Plan B

Non-Exclusive Exclusives

I got a link back this week from another backwater blogger who was critical of my, or really a Red Pill, take on an abundance vs. scarcity mentality. I haven’t really felt a need to review Plate Theory for a while now, but ever since Holistic Game’s coffee house protests went down it seems that picking and pulling various bits from my Plate Theory series is some novelty.

I’ve been writing in the manosphere for so long now that the same predictable straw men arguments and out of context quotes have become de rigueur now. Any objective observation of women’s sexual strategy by a man is always synonymous with misogyny.

What I’ve always found entertaining about Blue Pill critics of Plate Theory is that the concept of non-exclusivity always borders on the criminal when a man suggests men ought to pursue a non-exclusive dating (and sex), yet we hold women up as empowered, prudent and/or exemplary of bucking the repression of an imaginary patriarchy when they suggest the same.

Of course the quick retort to this is that women are ‘slut shamed’ for being non-exclusive, but this is simply an old, convenient, sidestep to shame men while distracting from women’s practical sexual strategy.

As Open Hypergamy becomes more embraced among women the usefulness of drawing attention to ‘slut shaming’ actually becomes a hinderance to justifying women’s Hypergamous priorities (AFBB). When a high profile woman like Sheryl Sandberg suggests,…

“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

Sandberg’s epitaph here is every bit as “objectifying” as anything you’ll find in the ‘sphere, but the difference is we are expected to find her advice for assuming a state of sexual abundance practical as well as refreshingly progressive. I’ve stated this before, but it bears repeating that as women more proudly, openly, embrace the uglier aspects of Hypergamy it will be women who will prove the validity of Red Pill awareness far better than men could. Sample from the largest available pool of prospective sexual experience (Alpha Fucks) and presume that an ‘equal partner’ (Beta Bucks) provisioner will make himself readily available to you when can no longer reliably attract the men who represent your sexual priorities.

I covered this in Plate Theory V: Lady’s Game; the natural extension of women’s sexual strategy is, at least practically, best served from a presumption of abundance. And as such we also find that the vast majority of feminine-primary social conventions center on facilitating this presumption of abundance for women. Pop culture, social media and a feminine-primary social narrative fosters an over-inflated SMV and an exaggerated sense of self-worth for women, but functionally it convinces women that they can perpetuate a condition of abundance with regard to their sexual viability almost indefinitely.

Even in a condition of committed monogamy that background sense of sexual abundance simmers in women’s subconscious. We laud women with the guts to pursue that abundance after divorce or even reward them with popularity and movie opportunities when they write books about pursuing it while married. Either that or we pat them on the back for their ability to continually move the goalposts and convince themselves and others that spinsterhood is a goal state they sought to achieve their entire lives.

In all of these instances, whether legitimate or not, there is an impression that women can perpetuate a condition of abundance for themselves – and often far past their true sexual market viability. One reason I draw the ire of many a Blue Pill male and women is because my breakdown of the predictable schedule women follow throughout their lives with regards to their SMV and their dualistic sexual strategy is that it directly confronts the doubt that they can perpetuate a condition of abundance in spite of their personal choices in life.

And that’s the crux of women’s self-affirming social and psychological conventions; to avoid any accountability for the fallout that may be caused by the choices Hypergamy has led them to make. Roissy came up with the maxim that the end goal of feminism is to maximally enable women’s sexuality while maximally restricting men’s – and of course the consolidation of that enabling of women’s sexual strategy must also account for absolving them of misgivings and mistakes made in enacting it.

Failsafes

In Betas in Waiting I explored how a majority of boys have, for several generations now, been conditioned to be serviceable providers for women once they enter a phase of life when they find themselves becoming less able to compete intrasexually. Anyone familiar with Preventive Medicine understands this (Epiphany Phase) period as the point during which a woman’s Hypergamous priorities shift from short term Alpha Fucks to long term Beta Bucks.

I also outlined the underlying plan involved in ensuring this strategy in This is now.

That was then. Now at 30 and (hopefully) with a learned and earned degree of merit, success, developed judgement, character and a reasonably well kept physique, a man finds himself in a position like no other – his options and agency to enjoy the attentions of women seem to suddenly be at an apex.

The planning women had at 19 when they told him to “wait for me at 30” now becomes more urgent as she becomes more viscerally aware of the Wall.

She knew this day would come when she was just entering into her peak SMV years.

[…]

For men entertaining women embroiled in their Epiphany Phase inner conflicts, not only is this a very confusing phase for the uninitiated Beta, but it is also an equally precarious period with regard (once again) to the consequences of his life’s decisions with her. Most men find themselves players in women’s meta-sexual strategy at this time because they believe that their perseverance has finally paid off. All of that sacrifice and personal achievement has finally merited him the genuine interest of a “quality woman”.

For the men who never learn a Red Pill awareness what they fail to understand is that it’s at this point they’re are expected to abandon their own sexual strategy in order to complete that of the (now Epiphany Phase) woman they’re considering a pairing with. Whether they were literally asked to wait for a woman until she was 30, the effect is the same, they have waited their turn, they have waited to be of service, they have waited to fulfill a feminine primary sexual imperative.

Now I’ll ask you to draw your attention to the statistics in the picture I’ve included as today’s post image. These were sourced from this study. There are actually several more just like it, but what it illustrates is an example of how women’s subconscious will prepare failsafes in the event that the Alpha lover they hope to convert to a Beta provider doesn’t comply with her sexual strategy.

Whether he’s the one that got away, the office husband, or a gym partner, chances are he is the “Plan B” man you fantasize about running away with. Like an insurance policy, this man is the handpicked boyfriend or husband replacement you have on standby once “plan A” starts to break down on you. According to a survey conducted by OnePoll.com, an online market research company, half of women who are married or in relationships have a Plan B man on standby who is “ready and waiting” because of “unfinished business.”

It’s important to pick this apart from the get go here because, like most female written articles that describe unflattering facts about female nature, the narrative must be shifted to be the burden of men. You’ll notice the presumption here is that the ‘Plan A’ lover is always a woman’s preferred choice – thus pre-confirming women’s blamelessness from the outset – and that a ‘Plan B’ should only ever be considered if the ‘Plan A’ man somehow screws up in contenting a woman’s sexual strategy.

The entire article is founded on the principle of Dread – remember, the sort that when men use it are considered evil manipulators? However it should be noted that dread is always an element of any relationship, it’s just that since women’s imperatives are the socially correct ones today, only women can be held blameless in instituting it.

When there’s trouble in paradise, and eventually a break-up, women are left at the starting line again. This means there’s more ladies’ night, late-night rom-com marathons, and wine — lots of wine. However, to avoid playing the field and going through all the bases, women have taken a shortcut to get back to the finish line with a Plan B man. “The saying that ‘the grass isn’t always greener’ clearly isn’t deterring women of today. They understand that anything can happen and are ensuring they have a solid back-up plan should things go sour with their current man,” a spokesman for OnePoll.com told the Daily Mail.

As has been mentioned before the makings of an Alpha Widow generally begin in a woman’s Party Years; during the period during which she is at her SMV peak. And as was mentioned before, Hypergamy is always pragmatic. This Plan B insurance policy strategy is only further evidence of Hypergamy, but it is also pragmatic. Women’s hindbrains know that their SMV is a rapidly decaying asset, so yes that back up plan makes sense. What’s not so obvious in this study is that women also cling to the hope that the Plan B man with whom they consolidated long term security with might someday be replaced by the fantasy of an Alpha she’s widowed herself over.

I think the latter is not only a far more practical reasoning, but since it’s unflattering and exposing of the machinations of Hypergamy, the far more likely use of a ‘Plan B’ alternate.

