The Security & Development Phases
Before I move on in this study I’m going to take a moment to once again clarify the purpose of this time line. It’s important to remember that this chronology is meant to serve as a general direction for women’s maturation and the priorities of attraction they put on men’s attributes during these phases of their lives.
By design this graph isn’t intended to be a specific outline to account for every woman’s individual circumstances, but a somewhat predictable series of phases coordinated with events, behaviors and mental schema that occur during those phases. The perspective I’ve approached in this outline is one of an unattached (long term single) or semi-monogamous woman with the personal and social options to leverage her sexual agency as well as a subjective degree of control over the direction of her life (or the strong impression that she actually has this control).
Of course, I would be remiss to assume all women’s individual circumstances would follow the same series of instances subject to the same set of circumstances.
In any one woman’s life there are far too many subjective eventualities to con-sider that would fit into the scope of this book, which is why I’ve detailed these phases in as general terms as I can fashion them.
To the point though, it is up to any one Man to determine how a woman’s personal conditions, her past decisions and the consequences of her past discretions or indiscretions contribute to what is motivating her along this general outline of life phases. It’s entirely possible, if not likely, a woman would have had a prior marriage or be a single-mother during any or all of the phases I’ve detailed. It’s also not unlikely a woman might be a serial monogamist or married during the duration of her Party Years.
The art of determining what motivates a woman according to the phase of life she’s in, her socialization and how her circumstances modify or are modified by it is what the ’A’ in PUA represents — “Artistry.”
The important part of determining what motivates women’s behaviors and mind-sets is to frame these personal circumstances against this outline of women’s life phases. In general, the phases and progression of maturity (socially, personally and biologically), her prioritization of attractive male attributes, and the resulting purpose-driven behaviors don’t change much for women as a whole. What changes is the context an individual woman finds them attractive in.
It’s when you consider how an individual woman’s circumstances work within or against this progression, and how you as a Man can first determine if that womb-an is worth varying degrees of your investment, that you may better leverage what you know about her conditions and the phase of life she’s experiencing to your own, or your mutual, benefit.
I frame individual observations and understandings of specific topics as they relate to both women’s stage of life and their circumstance. This has been a part of my writing process since I began making forum posts years ago, but in real life, in the moment, you need to have a basic grasp of who you’re dealing with, and what motivates her according to what priorities she places on men and herself at any phase of life — as well as considering the social influences she’s being subjected to.
Right now all this probably seems like a lot of effort and a lot of hassle.
“Why the hell even bother Rollo? If I had to untangle a chick’s psyche and socialization every time I want a new piece of ass I’d just be a monk.”
In truth, on various levels of consciousness, you already make most of theses assessments about a woman when you invest any degree of effort (Game) in her
— even if just to get laid.
You may not realize you’re doing it. Your investment in a woman is itself modified by your own conditioning, your deficiencies and strengths, but rest assured, you are making these assessments on some level of consciousness.
The difference now is that you have an outline to be better aware of the framework you’re making these assessments in — that’s a cornerstone of Red Pill truth.
Understanding what motivates a woman at any phase of her maturation isn’t terribly difficult to grasp — once you yourself have experienced that phase with a woman. And that’s the intent of my developing this outline, to help (younger) men without the benefit of this prior, sometimes detrimental, experience make informed assessments about the motivations of women they may be interested in at various stages of their maturity.
Equally important is an understanding of how the social conventions and rationales a feminine-centric society endorses and propagates for women factors in to their own ideologies, as well as how they absolve women’s already solipsistic nature from personal accountability as she matures.
Furthermore, what’s also important is the understanding of the guilt and regret that results from not having lived up to the expectations these social conventions convince women they should be entitled to have experienced by a certain developmental phase. Women tend to be both the perpetrators and (later) the victims of the same conventions by design.
With the rise of instant communication, only recently have men began to connect the dots with regards to how these social conventions have been established to correlate with the decisions women make for themselves and the fluidity with which these conventions allow them to rationalize the outcome of those decisions.
Hypergamy has always been an impulse for women, but until the sexual revolution’s ’liberation’ of women from the societal and ideological balances that previously kept Hypergamy in check, there was less need for the many social conventions now necessary to balance women’s accountability (psychologically and sociologically) in that new ’freedom’.
The Security Phase
Women’s priorities for attraction (not necessarily arousal) are dependent upon the necessities dictated by which phase of life she’s currently in.
One reason I tagged men’s peak SMV at or around 36-38 is partially due to their relative capacity for attaining the characteristics and accomplishments that women find the most desirable for long term commitment at about the same time women are the most necessitous of those qualities.
