The Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi

[ezio6]

good book when ure past the teenager phase and start to ask what a women intent is really all about. best book on women praxeology. only makes sense to a wise and experienced men , sadly mostly said wisdom male have already past the looks phase and mostly in their 30s. if only theres some technology to make 30s men looks 20s. so they can combine the experienced and loooks . earth could be a better place

 

[eduardkoopman]

good book

Coper. How to single mom maxx.

 

[Littleboy]

Anyway we can just download it from a source?

 

[Magical Apple]

his behavioral development and ultimately his personality. In the Mozart example we see the success story (the story of a master artist) of a natural talent encouraged and developed to potential by favorable external conditions. Mozart was the perfect storm of natural talent and an ideal environment for nurturing it, thus giving him the advantage of an “early start” in his behavioral trial and error efforts. My reader Jeremiah laments, “It is hard to believe there are still naturals out there when feminism is being rammed up the anus of every man before he sprouts his first tooth ” and of course this is a negative example of an environment (deliberately) averse to nurturing an Alpha mindset. There’s no shortage of examples, but feminization from a behavioral psychology perspective, is nothing less than a socialized effort in deliberate behavioral modification of men’s natural drives and predilections to better fit the feminine imperative. As men socialized in an all-encompassing, pervasive, fem-centric reality, we tend to see “Natural Alphas” as outliers because somehow, through some combination of innate gift and external development, these Men have developed themselves into an Alpha state despite the meta-environment we find ourselves in. The Natural Alpha A lot of people call my credibility into question when they read my holding Corey Worthington up as an example of an apex Alpha. Guys who believe that Alpha should necessarily mean “virtuous leaders of men” are understandably insulted by Corey’s indifferent Alpha swagger. The ‘Qualities of Alpha’ debates aren’t going away, but I think there’s an overall consensus among the manosphere and legitimate psychologists alike that there is an innate (probably testosterone fueled) Alpha drive that manifests itself in human males. No one has to teach the average, healthy, five-year-old boy how to be Alpha - he gets it on his own. In various contexts that Til’ Alpha’ wants to explore his surroundings, take risks, see what works and see what doesn’t, even when the consequences may be endangering himself or destroying the thing he took apart to see how it worked. It may manifest as a boy attempting to ride wheelies on his bike or a kid tinkering with his dad’s computer, but that unrefined, irrationally confident, Alpha swagger, is by order of degrees, an innate element unique to the male condition. When a boy is unencumbered with an adult capacity for abstract thinking (ages 3-21 progressively) he is as Alpha as he will ever be. He is unapologetically Alpha and it takes a lifetime, and an entire world of feminized social conditioning to repress and/or crush that Alpha vigor and turn him into the pliable Beta the feminine imperative needs to insure its social primacy. This is precisely why the raw, irresponsible, irrepressible, obliviously un-self-aware Alpha energy of the Alpha Buddha/Corey Worthingtons of the world offend our sensibilities so well. All of the Game theory, PUA techniques, even feminine-serving appeals to Man- Up! or any other effort designed to help men better mimic or internalize an Alpha behavioral or mind set, all of those efforts’ latent purpose is to return a man back to that primal Alpha energy the five-year-old you had in spades. The Contextual Alpha In March of 2012, James Hooker, a 41-year-old married father left his wife and kids for his 18-year-old-student. He resigned from his job at Enochs High School in Modesto, California over the scandal that shook up a community and put one mom on a crusade to save her daughter from a man she called a “master manipulator.” The girl, Jordan met her teacher as a freshman, but both maintain nothing physical happened until she turned 18. Hooker claimed he saw Powers as “just a student” and had no romantic feelings toward her at first, but when her 18th birthday came around, things changed. They changed so much, in fact, that Hooker, left his wife and three kids (one of them a 17-year-old Enochs high school student as well) so that he could move in with Jordan. Well, as is manosphere godfather Roissy’s (now Heartiste) wont to do, the Chateau (Roissy’s blog) boldly nominated James Hooker as Alpha of the Month. As expected the post’s comments got heated, but that’s not the end of it. The SoSuave forum discussion thread created by the (sometimes overly) passionate members in response really gets down to the meat of the matter: How “Alpha” will Mr Hooker be seen by the general public? How “Alpha” does the 18year old’s friends think he is? (If she has or had any at this point.) What about new employment for the infamous Mr. Hooker? Will he take his ‘soulmate’ to work functions he may be required to attend? There are probably loads of weird situations they will find themselves in. Or will they become a pair of social recluses? Think about it. That dude isn’t Alpha he’s more of the Little Rascal’s Alphalpha. Pathetic nerd. Before I launch into my take on this situation I feel it’s incumbent upon me to throw out this disclaimer; I do not condone Hooker’s actions. At my time of writing this I have a daughter who will turn 15 in April and if there is any better indictment of the delusions of empowered single mothers and the inherent necessity of a strong, positive, masculine influence in a child’s upbringing, of either sex, I can’t think of it. Kids need the resolute, protective Fathers that far too many 'strong, independent women®’ emphatically resist, run off, or covertly despise - only to further shame them for a lack of presence when an incident such as this occurs. That said, I agree with the Chateau’s assessment - Hooker is an Alpha, but only contextually so. From Roissy seminal 16 Commandments of Poon (emphasis mine): XII. Maximize your strengths, minimize your weaknesses In the betterment of ourselves as men we attract women into our orbit. To accomplish this gravitational pull as painlessly and efficiently as possible, you must identify your natural talents and shortcomings and parcel your efforts accordingly. If you are a gifted jokester, don’t waste time and energy trying to raise your status in philosophical debate. If you write well but dance poorly, don’t kill yourself trying to expand your manly influence on the dance floor. Your goal should be to attract women effortlessly, so play to your strengths no matter what they are; there is a groupie for every male endeavor. Except World of Warcraft. As a teacher, James Hooker is afforded a default status authority. To students in a classroom, being the teacher confers a contextual presumption of mastery and thus a de facto social proof is conferred upon that person. In that theater, in that environment, the teacher is Alpha. A uniformed police officer is perceived as Alpha in his given role, despite his personally being a chump when off duty. As Roissy illustrates, Hooker was playing to his strengths. In virtually any other social setting he’d be perceived as a beta. The SoSuave forum and damn near every other casual observer peg this guy for the Beta-Symp he undoubtedly is, but in that classroom, to a 14 year old girl who gradually matures into an 18 year old woman, Hooker is Alpha, and probably the only Alpha she’d ever experienced. How “Alpha” will Mr Hooker be seen by the general public? In all likelihood, he’ll be more publicly reviled than legitimate sexual predators when the genders are reversed. The great unwashed masses in the pop culture narrative don’t recognize the legitimacy of Alpha influence as it is. To them it’s psychological manipulation, and to a calculated extent it really is, but the real question that nags them is why that manipulation is effective. They’ll blame it on the naivete of the girl, and her seeking a father figure, as well as the lasciviousness of Hooker, but what’s really uncomfortable is why the Alpha influence works. What about new employment for the infamous Mr Hooker? Will he take his ‘soulmate’ to work functions he may be required to attend? It’s precisely because of Hooker’s subscription to the soul-mate myth that he reeks of Beta. I have no doubt that he fluidly convinced himself of his noble intent narrative, casting himself as the savior for his adoring princess. White Knights are very prone to using their delusions of chivalry to rationalize good intent into the same behaviors they’d condemn in Players, PUAs or typical 'other guys’ in general. To venture a guess I’d expect that Hooker buys his own bullshit, and because of this he hasn’t given an afterthought to how it will affect his career, his relationship with his family, his kids or any future social circle. As an extension of this, along with his teaching job, Hooker has lost his contextual Alpha cred. As his young chippy matures more, she’ll begin to see that contextual Alpha status erode with every progressive shit test he fails - and removed from the environment that made him Alpha, fail he will. Alpha is as Alpha does In context, James Hooker parlayed enough Alpha mojo to land a solitary 18 year old girl; one he had to invest in for at least 4 consecutive years to consolidate on. In fact, I sincerely doubt he had any idea that he was situationally an Alpha to the point that he thought he could intentionally manipulate this girl with it. There is a vast difference between the contextual Alphaness of Hooker and the subconscious Zen mastery of it in Corey Worthington - the Alpha Buddha. Both of these guys are an affront to the sensibilities of the “Alpha = Leader-of-Men” faction of Alpha definers, but both tap into a common root of Alpha energy that women naturally respond to. It’s discomforting to think that the brave Marine fighting in Mogadishu, commanding the noble respect from his country and peers taps into the same Alpha energy that makes a guy like James Hooke

