn’t care about how well you can express your humanness, and primarily because the humanness men believe they’re revealing in their vulnerability is itself a predesigned psychological construct of the Feminine Imperative.
Which brings us to the second problem with ’strength in surrender’. The caricatured preconception men have about their masculine identity is a construct of a man’s feminine-primary socialization.
The Masks the Feminine Imperative Makes Men Wear
To explain this second problem it’s important to grasp how men are expected to define their own masculine identities within a social order where the only correct definition of masculinity is prepared for men in a feminine-primary context.
What I mean by this is that the humanness that men wish to express in showing themselves as vulnerable is defined by feminine-primacy.
For the greater part of men’s upbringing and socialization they are taught that a conventionally masculine identity is in fact a fundamentally male weakness that only women have a unique ’cure’ for. Over the past 60 or so years, conventional masculinity has become a point of ridicule, an anachronism, and every form of media from then to now has made a concerted effort to parody and disqualify that masculinity. Men are portrayed as buffoons for attempting to accomplish female-specific roles, but also as “ridiculous men” for playing the conventional ’macho’ role of masculinity. In both instances, the problems that their inadequate maleness creates are only solved by the application of uniquely female talents and intuition. Women are portrayed as being the only solution to the problem of maleness.
Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing.
Women who lack any living experience of the male condition have the calculated temerity to define for men what they should consider manhood — from a Femi-nine-primary context. This is why men’s preconception of vulnerability being a sign of strength is fundamentally flawed. Their concept of vulnerability-as-strength stems from a feminine pretext.
Masculinity and vulnerability are defined by a female-correct concept of what should best serve the Feminine Imperative. That feminine defined masculinity (tough-guy ridiculousness) feeds the need for defining vulnerability as a strength
— roll over, show your belly and capitulate to that feminine definition of masculinity — and the cycle perpetuates itself.
Men are ridiculous posers. Men are socialized to wear masks to hide what the Feminine Imperative has decided is their true natures (they’re really girls wearing boy masks). Men’s problems extend from their inability to properly emote like women, and once they are raised better (by women and men who comply with the Feminine Imperative) they can cease being “tough” and get along better with women. That’s the real strength that comes from men’s feminized concept of vulnerability — compliance with the Feminine Imperative.
It’s indictment of the definers of what masculinity ought to be that they still characterize modern masculinity (based on the ’feels’) as being problematic when for generations our feminine-primary social order has conditioned men to associate that masculinity in as feminine-beneficial a context as women would want.
They still rely on an outdated formula which presumes the male experience is inferior, a sham, in comparison to the female experience, and then presumes to know what the male experience really is and offers feminine-primary solutions for it.
True vulnerability is not a value-added selling point for a man when it comes to approaching and attracting women. As with all things, any incidental display of your vulnerability is best discovered by a woman through demonstration —never explaining those vulnerabilities to her with the intent of appearing more human as the feminine would define it.
Women want a bulwark against their own emotionalism, not a co-equal male emoter whose emotionalism would compete with her own. The belief that male vulnerability is a strength is a slippery slope from misguided attraction to emotional codependency, to overt dependency on a woman to accommodate and compensate for the weaknesses that vulnerability really implies.
I know a lot of guys think that displays vulnerability from a position of Alpha dominance, or strength can be endearing for a woman when you’re engaged in a long term relationship, but I’m saying that’s only the case when the rare instance of vulnerability is unintentionally revealed. Vulnerability is not a strength, and especially not when a man deliberately reveals it with the expectation of a woman appreciating it as a strength.
Vulnerability is not Game.
At some point in any relationship you will show your vulnerable side, and there’s nothing wrong with that. What’s wrong is the overt attempt to parlay that vulnerability into a strength or virtue that you expect that woman to appreciate, feel endearment over or reciprocate with displays of her own vulnerability for.
A chink in the armor is a weakness best kept from view of those who expect you to perform your best in all situations. If that chink is revealed in performing your best, then it may be considered a strength for having overcome it while performing to your best potential. It is never a strength when you expect it to be appreciated as such.
* * *
THE CURSE OF POTENTIAL
One of the most frustrating things I’ve had to deal with in this life is knowing men with incredible potential who, for whatever reason, never realize it (or as fully) because they deliberately limit themselves due to a Beta mindset . Whether it’s potential for success due to a particular talent, the potential of their socio-economic state and affluence, or simply dumb luck that put them into a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, their Blue Pill ignorance or pride, or rule-bound duty to the Feminine Imperative thanks to their Beta frame of mind, hold them back from really benefiting from it.
God forbid you’d have to cooperate with a guy like this in a business or creative endeavor where your own livelihood might be attached to his inability to move past his Beta frame or his feminine conditioning. One of the benefits of becoming Red Pill aware is a heightened sensitivity to how the feminized world we live in is organized; and part of that sensitivity is becoming a better judge of Beta character and avoiding it, or at least insofar as minimizing another man’s liabilities as a Beta to how his malaise could affect you.
I used to work with a very rich man who owned a few of the liquor brands I be-came involved with in my career. While he was wealthy and had a certain knack for developing some very creative and profitable products, the guy was a deplorable chump with regards to his personal and romantic life. He was very much a White Knight Beta bordering on martyrdom when it came to his wives and the women in his life, who were all too happy to capitalize on this very obvious flaw. At one point he was attempting to launch a new product for which he needed some financial backing, but simply couldn’t get it from investors because they weren’t convinced their part of his venture wouldn’t end up as part of his next divorce settlement since he was planning his third marriage.
His self-righteous ’love conquers all’ White Knight idealism chaffed at the suggestion he would need a prenuptial affidavit for anyone to even chance being involved with him professionally, but his proven Beta mindset was a liability to his realizing his full potential. His story is an exceptional illustration of this Beta limitation dynamic, but there are far more common examples with everyday men I know, and you probably do too. That limitation may not even be recognizable until such a time that it becomes an impediment to some future opportunity that opens up to you.
Social feminization and the Feminine Imperative both play an active role in cur-tailing a man’s potential, but more often than not it’s with a willing male portico-pant. It’s important for Red Pill Men to remember that the Feminine Imperative is more concerned about women’s perpetuated long-term security than it will ever be about Men actualizing their true potential — even when it means his sacrificing that potential to sustain her security, and by doing so makes him progressively less able to sustain it.
Women who read my Appreciation essay in The Rational Male, trying to wrap their heads around my assertion that women will never appreciate the sacrifices men will readily make to ensure a feminine-primary reality, never take this equation into account. They think I’m attacking the sincerity of their commitment by pointing out a less than flattering truth — Hypergamy wants the security of knowing (or at least believing) that a woman is paired with the best man her SMV merits, but the fundamental problem is that her Hypergamy conflicts with his capacity to develop himself to his best potential.
Hypergamy wants a pre-made Man. If you look back at the comparative SMP curve at the beginning of the time line, one thing you’ll notice is the peak SMV span between the sexes.