You can read the rest of the article and pick up on the blatantly entitled male-qualification perspective and a bit more “you better not fuck things up” dread signaling, however, I think the last three stats are the most salient here. At least half of the men involved knew of the Plan B man, 1 in 5 was a friend of his, and 1 in 10 of the Plan B’s had already made an attempt to jump ladders to be intimate with her.

A couple of things make themselves apparent here: in a social order that is made of at least 80% Beta men women can get an ego boost in real time from the default dread they can inspire without really trying. And second, in generation Beta a default form of soft Beta cuckolding is not just known to them, but apparently it’s become normalized for them.

All of this really comes back to, once again, quelling the constant state of internal doubt that Hypergamy instills in women. The Plan B dynamic, and the normalization of it in a feminine centric social order, is yet another play for assurances of security in both the sexual and provisioning aspects of Hypergamy.

Now, so as not to leave you hanging here, I have to end this essay with a bit of actionable advice. I get criticized for outlining the problems very well, but leaving out what a man ought to do with this information.

As always, your first order of business is to be aware that this dynamic is in play. Understand that this Plan B insurance tactic is not just reserved for married men with dead bedrooms. You will likely see variations of it in your dealings with women while you’re single. Any man who’s sexed a girl who depends on a bevy of male orbiters to bolster her self-esteem knows the utility of them. In the next post I’ll be going into detail of how you can leverage the Betaness of most men to elevate your SMV.

Finally, if you are a married man experiencing this Plan B dynamic, you need to do some serious reassessing of your relationship and the status your wife holds you in. Are you one of the 50% of men who know who their wife’s Plan B is? Is he even a friend of yours?

What can you do to reinforce your Alpha dominance in this situation? Or maybe a better question is, is it worth your effort to do so? There will undoubtedly be the predictable comments about how marriage is never worth the effort, and I’ll acknowledge that here first, but are you a victim of endlessly rooting through garbage to reestablish an Alpha impression for your wife that she’s reserved for her Plan B alternate?

As Good As It Gets

On several occasions I’ve gone into the pro’s and cons of marriage. I tend to get a couple of standard reactions to my take on marriage; the first is usually the binary, all or nothing response that virtually all women, and a significant number of feminized men, will throw at me after having only a cursory skim through a few of my articles. It usually goes something like,

“WTF?!! You misogynist asshole! So ALLLLLLL marriages are one-sided affairs for men, doomed to failure once a woman gets fat after pregnancy, greedy or bored and her hypergamy kicks in? My folks, grandparents, aunt & uncle et. al. are still together after ___ years so that proves that love can conquer all and you’re fulla shit.”

This is the usual response I get from deep blue-pill men and women still relying on their, feminine conditioned, ready dismissals so as not to have to actually dig any deeper into what I’ve  written about the truths of contemporary marriage and have their precious (and fragile) idol of a loving marriage challenged, and possibly destroyed.

Frames of Reference

The other reaction I get is the one I covered in Fidelity, which usually goes something like,

“Dude, how can you be a red pill Man and be married? It’s contradictory to everything you write, fuck you charlatan, I’m going back to (insert URL of PUA, MRA, MGTOW, christo-manosphere, etc. etc. site) and read up on the latest approaches.”

Again, this is usually the result of a guy without the patience to really read what I’ve posted here for the past two years, and developed in my writing over the past ten. If it seems like it’s TL;DR material  it probably wont resonate with an attention deficient reader.

Obviously in both these instances the responses come from a lack of understanding the totality of my personal history, life, Game and female experiences – which of course is what I hope readers will get a better grasp of when the book is released. I’ve had sex with over 40 women in my past, during a time when there was no such thing as formalized Game. I apply elements of Game in my line of work – the liquor, nightclub and gaming industries to be specific – and use it to my professional advantage with the women I work around and who work for me. I use aspects of Game with my daughter (Amused Mastery) and set myself as an example of the type of Man she should associate herself with – of the boys she likes we both make a point of distinguishing the chumps from the more confident and dominant guys. I observe elements of Game while reconditioning greyhounds. I’ve even recently used an AMOGing technique to get a better interest rate and price on a new car I purchased this year – and I only did it to see if it would work.

The Measure of Game

There is an element in the manosphere that will tell you that the only real form of Game, the only legitimate, measure of Game is how many women you’ve successfully banged in your pursuit of perfecting Game for yourself.

I agree with this assessment.

The real measure of Game is only truly tested by how well it gets you laid. You can use your understanding of Game to improve your life, your career, your family interactions, etc. You can use your grasp of Game to destroy a feminist’s arguments and you can use it to literally save a man from suicide, but the real test is in how well it provably functions in getting you to intimacy with a woman.

Roosh recently had a series of articles and tweets regarding the present legitimacy of Game. Among his concerns is the claiming of Game authority by men who have never really used Game to get laid. A couple years ago Matt Forney had a similar post on the old In Mala Fide site titled something like “Never trust the advice of guys who aren’t getting laid”. In the years I’ve spent on the SoSuave forum I’ve seen this concern come and go; it’s interesting to see these sentiments get recycled, but the concern is the same. When late-term virgin men feel they have the Game savvy to authoritatively give other virgins (self-inflicted or not) Game advice it delegitimizes Game as a whole.

On the internet we are who we say we are. I’ve been getting laid (and for the better part the old-fashioned way) since I was 17. I’ve also been married for the last 17 years. Both my sexual and relationship past, as well as my marriage have benefitted me with a comprehensive understanding of Game principles. Furthermore my studies in behavioral psychology and over a decade of involvement in the manosphere have made me a pretty good connector of dots when it comes to behaviorism, sociology and psychology with regards to gender dynamics. I’m not trying to prove my pedigree here, what I’m driving at is that while Game has more to it than just getting laid, if you aren’t getting laid (or laid more with your wife) then your Game is untested and not as legitimate as someone who has put their own Game into successful practice.

The New Monogamy

I recently got a PM from a reader, Emperor Lu Bu, wanting some input from me on a blog post he’d written contrasting the modern ‘horrors’ of marriage and the white knight apologists’ rationales for endorsing marriage:

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on that piece, primarily because I seem to recall you saying that you were yourself married (employing some sort of complicated “marriage Game” to remain so).

I must admit, I’m curious as to whether you found an Eastern wife, or whether you just rolled some particularly dangerous dice and took a Western one for yourself.

As I stated in Fidelity, I’m not anti-marriage, I’m anti- uninformed, pollyanna, shoulda’-saw-it-coming, ONEitis fueled, shame induced, bound for bankruptcy, scarred my children for life, hypergamy’s a bitch, marriage. I could very easily detail the aspects of my 18 year relationship with Mrs. Tomassi that would sound like my marriage is a one-of-a-kind white knight miracle, but it will only come off as some naive rationale similar to the social conventions Lu Bu lists in his post. However, I assure you Mrs. Tomassi is a pretty, thin, blonde American, any Game I do run has long passed the point of being a very uncomplicated subconscious part of who I am, and I’m well aware of how hypergamy, the feminine imperative and western matrimonial laws collude to make marriage a dangerous prospect. Caveat emptor.

In contrast with this, Dalrock had another post from the other side of the divorce spectrum this week in quoting an interview with Kate Bollick:

…for people who want to have kids and raise them with someone else, I wonder what the next alternative for love/sex/reproduction is. Because it seems like for women there’s currently two options: Option A, which is dating, marriage, kids (and divorce and remarriage, etc.), or Option B, which is every other nontraditional alternative, where it’s everyone for him/herself, trying to figure out what fits. Option A being pretty clear, and Option B being wide open.