As women approach the Epiphany Phase (later the Wall) and realize the decay of their SMV (in comparison to younger women), they become progressively more incentivized towards attraction to the qualities a man possesses that will best satisfy the long-term security of the Beta Bucks side of her Hypergamy demands.
For many women this realization is their first experience with the dread that comes from a new uncertainty of attracting and retaining a man in monogamy.
Too many Blue Pill apologists dismiss the SMV realities my graph depicts by comparing the Party Years desires of an SMV peaked 23 year old girl with the vested value a 37 year old SMV peaked man represents to women’s overall, long term, dualistic-need Hypergamy. What maximizes the SMV of a woman in her peak is not equal to what maximizes the SMV peak of men.
During what I term the security phase, women’s prioritization of attraction shifts to a man’s potential for provisioning.
While the newfound attraction to intrinsic qualities of a man are overtly exaggerated as appealing to women during this phase, it’s essentially a man’s proven capacity to provide enough resources for himself and a potential mate (and future family) that are key to this attraction. These are qualities an SMV peaked man is socially expected to possess, and socially expected to deliver for a woman precisely at the time in which she finds herself the most necessitous of these qualities and provisioning (29-31 years of age).
It is during the security phase women will begin to alter their self-expectations, as well as overtly bemoan their frustrations about their own inability to secure commitment from what they now perceive would be a socially equitable mate.
The social conventions already in place for women in this phase make them comfortable in attempting to shame men into compliance with their long-term security needs. This is the phase you will most likely hear a woman complain about “men’s fragile egos”, men being threatened by ’strong independent women’ or some other frustration about men not cooperating with the social script of their rapidly decaying, dualistic sexual strategy.
Security anxiety and the conflict a woman experiences with her SMV decay forces two outcomes for her; she can convince herself to believe her SMV is still comparative to her intersexual competitors or she can settle on a hypergamously substandard man who’ll gratefully embody what the provisioning aspect of her Hypergamy demands. If she’s followed the Alpha Fucks schedule during her Party Years it’s also possible she finds herself as a single mother seeking a provider to assist in the parental investment her Alpha gene provider wasn’t (or is a limited) part of.
I should mention that the Transition and Security phases are a point at which most men’s (Betas) feminized conditioning comes to fruition for the Feminine Imperative. The Beta providers who’ve been patiently awaiting their moment of sexual vindication find their moment of peak attraction — and not uncommonly with the same women (or types of women) who had no use for them during their Party Years.
The well-conditioned Beta is nothing if not patient and dutiful in his feminine-primary purpose and it’s at this phase he begins to see dividends for his steadfastness in supporting the feminine cause. His willingness to forgive a woman’s Party Years’ indiscretions, he believes, will be an investment in a relational equity any ’quality’ woman will appreciate.
It’s important to understand that the social engineering of the Feminine Imperative conditions Beta men to be predisposed to this White Knight mentality at precisely the phase women will need his provisioning the most — the stage in which her SMV declines and his begins its ascendancy (as defined by her need).
During the Security Phase, affluence, provisioning capacity and the status that should be associated with it become a primary attractant for women. The want for physical appeal and arousal cues are still an important factor in attraction, but indicators of maturity, affluence, and other intrinsic qualities become a priority. That isn’t to say a random short term mating opportunity with an arousing Alpha would be ignored (especially around her ovulation cycle), but long-term security takes precedence.
Women who consolidate on monogamous commitment during this phase (or in their Epiphany Phase) generally run through a series of mental self-rationalization over their decision to marry the Good Dad, rather than the Good Genes father.
This is an effort women engage in to justify to their consolidating on the security side of their hypergamous sexual strategy. Once children are part of her reality this mental subroutine has to be forced to the periphery of her attentions, but it is a psychological conflict she’s either going to resolve by eventually leaving her provider male (and seek out her Alpha Widow substitute) or convince herself and her hypergamous conscience that she has in fact optimized her Hypergamy with the male she settled on.
As a woman matures into her late security phase, and her children become more self-sufficient, it’s at this point she becomes more self-critical and retrospective of her Epiphany Phase, and more realistic about her true reasonings for experiencing it.
The Development Phase
Because a woman’s capacity to attract her hypergamous ideal decays with every passing year, her urgency demands an 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 becoming) her hypergamous ideal, so the preference leans toward seeking out the man who is more established 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.
From the Security Phase into the Developmental Phase is generally the time during which a woman has satisfied the security needs side of her Hypergamy (Beta Bucks) with a man she consolidated on a long-term security with during her Epiphany-Transition Phase.