Good looking, professionally accomplished, socially matured, has Game, confidence, status, decisive and “Just Gets It” when it comes to women, ideally characterize this peak. Look at any of the commonalities of terms you see in any ’would like to meet’ portion of a woman’s online dating profile and you’ll begin to understand that Hypergamy wants optimization and it wants it now. Because a woman’s capacity to attract her hypergamous ideal decays with every passing year, her urgency demands immediacy with a Man embodying as close to that ideal as possible in the now.
Hypergamy takes a big risk in betting on a man’s future potential to become (or get close to being) her hypergamous ideal, so the preference leans toward seeking out the man who is more made than the next.
The problem with this scenario as you might guess is that women’s SMV depreciates as men’s appreciates — or at least should appreciate. The same Hypergamy that constantly tests and doubts the fitness of a man in seeking its security also limits his potential to consistently satisfy it.
The blog Just Four Guys had an interesting article on quantifying sexual market value:
Rollo Tomassi at Rational Male has a differing graph of SMV based on his personal estimation. While his evaluation of female SMV with age matches both these graphs quite closely, the same cannot be said of male SMV. However, the difference is that he is measuring potential SMV, rather than actual SMV, and he believes that older men who maintain a proper lifestyle can maximize their SMV to far higher levels than younger men can.
By age 36 the average man has reached his own relative SMV apex. It’s at this phase that his sexual / social / professional appeal has reached maturity. Assuming he’s maximized as much of his potential as possible, it’s at this stage that women’s hypergamous directives will find him the most acceptable for her long-term investment. He’s young enough to retain his physique in better part, but old enough to have attained social and professional maturity.
Thus, what we’re seeing here is the SMV that is actualized by the average male, whereas Rollo’s SMV is what a man could theoretically achieve with good inner game.
I bolded the salient parts of this because one misinterpretation I diligently tried to avoid in estimating men’s relative SMV is in using sex (or the capacity to attract potential sex partners) as an exclusive metric for evaluating men’s overall SMV. Sexual notch count in and of itself is not the benchmark for SMV, rather it is a Man’s actualization of his real potential (of which notch count is an aspect) that determines his SMV. Hypergamy wants you to fulfill your best potential (the better to filter you), but it doesn’t want to assume the risk of protracted personal investment that your fulfilled potential will eventually place your SMV so far above her own that you leave her and her investment is lost.
This then is the conflict between male potential and feminine Hypergamy. I detailed this in The Threat:
Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.
On a Blue Pill reddit forum I read a criticism of my SMP graph, dismissing it by stating that an early to mid-thirties guy was far more likely to look like your average schlub, with an average low wage job than some mature, successful guy, who’s kept himself in shape and maintains some GQ lifestyle.
I have to say I’m inclined to agree; most men, average men, are men who haven’t realized the potential they could. Whether this lack is due to motivation, the limitations of a feminine socialization, or an inability to come to terms with their blue-pill reality, they never actualize the potential that would make them higher SMV men. The Blue Pill redditors can’t see that it’s Men’s potential that sets them apart on the SMV scale.
I think that the primary lesson of Game is that one needs to have a life and purr-pose that makes a man happy and determined to wake up every morning. Once a man takes control of his life, then a woman becomes an interchangeable part of it like anything else. The road to that state only lies through relentless self-improvement and the shedding of prior limitations. Otherwise, the same brutal cycle repeats itself.
* * *
Women should only ever be a compliment to a man’s life, never the focus of it.
How common it is today to be married or getting married before we’ve realized any of our potential. For all the articles I’ve read moaning about what a listless generation of “kidult” males we’ve inherited, that’s far removed from the reality of the young men I do consults with. No, what they want is just enough Game knowledge to connect with their Dream Girl and relax into a blissful beta cocoon of monogamy. They want to commit. Their lifetime Beta psychological conditioning makes commitment an urgency for them.
It never ceases to amaze me when I talk with these young men in their teens and 20s and they go to lengths to impress me with their fierce independence in every other realm of their lives, yet they are the same guys who are so ready to limit that independence and ambition in exchange for dependable female intimacy. They’re far too eager to slap on the handcuffs of monogamy, rather than develop themselves into men of ambitions and passions that women naturally want to be associated with.
The truth however is that the longer you remain uncommitted, the more opportunities will be available to you. It’s been stated by wiser Men than I that women are dream-killers — and while I agree with this, I’d say this is due more to the man involved, and his own complicity and apathy, than some grand scheme of women.
It’s actually in women’s best interest that you don’t commit to them for a variety of reasons. I realize how counterintuitive that reads, but in your being so readily available you decrease your value as a commodity to them.
Scarcity increases value, and particularly when the reason for that scarcity is something that serves another’s interest (hers in this example). The mid-20s Man pursuing his ambition to become an attorney in law school or the premed intern spending long hours at the hospital with aspirations of becoming a doctor is hindered and encumbered with the complications that maintaining a monogamous relationship necessitates of him. His time and efforts need to be applied toward achieving his goals to become an even higher value Man — not just in terms of financial success but for his own edification and confidence. Needless to say, the constraints and obligations that maintaining a monogamous relationship require
— both in time and emotional investment — make achieving these ambitions far more difficult.
I tend to promote the idea that Men should be sexually and emotionally non-exclusive until age 30, but this is a minimal suggestion. I think 35 may even serve better for Men. The importance being that as a Man ages and matures in his career, his ambitions and passions, his personality, his ability to better judge character, his overall understanding of behavior and motivations, etc., he becomes more valuable to the most desirable women and therefore enjoys better opportunity in this respect.
Women’s sexual market value decreases as they age and it’s at this point the balance tips into the maturing Man’s favor. It’s the Men who realize this early and understand that bettering themselves in the now will pay off better in the future, while still enjoying (and learning from) the opportunities that come from being non-exclusive and noncommittal, make him a Man that women will compete for in the long term.
In your mid-20s you are at the apex of your potential with regards to the direction you will influence your life to go. I’m not going to make any friends by pointing this out, but what pisses off most “serial monogamists” is the unspoken regret of having assumed the responsibilities of what monogamy demands before they truly understood their potential.
If you are single at 35 with a moderate amount of personal success, you are the envy of most men because you possess two of the most valuable resources men your age or older statistically do not — time and freedom.
I envy you. You are unshackled by the responsibilities, liabilities and account-abilities that most men your age in marriages, long-term relationships (LTRs), with children, or recovering from divorce must contend with daily. Without any intention you are in such a position that you can go in any direction of your choosing without considering the impact of your choice for anyone but yourself. Many other men, even in the most ideal of LTRs, do not have this luxury.
When you think of all the responsibilities that are required of most men (and women) in modern life today, you have won the lottery!
I was once asked what I’d buy if money were no object, to which I answered, time. Power isn’t financial resources, status or influence over others; real power is the degree over which you control your own life, and right now you are powerful. Trust me, this is as good as it gets and this is made all the better because you are old enough to understand and appreciate what is really at work here.
