The Abdication Imperative

Rationalmale regular and all-around red pill evangelist MikeC had an interesting Matrix experience recently. This comment was drawn from yesterday’s Respect post:

“This is another socialized manifestation of hypergamy: the man must always perform for her, ***always qualify to her.***“

Yup….I actually got engaged over the weekend, and when we got back in town we visited her parents. Me and her on one couch, her parents on the other, and I have a friendly relationship with them (her Mom loves me).

Anyways, we were talking some plans and stuff, and her Dad chimed in about getting used to just saying “Yes, dear”….”Yes, honey”, etc. First thing that popped into my head was the femcentric thinking involved. I didn’t think it was the time or place to call that out for the crap that it is…but I didn’t need to as both myself and my fiancee chimed in at the same time that our relationship isn’t one where she calls the shots and I just go along with it.

It truly is mind-boggling. It almost seems like at some point, a mass brainwashing took place that instilled in men that to “RESPECT” women you simply had to go along with whatever they wanted to say or do in that moment.

[Congrats Mike, and I mean that sincerely since I know you have your roots planted firmly in positive masculinity and Game-awareness. RT]

I was listening to a local talk radio show on my commute home last Friday and a caller tells the hosts that he’s getting married for the first time over the Memorial Day weekend. After all the ubiquitous congratulation, he petitions for advice from the show’s hosts as well as any listeners who call or text or IM into the show.

I can’t say as I was surprised, but predictably, every guy who dropped some words of wisdom couched it in exactly this “just say ‘Yes Dear’ to anything she asks, she’s always right” mass groupthink. “Happy wife equals happy life” was literally what at least 5 of these guys called in or texted to say. Everything after this was autonomously, automatically implying that a husband’s primary duty in a marriage was to ‘keep her happy’. “Make sure you get to all the things on her Honey – Do list and you’ll be alright” was another caller’s advice intoned in a voice that sounded as if he were telling a new arrival at Auschwitz of how best to survive in the camp.

Last week I wrote about how the Unplugged become progressively more sensitive to the group-speak of the Matrix, and MikeC’s experience is a a textbook example of this. However, it’s one thing to identify the code in the Matrix, but it’s quite another to see the latent purposes behind the memes, the clichés and the idioms that the PluggedIn take for common sense.

Hypergamy and Cognitive Function

As MikeC astutely highlighted from Respect, Men’s preoccupation with performance is a direct psychologically, sociologically evolved response to qualifying for women’s hypergamy. Perhaps the most important reason women’s primary drive revolves around security-seeking is due to hypergamy, by definition, being an inherently insecure proposition. In fact so insecure is feminine hypergamy in principle that it was necessary for women to evolve psychological fail-safe schemas on the subconscious level (i.e. involuntary shit tests).

In general, when a psychological dynamic is pressed into the limbic, involuntary, subconscious level of our psyche’s, it’s primarily due to that dynamic requiring too much mental attention for our conscious minds to process effectively and maintain a cognitive awareness of other dynamics, stimulus, etc. in our environment that require our more immediate attention. Mother Nature has evolved humans with a wonderful ability to muti-task our awarenesses, but there are limits to how much information a person can process efficiently before that psyche becomes overwhelmed. Taken to the extreme this processing overload has potentially life threatening and species survival implications. Thus these processes that would overwhelm our conscious cognitive abilities are relegated to our peripheral awareness and/or pressed down to a subconscious / preconscious level.

This then is the mental realm of feminine hypergamy. When Roissy writes about women’s hindbrains or imagination/rationalization hamsters, this is the conceptual, psychological region from whence they issue. It’s easier to think of hypergamy – and its manifestations such as shit tests – in terms of breathing. We can control our breathing when we think of it, but when our mental attention is required elsewhere our autonomous nervous system takes over and we breath on autopilot until such time as we become aware of that breathing. Whether we are under stress or running a marathon, that autonomous system kicks in to allow us to focus on more important stimuli. So too is it with hypergamy – women are aware of it, and may adress it consciously, but more often hypergamy is pushed into women’s peripheral consciousness to allow them to focus on other stimuli.