As you can see the future looks pretty bleak for anyone rooting for team marriage. From the extreme manosphere perspective marriage is akin to Russian roulette with 5 rounds in a 6 shot revolver. From the Jezebel / Bollick side of the equation, the SMV navigation plan is no longer in need of any pretense or concealment; women are now comfortable in admitting the plan actually is to cash out of the SMP casino between 27-28 years of age and to take the beta provider schlub to the cleaners for future cash & prizes. Even for Athol Kay, his MMSL is an effort in after-the-fact marriage damage control.

As Good as it Gets

So where does that leave us? Back in 2003 Tom Leykis once had a great rant about how being an unmarried man, spinning plates in his mid-twenties to mid-thirties, was as good as it gets. I’m beginning to think this was more than a bit prophetic. I’ve written six individual post about the various aspects of Plate Theory, and although I presented the options for both a continued plate spinning plan and a path, at least, towards monogamy from plate theory, I’m starting to wonder if a continued, indefinite, commitment-ambiguity isn’t simply as good as it gets for men today.

For as much as Aunt Giggles would have anyone believe that both men and women want to be married – “want’s” got nothing to do with it. A desire to be married and live in an idealized and secure state of mutual love and respect with someone is really a no-brainer. The whole Minter affair (literally and figuratively) in July superimposes the idea that even the most anti-marriage guy still wants to be married, but it’s not the getting where the problem starts, it’s in the having.

I have no doubt that the idealization of marriage, enduring companionship, mutual love and respect are very strong desires for men, but as I stated in my love series, men love idealistically, whereas women’s love is rooted in opportunism. Women get very upset at this proposition because they tend to conflate an unrealistic desire for unconditional love with a love based on a man’s performance for her in order to earn  and keep it. It’s not that men expect some childish form of unconditional love, it’s that a man must continue to maintain that love through performing and meriting it – this is what I mean by women loving opportunistically.

Whether a man comes to terms with how women love them, they still want to get married because they believe in the dream. Despite all the risk, despite every red flag a woman waves, and even despite the bitter disaster of his previous marriages, men still want to be married – they desire the ideal union.

But what if as good as it gets is simply entertaining a succession of non-committed, non-exclusive relationships? In essence, a sustainable plate spinning until such time as a woman demands committed monogamy, and then she’s replaced with a new plate and the cycle continues. I’m sure this would seem manipulative and horribly selfish to women, and furthermore it might contradict what I’ve just written about men’s general want for marriage (or at least an idealized union), but contrast this perpetual plate spinning strategy with the perspective extremes of both the raw deal men and women I mentioned in Lu Bu and Dalrock’s posts.

Rather than a deliberate or unintentional “marriage strike” perhaps the direction we’re headed is a sustainable series of modular monogamy or perpetuated singleness? Maybe that’s as good as it gets?

Case Study – Adam’s Lament

 

The following dialog is from a recent consult (published with permission) from a young man, Adam, who’s becoming red pill aware in the wake of a breakup. I’ll let his quotes tell the story here:

 My girlfriend broke up with me last month due to her want to find herself and her self-imposed reasons to remain single (she just turned 22 and I just turned 24).

The first consideration I’ll make is that both of you are far too young for a monogamous relationship. Your 20s should be a period of learning for both sexes. Unfortunately it’s becoming more common for guys to hear this and take offense due to this socialized romantic notion that an LTR ought to be some idealized goal state, but the truth of it is that an LTR in this period of a man’s life more often than not becomes debilitating in his maturation.

What young men raised on Disneyesque romantic ideals fail to consider is that a mature LTR requires responsibility, liability and accountability that limit a young man’s potential and paralyze him in the prime years of his life. These are the years that should be devoted to ambitions and passions that will lead to financial and personal success (i.e. college, career, etc.) and contribute to his peak SMV later in his life.

Too many men lament later in life that they should’ve done more in these years preparing for their own successes rather than becoming saddled in dead end relationships. They lament their lives that could’ve been once they realize that their SMV maturation happens after  women’s peaks. Time and the freedom to maneuver within your interests are a man’s most valuable resources. As a Man on the other side of this I can tell you that there are few material things I have a want for now, but time for myself and my passions, that is constantly adjusted by my career, my wife, my daughter, my commute in traffic etc., is the most precious thing I can think of. Why young men who would otherwise fiercely defend their own independences would so readily and voluntarily give this up in order to secure the intimacy of a single woman is one of the greatest crimes perpetrated on men by a feminized, romanticized society.

Also understand that your Ex is going through a similar phase as well. Between the years of 18 and about 26 are the prime years for a woman to weigh her hypergamous options. I call these the “party years” for attractive young women. Generally they include college, but it’s during this period that women explore the benefits afforded to them by their peak SMV and looks.

The hard truth is that most women on some level understand that this period represents the peak of their sexuality and attractiveness and this is their best chance to explore sex and relationships without consideration for limiting the conditions they place on their intimacy. All women have an innate understanding that the older they get the less sexually marketable they become.

This frustrates young men (particularly plugged-in betas who internalized an ideal that an LTR is a goal state) until they come to the realization that the older a man gets, the more sexually marketable he becomes since this generally implies he has attained a certain amount of confidence, professionalism, status, affluence and a list of other conditions women value in trading their intimacy for long term security. At 22, these principles go unrecognized in women, yet their behaviors are predictable enough to prove that these conditions and understandings are in play later in life.

She complimented me when we dated for the 5 month relationship that I was the best catch she had found so far, but the timing was off in that she met me at a time where she was trying to force herself not to be co-dependent (she broke up with her last b/f of 1.5 years so she could find herself and remain single) it didn’t last long because she found me 2 months later and dated me for the second half of this year.

You were flattered by her compliment because it affirmed your ego-investment in LTRs as a goal state as correct. Your frustration is that her behavior and her stated reasoning for it confounds this ideology. Lets also consider that if she had a year and a half “relationship” with a previous boyfriend, a half-year with you, and she’s now 22, her relationship experience has been limited to adolescent socializations. She still uses whatever behavioral skills she learned in her adolescence. Not a good benchmark for validating you as the “best catch she has found so far” to put it mildly. Rather, this is a convenient way of “letting you down easy” in order to preserve her own ego and hopefully make you feel better for going off to do what she really wants to do anyway.

She was my first g/f in nearly 6 years and also the girl I lost my virginity too.

And here’s the rub. I swear, basic math skills are all a red pill advocate needs to pick apart situations; If she was your first girlfriend in 6 years and you are now 24, this would mean the last girl you considered a girlfriend was back when you were 18. Again this implies that you yourself are employing an adolescent social skill set in evaluating what course you think inter-gender relationships ought to follow. There’s no shame in this, I’m not pointing it out to put you down, but understand that this is how you and she are operating even if you’re unaware of it.  

You also lost your virginity to her. Stop thinking of it in these terms, this is what I’d expect to hear an emotional girl say. Only women”lose” their virginity, this is part of the feminine imperative’s controlling of the language. When women ‘lose’ their virginity it perpetuates their vaginas as the precious prize while also continuing the narrative of default female victimhood.

For you it was the beginning of opening a new part of your maturation process since sex (even casual sex) always implies new responsibilities that must be compensated for. However I do understand your attachment to her due to this and the fact that you’ve internalized monogamy as goal state myth. We all have a life long affinity for our first sexual partner since they are the ones with whom we share this life experience – you never forget your first.

 I matured a lot and unfortunately didn’t find your blog until too late. I’ve read all the articles online and now started reading the DJ Bible at SoSuave so I won’t get so screwed next time and be able to walk away sooner instead of dragging it out.

Good.

Do you really think she broke up with me because her reason?

No, I think she’s obeying her hypergamous biological imperative that the phase her life is in is dictating for her.