Women are just damaged goods to you now? So what? You have the freedom to sample as indiscriminately or as particularly as you choose. Can’t find a good LTR? Why would you want to? Let her find you. You fear you’ll end up old and lonely? I’d fear ending up so paralyzed by a fear of loneliness that you’d settle for a lifetime of controlling misery in a passionless marriage.
I’m an adherent of the ’build it and they will come’ school of thought in this regard. Women should only ever be a compliment to a man’s life — never the focus of it.
Is it better to choose the path of least resistance to get to an idealized, prefabricated intimacy or self-develop and get the same intimacy? True, both instances put women as the focus of a Man’s life, and this is a position that most women will find endearing at first, but suffocating in the end.
Women want to ’want’ their men. Women want a Man who other men want to be, and other women want to fuck. She doesn’t want a slave to her intimacy since this puts her in the masculine role. Rather, she wants a decisive mature man who has the confidence to put her off, to tell her ’No’, in favor of his ambition and passions as this serves two purposes.
First, it sets his direction as the one of authority and his development as the primary; the results of which she and her potential children will benefit from. Secondly, it puts her into a position of chasing after him — essentially his legitimate ambitions and passions become the ’other woman’ with which she must compete for his attention.
Note that I stated ’legitimate’ ambitions here. A woman involved with a law student or an intern who have the potential to become lawyers and doctors are fairly solid bets for future security. An artist or musician, no matter how talented or committed to their passions will only be viewed as beneficial if they can prove their case to select women. However this can be offset by single-minded determine-nation, once again, with select women with a capacity to appreciate this.
This said, think about the fellow who’s chosen to be a plumber or a mechanic as his calling. The best plumber in the world is only going so far unless he has dreams to own his own business.
All of this is limited by a man’s attitude towards the opposite sex. Women are dream killers. Not because they have an agenda to be so, but because men will all too willingly sacrifice their ambitions for a steady supply of pussy and the responsibilities that women attach to this.
So yes it is better to develop yourself rather than take the path of least resistance. That’s not to say don’t date or enjoy women until you’re out of college, in your 30s and have your career in order. It is to say don’t consider monogamy until you are mature enough to understand it’s limitations and you’ve achieved a degree of success to your own satisfaction according to your ambitions and passions. It is also to say that women should compliment and support your plans for your own life.
* * *
MENTAL POINT OF ORIGIN
Self-Concern Without Self-Awareness
In the first book people thought I was crazy to hold up a guy like Corey Worthington as the example of an ’Alpha Buddha’, but there are other examples of the same unpracticed, self-unaware, mojo as Corey.
Personally, I was at my most Alpha when I didn’t realize I was. That’s not Zen, it’s just doing what came natural for me at a point in my life when I had next to nothing materially, only a marginal amount of social proof, but a strong desire to enjoy women for the sake of just enjoying them in spite of it.
Some of the most memorable sex I’ve had has been when I was flat broke (mostly). It didn’t matter that I lived in a two-room studio in North Hollywood or had beer and mac & cheese in the fridge — I got laid and I had women come to me for it.
It didn’t take my doing anything for a woman to get laid or hold her interest.
All I did was make myself my mental point of origin. It’s when I started putting women as a goal, making them into more than just a source of enjoyment, that I transferred that mental point of origin to her and I became the necessitous one.
A lot of guys will call that being ’needy’, and I suppose it is, but it’s a neediness that results from putting a woman (or another person) as your first thought — your mental point of origin. I use this term often so I thought it deserved a bit more explanation.
Your mental point of origin is really your own internalized understanding about how you yourself fit into your own understanding of Frame. If you haven’t read the first book or need a refresher, Frame is the first Iron Rule of Tomassi:
Iron Rule of Tomassi #1
Frame is everything.
Always be aware of the subconscious balance of who’s frame in which you are operating. Always control the Frame, but resist giving the impression that you are.
If Frame is the dominant narrative of a relationship (not limited to just romantic relations), your mental point of origin is the import and priority to which you give to the people and/or ideas involved in that relationship. It is the first thought you have when considering any particular of a relationship, and it’s often so ingrained in us that it becomes an autonomous mental process.
For most of us our understanding of that point of origin develops when we’re children. Kids are necessarily “selfish”, sometimes cruel and greedy, because our first survival instinct is to naturally put ourselves as our mental point of origin. Only later, with parenting and learning social skills do we begin to share, cooper-ate, empathize and sympathize as our mental point of origin shifts to putting the concerns of others before our own.
Young boys are generally very Alpha because of this unlearned self-importance. Their innate disruptiveness and pugnaciousness is the source of the almost Zen-like, mater-of-fact Alpha bearing of a Corey Worthington. As I stated in the first book, he’s not a ’man’ anyone might aspire to be, but he is Alpha without intent or self-awareness.
There is a ’first thought’ balance we have to maintain in a pro-social respect in order to develop healthy relationships. The problem we run into today is one in which boys are (largely) raised to be the men who provide more than they need in order to establish a future family. That learned, conditioned, mental point of origin is almost always focused outward and onto the people he hopes will reciprocate by placing him as their own point of origin.
Natural feminine solipsism makes this exchange a losing prospect. Women are both raised and affirmed by a vast social mechanism that not just encourages them to put themselves as their mental point of origin, but it shames and ostracizes them for placing it on someone or something other than themselves.
By now I’m sure that much of this comes off as some encouragement towards a retaliatory selfishness or narcissism, but putting oneself as his own point of origin doesn’t have to mean being anti-social or sociopathic. It requires a conscious decision to override an internalized understanding of oneself, but by placing yourself as your mental point of origin you are better positioned to help others and judge who is worth that effort.
It often requires some emotional trauma for men to realign themselves as their own point of origin, and I feel this is a necessary part of unplugging, but the real challenge is in how you deal with that trauma in a Red Pill aware state. If you are to kill the Beta in you, the first step is placing yourself as your mental point of origin.
So there are some things you’ll want to ask yourself:
Is your first inclination to consider how something in your relationships will affect you or your girlfriend/wife/family/boss?
When men fall into relationships with authoritarian, feminine-primary women, their first thought about any particulars of their actions is how his woman will respond to it, not his own involvement or his motivations for it. Are you a peacekeeper?
Do you worry that putting yourself as your own first priority will turn a woman off or do you think it will engage her more fully?
Are you concerned that doing so may lead to your own form of solipsism, or do you think ’enlightened self-interests’ serves your best interests and those with whom you want to help or become intimate with?
* * *
Whenever I consult teenage guys or young adult men I’m always reminded about how my ’Game’ has changed over the course of my lifetime. The 17-year-old Rollo Tomassi would be appalled at the mindset of the 46 year old Rollo Tomassi.
Granted, much of that shock would probably be attributed to the lack of experience my younger self had with regards to female nature, human nature and, if I’m honest, I suffered from the same naiveté most young men do when it comes to judging people’s character. In fact, at the time, my belief was that I shouldn’t ever judge anyone’s character, nor did I, nor should anyone really, have the right to.