The Abdication Imperative

Hypergamy is rooted in doubt. Hypergamy is an inherently insecure system that constantly tests, assesses, retests and reassesses for optimal reproductive options, long-term provisioning, parental investment, and offspring and personal protection viability in a potential mate. Even under the most secure of prospects hypergamy still doubts. The evolutionary function of this incessant doubt would be a selected-for survival instinct, but the process of hypergamy’s assessment requires too much mental effort to be entirely relegated to women’s subconscious. Social imperatives had to be instituted not only to better facilitate the hypergamous process, but also to reassure the feminine that men were already socially pre-programmed to align with that process.

In an era when women’s sexual selection has been given exclusive control to the feminine, in an age when hypergamy has been loosed upon the world en force, social conventions had to be established to better silence the doubt that hypergamy makes women even more acutely aware of. And nowhere is this doubt more pronounced than in the confines of a monogamous commitment intended to last a lifetime. Thus we have the preconception “Happy Wife equals Happy Life” pre-programmed into both gender’s collective social consciousness. It’s as if to say “It’s OK Hypergamy, everything’s gonna be alright because we all believe that women should be the default authority in any relationship.”

When you disassemble any operative feminine social convention, on its most base, instinctive level the convention’s latent purpose is to facilitate and pacify hypergamy.

As I covered in Hypergamy doesn’t care,.. it isn’t enough to profess love, promise support, exemplify dedication, etc., no, in a social context hypergamy demands a total pre-abdication of authority. Hypergamy wants social assurances before it makes a decision it has to live with. And even under the condition of total contrition hypergamy will not be pacified, but feminization, since the sexual revolution, has defined society in hypergamic terms, and that imperative will insist that the general populace internalize that “Happy Wife equals Happy Life.”

Respect

I can remember a period in my 20s when I heard countless times “Rollo, you need to / you don’t respect women” from both women and (who I thought at the time were) men as if by saying this to me I would stop wanting to hook up with the strippers, groupies and club girls I was getting with then. In hindsight it’s interesting to see how my dalliances with less than ‘pristine’ women elicited such a shaming tactic. The 2012 Rollo knows the ‘respect’ ploy for what it is now; a social convention which attempts to disqualify a guy’s personal/sexual experiences as being less than ‘quality’ in comparison to the personally identified ‘quality’ they hope to embody.

It’s comedy of course to conflate genuine respect with a person’s character – that may sound odd at first, but I personally know (and you probably do too) some truly despicable people who I nonetheless have a respect for, if not an admiration of. Respecting one’s enemy is a hallmark of a learned Man.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

From the late 80′s into the mid-90′s I didn’t give much thought to it, but I do remember thinking how odd it was that women were entitled to my respect by default. I never heard anyone, male or female, ever tell a woman that they “needed to respect men”. There was never an onus on women to respect men by default.

Now, of course I think we’d agree that men must earn respect from each other and from women. However, from a very young age boys, at least by and large, are taught never to hit a girl, watch your language, carry her books, respect HER, but there is no opposite dynamic for women. This is another socialized manifestation of hypergamy: the man must always perform for her, always qualify to her. For her, everything is fair game; kick him in the nuts if he cross the line. Obviously I’m referencing things from a traditional standpoint, but now extrapolate this into modern culture where single mothers and emasculated men cover the cultural landscape. Even in traditional Latin cultures where women tend to prefer masculine men, it’s not formally taught to them to respect men. Their respect is reserved for the men who qualify for it.

Masculine Respect

So this is my point, women don’t respect men, or rather, they don’t respect the masculine – and most certainly don’t have a default respect for it. They’re taught to be adversarial, not cooperative. Women are taught to relinquish respect, and then only begrudgingly when a man has proven his quality beyond the reach of most men. Masculinity is popularly ridiculed in western culture as it is, but to respect a man is to compete with him, to out-masculine him. Cooperation or even recognizing that the genders could be complimentary is viewed at best as antiquated, at worst, sublimation to the male imperative.

I should also add that I don’t think this dynamic is limited to the Daddy-Issues strippers or coed sluts. I’ve personally known very well standing, church going puritanical women, who’d cringe to be called a feminist, parroting back the very ideologies, practicing the behaviors and subscribing to the mindset (albeit in different context) of disrespecting the masculine. They were just as loud and just as obnoxious about it as any girl in Panama Beach, Florida on spring break.