Personally, I think it’s a copout and she’s afraid of commitment.

This is, to the letter, exactly what I’d expect a girl to say about a guy when she is 30+ years old and ready to cash her chips in on marriage. The irony of a guy using the same jingoisms (“commitment phobic”) women use to describe the men they want to coerce into monogamy with them is an indictment of the power of the feminine imperative. Stop thinking like a chick and start thinking like an adult man with a firm understanding of his own masculinity. You MUST unlearn the idea that an LTR is the key to life’s happiness; it is not.

I think that she’d rather be able to have one night stands where she lives (bay area) whereas I live in San Diego.

Of course she would, she’s in her party years and it is what it is – so long as she’s mature enough to acknowledge and accept responsibility for her actions (doubtful). Also, this isn’t a statement on yourself, stop interpreting it like it is. She’s not a worse person for not subscribing to your romanticized conditioning of how women ought to want commitment. On some level of consciousness she understands the hypergamic opportunities this period of her life presents her with and her behavior is the result of this. 

Will she regret this part of her life later? Most likely. Will she look back to you as someone significant to her during her 20’s when she’s 30 and ready to cash her chips out? Probably not, but this isn’t your concern. This episode represents a point of departure for your life – departure from your old adolescent self into a mature, Game aware Man. You’re unplugging.

What’s more concerning to me is that after all you’ve described to me, this half-year “relationship” is long distance. Are you kidding me? How often could you have had sex with her while you’re on opposite ends of the state? You’re pining over an LDR and my take on this is that there is no such thing as an LDR; you do not have a relationship with her, nor did you ever really have one.

One or both parties in an LDR are going to “cheat” – though I can’t really call it cheating since it’s simply behavior manifesting itself in conditions that aren’t conducive to what our natural impulses are. Adam, this girl hasn’t hurt you, she’s helped you. By breaking it off she’s given you the freedom you need to grow beyond these silly adolescent ideologies that an LDR should ever have been an option for a mature Man.

She’s an atheist whereas I am a Christian and that kind of bugged her even though I dropped some values to date her…



For men, sexual impulse will almost universally trump moral conviction when the opportunity presents itself. Again, no shame here, but it’s telling that you’d expect her to appreciate your having sacrificed some (loose) convictions for doing what you wanted to do anyway. You’re not a martyr for dropping any values for having sex with her and it doesn’t place you on some moral high ground that she should change her mind about entertaining an LTR with you.

She said even if I moved up north to be with her or her down here she’d still break up with me to “find herself” because of her major need to be single.

They very fact that you considered altering the course of your young life to better accommodate your idealized relationship with this girl by relocating to San Francisco ought to scare the hell out of you. Are you so optionless that a girl 600 miles away is a better prospect than exploring other women in your own area? I can’t tell you how many men I’ve counseled who’ve irreparably damaged their lives, made career choices they’ve regretted for decades and voluntarily killed any hope of genuine ambition they may have had by doing exactly what you considered here – changing their address to better facilitate a ONEitis hope that the one girl who ever fucked them would eventually become their soul-mate wife.

I just don’t get this girl. After a month of blackout and breakup now she’s really trying hard to be friends. I suspected her screwing a guy before she came down to see me, so maybe that’s why she called it off when she did.

So what? Spin more plates. If you had other potential women interested in you it would make no difference whether she wanted to play “friends” with you or screwed some other guy.

I was an AFC then, but I still spoke up for myself and stood my ground. Basically, I gave her an ultimatum.

Sorry Adam, but you still are and AFC or at least an rAFC. Ultimatums are declarations of powerlessness; by doing so you’ll kill any interest a woman may have had for you as this is the last resort of a lack of confidence. This is the kiss of death. You get points for manning up and speaking your mind, but it’s not what you said, it’s how you said it.

I said if we have sex then we need to be exclusive. It’s all or nothing and if she doesn’t then she needs to be out of my life because I couldn’t trust her with all the guys I knew that were trying hard to sleep with her.

For as noble as your intent, she will only interpret this as a supreme insecurity on your part. You’re not going to talk her off the cock-carousel, neither should it be your responsibility to do so.

Adam, you need to let go of this notion that you require exclusivity in an LTR, particularly at your age. It’s self-defeating.

You have to unlearn this misguided idea that exclusivity is a necessity at your stage of life. All the Game skills in the book wont help you get past this basic idea. You will only settle for the first girl to respond to them. My advice to you is to NEXT this girl and get out into the field and sarge. Stop it with this LDR crap, they are fundamentally flawed and are only exacerbated by the ONEitis you have for this girl and will fluidly develop for the next one because it fits your old paradigm.

Girl’s Night Out

A Girl’s Night Out

I’ve been dating this girl for about 5 months now. She’s very attractive, I’d say an HB7 or 8. Her interest level is extremely high. I’d say in the high 90% bracket. She always calls or e-mails me when we’re not together telling me how much she misses me, etc, etc. And she expresses her feeling towards me in many ways when we are together. So my point here is that I know she’s really into me. And I play by the rule of keeping my interest level slightly below hers to keep things going. And it’s worked. Also, I apply all of the Game principals in our relationship. So I’m no chump with this girl and I feel that I have a good grip on the realtionship.

Her friend from New York is visiting her for four days. Her friend is single and young (25). Tonight they’re going out to a dance club with another girl whom they know who is also not dating anyone. This is all just fine. I understand that I shouldn’t discourage or show any type of insecurities regarding her going out with her friends. But I do feel that her two friends are going to be interested in the possibility of hooking up with some guys even though my girlfriend is not. It only makes sense since her one friend is from out of town, and they are single. This concerns me because I think it will put my GF in an awkward position.

I’m a bit confused on whether or not I should ask her anything about that evening in a playful manner when I talk to her next. In other words, what’s the best practice to do in this situation? Should I simply ask how her night went and if she had fun and just leave it at that? Or should I playfully poke at her about dudes hitting on her, and how girls can be naughty?

So the dillema is that on one hand, I don’t want to seem too passive about the whole thing. But on the other hand I don’t want to seem insecure. Part of me says that I should express some degree of protectiveness toward her in this situation. But I don’t want to send the wrong signal.

What are your thoughts

Let her go.

“You do know what happens when your girlfriend ‘gets drunk, he was cute, and one thing led to another,..’?!!” Yes, I’ve been the guy who nailed your girlfriend.

“You do know that ‘taken’ girls just want to live vicariously through their single girlfriends?” I’ve written volumes about it.

This is a very common shit test. Don’t even pause to think about it and do NOT let her perceive for a second that you’re even contemplating it. Be matter-of-fact and tell her you’ll see her when she gets back. Don’t tell her to call you, and don’t you call her. If she calls be concise and ask her if she’s enjoying herself, nothing more – no details, nothing. Let her be as forthcoming as she wants and never for a minute give her the impression you’re suspicious or posessive. This is the surest way to pass this test.

When and if she asks about what you’ve been doing, tell her you’ve been busy with work/school, your family, etc., (i.e. something unavoidably responsible). Do NOT say you’re out with the boys in some lame effort to counter her going off with the girls. Do NOT give her the impression that you are doing anything as a reprisal to her going off with the girls. Do NOT give her the impression that you are pacing around the house waiting for her to call or sulking. In fact I’d advise letting your voicemail pick up the call and then call her back an hour later, if at all.