Before I elaborate further I should remind men that this particular phase can some-times precede the Epiphany-Transition Phases for women who, by circumstance (e.g. an unplanned pregnancy), personal conviction, pairing with a man she believes has such future SMV potential, or believes is so far above her own foreseeable SMV (looks, affluence or status/fame) that she feels compelled to consolidate on him.
This early security phase may also be the result of a particularly bad experience a woman in her Party Years had with a prior Alpha lover — the emotional trauma of which convinced her to console herself with an accessible Beta orbiter who was patient enough (and fortunate enough) to be his dutiful, forgiving and supportive self in the right place at the right time.
Most commonly however this phase usually occurs within a 7 to 9 year window just after a woman consolidates on (or should have consolidated on) a long-term security prospect male; and this is usually after her transitioning from her Party Years and dealing with the urgency of finding that prospective male.
It’s important to delineate the circumstances that affect women who’ve success-fully paired prior to this phase from the women who remain single, never-marrieds or early divorcers. Between the ages of 27 and 37 these circumstances define how a woman engages and copes with her development and redevelopment phases.
The 7-Year Itch
For this 7 to 9 year stretch in her early to mid thirties, a married woman will likely content herself with some semblance of what feminine-centrism defines for her as domesticity.
That may likely include a working/motherhood role, but for the most part the vestiges of her Party Years usually become something she’d rather not be reminded of, particularly so if she’s settled on a provider-male who doesn’t excite her the way her former Alpha lovers did, and she gradually tires of his whiney wonderment at why she’s not as sexual with him now that they’re married with children as she was with those prior Alpha lovers.
There’s a very interesting social convention that accompanies this phase for the married woman. In fact, there was an old movie dedicated to it, it’s called The 7 Year Itch. It was a cute movie, but it was based on a very real psychological phenomenon. The cutesy social convention revolves around men developing a wandering eye for strange vagina after mysteriously being married for 7 (a magic number) years. The reality is that most marriages tend to dissolve at two stages, after the 7 year mark and then again at the 20 year mark.
Primarily this is due to a couple having had at least one child (possibly 2) and after that kid reaches 7 and is becoming more autonomous, men and women do some relationship evaluation.
From a tribal-evolutionary perspective this would be the point at which a child is more or less self-sufficient with a minimum investment on the part of a male, but in contemporary relationships it’s also the point at which a woman has had time enough to reevaluate her Epiphany Phase decision to pair with the provider (father of her children or otherwise) and compare his actualized SMV to the idealizations she still holds about past Alpha lovers or Alphas she imagines would succeed him.
Just to be complete, the 20-year mark is generally the point at which both parents become ’Empty Nesters’ and a second reevaluation takes place. More on this in Part IV.
The Path to Spinsterhood
For women unable or unwilling to settle, compromise or otherwise consolidate on a long-term monogamy, her security phase becomes a personal effort in generating long-term security for herself.
This security may come with some help from a generous, feminine-primary state, or with the help of child support and / or alimony from a dissolved marriage, or single-pregnancy prior to this phase, and of course she may entirely ignore the dictates of her “biological clock” (fertility window) and double down on her own feminine-masculinized conditioning by providing it exclusively for herself.
Since Roissy so eloquently outlined this woman’s demographic, I’ll quote him here with his outline on Gaming 31-34 year old unmarried women:
31 to 34 year olds
In some ways, women in the 31-34 age range are the toughest broads to game. (By “toughest”, it is meant “most time consuming”.) It’s counter-intuitive, yes, but there are factors at work besides her declining beauty that mitigate against the easy, quick lay. For one, it is obviously harder to meet single 31-34 year old women than it is to meet single younger women. Marriage is still a pussy-limiting force to contend with for the inveterate womanizer, but Chateau apprentices are hard at work battling the scourge of mating market disturbances caused by the grinding and churning of the marriage machine.
But the bigger reason 31-34 year olds are harder to game than any other age group of women has to do with the wicked nexus of entitlement and self-preservation that occurs at this age in women. When you combine a disproportionate sense of entitlement fueled by years of feminism, steady paychecks and promotions, and cheerleading gay boyfriends with suspicions of every man’s motives and a terrible anxiety of being used for a sexual fling sans marriage proposal, you get a venom-spitting malevolent demoness on guard against anything she might perceive as less than total subjugation to her craving for incessant flattery and princess pedestaling.
[...] “I have an easier time bedding and dating 23 year olds than I do 33 year olds.”