Part of that assumption was from an undeveloped religious learning, but more so it was due to a youthful idealism I held — I’d been conditioned to believe not only that you “can’t judge a book by its cover”, but also that you shouldn’t do so, and ought to be ashamed for considering it.
I’m flattered that people might think I’m some phenomenal interpreter of psychology, the nature of women, intergender relations and a model upon which men should aspire to in order to get laid and still have a great (now 18 year) marriage. It has not always been so.
If I have any credibility now it’s not due to my getting everything miraculously right, but because I had everything so horribly wrong more often than not.
One of the most valuable lessons I learned in my time studying psychology and personality studies is that personality is always in flux. Who you are today is not who you will be in another few years. Hopefully that’s for the better after learning something and applying it towards your own personal progress, but it could equally be a traumatic experience that changes you for the worse.
For better or worse, personality shifts — sometimes slowly, sometimes suddenly
— and while you may retain aspects of your personality, mannerisms, talents, past experiences and beliefs into the next iteration of yourself in a new phase of your life, rest assured, you will not be who you are now at any other time.
Game Beyond PUA
I’m sorry if this sounds all fortune cookie to you at the moment, but it’s a necessary preface to understanding how Game changes for men as their life situations and circumstances change during different phases of their lives and the shifts in their own personalities and learned perceptions change as they age.
It’s an easy step for me to assume that, were I to find myself single tomorrow, I wouldn’t approach Game in any degree as I would were I the 26 year old version of myself. Indeed, the primary reason I’ve involved myself in expanding the Preventative Medicine series into this book is to help men at different phases of their own development understand what to expect from women and themselves during these periods of their life.
Game, for lack of a better term, should be a universal knowledge -tool for the everyman. Game and Red Pill awareness is (should be) a benefit for men regard-less of their circumstances or station in life.
Game and Red Pill awareness is applicable for men of every social or personal condition — even the short, pudgy guy who empties the trash in your office. He may not have the potential to enjoy sex with a swimsuit model, but the tenets of Game can help him improve his life within his own circumstances.
When I was writing The Rational Male I specifically wrote and published a post on the Evolution of Game to be included in the book in order to demystify an impression of Game which I still think people (particularly the Blue Pill uninitiated), sometimes intentionally, misconstrue as some magical panacea to their ’girl problems’. My definition was thus:
For the unfamiliar, just the word ’Game’ seems to infer deception or manipulation. You’re not being real if you’re playing a Game, so from the outset we’re starting off from a disadvantage of perception. This is further compounded when attempting to explain Game concepts to a guy who’s only ever been conditioned to ’just be himself’ with women and how womb-en allegedly hate guys “who play games” with them. As bad as that sounds, it’s really in the explanation of how Game is more than the common perception that prompts the discussion for the new reader to have it explained for them.
At its root level Game is a series of behavioral modifications to life skills based on psychological and sociological principles to facilitate intersexual relations between genders.
Game has more applications than just in the realm of intergender relations, but this is my best estimation of Game for the uninitiated. Game is the practical application of a new knowledge and increasingly broader awareness of inter-gender relations — often referred to, for convenience, as Red Pill awareness, by myself and others in the broader manosphere. Game begins with Red Pill awareness and using that awareness to develop Game.
“The body of infield evidence collected by 15 years of PUA is far more reliable and valid than anything social science has produced on seduction”
— Nick Krauser (krauserpua.com)
As I’ve written in the past, everyone has Game. Every guy you know right now has some idea, methodology or system of belief by which he thinks he can best put himself into a position of relating to, and becoming intimate with, a woman.
From even the most rank Beta plug-in to the 14-year-old high school freshmen boy, every guy has some notion about what he, and by extension all men, should do in order to become intimate with a girl. I described this a bit in Beta Game where I outlined the Beta plan of identifying with women’s “needs” and adopting a feminine-primary mental point of origin in order to become more like the tar-get(s) of his affection.
What ’formalized’ Game comes down to is what genuinely works for the betterment of his life. Men don’t seek out the manosphere because their Beta Game works so well for them.
I’ll admit, this was my own Game when I was in my late teens. Like most properly conditioned young men, I subscribed to the idea that men needed to be more empathetic and sensitive to women’s experience (rather than putting priority on his own) as the most deductive means to getting a girlfriend who’d appreciate my uniqueness for being so ’in tune’ with the feminine.
If you’d have asked me at the time (the mid 80’s), my belief was that the best way to ’get the girl’ was to take women at their word, use their “advice“, be their friend, make her comfortable, sacrifice your own (chauvinist) self-importance and support her importance, and mold your incorrect male self into a more perfect feminine ideal. The idea was that the lesser you made yourself, the more you made of her, and the more likely she was to reciprocate intimacy in appreciation.
That was my Game up until I learned through trial and painful error that women loathe a man who needs to be instructed on how to actually be more attractive to women. I didn’t understand that by my subscribing to this spoon-fed feminization Game and overtly advocating for it I was only advertising to the very girls I wanted that I Just Didn’t Get It.
This was simply the first stage of Game changing for me, and I’m fairly certain that you’d read a similar story from most of the manosphere’s heaviest hitters. I’m peripherally familiar with the early histories of the likes of blogger/PUAs like Roosh, Nick Krauser and even Mystery, so I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that the Game they practice today would be foreign to their younger selves.
When I moved into my rock star 20’s I began practicing a new form of Game, one based on social proof and demonstrating higher value (DHV).
Of course I had no idea I was practicing any Game at the time. I had reinvented myself and my identity shifted into that of a guy who was Spinning Plates, being more self-concerned and enjoying the benefits of that social proof and DHV; but if you’d asked me what I’d done to effect that change, or how my Game was affected by it, I wouldn’t have been able to give you an answer then — Game was just instinctual for me.
Now in my married years, as a husband and the father of a teenage daughter, and my professional life in the liquor and casino world where I interact with beautiful women on a weekly basis, I still employ Game when I don’t realize I am.
However, that Game is the compounded, internalized result of what I’ve learned and used since the days I believed in the “be nice for girls to like you” teenage Game. Amused Mastery, Command Presence and a few other principles became much easier to employ as a mature man, but also a new grasp of how women’s lives have a more or less predictable pattern to them.
Thanks to my time studying behavioral psychology I understand the methods women use to prompt and provoke men (shit tests). Thanks to my Red Pill aware-ness and simple understand of how women’s biology influences hypergamy I now understand why they do so — and more importantly, how to avoid the traps of falling into the worst aspects of women’s dualistic sexual strategy.
All of this influences my ’Game’ in the now. As before, I don’t play a constant, conscious game of mental chess in my dealings with women (and even the men in my social and professional life), I just live it.
It’s important to consider that the concept of Game you might be struggling with now was probably some other man’s experience before you encountered it. What is Game for me at 46, will most likely not have the exact same utility for me at 56, but if I stay sharp and learn along the way I’ll develop a new Game for that phase of life.