I’m sure many guys reading this are experiencing the twangs of possessive insecurity even in my suggesting this course of action. The reflexive response most guys will have in a situation like this will be one of mate protection; the fear being that if they don’t express their disapproval they’ll run the risk of their woman thinking they don’t care enough about them to be jealous. This is a trope most guys sell themselves, because it’s more about suspicion than jealousy. As intuitive as this sounds it really masks the insecurity that their girl will meet another guy and hook up with him. On an instinctual level we’re well aware of women’s pluralistic sexual strategies, thus an evolutionarily honed suspicion was hardwired into our psyches to protect men from becoming the beta cuckold provisioning for another male’s offspring. However, as counterintuitive as this sounds, a GNO is an excellent opportunity to display confidence behaviors.

The GNO Shit Test

The secret of the GNO (girls night out) shit test is, the truth of the matter is, that if a woman is determined to cheat on you, there’s really nothing you can do about it. You can protect your own genetic interests, but whether it’s on a GNO or with some guy from the office, if a woman wants to fuck, she’ll find a way to fuck and all the psychological, possessive arm twisting in the world wont change that desire. The covert message in this is what’s important.

Remember, a woman’s default is to communicate covertly. When you are indifferent to her proposition of a GNO it sends the message that you are confident enough in your own ability to replace her should she cross that line. Let her imagination work for you. Women love to convince themselves, “he trusts me implicitly” while they secretly sift through your text messages, but the covert message is really a veiled threat and exemplifies your self-confidence. Bear in mind it’s what she feels in this communication. If you leave her with the feeling that you’re clingy, possessive, sulky and worried, the impression she has is that you’re weak and are the kind of guy that women settle for, not compete for. Essentially you make her the PRIZE by voicing your insecurities. Alphas don’t worry about their plates on GNOs, in fact women enraptured by Alphas don’t see the appeal of GNOs.

A Prince isn’t worried about the behavior of one woman when he has several more on the royal speed-dial; one more testament to the power of abundance thinking and Plate Theory. This may or may not be the case, but the impression of it and the covert communication of it is vital. If, by your actions you can leave her with the feeling that you have a lot going for you, you’re in demand, that you are a commodity that other women will compete for, that you are the PRIZE; you plant the seed of doubt and she will voluntarily curb her desire to go on GNOs – and this is the outcome you’re striving for. You want your attention to be more rewarding than the attention she’ll receive on a GNO. You can’t force this into being so, but you can covertly manipulate her desire. You want her to talk herself out of going.

Learn this now, making a woman cognizant of higher sexual market value can only be demonstrated, never explicated.

Disclaimer: At this point I should also add that this in no way excuses the woman who CONSTANTLY goes on GNOs as some kind of ritual with her girlfriends. This is symptomatic of a larger problem and this, again, is based in desire. If you ever find yourself in this circumstance your best recourse is to NEXT and remove your attentions entirely. Women who have a regular GNO in LTRs are seeking something vicariously through their friends that they feel deprived of and need a fix for to feel completed. It’s only a matter of time until the right circumstances arise for her to consolidate on that deprivation. Better to cut your losses on a bad investment than play the cuckold for a woman who has no genuine desire for you and regularly demonstrates this in her behavior.

Possessiveness

I’ve known seasoned players who’d pee themselves over a girls night out proposition, but I always advise they adopt the attitude that she’s free to go do whatever she’d like. In fact I’d encourage it. That’s where confidence makes you a man, when you can say “go ahead, have a good time.” It’s what’s implied in the action that counts. If a woman (or man) wants to cheat, they’ll find a way to do it, with or without your knowledge. The only person who’s actions you can control are your own. Now, would it suck to break up a marriage over that? Yes, but I’d rather it be dissolved than to live disingenuously one minute longer than necessary.

If I locked my wife/GF up in a closet that only gives credence to my insecurity about my relationship and changes the nature of my LTR. In fact, in doing so the frame automatically transfers to a woman the moment you become possessive, because you confirm for her that you lack the confidence to generate new options (i.e stimulate competition anxiety) – to be a man that other women would desperately want should she decide to cheat. You must be a Man that your GF/Wife doesn’t want to cheat on. Sometimes a woman can’t appreciate this because she’s too immature to get it, but you have to be the Man confident enough to say “do what you want” while communicating higher value. As I’ve stated before, when your silence inspires more dread than your words, you’re probably an Alpha.

A lot of guys have a real tough time with possessiveness. What they tend to overlook is the element of desire. If you’ve got a girl who want’s to go off with the girls to Vegas for a weekend the operative in the whole situation is that she WANTS to go. While I do understand the necessity of ‘mate protection’ this desire is already established BEFORE you issue any ultimatum (which is a declaration of powerlessness). If she had a fear of loss to begin with she would’ve passed on the trip because she had a genuine desire to do so. In fact considering it wouldn’t even be an afterthought.

This is the Desire Dynamic – you can never force a genuine desire by means of coercion or negotiation. You can pay a woman to fuck you, it doesn’t mean she wants to fuck you of her own volition. The girl still wants to go to Vegas even if her man were to give her an ultimatum, and in addition he comes off as an optionless, possessive chump. I realize the idea is that if he’s uncompromising and she magically respects him she’ll develop a real interest level in him because he put his foot down as a “real man”, but the damage is still done. Her desire isn’t for him, it’s for Vegas, even if she says “OK honey, you win”. It’s not genuine.

Plate Theory VI: Abundance & Scarcity

Law 16: Use Absence to Increase Respect and Honor
Too much circulation makes the price go down: The more you are seen and heard from, the more common you appear. If you are already established in a group, temporary withdrawal from it will make you more talked about, even more admired. You must learn when to leave. Create value through scarcity.

Plate Theory is for your benefit, not for women’s. That might sound harsh, but it’s a method intended to increase your value as a commodity that works on two levels. First, the external – by practicing honest, non-exclusive dating you communicate to your prospective plates that you are in demand. I’ve gone so far as to tell men to foster this sense by never answering the phone from Friday to Sunday evening, even when they have no other plans. The perception that your attention is sought after increases it’s value – it’s when men are too eager to get with a woman that their attention becomes worthless and IL declines. Nothing serves a man better than having 3 or 4 women competing for his exclusive attention and fostering in them that feminine competitivie anxiety in as subtle and covert a way as possible. It’s a real art that women are all too familiar with. Women are natural plate theorists, they simply use their varying degrees of physical attractiveness to line their plates up.

Secondly, plate theory is for a man’s own internal benefit. As I said in my original thread, it’s much easier for a man not to give a shit if he truly doesn’t give a shit. It’s far easier to deal with women on the basis of indifference when you have a subconscious knowledge that there are at least 3 other women who’ll be happy to have your attention if one plays games with you.

You will invariably pass most shit tests in this fashion. The reason men fail most shit tests is because they subconsciously telegraph too much interest in a single woman. Essentially a shit test is used by women to determine one, or a combination of these factors:

a.) Confidence – first and foremost
b.) Options – is this guy really into me because I’m ‘special’ or am I his only option?
c.) Security – is this guy capable of providing me with long term security?

By practicing Plate Theory, your mental attitude will be such (or should be such) that you will pass most shit test based simply on this practice. Abundance thinking is the root of Plate Theory. A lot has been written about approaching women (and really life in general) from a position of Abundance. People often make the mistake of assuming that having a wide variety of choices tends to cheapen the commodity, and to a degree this is accurate, but it also allows for a better, learned awareness of which choice amongst the pool is common and which is of higher quality.

,…but Rollo, I’m so busy that I have no choice but to ignore and postpone. They sense it and seek me out. I worry that I’ll create crazies. My weekends are jammed. At what point do we stop?

This is a the best problem you can have. You’ve successfully flipped the script; you’ve gotten to a point where it becomes instinctive and your plates actively seek out your attention. By default, you’re creating value by scarcity. At what point do you stop? How old are you? If you’re under 30 stay in the game. If you’re over 30, stay in the game, but cool things off occasionally – the only time a man should even contemplate monogamy is after experiencing abundance. If you’re innundated with women occupying your weekends, consider hooking up with a proven plate on a Thursday evening and reserve your weekends for your other pursuits.