not a word

 

[Deleted member 15004]

I wonder if my local library has this book.

 

[Magical Apple]

The RATIONAL MALE Rollo Tomassi The Rational Male Rollo Tomassi The Rational Male, first edition copyright © 2013 Rollo Tomassi. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior permission of the publisher and author. ISBN: 1492777862 ISBN - 13: 978-1492777861 Published by Counterflow Media LLC, Nevada Design and layout by Rollo Tomassi. The Basics There is no ONE 3 The Cardinal Rule of Relationships 8 Truth to Power 9 The Desire Dynamic 13 Imagination 14 Schedules of Mating 16 Buffers 20 Compensation 22 Alpha 25 Defining Alpha 27 The Origins of Alpha 30 The Contextual Alpha 33 Plate Theory Plate Theory I - Abundance & Scarcity 40 Plate Theory II - Non-Exclusivity 43 Plate Theory III - Transitioning 47 Plate Theory IV - Goal-State Monogamy 52 Plate Theory V - Lady’s Game 55 Plate Theory VI - Scarcity to Abundance 58 Plugged In AFC - Average Frustrated Chump 63 Playing Friends 65 Letting Go of Invisible Friends 68 Enter White Knight 70 The Honor System 72 The Savior Schema 74 Inter-gender Friendship 76 Unplugging Dispelling the Magic 83 Identity Crisis 85 Dream Girls and Children with Dynamite 88 Kill the Beta 90 Appreciation 95 Dream Killers 98 Have A Look 101 The Five Stages of Unplugging 103 The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill 104 Game The Evolution of Game 111 Rewriting the Rules 117 Navigating the SMP 120 Just Be Yourself 125 The Nice Guy - Jerk Spectrum 128 Beta Game 131 The Pheromonal Beta 134 Dread Games 138 The Meta Game 141 Communication The Medium is the Message 147 Just Get It 151 Dijo Sin Hablar 154 The Horse’s Mouth 155 Qualities of the Prince 157 Social Conventions Operative Social Conventions 165 AFC Social Conventions 170 The Paradox of Commitment 174 Bitter Misogynists 176 Hypergamy The Disposables 183 War Brides 186 Mrs. Hyde 188 Hypergamy Doesn’t Care 192 Relational Equity 194 The Hypergamy Conspiracy 197 Women & Regret 200 The Pet 202 The Iron Rules of Tomassi Iron Rule I 209 Iron Rule II 212 Iron Rule III 214 Iron Rule IV 219 Iron Rule V 221 Iron Rule VI 224 Iron Rule VII 228 Iron Rule VIII 229 Iron Rule IX 232 Mythology The Myth of the Lonely Old Man 239 The Myth of Women & Sex 241 The Myth of the ‘Good Girl’ 244 The Myth of the Biological Clock 247 The Myth of Male Looks 249 The Myth of Leminine SMV 253 Of Love and War 257 The Feminine Imperative The Leminine Reality 265 The Leminine Mystique 270 The Wall 272 The Threat 275 Positive Masculinity vs. Equalism 278 Afterword Contents Introduction In January of 2001 1 was entering a state university for the first time in my life at the ripe age of 32. My relatively late-life enrollment was the result of a what I believed then was a misspent youth and I was atoning for the indiscretions of what I call my hock star’ 20’s. I had a lot of catching up to do thanks to the decisions I’d made in my early and mid-twenties and a sense of incompleteness that I felt at the time. In hindsight I’m glad I did return to school, better late than never, because I was learning the intrinsic value of an education. I can remember listening to the grumblings of guys in my class who were ten years my junior saying, “What the hell do I need to learn this shit for? It won’t help me in the job I’m studying for.” I suppose I might’ve felt the same way at 22 if I hadn’t been more concerned with playing the next gig in the next band I was in on a weekend in Hollywood. I could never have appreciated the value of being an educated person. While a good job is definitely a concrete goal of bettering oneself, being educated, on a great many subjects, and learning how to learn, is its own reward. Although I didn’t attend a ‘liberal arts university’ per se, my degree is in fine art. However after having worked in design, advertising, marketing and branding throughout my professional life I knew that my minor (if later a double major) had to be in psychology. My initial interest in psychology was due to the want of a better understanding of the often difficult personalities I was forced to deal with in my career, so personality studies and behaviorism was a natural fit for me. Much of what I have compiled in this book is the direct result of over a decade of applying these schools of psychology to the gender dynamics I’ve experienced personally, as well as the collective experiences of millions of men around the world. Connecting Dots While I was studying psychology, I felt a natural attraction toward behaviorism. Like most people, I was peripherally familiar with the more touchy-feely branches of psychology like psycho-analysis and the “sit down on the couch and lets talk about feelings” applications most people associate with psychology. Behaviorism was a much more concrete approach; one based on behaviors and the motivators for them. One of the primary foundations of Game-awareness is basing your estimation of a woman upon her actions and behaviors rather than her words or implied intents. This principle is founded in behaviorism’s cardinal principle - behavior is the only reliable evidence of motivation. Even motivations not consciously recognized by the actor can influence behavior regardless of a consciously rationalized motive. In other words, sometimes we don’t realize why we’re hypocrites or saints as the case may be. Coming to terms with this behavioral foundation was the first dot I connected between hard psychology and inter-gender dynamics. For roughly a year or two before I enrolled I’d been actively posting on a few online forums attempting to help some young men with their ‘girl problems’. Initially these forums weren’t in any way related to what would later become the ‘community’ or Game oriented in nature. I’d heard of the early Pick Up Artists like Mystery and a few others, but they weren’t promoting anything I hadn’t already known from my more libertine rock star twenties. I was more interested in helping these guys not make the mistakes (for much of the same reasons) with women that I had. However I just couldn’t shake the feeling that there was a distinct connection between what these guys were going through, what the PUAs of the time were advocating and the behavioral psychology I was becoming more and more saturated in. The average Beta guys who were agonizing over their girlfriend problems and the behavioral basis upon which PUA techniques were founded on had a common root in psychology. About this time I had joined the online community at SoSuave.com. This forum would become my testing ground for connecting the dots I was beginning to become aware of. I should say that I did make an effort to propose that inter-gender relations were based in, sometimes harsh, behaviorism with colleagues and teachers. I was kind of taken aback more often than not when the same teachers who were promoting behavioral psychology as a hard science were the most outspoken critics of what I was brining to light for them. I couldn’t understand, then, what would possibly prevent them from connecting the dots and coming to the uncomfortable conclusions I was making. I know now, and you will too by the end of this book, but at the time I hadn’t figured out the influence the feminine imperative and romantic idealism had on