This defies all logic until you see it through the eyes of the hamster sweat-in its fluffy ass off in a woman’s brain. (Poor little creature must be pooped out by the mid-30s.) Sure, a 33 year old is not as hot as the 23-year-old version of herself, but her ASD (anti-slut defense) is through the roof, as is her self-conception as a hot marriage-worthy commodity. Many older women will tell themselves that their experience, maturity, accomplishments and financial stability mean they should be way more valuable to men seeking wives than some young babe on the take. Of course, they have to tell them-selves this because reality isn’t making it easy to believe.
These are the kind of women who have sexual flings with college guys, because they can psychologically box those men in as “purely for fun” ad-ventures. But the men the 31-34 year old women really want are the older, established men who will give them a marriage proposal and a family. This is why it is counterintuitively harder to game the older woman who still retains a vestige of her youthful attractiveness: she wants and expects so much more than the younger woman.
During her Epiphany Phase the Alpha Widow or former cock-carousel riding wife-to-be may convince herself that she actually saw an Alpha potential, or a potential for long-term success, in ’settling’ on that Beta in the long term.
While I have had men relate horror stories about women knowing that they were settling and being insecure about their futures before or at the time of their weddings, I’m going to suggest that this foreknowledge is rarely a conscious aspect of women’s insight. “Turning” on their husband-to-be later in life is rarely a preconceived plan, but it is a predictable outcome for men who persist in a Beta mindset throughout their marriages.
Social conventions abound for women to rely on as they become less incentivized to have sex with their Beta husband after the first child. Body image considerations, ’mismatched libidos’ and “well, sex is supposed to taper off after marriage, everyone knows that” are just some of the prepackaged tropes ready for use.
Once the first (or possibly second) child arrives, a woman’s order of intimate priorities changes or “turns” to that of the child. The sex “reward”, the ’cookie time for good boy’, for desired behavior or performance ’turns’ off, or sex is used as an intermittent reward for desired behavior (doing domestic chores, etc.).
Sex becomes a utility; a positive reinforcer for her Beta’s increasing of his provisioning capacity rather than the true, visceral enjoyment she had with her past lovers or possibly the younger version of her husband.
This new functionality that sex represents to a wife becomes a ’turning’ on her husband who believed he would always be her most intimate priority. In the instance of a woman marrying her ’Alpha Provider’ this may in fact be the case, but that Alpha doesn’t have the same concern with, and didn’t marry his wife under the same preexpectation a Beta does.
For the man who persists in his Beta mindset (or the guy who regresses into that mindset) this ’turning’ becomes more and more pronounced. The turning comes out of the bedroom and into other aspects of their relationship — finances, familial ties, her expectations of his ambitiousness, his asserting himself at work or with their mutual friends — on more and more fronts he’s compared to other men and the ghosts of the Alphas she knows or has known.
Even though the Beta is aware his children are now his wife’s true priority, his Blue Pill conditioning still predisposes him to sacrifices. Again, he meets with ready-made social conventions that shame his discontent.
“Is sex all that’s important to you? It shouldn’t be, because it’s really what’s on the inside that counts”, but he can’t shake the feeling he’s slipping out of her respect.
This is when Beta Dad doubles down. His Blue Pill expectations of himself require an all-consuming, self-sacrificing predisposition. The horse will work harder. His wife may have lost respect for him by this point, but his sense of honor and duty press him on. He doesn’t want to be like his own oppressive or non-present father was. He wants to ’out-support’ his father’s ghost, or what he believes ’other guys’ would do when their marriages get tough.
So he waits it out, but she’s ’turned’ on him by this point. It wasn’t planned, but all of his martyr-like determination only makes her that much more resentful for having settled on this Beta. After a certain stressing point, her disinterest or indigo-nation goes even beyond his capacity to stay committed to a losing investment. These are the guys who tell me, “Damn Rollo, where were you when I was 30? I wish I’d known then what I know now.”
Do all marriages and relationships follow this schedule?
No, but it’s important that men know the signs, understand what’s really expected of them and know when they’re being settled on despite all a woman’s self-interested refutations of that. It’s important they realize that performance isn’t limited to how well they meet a woman’s expectations, but that performance means ignoring those preconceptions and exceeding them because he has a passion to excel on his own, and for himself.
It’s important that he lives in his own Frame and that any woman, wife or otherwise, participates in his Frame at his pleasure. Beta men rarely have those expectations because they begin from a position of scarcity and a pre-conditioned responsibility to forgive a woman’s sexual strategy while still being gushingly appreciative that she chose him to settle on. He was told he doesn’t deserve a great girl like her and he still believes it.