Over There

Part of my job is to travel. I’m in Europe (Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and France) generally twice a year. I can say I’ve noticed pronounced differences in demeanor among women there in contrast to American women. I live in the U.S. so I’m not going to pretend I know everything about women in different countries. Neither have I banged any woman in a foreign country, but I am a keen observer of behavior. I’m not sure it’s necessarily an ethnic issue per se, but certainly a cultural one. I’ve been to Aruba, Guatemala and Panama, and from a Latin perspective I don’t see these women as any more reserved than American women, however they have a definite masculine expectation for their Men. A Man has to live up to being a Man in Panamanian culture, that’s a baseline expectation, but respect is something different.

I think that the double standard guys will run into in pointing out “how American women are” with regard to respect is that they’ll be accused of not being Man enough to handle respect them. You’ll get the standard “powerful women are a threat to men’s egos” line implying that women in other countries are ‘less powerful’ due to weak men preferring them. So the Catch 22 becomes a guy being dominant enough to master her as being the abuser, and the one pointing out her flaws being the whiney bitch who needs to man-up. Then we come full circle and see default respect for what it is – an element of the male Catch 22. To be considered a Man he must respect women (boys don’t respect women), but to be a Man he mustn’t be afraid to disrespect women.

And as with all no-win social conventions, it’s always best to err on the side of appearing too dominant than to accommodating.

Mr. Mom

Fatherhood 2.0

This article was written in 2007, before the “economic downturn”, before the End of Men. It basically outlines the travails of house husbands and how “fulfilled” they felt they were in just “being there” for their kids.

What I find interesting in this article, and the many more just like it, is the fact that, once again, masculinity is always perceived in the negative. As if there is not a single beneficial quality of masculinity. “Masculinity is bad for you” you’re poisoned by your testosterone. Never is it mentioned that traditional, positive masculinity emphasizes rationality, persevereance, duty, and yes, risk taking behaviors that are necessary elements in daring to be something, or someone more than what your limited expectation might have you believe if all you had taught to you was feminine empathy, security-seeking and self-preservation instincts.

Imagine a world where men are taught not to rush into a burning building to save innocent lives because it’s just too dangerous. A feminine aspect is necessary for empathy, caring and nurturing to be complete, but you cut a person in half when you fail to teach them risk taking, perseverance, rationality, a desire to dominate and win, a positive competitive drive, and yes, a calculated ability to reserve and control one’s emotional reactions – all of these traits serve to make a more complete human being be they male or female.

99% of men in a house-husband capacity are there by economic or personal necessity, not by design. Notice that in every instance the guy is cast in his role due to his wife making more money than he – that was the reality of his situation. Of the guy’s interviewed in this article, you’d be hard pressed to find one who’s life’s ambition was to be a stay-at-home Dad. Most are so because of personal decisions they made and didn’t pan out. Is it any wonder that unemployed or underemployed men would need to find some rationale to give them a sense of pride? They make their necessity a virtue and then pass their failings along to another generation.

How many of these couples would’ve decided to have the father stay home if they both made the same money? How many opt to keep their children in daycare while both work due to economic realities? How many of these men will remain in their role once their children reach a self-sufficient adolscence? How many of these house husbands would still opt for this role (or reverse the role with their spouse) if offered a job that paid half again what their wives were making? You can fluff up the touchy-feely emotionality of it all, but at the end of the day it’s the bottom line that makes the decision, not some self-righteous sense of masculine or feminine purpose.

Paul Haley, 38, a father of two, says women look at him when he walks down the street with his kids. “I think it’s admiration,” he says.

Well I’d guess he’d better hope it is, otherwise it’s just him standing out like an anomally. Something tells me that a 38 y.o., married with 2 kids house husband would necessarily HAVE to interpret it as admiration, even though I’d doubt he has the social skills to recognize admiration from pity considering he’s been socially cut off dealing with diapers, runny noses, cartoons and early childhood development. Once again, necessity is a rationalized virtue.

I think there’s a derivative of Beta Game that men fulfilling a matronly role for their kids like to convince themselves of. They fashion for their egos the idea that since they are more directly involved in their kids upbringing, they share this commonality with women that other men don’t or wont. It’s a more pronounced form of Identification (beta) Game; “The ladies love me (but can’t have me) because I’m already the husbandly ideal they crave – a man who changes diapers, washes dishes, and gets the kids off to school.” As with most identification schemas, Mr. Mom thinks he sets himself apart from “other guys” by being better able to relate with experiences unique to women. By becoming a woman he believes he’s more desirable.