their willingness to accept what I was proposing in spite of their adherence to hard behaviorism. My inquiries and hashing out theories and ideas would have to be done on a forum where I could look for input, or maybe find that other men had concepts I hadn’t considered, in a meeting place of similar ideas. SoSuave was that forum for me for well over twelve years. Most of the concepts you will read in this book are the result of over a decade of debate, critical inquiry and refinement. However, in most cases, I still encourage their questioning and none are unmodifiable or above further refinement. What you’re about to read are a refinement of the core ideas and concepts I’ve formalized on my blog - The Rational Male (therationalmale.com). I began The Rational Male at the request of my readers on various men’s forums and comments on blogs in the ‘manosphere’ in 2011. After the popularity of the blog exploded inside a year it became apparent that a book form of the basic principles was needed for new readers as I moved past them, and built upon the prior concepts. For the most part I’ve rewritten and edited for publishing the blog posts of the first year at Rational Male. I’ve left in most of the jingoisms and acronyms that are characteristic of the blog (for instance, SMV is sexual market value) and are commonly used in the manosphere, however I’ve made every attempt to define them as I go along. Furthermore, many of the concepts I explore in this book came from a question by one of my readers. As with most commenters, their anonymity is assumed in the form their online ‘handle’. The important thing to remember is the concept being discussed and not so much the importance of who is proposing or contradicting a concept. Before you begin reading The primary reason I decided to codify the Rational Male into a book came from a reader by the name of Jaquie. Jaquie was an older, married woman, who genuinely took to what I proposed about inter-gender dynamics on Rational Male. Jaquie wasn’t exactly a typical reader for me, but she asked me to help her understand some concepts better so she could help her son who was about to marry a woman whom she knew would be detrimental to his life. Jaquie said, “I wish you had a book out with all of this stuff in it so I could give it to him. He’s very Beta and whipped, but if I had a book to put in his hands he would read it.” So it is for the sons of Jaquie’s that I decided to put this book out. And it’s in this spirit that I’ll need to ask you, the reader, to clear your head of a few things before you begin to digest any of it. The Rational Male literally has millions of readers world-wide, so there’s a strong likelihood that you bought this book to keep on a shelf and loan to friends because you’re already familiar with its concepts. There’s a certain power and legitimacy that the printed word has that a blog or some online article lacks, so if you already are a Rational Male reader be sure you do loan the book out, or encourage the plugged-in to read and discuss it. If you are picking this book up for the first time, or had it handed to you by a friend or loved one, and have never heard of the Rational Male or the manosphere or have had any exposure to the ideas I put forth here, I’ll humbly ask that you read with an open mind. That sounds like an easy cop out - open your mind - it kind of sounds like something a religious cult would preface their literature with. We all like to think we already have open minds and we’re all perfectly rational, and perfectly capable of critical thinking. I ask you to clear your head of the preconceptions you have of gender because what you’re about to read here are very radical concepts; concepts that will challenge your perspective on women, men, how they interact with each other, and how social structures evolve around those relations. You will violently disagree with some of these concepts, and others will give you that “ah ha!” moment of realization. Some of these concepts will grate on the investment your ego has in certain beliefs about how men and women ought to relate with each other, while others will validate exactly the experiences you may have had personally with them. Some are ugly. Some are not complementary of women and some of men, you’ll think I’m a misogynist on first glance because it’s the default response you’ve been taught to react with. For others, you might feel some kind of vindication for getting burned by your ex and realizing what was at play when it happened. I realize it’s a tall order, but strive not to let your personal feelings color what I lay out for you here. You’ll love me and you’ll hate me. You’ll think “well, not in my case, and here’s why,..” or you’ll think “wow this is some really ground breaking stuff.” I’m not a psychologist, or a PUA, or a men’s rights activist, or a motivational speaker. I’m just a guy who’s connected some dots. Introduction “Why do my eyes hurt?” “You’ve never used them before. ” The Basics ONEitis: An unhealthy romantic obsession with a single person. Usually accompanied by unreciprocated affection and completely unrealistic idealization of the said person. ONEitis is paralysis. You cease to mature, you cease to move, you cease to be you. There is no ONE. This is the soul-mate myth. There are some good Ones and some bad Ones, but there is no ONE. Anyone telling you anything else is selling you something. There are lots of 'special someones’ out there for you, just ask the divorced / widowed person who’s remarried after their “soul-mate” has died or moved on with another person they insist is their real soul-mate. This is what trips people up about the soul-mate myth, it is this fantasy that we all at least in some way share an idealization of - that there is ONE perfect mate for each of us, and as soon as the planets align and fate takes its course we’ll know that we’re ‘ intended ’ for each other. While this may make for a gratifying romantic comedy plot, it’s hardly a realistic way to plan your life. In fact it’s usually paralyzing. What I find even more fascinating is how common the idea is (and particularly for guys) that a nuts & bolts view of life should be trumped by this fantasy in the area of inter- sexual relationships. Men who would otherwise recognize the value of understanding psychology, biology, sociology, evolution, business, engineering, etc., men with a concrete awareness of the interplay we see these aspects take place in our lives on a daily basis, are some of the first guys to become violently opposed to the idea that maybe there isn’t “someone for everyone” or that there are a lot more ONEs out there that could meet or exceed the criteria we subconsciously set for them to be the ONE. I think it comes off as nihilistic, or this dread that maybe their ego-investment in this belief is false - it’s like saying “God is dead” to the deeply religious. It’s just too terrible to contemplate that there maybe no ONE, or there maybe several ONEs to spend their lives with. This western romanticized mythology is based on the premise that there is only ONE perfect mate for any single individual and as much as a lifetime can and should be spent in constant search of this 'soul¬ mate.’ So strong and so pervasive is this myth in our collective consciousness that it has become akin to a religious statement, and in fact has been integrated into many religious doctrines as the feminization of western culture has spread. I think there’s been a mischaracterization of ONEitis. It’s necessary to differentiate between a healthy relationship based on mutual affinity and respect, and a lopsided ONEitis based relationship. I’ve had more than a few guys seeking my advice, or challenging my take on ONEitis, essentially asking me for permission to accept ONEitis as legitimate monogamy. “But Rollo, it’s got to be OK for a guy to have ONEitis for his wife or girlfriend. After all she’s the ONE for him, right?” In my estimation ONEitis is an unhealthy psychological dependency that is the direct result of the continuous socialization of the soul-mate myth in our collective consciousness. What’s truly frightening is that ONEitis has become associated with being a healthy normative aspect of a long term relationship (LTR) or marriage. I come to the conclusion that ONEitis is based in sociological roots, not only due to it being a statement of personal belief, but by the degree to which this ideology is disseminated and mass marketed in popular culture through media, music, literature, movies, etc. Dating services like eHarmony shamelessly marketeer and exploit exactly the insecurities that this dynamic engenders in people desperately searching for the ONE “they were intended for.” The idea that men possess a natural capacity for protection, provisioning and semi-monogamy has merit from both a social and bio-psychological standpoint, but a ONEitis psychosis is not a byproduct of it. Rather, I would set it apart from this healthy protector/provider dynamic since ONEitis essentially sabotages what our natural propensities would otherwise filter. ONEitis is insecurity run amok while a person is single, and potentially paralyzing when coupled with the object of that ONEitis in an LTR. The same neurotic desperation that drives a person to settle for their ONE whether healthy or unhealthy is the same insecurity that paralyzes them from abandoning a damaging relationship - This is their ONE and how could they ever live without them? Or, they’re my ONE, but all I need is to fix myself or fix them to have my idealized relationship. This idealization of a relationship is at the root of ONEitis. With such a limiting, all-or-nothing binary approach to searching for ONE needle in the haystack, and investing emotional effort over the course of a lifetime, how do we mature into a healthy understanding of what that relationship should really entail? The very pollyanna, idealized relationship - the “happily ever after” - that belief in a ONE promotes as an ultimate end, is thwarted and contradicted by the costs of the constant pursuit of the ONE for which they’ll settle for. After the better part of a lifetime is invested in this ideology, how much more difficult will it be to come to the realization that the person they’re with isn’t their ONE? To what extents will a person go to in order to protect a lifetime of this ego investment? At some point in a ONEitis relationship one participant will establish dominance based on the powerlessness that this ONEitis necessitates. There is no greater agency for a woman than to know beyond doubt that she is the only source of a man’s need for sex and intimacy. A ONEitis mindset only cements this into the understanding of both parties. For a man who believes that the emotionally and psychologically damaging relationship he has ego-invested himself is with the only person in his lifetime he’s ever going to be compatible with, there is nothing more paralyzing in his maturation. The same of course holds true for women, and this is why we shake our heads when see an exceptionally beautiful woman go chasing back to her abusive and indifferent Jerk boyfriend, because she believes he is her ONE and the only source of security available to her. Hypergamy may be her root imperative for sticking with him, but it’s the soul¬ mate myth, the fear of the “ONE that got away” that makes for the emotional, almost spiritual, investment. The definition of Power is not financial success, status or influence over others, but the degree to which we have control over our own lives. Subscribing to the soul-mate mythology necessitates that we recognize powerlessness in this arena of our lives. Better I think it would be to foster a healthy understanding that there is no ONE. There are some good Ones and there are some bad Ones, but there is no ONE. Religion of the Soul-Mate What you’ve just read was one of my earliest posts back on the SoSuave forums from around 2003-04.1 was finishing my degree then and had the Fallacy of the ONE graphically illustrated for me in a psychology class one day. I was in class, surrounded by (mostly) much younger students than myself, all very astute and as intellectual as they come for mid twenty-somethings. At one point the discussion had come around to religion and much of the class expressed being agnostic or atheist, or “spiritual, but not religious”. The rationale was of course that religion and belief could be explained as psychological (fear of mortality) constructs that were expanded to sociological dynamics. Later in that discussion the idea of a 'soul mate’ came up. The professor didn’t actually use the word 'soul’, but rather couched the idea by asking for a show of hands as to how many of the class believed “there was a special someone out there for them?” or if they feared “the ONE that got away.” Damn near the entire class raised their hands. For all of their rational empiricism and appeals to realism in regards to spirituality, they (almost) unanimously expressed a quasi- Karmic belief in connecting with another idealized person on an intimate level for a lifetime. Even the Frat guys and hook-up girls who I knew weren’t expressly looking for anything long term in their dating habits still raised their hands in assent to a belief in a ONE. Some later explained what that ONE meant to them, and most had differing definitions of that idealization - some even admitted to it being an idealization as the discussion progressed - yet almost all of them still had what would otherwise be termed an irrational belief in ‘predestination’ or, even amongst the least spiritual, that it’s just part of life to pair off with someone significant and there was “someone for everyone”. This discussion was the catalyst for one of my awakening realizations - despite all odds, people largely feel entitled to, or deserving of, an important love of their life. Statistically and pragmatically this is ridiculous, but there it is. The feminized Disney-fication of this core concept has been romanticized and commercialized to the point of it becoming a religion, even for the expressly non-religious. The Shakespearean longing for the ONE, the search for another soul (mate) who was destined to be our match has been systematically distorted beyond all reason. And as I’ll elaborate later, men will take their own lives in the delusion of having lost their soul-mate. Soul-Mate Men This perversion of the soul-mate myth is attributable to a large part of the feminized social conventions we deal with today. The fear of isolation from our imagined