Also, don’t be afraid to clear your schedule to hang out with friends or do other things that interest you. Remember, scarcity increases value. Too many guys think that plate spinning is something that needs a constant effort, it doesn’t. In fact applying yourself equally across all your active plates only pushes you closer to settling for one or two. Most guys think that they have to continually spin their plates, you don’t; if you’re doing it correctly they’ll spin themselves for you. The anxiety is that if you don’t keep applying attention to any one plate she’ll lose interest and fall off. Sometimes this is the case and you have to be prepared to accept it, some plates have to break in order to spin more, and that’s OK. More often than not however, your scarcity will create value and mystique, thus they will pursue you for their affirmation.

Plate theory of course can be a means to an LTR, but bear in mind that it’s essential that you practice it long enough and effectively enough to determine what a quality woman means to you and how to recognize her. As with most Game skills, the AFC will use them to some degree of success up to the point that he finds his idealized “girl of his dreams” and launch into a self-destructive LTR because his idealization was based on juvenile impressions rather than a mature understanding of what a quality woman’s characteristics are. This is all due to a lack of concrete experience.

Spin plates for as long as possible, because once you do commit to an LTR, even with the tightest of Game you will lose a measure of the competitive anxiety that made your attentions valuable to any one woman. All your plates fall off AND the girl you’re engaged in an LTR with relaxes. This is root of why men find that the woman they had hot sweaty monkey sex with when they were dating becomes more sexually reserved a few months after they’re a couple. The competitive anxiety is relieved and therefore sexual frequency and quality is no longer a proving trait for her. That’s not to say there aren’t methods to stoke this anxiety in an LTR, but, by comparisson to being single, the frame of the relationship doesn’t have to be contested when she and you understand that she is your only source of intimacy and sex. In a committed relationship, you simply cannot spin plates.

Plate Theory V: Lady’s Game

I had a good amount of response on last Friday’s Plate Theory post asking for a more complete idea of women being natural Plate Theorists, so I thought I’d elaborate on this.

Female Plate Theory

For as often as I’ve mentioned women being natural plate theorists, I don’t think I’ve ever gone into detail about it. I think it’s pretty well established that I completely disagree with idea that women will only fuck one guy at a time. I could outline several women I know from experience in this, but really, observing behavior will bear this out fairly predictably. I will however agree that they are predisposed to, and are socially encouraged to, seek monogamy, but as in all things female the talk rarely matches the behavior. Sexuality is a woman’s first, best agency and even the homeliest woman know this – even when they’re just complaining about other women using it.

The principle that a woman’s first priority is to seek out security is true, and we’d be wise to bear this in mind when evaluating motives for behavior, but their methodology is what’s in question here. There is an understandable confusion for guys in this respect. On one hand women present a constant facade that the fear of being perceived as a slut (i.e. concurrently fucking more than one guy at a time) is primary to their self-respect and respectability. However, this has to be tempered with the desire to experience a variety of men in order to ensure the security/provisioning from the best among them. So in order to facilitate this women must practice a kind of calculated hypocrisy that is socially reinforced by the gender as a whole as well as some men (usually those so optionless as to excuse the behavior in order to get to her sexuality, or guys so conditioned that they overlook it as normal).

It is socially acceptable for a woman to blatantly spin plates.

Does this sound outrageous? While a woman who makes her sexual practices a bit too overt runs the risk of being perceived as a slut (which is dubious in this age as it is), most relatively attractive women covertly have a constant bullpen of starters ready to go to bat at any one time – these are also known as ‘Orbiters’. These are the attention providers, the “maybe” guys. And it makes little difference in terms of available options which she chooses at any given time, the very fact that she has five or six of them pursuing her is enough to boost her sense of self-worth, her social status within her same-gender peers, and give her the confidence to drop any one of her plates at a moments notice for any reason knowing that 2 or 3 more guys (or 20 more on facebook) stand ready to take his place, no questions asked and prepared rationalizations at the ready.

In addition, this practice is socially reinforced by women doing the same thing and the social conventions constructed to excuse the behavior. It’s the unspoken rule of a woman’s prerogative; she can always change her mind. This is a powerful tool for women –  in any situation, if a woman doesn’t choose to be sexual it is necessarily forced (or obligated), even when it’s after the fact. Either the “Jerk” forced her, physically or emotionally, or she had thought she wanted to, but later reconsidered – it makes little difference. In all social situations the default is to side with the feminine, the “weaker sex” – women, from sympathy or empathy, and men, from a desire to eventually become intimate with them. Dalrock expertly describes this convention in his “Don’t hit me, I’m a girl” post.

In either instance, the feminine prerogative is socially reinforced. That’s important to understand because even by my focusing on it here as a male, my motives for doing so become suspect. That’s how embedded this dynamic is – to question it risks ostracization. However, I also understand that for the greater part of women, this plate spinning dynamic isn’t a conscious effort on their part. In fact I’d suggest that it’s so thoroughly recognized that women default to it autonomously. Also, this is a good example of the first principle of power – when you have power, always feign powerlessness.

Free Reign

So, with a firm understanding that their behaviors will for the most part be excused, they are free to practice the feminine form of plate theory unhindered by social reprisal. The feminine plate spinning involves much more than sex though. Remember that attention is the coin of the realm in female society. The capacity to command attention determines self-esteem, peer status, sexual selectivity, and a host of other factors in a woman’s life, so spinning plates becomes more than just a “which guy am I gonna bang tonight” prospect. This dynamic and these factors are what makes women natural plate spinners. Even when a woman has no intention of ever becoming sexual with a “maybe” guy, his attention still has some value to her. It appeals to the long term prospective for security that’s a continuous subroutine running in her hindbrain. This is the rudimentary psychology behind hypergamy.

Now, combine all of this with women’s native language – covert communication – and it’s natural for a man to assume that a woman will only ever become sexual with one guy at a time. This serves the latent purpose of keeping him in a kind of stasis. If he assumes women will only be sexual under the precondition of commitment she is free to spin plates (essentially weighing options) as she pleases and sample at will what she sees as in her hypergamic best interest at the time. If the carrot looks good enough the guy will patiently pull the cart until such time as another, better carrot comes along. Either way he’s in that stasis. If a guy were to see her social and psychological machinations for what they are, he’d never pull the cart – so it serves women best that men think commitment should always be required for intimacy, even in the face of her behavior directly contradicting this.

Plate Wars

Lastly, this social dynamic serves as a very effective weapon for women against each other. As I stated in the last Plate Theory post, competition anxiety between women is something men can exploit for their own plate spinning, but the reason it is useful is because women so readily use it against each other. For a woman to say another is a “slut” translates into an overt betrayal of this unspoken social contrivance. She essentially is saying, “the rules are that women require commitment for sex, but here’s one who’ll never be worthy of any guy’s commitment because she wont play by the rules you suckers think she will.”

She is tacitly disqualified for a man’s commitment and is, at least in the accusing woman’s mind, a reduced threat in this feminine competition. She becomes exposed in the same game they’re all playing and in being so loses attention and therefore status and personal esteem. It seems petty to guys, but it’s really intra-gender warfare. Think of how many times an exceptionally attractive woman, that is completely anonymous to a group of women you happen to be with, berate her based on appearance alone. “She’s must be a tramp if she dressed like that.” These are the same women who’ll berate a man for basing his estimation of a woman on her outer appearance. This is feminine competition anxiety. Ask a woman to name the most attractive female actress they can think of. Odds are it will be a woman (who as a guy you’d never think of) who presents the least threat of this anxiety.