“Masculinity has traditionally been associated with work and work-related success, with competition, power, prestige, dominance over women, restrictive emotionality.”

Oddly enough, this is exactly the world into which women choose to put themselves. By this article’s definition, they are assuming the masculine role, but notice that for women, emmulating masculinity is a positve. If we’re going to go to the absolute and say “masculinity = bad” then professional mothers are the worst offenders of masculinity, because it is also their role to be the examples of feminine virture and nurturing. At the very least, by this logic, we’re expecting women to play both the masculine and feminine equally well. However in this model, we have a woman give birth and then pass off her responsibility of engendering her children with this exclusively positive femininity on her mate (which admittedly he’s unprepared for) while she goes off to engage in the masculine.

My daughter is not at want for anything either positively masculine or positively feminine. When she was younger I combed my daughters hair for her, not because I was “exploring my feminine side”, but because her hair needed combing so she was presentable and we could get out the door and be on time to whatever it was we were doing. I also personally taught my girl to ride a bicycle, even after she’d gone and fell off it numerous times and was scared crazy about it. But she got back on that damn bike, tears and all, and learned how to risk injury for a greater reward. I taught her to swim as well using the same principle. Mrs. Tomassi has a primal fear of deep water and about pees herself when I take my daughter into the waves (and they’re pretty small in Florida) at the beach. But once my girl got over that fear, she learned how fun it is to play in the surf. Both of us do homework with her and teach her along with her schooling, is this a masculine or feminine trait? On occassion, I’ll make her re-do an assignment, even though correct, if she’s done a sloppy job of it. She predictably complains and kvetchs all over, but the “big, mean, evil masculine” Father sticks to this so as to instill a sense of pride in ones work. I’m sure the authors of this article would call me a callous tyrant for being masculine and insensitve, but often enough it takes a masculine man to kick a kids ass because sometimes ‘good enough’ isn’t – not because masculinity is bad, but because I love her and it’s necessary.

Perceptions

 

I attended a conference about a year ago where one of the presenters was this feminista chick talking about how to make your business appealing to women. Some of the stuff she was saying was really out there in that she painted most businesses as ‘inferior’ because they did not go out of their way to become female friendly. Despite the fact that her strong feminist slant was semi-obnoxious to the audience (primarily men), there were some nuggets of wisdom in there.

One of those was that for women, intuitive perceptions are by-and-large women’s primary basis for making judgments about everything, whereas men will use information to make judgments. If the public bathroom in your office is anything less than sanitary & comfortable, a woman will use that as a gauge for the success of your entire business over actual financial data. In that same regard, she’ll use testimonials (social proof) from other women over any proof-based demonstrations of success you have. Obviously these are generalizations, but they underscore the point that there are fundamental differences in the way the two sexes perceive the world around them.

Bear in mind that the ability for the everyman to create the illusion of success has only been around for the last 100 years or so. The advent of protracted consumer debt has created the ability for people to acquire material possessions which allow them to feign success and status. For a 21st century example, look no further than social networking – the ultimate way to craft a perception of status which may not be at all aligned with reality. Yet, facts are trumped by facades in female psychology, and it’s nothing to fault women for. It’s simply how they’re wired.

I think what we can learn from awareness of this reality is that part of our role as men, in the role of leader in relations with women, is to control the facade. Keeping her interest level peaked is a function of her consistently being able to see and bask in your success as a man. It costs money and it costs time to deliberately focus on one’s image, especially if you are content with a low-complexity lifestyle, which I think describes most men’s inclination were it not for the mating game (i.e. society’s expectations, driven by the feminine).

It’s a scary thought to consider how easy it is to sway the hearts and minds of most women simply with imagery over substance. It’s manipulation of the image which makes even flat broke women work themselves into a rabid frenzy over $200 purses. Successful politicians and marketers have become masters of working this psychology. If there was any wonder left as to why women are the primary consumers in western culture, look no further than the power that perception plays in women’s decision making processes.

The Strata of Perception

In past posts I’ve emphasized the idea that women may claim to want truthfulness, but they absolutely do not want full disclosure.

Right about now I’m sure there are readers thinking “This is some really stupid shit, what you’re saying is I have to manage my ‘facade’ indefinitely and never let the fantasy perception drop? I can’t possibly be expected to ‘play a role’ all the time! When can I Just Be Myself and be comfortable in knowing she’s into me for me?”