soul-mate, or the fear of having irrecoverably lost that ‘perfect ONE’ for us fuels so much of the personal and social neuroses we find in the contemporary matrix of our society. For example, much of the fear inherent in the Myth of the Lonely Old Man loses its teeth without a core belief in the Soul- Mate Myth. The fear of loss and the delusions of Relational Equity only really matter when the person men believe that equity should influence is their predestined ONE. The feminine imperative recognized the overwhelming power the Soul-Mate Myth had over men (and women) from the beginnings of its rise to ascendancy as the primary gender social imperative. Virtually all of the distortions of the core soul-mate dynamic evolved as a controlling schema for men. When it is soul-mate women who are the primary reward for a soul-mate necessitous man, there are a lot of opportunities to consolidate that power upon. To be clear, don’t think this is some fiendish plot of a fem-centric cabal socially engineering that soul-mate fear into men. Generations of men, raised to be oblivious to it, willingly and actively help perpetuate the Soul-Mate Myth. Soul-Mate Women Although Hypergamy plays a large role in determining what makes for an idealized soul-mate for women, they aren’t immune to the exploitations of that core fear. Though it’s more an unfortunate byproduct than an outright manipulation, I’d argue that in some ways hypergamy intensifies that neurosis. An Alpha Widow knows all too well the languishing associated with pining for the Alpha that got away - particularly when she’s paired off long-term with the dutiful, Beta provider after her sexual market value (SMV) declines. For women, the soul-mate represents that nigh unattainable combination of arousing Alpha dominance matched with a loyal providership for her long term security that only she can tame out of him. Hypergamy hates the soul-mate principle, because the soul-mate is an absolute definition, whereas hypergamy must alway test for perfection. Hypergamy asks, “Is he the ONE? Is he the ONE?” and the Soul-Mate Myth replies, “He HAS to be the ONE, he’s your soul-mate, and there’s ONLY one of those.” Building the Mystery Due to this core concept and soul-mate mythology, both sexes will seek to perfect that idealization for themselves - even under the least ideal of conditions and expressions. We want to build our intimate relations into that soul-mate idealism in order to relieve the fear and solve the problem, and most times so badly that we’ll deftly ignore the warnings, abuses and consequences of having done so. For women the impact of the most significant Alpha male is what initially defines that soul-mate idealization. For men it may be the first woman to become sexual with him or the one who best exemplifies a woman he (mistakenly) believes can love him in a male-defined orientation of love. However, these are the points of origin for building that soul-mate ideal upon. This ideal is then compounded upon with layers of investments in the hopes that this person “might actually be the one fate has prescribed for them.” Emotional investment, personal, financial, even life-potential investments and sacrifices then follow in an effort to create a soul-mate. In the absence of an ideal, one must be created from available resources. This process is why I say the Soul-Mate Myth is ridiculous - it’s psychologically much more pragmatic to construct another person to fit that ideal than it ever will be to “wait for fate to take its course.” People subscribing to the myth would rather build a soul-mate, consequences be damned. So women will attempt to Build a better Beta, or tame down an Alpha, while men will attempt to turn a whore into a housewife, or vice versa. One of the most bitter aftertastes of having awakened to the red-pill truth is abandoning old paradigms for new. I’ve described this before as akin to killing an old friend, and one friend that needs killing is exactly this mythology. Disabusing yourself of this core fear is vital to fully unplugging yourself from the old paradigm, because so much of fem-centric social conditioning is dependent upon it. Dropping the Soul-Mate Myth isn’t the nihilism a lot of people might have you believe it is. If anything it will free you to have a better, healthier future relationship with someone who is genuinely important to you - a relationship based on genuine desire, mutual respect, complimentary understanding of each other and love, rather than one based on a fear of losing your ONE and only representation of contentment in this life. In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. This is a foundation of any relationship, not just intersexual ones, but family, business, etc. relationships as well. It is a dynamic that is always in effect. For my own well being and that of my family’s, I need my employer more than he needs me, ergo I get up for work in the morning and work for him. And while I am also a vital part for the uninterrupted continuance of his company and endeavors, he simply needs me less than I need him. Now I could win the lottery tomorrow or he may decide to cut my pay or limit my benefits, or I may complete my Masters Degree and decide that I can do better than to keep myself yoked to his cart indefinitely, thereby, through some condition either initiated by myself or not, I am put into a position of needing him less than he needs me. At this point he is forced into a position of deciding how much I am worth to his ambitions and either part ways with me or negotiate a furtherance of our relationship. The same plays true for intersexual relationships. Whether you want to base your relationship on ‘power’ or not isn’t the issue; it’s already in play from your first point of attraction. You are acceptable to her for meeting any number of criteria and she meets your own as well. If this weren’t the case you simply would not initiate a mutual relationship. In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. This is a foundation of any relationship, not just intersexual ones, but family, business, etc. relationships as well. It is a dynamic that is always in effect. For my own well being and that of my family’s, I need my employer more than he needs me, ergo I get up for work in the morning and work for him. While I am also a vital part for the uninterrupted continuance of his company and endeavors, he simply needs me less than I need him. Now I could win the lottery tomorrow or he may decide to cut my pay or limit my benefits, or I may complete my Masters Degree and decide that I can do better than to keep myself yoked to his cart indefinitely, thereby, through some condition either initiated by myself or not, I am put into a position of needing him less than he needs me. At this point he is forced into a position of evaluating my necessity to his future ambitions and either part ways with me or negotiate a furtherance of our relationship. The same plays true for intersexual relationships. Whether you want to base your relationship on ‘power’ or not isn’t the issue; it’s already in play from your first point of attraction. You are acceptable to her for meeting any number of her criteria and she meets your own as well. If this weren’t the case you simply would not