In Roosh’s book, Poosy Paradise, he has a quote in it that struck me (I paraphrase):
There are a lot of men who tell me they wish they knew back then what they know now, but in all likelihood that knowledge wouldn’t serve them as well as they believe it would. They’d simply make new mistakes (and hope-fully learn from them) based on the things they never had any experience of in the now.
There is always additional knowledge a man can know even when he possess the highest level of knowledge.
* * *
THE MALE EXPERIENCE
A little over sixteen years ago my wife was pregnant with our daughter. For most of her adult life Mrs. Tomassi has been a medical professional (medical imaging) so while she was pregnant she and her girl-friends at the hospital would take any free moment they got to sneak into the ultrasound room a have a peek at our gestating daughter. As a result we have about 4 times as many ultrasound pictures as most other couples get. I actually have images of my daughter as a multi-celled organism.
It was during one of these impromptu scannings that we discovered what gender our child would be. We were both more than a bit impatient and didn’t want to wait for the silly build up the OBGYN would make of revealing her gender, so we hit up a girl-friend of my wife to do another ultrasound around the right trimester.
She scanned for a bit and said, “Oh yeah, you’ve got a girl.” We asked how she could be so sure and she said, “Her hands aren’t in the right place.” Then she explained, “Almost always when the baby is a boy his hands will be down around his crotch once he’s matured to a certain phase in the pregnancy. There’s not much else to do in there, so they play with themselves. Your daughter’s hands are usually up around her face.”
After hearing this I began to appreciate the power of testosterone. Whenever I read someone tell me sex isn’t really a “need”, I think about how even in the womb the influence of testosterone is there. For better or worse, our lives as Men center on our capacity to control, unleash, mitigate and direct that influence.
Socially we build up appropriate conventions intended to bind it into some kind of uniformity, to prevent the destructive potential and exploit its constructive potential
— while personally we develop convictions, psychologies and internalized rules by order of degree to live our lives with its influence always running in the background of our subconsciousness.
Women become very indignant when trying to understand the male experience.
This is due in most part to women’s innate solipsism and their presumption that their experience is the universal one. Part of this presumption is due to social reinforcement, but that social presumption — essentially the equalist presumption — is rooted in women’s base indifference to anything external that doesn’t affect them directly and personally. If everyone is essentially the same and equal, and we’re acculturated to encourage this perspective, it leaves women to interpret their own imperatives and innate solipsism to be the normative ones for men.
So it often comes with a lot shock and indignation (which women instinctively crave) when women are forced, sometimes rudely, to acknowledge that men’s experience doesn’t reflect their own.
The reactive response is to force-fit men’s experience into women’s self-concerned interpretations of what that experience should be according to a feminine-primary perception of what works best for women. On an individual woman’s level this amounts to denial and rejection of a legitimate male-primary experience through shame or implied fem-centric obligations to accept and adopt her experience as his responsibility. On a social level this conflict is reflected in social conventions and feminine-centric social doctrines, as well as being written directly into binding laws that forcibly enact a feminine-centric perspective into our social fabric.
Feminine solipsism and the primacy of the female experience superseding the male experience begins with the individual woman (micro) and extrapolates into a feminine primary social construct (macro).
Virtually every conflict between the sexes comes back to the rejection of the legitimacy of the male experience.
In every social and psychological dynamic I’ve ever written about it’s the fundi-mental lack of understanding of the male experience which influences women’s perception of our sex. Whether it’s understanding our sexual impulse, our idealism-tic concept of love, or appreciating the sacrifices men uniquely make to facilitate a feminine reality, the disconnect always distills down to a fundamental lack of accepting the legitimacy of the male experience.
It would be too easy a cop out to simply write this disconnect off as an existential difference. Obviously men and women cannot spend time in each other’s skin to directly appreciate the experience of the other. However, since the Feminine Imperative is the normative one in our current social makeup the presumption is that a feminine directed ’equalism’ is the only legitimate experience. Thus the masculine experience is, by default, delegitimized, if not vilified, for simply reminding the feminine that inherent, evolved sexual differences challenge equal-ism by masculinity’s very presence.
I reject your reality and replace it with my own…
Men just being men is a passive challenge to the Feminine Imperative; Red Pill awareness is a direct challenge to the legitimacy of a feminine primary experience. It’s important to recall here that the primacy of the female experience begins on the personal level with an individual woman and then exponentially multiplies into a social (macro) scale. When you assert yourself as a Red Pill Man, you are asserting your disconnection from that feminine-primary frame. This begins on a personal level for a woman, and then extrapolates into a social affront for all women.
The initial shock (and indignation) is one of interrupting her comfortable, predictable expectations of men in the feminine defined reality she experiences for herself. As even the most rookie of Red Pill Men will attest, the legitimate female experience rejects this assertion, most times with an amount of hostility.
Men are met with socially reinforced, prepared responses designed to defend against attempts to question the legitimacy of the feminine experience as the primary one — shaming is often the first recourse, even most passive challenges warrant shaming, but character assassination and disqualifications based upon a feminine primary perspective are the go-to weapons of the solipsistic nature of the feminine mindset (even when men are the ones subscribing to it).
The next weapon in the feminine psychological arsenal is histrionics.
Aggrandized exaggerations and overblown straw man tactics may seem like a last resort for women to a man attempting to rationally impose his Red Pill, legitimized, male experience, but know histrionics for what they are — a carefully design, feminine-specific and socially approved failsafe for women.
In the same vein as a Woman’s Prerogative (women reserve the rightness of changing their minds) and the Feminine Mystique, female histrionics are a legitimized and socially excusable tactic with the latent purpose of protecting a woman’s solipsistic experience. She’s an emotional creature and your challenge to her ego only brings out the hysteric in her — it’s men’s fault that they don’t get it, and it’s men’s fault for bringing it out in her by challenging her solipsism. And thus is she excused from her protective histrionics at men’s cost.
It’s important for Red Pill Men to understand what their presence, much less their assertions, mean to the feminine; their very existence, just their questioning, represents a challenge to individual, ego-invested feminine solipsism.
Always be prepared for the inevitable defense of a woman’s self-importance. Even in the most measured approach, you are essentially breaking a woman’s self-concept by reminding or asserting that her experience is not the universal experience. There’s a temptation for Red Pill Men to get comfortable with a woman’s who accepts Red Pill truths, only to find that her ego will just accept the parts of those truths that its comfortable with and benefits from. That solipsism doesn’t die once she’s acknowledged the legitimacy of your experience, anymore than your sexual imperative dies if you accept her experience as the legitimate one.
The Love Experience
How then can men and women love each other intensely and genuinely in an era of unapologetic feminine primacy and unignorable open Hypergamy? After absorbing the import of the time line of women’s maturity and the prime directive it demands from men in a feminine-primary social order, you’ll probably be left with some hesitancy to believe that a shared love can ever be possible in a com-elementary sense.