The short answer to this is yes, you must never let your guard down; her emotionally associative perceptual interpretations will ALWAYS be an influencing factor in assessing your hypergamous worth for her. However, the practical answer is maintaining that perception becomes increasingly easier to do as you build upon prior perceptions, and legitimately owning those perceptions as part of your personality.

Whether you’re Game-aware or not, every girl you engage with, whether a plate to spin or a monogamous potential mate, your role, your character, has all been crafted by the gestalt sum of the perceptions she’s built around you. Even from before the moment you approached her with romantic interest you’ve been progressively layered with her emotionally associative perceptions. Perhaps by friends, maybe social proof, or even pre-conditioned expectations (for better or worse) that she cast you into, your personality to her is the sum total of a strata of emotional perception. Later into an LTR (or even a fuck buddy situation) this perception becomes more solidified.

The difficulty most men have with using this perception dynamic to their benefit is based upon their failure to grasp how women cognitively differ from men. It seems patently disingenuous for a man to manipulate a woman’s perception of him to his advantage when he’s been socially convinced that women are rational agents needing factual information upon which to base their personal decisions, and are aware of their emotional impulsivity and therefor controlling of it. This is the equalist tripping stone, men’s acculturation has taught the average guy that women are cognitive equals to men.

The tragic part of this situation is that men are, passively or actively, always making attempts to influence that feminine emotional perception to better facilitate some kind of harmony between themselves and women. When a married guy tells me his wife has no respect for him the root of that condition lies in an inconsistency of perception on his part.

“Man, everything was so good in the beginning, but then I went Beta on her, got needy, got ONEitis and she left me for the stud at the custom motorcycles chop shop.” Again, perceptional inconguencies with priorly established perceptions, and then modified by external novel emotionally associative perceptions.

London Real

I didn’t really see the point in jumping on the Krauser-love band wagon since The Chateau already has most of the manosphere’s eye-attention, but I did want to repost the full interview which is worth every minute of the hour you’ll spend watching. I tend to get associated as one of the three ‘R’s (Roissy, Roosh, Rollo) of the manosphere, but if I had to define the impetus of my writing it would be more about Game Theory than actual PUArtistry. I had more than my share of women in my libertine rock star 20′s but in my writing I look under the hood and see how the PUA car works from a sociological, psychological bent.

So it was with a profound sense of pride that I hear Krauser using terminology and addressing concepts I in some part feel responsible for introducing to the manosphere. I’ve had Krauser in my blogroll since day one, because I’ve always felt he most closely melds the ideologies and theory of Game with the actual practice of Game. That isn’t to take anything aways from Roosh or the other godfathers of the ‘community’, but it was inspiring to finally hear a self-described (former) PUA speak intelligently about his progression from that PUA mindset into something resembling maturity in Game.

I’ve seen far too many celebrity PUAs crumble under social pressure and fem-centric shame interrogations on mainstream talk shows. All of which cast Game, even the earnest study of the mechanics behind Game, as some cheesy endeavor to hypnotize girls into fucking a man she’d never give the time of day to. Krauser is the first public PUA/Game-Aware figure that I believe could be taken seriously.

Relational Equity

When I started in on the Hypergamy doesn’t care,.. post I knew it was going to come off as some unavoidably deterministic rant about the evils of hypergamy.

That post was born out of all the efforts I’ve repeatedly read men relate to me when they say how unbelievable their breakups were. As if all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. would be rationally appreciated as a buffer against hypergamy. The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male. There is a prevailing belief that all of their merits, if sufficient, should be proof against her hypergamous considerations.

For men, this is a logically sound idea. All of that investment adds up to their concept of relationship equity. So it’s particularly jarring for men to consider that all of that equity becomes effectively worthless to a woman presented with a sufficiently better prospect as per the dictates of her hypergamy.

That isn’t to say that women don’t take that equity into account when determining whether to trade up or in their choice of men if they’re single, but their operative point of origin is ALWAYS hypergamy. Women obviously can control their hypergamic impulses in favor of fidelity, just as men can and do keep their sexual appetites in check, but always know that it isn’t relationship equity she’s rationally considering in that moment of decision.