initiate a mutual relationship. This is the first comparison we make with another individual - call it ‘sizing up’ if you like - but we make innate (and often unconscious) comparisons about everything and in the case of initial attraction we decide if the other person is acceptable for our own intimacy. This principle isn’t so much about ‘power’ as it is about control. This might sound like semantics, but it makes a difference. It’s very easy to slip into binary arguments and think that what I mean by the cardinal rule of relationships is that one participant must absolutely rule over the other - a domineering dominant to a doormat submissive. The problem with our modern interpretation of power is to think of it in extreme, absolute terms. Control in a healthy relationship passes back and forth as desire and need dictate for each partner. In an unhealthy relationship you have an unbalanced manipulation of this control by a partner. Although control is never in complete balance, it becomes manipulation when one partner, in essence blackmails, the other with what would otherwise be a reinforcer for the manipulated under a healthy circumstance. This happens for a plethora different reasons, but the condition comes about by two ways - the submissive participant becomes conditioned to allow the manipulation to occur and/or the dominate initiates the manipulation. In either case the rule still holds true - the one who needs the other the least has the most control. Nowhere is this more evident than in interpersonal relationships. Too many people who I’ve counseled and read my blog assume that this Rule means that I’m advocating the maintaining a position of dominance at the expense of their partner’s best interests; far from it. I do however advocate that people - young men in particular - develop a better sense of self-worth and a better understanding of their true efficacy in their relationships (assuming you decide to become involved in one). Don’t get me wrong, both sexes are guilty of manipulation; Battered women go back to their abusive boyfriends/husbands and pussy-whipped men compromise themselves and their ambitions to better serve their girlfriends insecurities. My intent in promoting this Rule is to open the eyes of young men who are already predisposed to devaluing themselves and placing women as the goal of their lives rather than seeing themselves as the prize to be sought after. Compromise is always going to be a part of any relationship, but what’s key is realizing when that compromise becomes the result of manipulation, what is in effect and developing the confidence to be uncompromising in those situations. This is where a firm understanding of the cardinal rule of relationships becomes essential. There’s nothing wrong with backing down from an argument you have with your girlfriend, but there is something wrong when you continually compromise yourself in order to ‘keep the peace’ with the understanding that she’ll withhold intimacy as a result of you holding your ground. That is a power play, also known as a ‘shit test’. She initiates it thus becoming the controlling party. No woman’s intimacy (i.e. sex) is ever worth that compromise because in doing so you devalue your own worth to her. Once this precedent is set, she will progressively have less respect for you - exactly opposite of the popular conception that she’ll appreciate your compromising for her and reward you for this. And really, what are you compromising in order to achieve? Set in this condition, you’re appealing for her intimacy. That isn’t genuine desire or real interest in you, it’s a subtle psychological test (that all too many men are unaware of) meant to determine who needs the other more. There is no more a superior confidence for a man than one with the self-understanding that he will not compromise himself for the recognized manipulations of a woman, and the fortitude to walk away knowing he has in the past, and will in the future find a better prospect than her. This is the man who passes the shit test. It’s called ‘enlightened self-interest’, and a principle I wholly endorse. Truth to Power Denying the utility of Power, vilifying it’s usages, is in itself a means of using Power. Real change works from the inside out. If you don’t change your mind about yourself, you wont change anything else. Women can change their hair color, their makeup, clothes, breast size, and any number of cosmetic alteration on a whim, or as they can afford them, but the constant discontent, the constant inadequacies they complain of are rooted in their self-perceptions, not how others really perceive them. This is an outside-in mentality; hoping the external will change the internal, and it’s just this mentality that lesser men apply to themselves - the only difference being the application. The Average Frustrated Chump (AFC for lack of a better term) has the same problem as the vain woman (OK, really any woman) - a lack of true self¬ understanding of their own problem. It’s very difficult to do self-analysis and self-criticism, particularly when it comes to questioning our own beliefs and the reasons our personalities are what they are. It’s akin to telling someone they’re not living their lives ‘correctly’ or that they’re raising their children ‘wrong’; only it’s more difficult because we’re doing the telling about ourselves to ourselves. Self-estimation (not self-esteem) never happens spontaneously, there always has to be some crisis to prompt it. Anxiety, trauma and crisis are necessary catalysts to stimulate self-consciousness. A breakup, a death, a betrayal; tragically, it’s at these points in our lives that we do our best introspection, we have our ‘moments of clarity’ and yes, discover what abysmal, simpering chumps we’ve allowed ourselves to be molded into. Denial The first step to really unplugging from our preconditioning (i.e. the feminine Matrix) is recognizing that this conditioning has led to the beliefs we think are integral to our personalities. The psychological term for this is called ‘ego- investment’. When a person internalizes a mental schema so thoroughly, and has become conditioned to it for so long, it becomes an integral part of their personality. So to attack the belief is to, literally, attack the person. This is why we see such a violent reaction to people’s political, religious, inter-social/inter- sexual, inter-gender, etc. expressions of belief - they perceive it as a personal attack, even when presented with irrefutable, empirical evidence that challenges the veracity of those beliefs. One common frustration that Game-aware Men express is how difficult it is to open an AFCs eyes as to why he’s not hooking up, why he’s not getting dates (or 2nd dates if he is), why he’s constantly getting 'lets just be friends’ (LJBF) rejections, etc., and all the flaws in what is really ego-investment internalizations. As I’m fond of saying, it’s dirty work unplugging chumps from the Matrix, and this is made all the more difficult when a person is in a categorical state of denial. People resort to denial when recognizing that the truth would destroy something they hold dear. In the case of a cheating partner, denial lets you avoid acknowledging evidence of your own humiliation. Short of catching a spouse