The first thing we need to consider is the male experience vs. the female experience. I hate to get too existential, but it comes down to our individuated experiences as men and women. I’m going to give two examples here.
There’s an interesting conflict of societal messaging we get from an equalitarian / feminine-primary social order. This is one that simultaneously tells us that “we are not so different” or “we are more alike than we are different” and then, yet implores us to still “celebrate our diversity” and “embrace (or tolerate) our differences” as people.
This is easily observable in issues of multiculturalism, but it also universally crosses over into issues of gender. The most popular equalist trope is that concepts of gender are only social constructs and that women and men are comparative, existential equals and only their physical plumbing makes them different in form.
From a Red Pill perspective we see the error in evidence of this egalitarian fantasy. I’ve written countless posts and essays on the evidential and logical fallacies that make up gender equalism, but the important thing to be aware of is the conflict inherent within that belief — equalism expects men and women’s existential experiences to be the same, while at the same time pleads that we embrace the differences it purports we don’t actually have.
It fundamentally denies the separation, from an evolved biological / psychological perspective, that men and women experience life in different ways. The idea is that it’s the nebulous ’society’ that fiendishly determines our gender experiences and less, if nothing, of it is truly influenced by a human being’s psychological-biological firmware.
I had a commenter drop the following in one of my related threads:
I think men have no innate desire to marry up. Hypergamy doesn’t compute for us. I know what hunger feels like and I assume women feel it the same way I do. I’m empathetic to poor, hungry children because I know what they’re feeling. However I have no idea what hypergamy feels like. I’ve never felt it’s pull.
My second example comes from the Women & Sex section in The Rational Male in which I explore the fallacy of the social convention that insists “women are just as sexual as men” and that “women want sex, enjoy sex, even more than men.”
This canard is both observably and biologically disprovable, but the presumption is based on the same “we’re all the same, but celebrate the difference” conflicting principle that I mentioned above. If a dynamic is complimentary to the feminine then the biological basis is one we’re expected to ’embrace the diversity’ of, but if the dynamic is unflattering to the feminine it’s the result “of a society that’s fixated on teaching gender roles to ensure the Patriarchy, we’re really more alike than not.”
The idea is patently false because there is no real way any woman can experience the existence and conditions that a man does throughout his life. I mention in that essay about how a female amateur body builder I knew who was dumbstruck by how horny she became after her first cycle of anabolic steroids. “I can’t believe men can live in a state like this” were her exact words. She was just beginning to get a taste of what men experience and control in their own skins 24-hours a day and it was unsettling for her.
Women are used to a cyclic experience of sexuality, whereas men must be ready to perform at the first, best opportunity sexually. These are our individuated experiences and despite all the bleating of the equalists they are qualitatively different. No man has any idea of what Hypergamy feels like. To my knowledge there is no drug or hormone that can simulate the existential experience of Hypergamy. Even if there were, men and women’s minds are fundamentally wired differently, so the simulated experience could never be replicated for a man.
I understand how Hypergamy works from observing the behavior and under-standing the motivating biology for it. I also understand that our species evolved with, and benefited from it — or at least it makes deductive sense that what we know as Hypergamy today is a derivative of that evolution — but what I don’t have is a firsthand, existential experience of Hypergamy and I never will. Likewise, women will never have a similar existential experience of what it’s like to be a man.
So it should be an easy follow to deduce that how a woman experiences love, as based on her Hypergamic opportunistic impulses, is a fundamentally different ex-patience than that of a man’s. The equalist social order wants love to be an equal, mutual, agreement on a definition of love that transcends individuated gender experience, but it simply will not accept that an intersexual experience of love is defined by each sex’s individuated experience.
I have no doubt that there are areas of crossover in both men’s idealistic concept of love and women’s opportunistic concept, but this experience of love is still defined by gender-specific individuation. By that I mean that women can and do experience intense feelings of love for a man based on her Hypergamously influenced criteria for love.
If you sift through the comments of forums regarding women’s ’love experience you’ll come across examples of women describing in great detail how deeply they love their husbands / boyfriends, and are in complete disarray over being told their love stems from Hypergamic opportunism.
I have no doubt that their feelings of love are genuine to them based on their individuated concepts of love; indeed they’re ready to fight you tooth and nail to defend their investment in those feelings. What I’m saying is that the criteria a man should need to meet in order to generate those emotions and arrive at a love state are not the universally mutual criteria that an equalitarian social order would have the whole of society believe.
So, yes, men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely
— from their own individuated experiences. The processes they used to come to this love state differs in concept and existential individuation, and what sustains that love state is still dependent upon the criteria of men’s idealistic, and women opportunistic concepts of love.
The commodification of that love state is presently weighted on the feminine be-cause the Feminine Imperative is socially ascendant. The importance of satisfying the female sexual (and really life-goal) strategy takes primary social precedence today. Thus men’s individuated experience is devalued to an assumption of an “it’s-all-equal” universality while women’s is blown up out of all real valuation with collective expectations of “embracing their unique difference” set apart from that universality. If men’s experience is one-size-fits-all it’s really a small, and socially blameless, step for a woman to withhold the reward criteria men place on their idealistic love in order to satisfy their own sexual strategy.
Women’s social primacy allows them to feel good about themselves for com-modifying the idealistic rewards men value to come to their own state of love, as well as maintain it.
It is one further step to embrace the concept that men’s experience of love, the idealism he applies to it and even his own sexual and life imperatives are in fact the same as those of women’s — while still setting women’s apart when it serves them better. Thus the cardinal rule of sexual strategies comes to a feminine-primary consolidation by socially convincing men that women’s experience and imperatives are, or should be considered to be, the same as men’s individuated experiences. Add women’s already innate solipsism to this and you have a formula for a gender-universal presumption of the experience of love based primarily on the individuated female experience of love.
In other words, women expect men to socially and psychologically agree with, reinforce and cooperate with the opportunistic feminine model of love as the equalist, gender-mutual model of love while still believing that women share their own idealistic model. It’s the correct model that should work for everyone, or so women’s solipsism would have us believe.
* * *
It’s ironic that a man should be made to feel infantile, or “less than responsible” for indulging in his own wants. For certain, a surprise sports car purchase may be an extreme example, but sometimes over-exaggeration is necessary to illustrate a larger point. That larger point is the nature in which women in a feminine-primary social order exercises de facto personal and social control over men. It’s part of the feminine Matrix to think that ’responsibility’ should be uniquely framed in what best serves the feminine. Due to a lifetime of conditioning we literally don’t know any other way to interpret it most of the time.
When a man begins to ’go rogue’ the Feminine Imperative has many pre-established social conventions to mediate this. Obviously designating men’s correct role as ’responsibility’ to serve the feminine frame is the social control, but there are other powerful conventions that the imperative uses. One of these is the Myth of the Midlife Crisis.
A lot of hokey comedies have been produced covering midlife crises. Usually the main characters are cast as overweight schlubs trying to recapture their by-gone days. In real life men are ridiculed, usually around age 40, for losing their mojo and acting ’irresponsibly’ or ’erratically’ in some silly gesture of reclaiming his independence. However, this masculine shaming hides a more desperate latent purpose for the feminine.