This dynamic is exactly the reason the surrogate boyfriend, the perfect nice guy orbiter who’s invested so much into identifying with his target, gets so enraged when his dream girl opts for the hot asshole jerk. She’s not making a logical decision based upon his invested relational equity. Quite the opposite; she’s empirically proving for him that his equity is worthless by rewarding the hot jerk – who had essentially no equity – with her sex and intimacy. He doesn’t understand that hypergamy doesn’t care about relational equity.

This is a really tough truth for guys to swallow, because knowing how hypergamy works necessarily devalues their concept of relational equity with the woman they’re committed to, or considering commitment with. Men’s concept of relational equity stems from a mindset that accepts negotiated desire (not genuine desire) as a valid means of relationship security. This is precisely why most couples counseling fails – its operative origin begins from the misconception that genuine desire (hypergamy) can be negotiated indefinitely.

The Rational Female

Aunt Giggles recently posted a fluffy little piece of interpretive Alpha fiction extolling the virtues of Beta men (who of course to her are the real Alphas only without teeth, pee sitting down and only say sweet things about girls). It’s not a bad list in and of itself despite the fact that her definition of Alpha is George Costanza who morphs into Sterling Grey upon command when the moment strikes. It’s a noble effort, but where her list falls flat is in the presumption (her hope) that women will make a conscious, rational decision to opt for a Beta male as a suitable long term provider. What a novel concept!

Irony aside, Giggles still falls prey to two fallacies in her pleas for a better Beta. The first is as discussed above; the hope or the realistic expectation that women’s hindbrain hypergamy can be sublimated in favor of a rational cognitive decision making when choosing with whom to spread her legs for, much less settle down with. I understand it’s been at least 28 years since she had to make that particular decision, but not much has really changed in that time with regards to the limbic influence hypergamy has over women’s decision making processes. The short answer is that she believes that healthy relationships can be rooted in negotiated desire (which is also called ‘obligated desire’ in the real world).

This then leads into the second fallacy in which she presumes relationship equity – even the potential for that equity – will make the life time commitment to a “he’ll-haffta-do” Beta endurable while repressing her innate hypergamy. As I stated above, hypergamy doesn’t care about relational equity. If it’s a consideration at all in a woman’s decision making process, it’s only for comparative purposes when assessing risk motivated by hypergamy. Some times that risk association is present in deciding whether to accept a marriage proposal, sometimes it’s present when she decides another man’s genetic potential rivals that of the provider she’s already committed to, but in all instances the originating prompt is still hypergamy.

*late post edit* As is his way Roissy offers up another timely refutation of Aunt Susan’s played out trope ‘WARNING: Alpha traits alone are suitable for short-term mating only!’

The Rational Male

All of that may sound like I’m excusing men from the equation, I’m not. As I detailed in The Threat, when men progressively become more aware of their sexual market value, the better their capacity develops to assess long term investment potential with women. The trouble with this model, in its present form, is that the phase at which men are just becoming aware of their true long term value to women (usually around age 30) is almost exactly the phase (just pre-Wall) in which women hope to press men unaware of their SMV into their long term provisioning schema. As this relates to men, most spend the majority of their teens and 20′s pursuing women, following the dicktates of their biological impulses, and to varying degrees of success learn from experience what really seems like women’s duplicity or fickleness. So it comes as a breath of fresh air for the average (see Beta) guy to finally encounter what he believes is a woman who’s “down to earth” and seems genuinely concerned with hearth and family at age 29. Her past character, her very nature, even her single-mommyness can be overlooked and/or forgiven in light of finding such a rare jewel.

There’s a new breed of White Knight in the manosphere who love to enthusiastically promote the idea of rigorously vetting women as potential wives. It sounds like virtue. For serial monogamists playing the ‘Good Guy’ card, it sounds so satisfying to lay claim to having experience and integrity enough to be a good judge or authority of what will or will not do for his ‘exacting standards’. This is really a new form of Beta Game; “look out ladies, I’ve been through the paces so if you’re not an approximate virgin and know how to bake a hearty loaf of bread, this guy is moving on,..” and on, and on, and on. All any of this really amounts to is a better form of identification Game, because ultimately a profession of being a Good Guy is still an attempt to be what he expects his ideal woman would want – a good judge (of her) character.

Know this right now, no man (myself included) in the history of humanity has ever fully or accurately vetted any woman he married. And certainly not any guy who married prior to the age of 30 or had fewer than 1 LTR in his past. It’s not that high school sweethearts who last a lifetime don’t exist, it’s that no man can ever accurately determine how the love of his life will change over the course of that lifetime.