in bed with your best friend, evidence of infidelity is usually ambiguous. It’s motivated skepticism. You’re more skeptical of things you don’t want to believe and demand a higher level of proof. Denial is unconscious, or it wouldn’t work: if you know you’re closing your eyes to the truth, some part of you knows what the truth is and denial can’t perform its protective function. One thing we all struggle to protect is a positive self-image. The more important the aspect of your self-image that’s challenged by the truth, the more likely you are to go into denial. If you have a strong sense of self-worth and competence, your self-image can take hits but remain largely intact; if you’re beset by self¬ doubt (a hallmark of self-righteous AFC thinking), however, any acknowledgment of failure can be devastating and any admission of error painful to the point of being unthinkable. Self-justification and denial arise from the dissonance between believing you’re competent, and making a mistake, which clashes with that image. Solution: deny the mistake. Attribute it to an outside element (women won’t play by “the rules”) rather than resort to introspection (maybe I’m wrong about “the rules”?). Therefore we see AFCs tenaciously cling to a moralistic sense of purpose in their methods which is only reinforced by popular culture in our media, our music, eHarmony, our religion, etc. Articles of Power The term Power has a lot of misapplied connotations to it. When we think of Powerful people, we think of influence, wealth, prestige, status and the ability to have others do our bidding - all of these are not Power. As much as we’d like to convince ourselves that women are attracted to this definition of Power, this is false. Because what I’ve described as aspects of Power here are really manifestations of Power. Here’s a cosmic secret revealed for you: Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances. Real Power is the degree to which we actually control the directions of our lives. When we allow our thinking, our personality disorders and our mental schemas, combined with their accompanying behaviors, to determine the course of our decisions, we relinquish real Power. The man who succumbs, by force or by will, to the responsibilities, liabilities and accountabilities that are required of him by society, marriage, commitment, family, fatherhood, career choice, the military, etc. leaves him very little influence over the course of his own life. The painter Paul Gauguin is one of history’s most powerful men. At middle age Paul was a “successful” banker, with a wife and children and by all appearances, a man of great merit and considerable wealth. Then one day Paul decided he’d had enough and wanted to paint. He left his wife, children and his money, and decided he would become a painter. He cast off his former life to live the life he chose, he had the power to assume control of it. Eventually he died in Tahiti, but not after having one of the most interesting of lives and becoming a world renowned painter. You may think, what a horrible man he was to abandon his responsibilities to selfishly pursue his own desires, but the fact remains that he had the Power within himself to do so that most men would shudder to even consider. So entrapped are we in our self-expectation and self-imposed limitations that we fail to see that we have always had the keys to our own prisons - we’re just scared shitless to use them. This Power is the root of that all important term ‘confidence’ we toss out every time we tell a 19 year old chump what women really want so he can get laid. It’s this ability to make our own decisions, right or wrong, and to confidently own them that separate us from “other guys.” It’s this self-guided Power that evokes a seemingly irrational confidence to Spin Plates, to date non-exclusively, to assert ourselves and to be unafraid to make ourselves the prize, and it’s just this Power that women want to be associated with. Lack of this Power is exactly what makes master Pick Up Artists (PUAs) revert to some of the most pathetic AFCs once they become involved in an LTR. They sell women on this idealization and the perception that they possess this Power only to discover the AFC insecurities these behaviors were meant to cover up once they’ve bought the act. This isn’t to devalue PUA skills as effective behavior sets, rather it’s meant to illustrate the behaviors that should be manifest as a result of effecting a real personal change. It should be that adopting a positive-masculine mental schema prompts these PUA skills as a result. Instead we have the cart before the horse in a mad rush to get that all important pussy we’ve been deprived of for so long, by masking our deficit in real Power and understanding with rote memorized PUA techniques hoping that by practicing them they’ll turn into “natural game” and we’ll mature enough to initiate a lasting personal change. We’ll return to this later. The Soul-Mate Myth There is no ONE Chapter I The Cardinal Rule of Relationships You cannot negotiate genuine Desire. This is a very simple principle that most Men and the vast majority of women are willfully ignorant of. One the most common personal problems I’ve been asked advice for in the past 10 years is some variation of “how do I get her back?” Usually this breaks down into men seeking some methodology to return his relationship to an earlier state where a previously passionate woman couldn’t keep her hands off of him. Six months into a comfortable familiarity and the thrill is gone, but in truth it’s the genuine desire that is gone. It’s often at this stage that a man will resort to negotiation. Sometimes this can be as subtle as him progressively and systematically doing things for her in the hopes that she’ll reciprocate with the same sexual / intimate fervor they used to have. Other times a married or long term couple may go to couples counseling to “resolve their sex issues” and negotiate terms for her sexual compliance. He’ll promise to do the dishes and a load of laundry more often in exchange for her feigned sexual interest in him. Yet, no matter what terms are offered, no matter how great an external effort he makes so deserving of reward, the genuine desire is not there for her. In fact, she feels worse for not having the desire after such efforts were made for her compliance. Her desire has become an obligation. Negotiated desire only ever leads to obligated compliance. This is why her post¬ negotiation sexual response is often so lackluster and the source of even further frustration on his part. She may be more sexually available to him, but the half¬ hearted experience is never the same as when they first met when there was no negotiation, just spontaneous desire for each other. From a male perspective, and particularly that of an uninitiated beta male, negotiation of desire seems a deductive, rational solution to the problem. Men tend to innately rely on deductive reasoning; otherwise known as an “if then” logic stream. The code is often something like this: I need sex + women have the sex I want + query women about their conditions for sex + meet prerequisites for sex = the sex I want. Makes sense right? It’s simple deductive pragmatism, but built on a foundation that relies on