The SMV Crossover
The most stereotypical midlife crisis occurs for a man around age 40. As I illustrate in the SMV graph it’s important to remember that a man’s sexual market value really begins to peak between 36-38. It’s usually at this point that the most Blue Pill of men begin to see the design in women’s sexual strategy, the role he now realizes he’s committed himself to, and have the best chance to truly unplug from the Matrix.
It is also at this point that the threat of a man becoming self-aware of his now fully developed SMV has its greatest urgency for women to repress him from realizing. Even life-long Blue Pill men generally come to an understanding that their wives’ SMV has dropped and realize their own SMV is comparatively greater. For the first time in his relationship history, he faces the Cardinal Rule of Relation-ships from his own perspective — women need him more than he needs women.
The Feminine Imperative has come to expect this awakening. In decades past, before there was a formalized Game, before there was the connectivity we have today, the Feminine Imperative relied upon social controls that limited a man’s becoming aware of his SMV. Through pop-culture and mass media men were taught to expect a prefabricated personal ’crisis’, even enlisting men to promote the idea themselves.
However, the imperative casts the ’crisis’ as irresponsible and juvenile. It relied upon the time-tested shaming of masculinity in the hope men would self-regulate when the time came that his SMV outclassed that of the woman in his life. So we got hokey movies, and the presumptuous ridicule of men wanting to trade-up their wives for ’trophy wives’; because even when a man is mature and established he must be made to believe he’ll still be little better than a cad if he’s given some marginal success in life.
Probably the most common story I experienced when I did peer counseling was the disillusioned married guy.
Most of these guys were professionals, mid to late 30’s and all their stories were the same:
“I feel like I’ve done everything anyone ever expected of me for the past 10-15 years and I get no appreciation for it.”
These guys “did the right thing” and either their wives’ were unresponsive to them or they still viewed these men as a “fixer upper” project that they’d been perpetually working on over a 20 year marriage.
This experience is what helped me to better understand the Myth of the Midlife Crisis. Men, in most western cultures do in fact experience a midlife crisis, but this isn’t due to the trivialized and oft ridiculed pop culture reasoning.
Women, and feminization, would have us believe that men experiencing a mid-life crisis need to buy a sports car or divorce their wives in favor of a ’trophy wife’ due to some repressed need to recapture their lost youth.
This of course fits into the feminized myth that men are egoistic, simple creatures and masculinity is infantile in nature, but this only serves to reassure women that they “still got it” at 40.
The truth about men’s midlife crises isn’t about recapturing youth, it’s about finally understanding the trappings they’ve been sold into through their 20’s and 30’s and coming to terms with that often horrible truth. They are forced to confront the part they’ve inadvertently played in facilitating a woman’s sexual strategy that was sold to him as his feminine-correct social responsibility.
They come to the point on the time line when a woman’s maturity phase places her in the more necessitous position that he’s been in for the better part of his 20s and likely half of his 30s. He’s emotionally invested in her, or if not, the idealism of how he was sold a ’healthy relationship’ should be, and this conflicts with both his realizing his SMV (or his lost potential of it) and confronting the reality of the part he played in facilitating her duplicitous sexual strategy.
Some men do in fact buy the sports car, get the new hotty wife or act in some fashion that appears reckless and irresponsible. This isn’t due to infantilism, but rather a new understanding of their own position as men. They’ve “lived responsibly” for so long and for so little appreciation that when that true realization is made they feel the need to move. The true nature of the Game that’s been perpetrated on them becomes clear and they need to react.
They’ve become respected, put in the hours, the sacrifice, the censoring of their own views, priorities and imperatives. They realize now that they’ve sold off true passions in favor of maintaining what others have told him was his responsibility
— whether it was his choice or not.
And all for what? A fat wife? A shrew? Maybe even a fantastic marriage and a wonderful family life, but also a nagging doubt about not seeing enough of the world or accomplishing what he wanted to do by 40 because of it — a nagging doubt that he’s not living up to his curse of potential.
In truth, I worry about men who don’t come to this crisis, these are the men who are truly lost. These are the guys who remain life long Blue Pills, happy in their ignorance or forcing down truths too terrible to acknowledge.
* * *
THE MATURE MAN
I once got into an interesting debate about the reasons why mature men tend to opt for younger women with whom to settle down with. As is to be expected from fem-screech and their male enablers the social shaming mechanisms abounded. Most of these are some variation of the “men’s fragile egos” canard or the “a real man would want to get with a woman his own age” trope. This quote pretty much summed up the opposing point:
“Older guys want to bang college-age girls for the same reason that many older women like dating younger guys: to live in a state of suspended youth and be reminded that they ’still got it’”.
I half-agree. Older women definitely want to think they “still got it”, with regards to their capacity to hold the attention of younger guys they find themselves in competition with younger women for.
However, older men who naturally pursue younger women come to realize that they’ve “finally got it”. Why wouldn’t a guy of 40 have a natural preference for the younger woman after reaching a level of maturity and accomplishment that allows him this? Professional women tied to the male template of life’s progression tend to think that they too should be entitled to the sexual attraction of ’eligible’ men by virtue of their mature achievements, professional status, education and some imagined sense of knowing themselves better.
They are mistaken.
The Associations of Maturity
First off, it’s a mistake to just peg 40 year old men in this demographic. There are plenty of early to mid thirties guys who can and do pull girls 5 to 8 years younger than themselves with some regularity. Funny how there’s little shaming stigma with that age difference.
It’s not a man’s physical age so much as what that age popularly represents (or is perceived to represent) — maturity, accomplishment, better provisioning capacity, status, education, etc. and all the trappings a man who’s realized the best of his potential should have attained.
Do all men actually realize these to their satisfaction by this time?
Of course not, but it’s the perception that they should have actualized this that is the attractant in comparison to younger guys who haven’t, nor could they really be expected to. Mature Men represent this perception of assumed accomplishment and security — exactly what women are looking for in a phase of life where their sexual marketability declines and their need for long term provisioning becomes more urgent.
Second, understand that the incidence of 30-40 year old men remaining single up to this time of life is rare. Most guys (Betas in majority) are already engaged by 26 years old and/or have been serial monogamists up to this point.
For all the recent hand wringing about ’kidult’ men not manning up and marrying post-Epiphany Phase women, rare is the guy who remains single into his late 30s. By the time he arrives at his SMV peak period he’s either divorced once or on marriage number two.
Still fewer come into the realization of their own vastly increased sexual market value assuming they’ve managed to stay in shape and accomplish things financially, emotionally and maturity-wise up to this point and then use this to their own advantage with younger women. An interesting aside here is that men are berated for being peter-pans in their late 20s for not living up to female entitlement, then get the same treatment for marrying younger women when they do mature into Men. This is a glaring illustration of the female imperative at work.