Gentlemen, as I’m fond of saying, women will fuck. They may not fuck you, they may not fuck me, but they will fuck someone. The girl who bangs the hot guy at the foam party in Cancun on Spring Break within 5 minutes of meeting him is the same girl who want’s you to believe that they’ll only fuck one guy at a time and then after commitment. All women are sexual, you just need to be the right guy at the right time for the job.

Plate Theory IV: Goal-State Monogamy

Whenever a guy uninitiated to the concept of spinning plates reads the theory for the first time his first response is usually rejection of it because it conflicts with their monogamy-as-goal mindset. Understand, this is always going to be a tough stretch for any AFC of course, but also the ‘natural’ guy who doesn’t have much trouble attracting women. Monogamy-as-a-goal is a feminine imperative social contrivance, but it also has roots in our natural desire for security, so it makes anything even remotely like plate spinning counterintuitive. The feminine imperative pounds into men’s collective consciousnesses over the course of a lifetime that monogamy will cure loneliness, make them responsible, provide them with a constant supply of sex, and a host of other things that assures them it’s “the right thing to do” and in their own best interest. This then leads the more option-less individuals to develop and practice AFC methods and rationales in accordance with what they believe (and have been told by) women is required of them in order to achieve their monogamous intimacy.

So understandably when the principle of being non-exclusive is presented to them in a rational way (in stead of a ridiculed way as it’s normally passed off as) it conflicts with this perceived path to happiness in monogamy. The very idea that any man would be better off with more options in this arena of life, or could feasibly and logistically pull it off seems foreign. As a counter to this he makes up rationales as to why it wont work or wont work for him.

Logistics

“I can’t spin plates because I have too little time, I can’t manage more than one without the other finding out, etc.”

If you are indeed spinning plates in a healthy, upfront, non-exclusive way this should never be an issue. There are Game-aware Men with less time than most who manage 4-5 different girls in a week without having them consume all their leisure and business time. I don’t suggest that you go this route per se, because for the better part PUAs rely on a dishonesty in non-exclusivity. However, the reason they are capable of this is because they’ve perfected plate spinning effectively enough to have the plates spin themselves.

Most uninitiated AFCs reason that they MUST, at all costs, apply a constant effort to each and every girl they encounter at risk of losing a “good one.” Besides this being indicative of ‘soul-mate thinking’, what they fear is losing a plate because they are unaccustomed to having the leisure to do so. This is evidence of a scarcity mentality that is a result of their monogamy-as-goal preconditioning. Plate Theory necessitates an attitude of fearlessness – not carelessness, fearlessness. When you’re practicing Plate Theory your plates should call you. You are the PRIZE and the Prince who’s time is valuable and sought after. You should be the object of women’s pursuit. That said, you still have to make an effort to see them and keep the attention you do apply to them valuable, but this must be done with the attitude that if one plate falls you’re confident in your other options or your ability to generate new options.

Personality Type

“I’m just not like that. I don’t want to be considered a playah. I could never do that to a woman. How can anyone be like that?”

This rationale is a common one and not limited just to AFCs. There are plenty of otherwise confident, positively masculine men who’d still think they owe it to women to allow them to set the frame of their relationships without any fear of competition anxiety. Players are men who’re dishonest – they are not spinning plates because they are isolating each plate independent of the other, and this goes back to logistics. Of course you can’t find time for anything else if all you do is try to coordinate each individual story with each plate for fear that they discover each other. The plate spinning Man has no need for this, because he NEVER IMPLIES EXCLUSIVITY TO ANY PLATE. Either they accept this or they’re not a plate to consider. Done in a frank, honest, yet indirect above-table way you will not be a ‘Player’ and you will establish yourself as Man who’s attention is worth competing for.

Women would rather share a successful man than be saddled with a faithful loser. This perfectly sums up Plate Theory vs. Monogamy-as-Goal mindsets. Men in general gravely underestimate the power of female competition anxiety and how useful it really is. As I’ve said before, women are natural plate theorists – they are accustomed from a very early age to mitigate multiple sex-interests, they simply learn how to balance their indirect communications with that anxiety in their own plate spinning. Anxiety in women is good for men. Even when they make no effort to use it or would never consider it if they knew it’s usefulness it is ALWAYS present. Everything a woman does on a daily basis is colored by competition anxiety. Make up, clothing, shoes (God, the SHOES!), indirect communications with men and women, social contrivances, comparing and evaluating dates and possible suitors, EVERYTHING is bourn from this competitive desire to achieve security with the best possible guy and make damn sure the girl next door doesn’t get him first. This anxiety is analogous to men’s consummate fear of rejection and all of the myriad rationales he’ll create and the Buffers he’ll devise to avoid it.

Bear in mind that monogamy is a dictate of the feminine imperative. It is the social contract that the feminine ultimately needs in order to quell a constant desire for security in a very chaotic world. When you are predisposed to monogamy-as-goal thinking, or trying to break yourself of this, understand that this is a tool of the feminine imperative. That’s not to discount the overall merits of monogamy, but it is to make you aware of how it’s acculturated into men as a responsibility to providing monogamy. Men who find themselves in a state of internal conflict about abandoning monogamy-as-goal are really confronting a fundamental shift in their prior conditioning.

Plate Theory III: Transitioning

You cannot help anyone until you’ve first helped yourself.

The following was posted with permission from a consult I did.

Hi Rollo, my name is Akash and I am big fan of your posts. They are always lucid, logical, and insightful.

I discovered the community about 5 months ago after yet another failed relationship characterized by highly AFC behavior on my part. I ended it with a tremendous amount of guilt as I felt that because she was a “good person” I ought to have made it work even though I wasn’t in love with her. I am 27 years old.

Based on your posts I would really appreciate your advice on two issues:
(1) how to make the best use of my impending return to school in May for a second undergraduate degree and;
(2) how to overcome the cognitive dissonance I feel about pursuing women outside the confines of a committed relationship as I still suffer from social conditioning that tells me I will hurt women by pursuing primarily sexual relationships with them and so it is immoral to do so.

If you would like to post a reply on the forum, rather than by a PM, for the benefit of others that is fine with me. I wanted to direct these queries to you though as I believe I could benefit from your worldy wise opinion.

Sincerely look forward to hearing from you.

Best,
Akash

Akash,

I’ll give you a run down of what I can gather from your initial post, but understand that what you’ve given me here is pretty limited as far as information is concerned. I can only assume certain things from the very brief description of your life so take what I write with that in mind. In the future give me a better account of what your AFC behaviors were, how your relationships have ended, family background, where you live, why you’re pursuing a second degree, etc. I can be more accurate and avoid assumptions this way.

To begin with, you’ve only been involved in the “community” for the past 5 months so the first thing I’m going to tell you is that it takes time to mold your personality and unlearn mental schemas you’ve become conditioned to consider integral parts of your current personality. One of the biggest obstacles most men have with accepting the fundaments of a positive masculine mindset is the attitude that personality is static and uncontrollable by them. A lot of this “that’s just how I am” mentality comes from this basic conditioning and needs to be addressed from the outset since this almost universally is an ego-investment on the part of a guy who’s probably emotionally distressed, confused and/or frustrated.

Understand now that personality is ultimately what YOU determine it to be. This isn’t to say that external factors don’t influence personality; indeed these variables and outside influences are exactly the reason men such as yourself do seek out the community. However, it is you who determine what is comfortable for you and what will constitute the traits that makes your personality your own. You are most definitely not a blank slate, but you have the capacity to erase parts you don’t like or are unusable and rewrite new parts that you like and prove efficient.