Right about now, I can hear the “wow, that’s some pretty raw shit there Mr. Tomassi” from the gallery, and I agree, but ask the guy on his second divorce how certain he was that he’d done his due diligence with his second wife based on all his past experience. Bear this truth in mind, you do not buy into a good marriage or LTR, you create one, you build one. Your sweet little Good Girl who grew up in the Amish Dutch Country is just as hypergamous as the club slut you nailed last night. Different girls, different contexts, same hypergamy. You may have enough experience to know a woman who’d make a good foundation, but you ultimately build your own marriage/monogamy based on your own strengths or dissolve it based on inherent flaws – there are no pre-fab marriages.

The New Sensitivity

With profuse apologies for shamelessly lifting this thread from CH’s most recent post comments, but it dovetailed perfectly into my topic today.

From The Whammer:

I can acccurately predict who is the Alpha or Beta with a simple test which I will prove here. I’ll tell you who will get laid within the next week. Do this, take out your wallet and then describe the wallet and list the contents (don’t bother to list that condom that expired in 1999) I can determine from this test how well you will do with females and whether you’re a true Alpha.

OK I’ll explain then. Have you ever seen someone carrying around a wallet bulging with stuff? Sometimes you’ll even see a rubber band around it it’s so full of junk lol This is typical prole (beta) behavior. They carry all of this stuff in case they have to “prove” something. You will never see an Alpha carrying around all of this crap. Alphas carry a slim wallet with perhaps some cash, a credit card and a license at most. Alphas have certain habits or traits and they’re reflected subconsciously in a lot of outward ways. An Alpha would never even think that he’d ever have to prove anything to anyone.The first guy who answered said he just carries some cash in a money clip and that would indicate Alpha behaviour to me. I wasn’t really concerned with the amount of cash.People, especially females, subconsciously equate a bulging wallet with a beta flunky and that’s not even taking into considerstion the bulge you’ll have in your chest suit pocket. Betas don’t get laid.

I’d encourage readers to read the thread in its entirety. It’s some real funny shit, however there is a germ of truth in The Whammers humor. A lot has been written about Beta (and Alpha) ‘tells’ in the manoverse. In fact, I’d argue that in its infancy formalized pick up artistry was fundamentally about ridding oneself of the Beta ‘tells’ and emphasizing Alpha ‘tells’ to maximize guy’s chances of getting laid.

However, with the unplugging from the Matrix comes a progressively developing sensitivity to the feminized world around us. We see it all around us, usually in advertising first – maybe the undertone of masculine ridicule in TV commercials, then the subtle association we make when considering that women arre the primary consumers in society. The next easy observation is how men are portrayed on television; feckless, ridiculous slobs in need of feminine intuition to solve their problems.

This new sensitivity then becomes more refined. We pick up idioms and subtle attitudes in people’s conversations. We pick up on terms and assumptions of premise that previously, in our Blue Pill fog, we would’ve taken for common sense or matter of fact. We hear the same tropes offered as the solution to the same issues that we thought were so confusing in our plugged-in existence.

I use The Whammer’s wallet test as an illustration here to detail this new sensitivity. It’s fairly easy to assess the difference between a Beta’s Look (or lack thereof) and that of an Alpha. Like most other higher order animals, human beings have an evolved sense, on the subconscious level, that helps us determine the looks, posture and vocal cues of sexual competitors. But looks can be deceiving, and in an age of feminization, the guy who outwardly may be the very specimen of an Alpha in a physical sense, can also be the most debilitated Beta due to his life’s conditioning.

Maybe it’s from having been unplugged from the Matrix for so long, or maybe it’s my constant observation and writing about it, but I am very sensitive to the choice of casual words men use when talking about gender issues. It’s been acculturated into feminized men’s vernacular to use words, idioms and presumptions that are assumed, on the subconscious level, to be more neutral or inoffensive to women-as-authority or feminine primacy. I can pick out the subliminal self-deprecations men filter into their conversations, often with a nervous laugh, or else they’ll drop some blunt truth only to casually (but practiced intentionally) to backpedal by ridicule themselves or men in general for being ‘how they are’ as if it were some kind of apology.