Now add to that a constant feminine social convention convincing them they have “fragile egos” or shames them for dating young ’chippys’ (i.e. future trophy wives) instead of mature women (generally single mothers) with all their accompanying baggage.
Unsurprisingly we see in most cultures older males striving for the attentions of the younger and more attractive females, but in western culture he becomes vilified and shamed for this — or at least that’s what western-feminized women would like to be the case.
The most common complaint women in their mid-thirties bemoan is that, “There’s no good men” or they can’t understand why men just can’t “grow up”.
Increasingly ’career women’ desiring to finally start a family at age 35 find that men — particularly the ones that meet their equalist provisioning criteria — in their age range (33-38) are not interested in women (to say nothing of ’career women’) of their age. They’re interested in the 22 year olds who wouldn’t give them the time of day when they didn’t have the status (or maturity) that they’ve just dis-covered they now have.
And of course the 35-year-old careerist woman was one of these 22-year-old girls, only 13 years prior, who was doing precisely the same thing the 22-year-old girls are doing in their Party Years today.
These Men are not trying to “relive” anything; generally they never “lived” the experiences which they’re accused of trying to recreate.
However, they are newly aware of their own sexual market value — and nothing both frightens and attracts a woman so well as a Man aware of his own sexual market value to women. That’s the foundation of midlife confidence, and, if he’s capitalized on his potential to some degree, this gives him a mature gravitas that attracts women.
This represents a problem for women though. They want a Man with the confidence and maturity (derived from experience) to make important decisions, be an initiator, a good provider, etc., but not so confident that he weighs his options and selects her out of his provisioning for a competing woman based on his primary requisite of physical arousal and sexual availability.
To counter this, the feminine creates social conventions that shame a Man for considering a woman too much younger than herself. This has the latent intent of leveling the SMP playing field in order for her to compete with women who are younger, hotter and more sexually available than a woman progressed in years.
He has to be kept ignorant of the whole process, but still shamed enough into thinking his desire for the young and attractive mid 20s girl makes him “juvenile” or preoccupied with a “fragile ego”, or “trying to recapture his youth”. The feminine reality demands he be dissuaded from pursuing his interests in favor of women’s sexual strategies, and the best way to do that is to slime his interests as a perversion.
“To most college-age girls, a guy in his 40s (even 30s) and up is usually the ’creepy old man’ even if he takes good care of himself. The old guy usually ends up trying to fit into the young girl’s world instead of the other way around.”
This common refrain of the Feminine Imperative is the Creepy Old Man tactic. I don’t necessarily disagree with this as an observation, however I believe its effect is contextual.
I’m regularly at events (mixers, clubs, promos, trade shows, etc.) as part of my work where I’m approached by much younger women. If the 40-year-old guy is perceived to be attempting to “fit in” with that age’s social peers, then this is absolutely correct.
The disconnect comes from a man who’d otherwise be perceived as possessing the attributes he should have for his age trying to retrofit himself into another generation’s social profile. That is when he becomes the “old guy in the club”.
Never attempt to ’backdate’ yourself style-wise, linguistically, etc. If you’re attractive, the girls who want to associate with a mature Man will find you.
Men become happier than women by mid-life and for the most part I think I can see why. Most women in their late 30s to mid 40s are, for the most part, chronic complainers.
After going through the high drama phases of her 20s, into kids, marriages and divorces in her 30s, women tend to content themselves languishing in this dissatisfaction that her fantasy life isn’t panning out to be. Nothing measures up to the perceived ideals she thinks are her due.
Most women in western culture who find themselves single at 38-42 are there after an earlier life that didn’t go as planned. They almost universally carry some kind of baggage.
Can they be attractive? Uncommonly, but yes. However it’s a mistake to presume older (or at least age level peers) women to be more intellectually equitable with older men and therefore more compatible choices for LTRs or marriage.
I’m sorry if this comes off as glossing myself, but honestly, I’ve encountered very few women I can relate to intellectually or that I’d consider equal in my particular interests, my life experiences, my passions, etc. or share the same degree of experiential curiosity. That’s not a cut on the whole of women, just an illustration of the difference in the genders’ maturation.
I wish this didn’t sound like conceit on my part because, in all humility, I think the better part of what I find important is really pretty mundane. It’s not that I hold a low opinion of women’s capacity to be more ’life-curious’; it’s simply their own general indifference to even trying to relate to that in comparison to their own distractions.
I don’t think women (and particularly 35-40 year old women) feel it’s incumbent upon them to have to be a good mate, intellectually stimulating, a good mother, or even a good sexual partner for a Man’s consideration. I’d attribute most of that to the female sense of entitlement and victimhood that permeates feminine popular culture, but also to men and women’s interests really being fundamentally dispel-rate. In other words, with the extraordinarily rare exception, women will rarely put forth the same effort a man will for a woman to better identify herself with his interests for the explicit purpose of being a better mate for him. That burden of performance uniquely belongs to men.
Obviously a more mature woman will have a greater urgency to settle into the long term provisioning security that marriage provides her, but this urgency gets confused with actual maturity. Just because a woman is more motivated to start a family and enter into a more traditionally domestic life doesn’t mean she’s an intellectual or mature equal — nor does it make her more compatible with you in this sense just by virtue of her progressed phase of maturity. It simply means she is more motivated to do so based on her conditions of diminishing sexual value.
I think on some level of consciousness, older, more mature men who’ve spent a good portion of their lives dealing with the experiences that create this life bag-gage older women accrue, recognize a necessity to distance themselves from it.
After making the sacrifices, and avoiding (or not) the pitfalls that he must to become the healthy, mature and accomplished man that older women complain are in such short supply, I think it’s pretty matter-of -fact to seek out a younger, hotter, more sexually available woman with little to no baggage. The counter to this is the feminine social conventions of shame that I covered earlier.
Men on a basic functioning level are pragmatists, even when we do allow our emotions to get the better of us. One tenet we maintain is an understanding that women tend to operate from an emotional level, whereas men tend to operate from deductive reasoning.
While a hot piece of ass is it’s own motivation, I think on some level, after the necessary experiences, sacrifices and time it takes to get to a point of personal maturity, we see a younger woman with less baggage as a sort of double bonus.
If I were to find myself single tomorrow, this would be exactly my motivation.
Why would I invest my considerable capacity for financial, emotional, intellectual and security provisioning into complicating my own life with a woman fraught with the baggage of her own failings and inconsistencies of the last 15-20 years?
For what I’ve become myself and what I know is valuable, why would I not look for a simplification considering what was required of me to get to that maturity? If middle age men are happier than women at this stage of life, it’s because they’ve arrived at a place where they don’t feel the need to qualify themselves to women any longer — and realize the reverse is now true.
A rich man doesn’t need to tell you he’s rich. You can see it in his appearance, his mannerisms, his bearing. The same is true for a mature Man. In his maturity he’s comfortable in the knowledge that he doesn’t need to prove it by qualifying himself to social conventions that are counter to his own self-interest and his well being.