(1) how to make the best use of my impending return to school in May for a second undergraduate degree

This all depends on what your own personal goals are. The best use you can make of this time is to devote yourself completely to achieving the purpose for which you decided to pursue a second degree in the first place. I can only assume you are working for this degree with a set outcome in mind, but is this what you truly want? I ask this because I know far too many men who’ve altered the course of their lives to better accommodate the women in their lives or to facilitate their insecurities and fear of rejection. It’s not an unfamiliar story to me to hear of how a guy opted for a certain university or a career path because he’d convinced himself that it would sustain a relationship that he was fearful of loosing or he felt was his “responsibility as a man” to be supportive of her ambitions at the sacrifice of his own. The conclusion of this scenario, more often than not, ends with a bitter man, mad at himself with the long term results of his choices after the woman he’d strived so long to accommodate leaves him for another man who held fast to his own identity and ambition – which is exactly what makes him attractive.

I’m not sure how or if this fits into your conditions, but let it serve as an illustration for reclaiming and remolding your own personality. Only you have the hindsight to assess why you made certain decisions in your life. I’m only asking you to be as brutally critical of your true motivations for making them. Maybe it’s time you review why you decided to pursue a second degree?

(2) how to overcome the cognitive dissonance I feel about pursuing women outside the confines of a committed relationship as I still suffer from social conditioning that tells me I will hurt women by pursuing primarily sexual relationships with them and so it is immoral to do so.

Akash, any reasonably attractive woman knows you’d like to have sex with her. It’s a primal, chemical instinct and to be bluntly honest, there’s nothing wrong with it. In certain Muslim sects men are allowed to take “temporary” wives for a set period of time in addition to their “permanent” wives so long as they support them financially. Some Mormons practice open polygamy in a similar fashion. Some men marry and divorce multiple times (and support them congruously). All of these practices are considered, to a greater or lesser degree, moral. The dissonance occurs when the rationalizations for a behavior conflict with the motivations for it and the associative psycho-social stigmas that get attached to it. Sorry for the $10 words here, but your feelings of guilt or hesitancy in a desire to explore multiple relationships is a calculated result of a very effective social conditioning with a latent purpose meant to curb a natural impulse.

Recognizing this is the first step to progressing beyond it and actually using it (responsibly) to your own advantage. As men, our biological impetus is to have unlimited access to unlimited sexuality with females bearing the best physical attributes. This is a rudimentary fact and on some level of consciousness both men and women understand this. No amount of proselytizing or social conditioning will erase what God and evolution hard-coded into our collective bio-psychological desires and behaviors. Admittedly, social conventions have historically made a good run at limiting this drive, but it can never (nor should it ever) purge this, because in essence it is a survival-ensuring attribute for us.

I wont argue against the utility in the latent purpose of absolute monogamy. No other method proves more valuable in parental investment and developing a strong masculine and feminine psyche in a person than that of a committed, opposite sex, two-parent family. I feel it’s necessary to add here that I am thoroughly unconvinced that gender identity is exclusively a set of learned behaviors as many in the mainstream would try to convince us of. There is simply too much biological evidence and the resulting psychological/behavioral response to gender differences to accept this, making it vitally important that a child (and later a healthy adult) be taught a healthy appreciation for both the masculine and feminine influences in their psyches.

The genders were meant to be complimentary, not adversarial. I certainly would never condone infidelity based on just this principle alone since it seems the most beneficial for healthy adults. It’s when this healthy monogamy becomes clouded by infantile, emotionality and insecure romanticisms with the resulting expectations that are derived by them that it becomes necessary for a man to cultivate an attitude of being the PRIZE. Adopting this mindset broadens his selection of opportunities for monogamy to his greatest advantage prior to committing to monogamy. In other words, if you are essentially sacrificing your capacity to pursue your biological imperative (unlimited access to unlimited sexuality), pragmatically, you’ll want to choose a partner of the highest quality from the broadest pool of potential you are capable of attracting.

The downside of this proposition is twofold. First, your ability to attract a sizable pool of quality ‘applicants’ is limited by factors you immediately have available. At 37, if all goes well, you’ll be more financially stable and mature than you are at 27. The 37 year old Akash will, in theory, be more attractive to a long term prospect than the 27 year old Akash. Secondly, women’s sexual value decreases as they age, meaning there is no guarantee that your beautiful, vivacious, 27 year old bride will remain so at 37. In fact the odds are she wont.

All of this makes betting your biological imperative on monogamy critically important and thus deserving of the widest possible selection.

Men literally live and die according to their options, so it stands to reason they ought to entertain a prolonged period in their lives where they are open to exploring the most options they have access to while concurrently developing and improving themselves prior to making a commitment of this magnitude.

And this is precisely where most men fail. They buy into and internalize psychological social contrivances (i.e. ONEitis) that are little more than effective means of inculcating a self-expectation of accountability and liability to make this commitment, irrespective of maturity level or personal success (not simply financial success). The saddest ones, the AFC ones are the pitiable men who carry these contrivances into marriage and even old age without ever understanding that they had more potential which they squandered due to an inability to see past these contrivances and learn to be selective based on experience.

A truly powerful Man jealously guards his most precious resources; his independence and his ability to maneuver. In other words his options and his ability to exercise them. True power isn’t controlling others, but the degree to which you control the course of your own life and your own choices. Commitment to anything ALWAYS limits this. When you step through one door, a hundred more close behind you. You’re free to do what you want, right? You can always quit a job, divorce a wife, change your school, etc., but how many men do you know who are what they are today as a result of their own real doing, unfettered by how their choices impact their GF, wife, kids, parents, etc.? By comparison, how many guys do you know who dutifully stick with a dead-end job that’s slowly killing them because it’s better than dealing with the consequences and backlash it would have on his family? Are they free to quit? Sure, but not without an impact on their families and relationships.

So where does this leave you? You have 2 paths as I see it. You can sarge and explore your options with multiple LTRs and, should you decide to become sexually involved, do so while maintaining non-exclusivity with them. Put off and unlearn the expectations you’ve been conditioned to accept through (feminine beneficent) social contrivances and truly explore your opportunities while bettering your own conditions in anticipation for becoming monogamous at some later point. Or, you can remain in your sense of moral doctrine (no shame in this) and still non-exclusively date and explore your options while you continue to better yourself with the caveat that you know you’ll be limiting your depth of experience. I wont denigrate a decision to opt for this, but far too few religious men have the perseverance to stay objective in their decision to ‘hold out’ and overlook major character flaws in women they’d like to be their spouse in a furious rush to marry them and get to “the sex part.” Better to fall short in conviction than make hurried decisions that will alter your life.

And perhaps this isn’t even what you’re driving at? I don’t know if it’s a religious conviction or an internalized social contrivance that passes for one that’s the cause of your hesitancy, but isn’t it interesting that both are so closely associated? I know devout atheists who still believe in the fallacy of the ONE or the soulmate myth. Most women (and far too many men) look at me as if I’d denied the existence of God when I elaborate on why I think their eHarmony, induced fantasy of a soulmate is hogwash and psychologically damaging on a social scale.

Regardless, whatever your reasons, women should only ever be a compliment to a man’s life, never the focus of it. When you start living for a woman you become that woman. Never again compromise your own identity to receive the ever-changing approval she grants you. You have to be the PRIZE at all times, not just while you’re single. In fact, it’s imperative that you remain so into an LTR. My suggestion to you is not to even entertain the idea of monogamy until you are established in your career for 2 years, after your college is complete. Play the field, do whatever, but do not commit even to a girlfriend. Rather make a commitment to yourself, promise yourself you wont allow yourself to let emotionality and conditioned expectations of monogamy dictate what your goals will be or how you’ll achieve them.

It’s called enlightened self-interest; you cannot help anyone until you’ve first helped yourself.