Everything you need to know about a guy, or really the state of feminine primacy in society, is in the choices of words he uses. It’s a fairly easy task to pick through the writings on someone’s forum posts to determine where they stand on the Beta-Alpha spectrum. Is he using Disney-esque dialogue about the girl he thinks is special? Is he using Shakespearean prose, words he would never actually speak in casual conversation, to describe his yearning and longing for a soulmate? These are easy ‘tells’ when you read them on your monitor; all but the most Aspergery of men probably wouldn’t use Arthurian vernacular when casually speaking about women.

Better to beg forgiveness than beg for permission.

On my commute to work I often listen to local talk radio. No, not the conservative AM band, rather the variety show FM band type shows. I actually work somewhat closely with a few of the stations and hosts  whenever I’m doing a brand promo or a launch party at some local club or event. Of the talk show personalities I know, it’s really only in a business sense. Most of them are pretty likable enough guys, but every time I listen to any topic on their show that veers into intergender issues (which is quite often) the Beta just oozes from every pore. Matrix trope after trope, constant repetition of fem-speak colloquialisms, I swear, some of the worst offenders in perpetuating feminine social primacy are talk radio hosts – even the conservative ones. Naturally I bite my tongue in the interests of my business, but these guys are worse than any White Knight, mangina or Beta I’ve ever encountered in the manosphere; and all are blissfully oblivious to their conditionings.

In all of their ramblings, there is always a default premise of female authority. I’m convinced it takes the better part of a lifetime to inculcate into a man, but on the limbic level the Beta mindset uses the feminine imperative as his starting point for everything. In every issue, and on a subliminal level, the origination of a thought is tempered with how it will be interpreted in a feminine-primary context. This is almost a default state of mind for the Beta mindset: ask permission from the feminine.

I’ve got another friend who’ll always abdicate to his wife’s authority by saying “Gotta clear that with the boss” in reference to his wife when we’re making some plans to hang out. This tells me everything I need to know about his perception of gender and his history of success with women in general. Woman = authority; before all else, in any decision the thought is colored by the feminine.

Just as in the wallet test, the unplugged develop a sense in placing an Alpha mindset. Although we may hear it occasionally in their choice of words, it’s the lack of words that indicate an Alpha. Just as an Alpha doesn’t need a wallet full of safety measures, the Alpha doesn’t need superflous words. By virtue of his confidence-through-options the Alpha mind doesn’t care about feminine priority. He may occasionally say “uhm,…sorry?“, but his first thought isn’t to ask permission from the feminine.

When your silence inspires more intimidation, more respect, more gravity than your words, then, you’re thinking like an Alpha.

Hypergamy doesn’t care,..

Hypergamy doesn’t care how great a Father you are to your kids.

Hypergamy doesn’t care how you rearranged your college majors and career choice in life to better accommodate her.

Hypergamy doesn’t care how inspired or fulfilled you feel as a stay-at-home Dad.

Hypergamy doesn’t care that you moved across 4 states to be closer to your LDR.

Hypergamy doesn’t care how ‘supportive’ you’ve always been of her decisions or if you identify as a ‘male feminist’.

Hypergamy doesn’t care about the sincerity of your religious convictions or aspirations of high purpose.

Hypergamy doesn’t care about those words you said at your wedding.

Hypergamy doesn’t care about how you funded her going back to college to find a more rewarding career.

Hypergamy doesn’t care how great a guy you are for adopting the children she had with other men.

Hypergamy doesn’t care about your divine and forgiving nature in excusing her “youthful indiscretions.”

Hypergamy doesn’t care about your magnanimity in assuming responsibility for her student loans, and credit card debt after you’re married.

Hypergamy doesn’t care if “he was your best friend.”

Hypergamy doesn’t care about the coffee in bed you bring her or how great a cook you are.

Hypergamy doesn’t care about all those chick flicks you sat through with her and claimed to like.

Hypergamy doesn’t care about how well you do your part of the household chores.

Hypergamy doesn’t care about how much her family or friends like you.

Hypergamy doesn’t care if you think you’re a “Good” guy or about how convincing your argument is for your sense of honor.

Hypergamy doesn’t care whether the children are biologically yours or not.

Hypergamy doesn’t care if “she was drunk, he was cute, and one thing led to another,..”

Hypergamy doesn’t care how sweet, funny or intellectual you are.

Hypergamy doesn’t care if you “never saw it coming.”

 

Add your own, I’m sure there’s more,..