a woman’s accurate self-evaluations. The genuine desire they used to experience at the outset of their relationship was predicated upon a completely unknown set of variables. Overtly communicating a desire for reciprocal desire creates obligation, and sometimes even ultimatums. Genuine desire is something a person must come to - or be led to - of their own volition. You can force a woman by threat to comply with behaving in a desired manner, but you cannot make her want to behave that way. A prostitute will fuck you for an exchange, it doesn’t mean she wants to. Whether in a monogamous marriage, LTR or a one night stand (ONS), strive for genuine desire in your relationships. Half of the battle is knowing you want to be with a woman who wants to please you, not one who feels obligated to. You will never draw this genuine desire from her by overt means, but you can covertly lead her to this genuine desire. The trick in provoking real desire is in keeping her ignorant of your intent to provoke it. Real desire is created by her thinking it’s something she wants, not something she has to do. The Desire Dynamic A woman’s imagination is the single most useful tool in your Game arsenal. Every technique, every casual response, every gesture, intimation and subcommunication hinges on stimulating a woman’s imagination. Competition anxiety relies on it. Demonstrating Higher Value (DHV) relies on it. Prompting sexual tension relies on it. Call it “Caffeinating the Hamster” if you will, but stimulating a woman’s imaginings is the single most potent talent you can develop in any context of a relationship. This is the single greatest failing of average frustrated chumps; they vomit out everything about themselves, divulging the full truth of themselves to women in the mistaken belief that women desire that truth as a basis for qualifying for their intimacy. Learn this now: Women never want full disclosure. Nothing is more self- satisfying for a woman than to think she’s figured a Man out based solely on her mythical feminine intuition (i.e. imagination). When a man overtly confirms his character, his story, his value, etc. for a woman, the mystery is dispelled and the biochemical rush she enjoyed from her imaginings, her suspicions, her self-confirmations about you are gone. Most guys with a Beta male mindset classically do exactly this on the first date and wonder why they get LJBF’d promptly after it - this is why. Familiarity is anti- seductive. Nothing kills Game, organic passion and libido like comfortable familiarity. Despite their common filibuster tactics, women don’t want to be comfortable with a potential (or proven) sex partner, they need their imaginations stoked to be excited, aroused and anxious to want sex with a potential partner. In an LTR there’s an even more critical need to keep prodding that imagination. I would go so far as to say it’s imperative for a healthy relationship, but then you’ll ask, how do you go about that when your LTR girlfriend or wife already knows your story and the familiarity becomes cemented in? The easy answer is never let it be from the outset - the health of any LTR you might entertain depends and survives on the frame you enter into it with. The foundations of a healthy LTR are laid while you’re single and dating non- exclusively. I’ve yet to meet the guy who’s told me he’s getting more frequent, more intense sex after his LTR / Marriage / Live-in situation was established. The primary reason for this is the relaxation of the competition anxiety that made the urgency of fucking you with lustful abandon in your dating phase an imperative to get you to commit to her frame. That’s the crux of the matter that so many guys fail in, they surrender the frame before they commit to an LTR. They believe, (thanks to their feminine conditioning) that commitment necessitates, and is synonymous with, acquiescing to her frame control. Combine this with anti-seductive familiarity and the growing commonness of your own value because of it, and you can see exactly why her sexual interest wanes. So what do you do to prevent that? First and foremost, understand that whose frame you enter into an LTR sets the foundation of that LTR. If you find yourself buying into an “it’s women’s world and we just live in it” mentality where your default presumption is that commitment means she wins by default, you lose and that’s just how it is, don’t even consider an LTR. She enters your world, not the other way around. Secondly, you need to cultivate an element of unpredictability about yourself prior to, and into, an LTR. Always remember, perfect is boring. Women will cry a river about wanting Mr. Dependable and then go off to fuck Mr. Exciting. In an LTR it’s necessary to be both, but not one at the expense of the other. Too many married men are terrified to rock the excitement boat with their wives or LTRs because their sex lives hang in the balance of placating to her and her already preset frame. She must be reminded daily why you’re fun, unpredictable and exciting, not only to her, but other women as well. This requires covertly, tactfully, demonstrably implying that other women find you desirable. Women crave the chemical rush that comes from suspicion and indignation. If you don’t provide it, they’ll happily get it from tabloids, romance novels, The View, Tyra Banks or otherwise living vicariously through their single girlfriends. By playfully staying her source of that rush you maintain the position of stimulating her imagination. Married men, who were defeated before they committed, don’t think that elements of Game apply to marriage out of fear of upsetting their wives frame, when in fact being cocky & funny, neg hits and many other aspects of Game work wonderfully. Just kicking her in the ass or busting her chops, playfully, is sometimes enough to send the message that you’re fearless of her response. You can break her frame with cockiness and the imaginings that come with it. Breaking from an established, predictable familiarity is often a great way to fire her imagination. Married guys will report how sexual their wives become after they get to the gym and start shaping up after a long layoff (or for the first time). It’s easy to pass this off as looking better makes women more aroused (which is true), but underneath that is the breaking of a pattern. You’re controllable and predictable so long as you’re pudgy and listless - what other woman would want you? But start changing your patterns, get into shape, make more money, get a promotion, improve and demonstrate your higher value in some appreciable way and the imagination and competition anxiety returns. Imagination There are methods and social conventions women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male’s genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she’s capable of attracting. Ideally the best Man should exemplify both, but rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by an innate need for security, the feminine as a whole had to develop social conventions and methodologies (which change as her environment and personal conditions do) to effect this. Not only are men up against a female genetic imperative, but also centuries-old feminine social conventions established and adapted from a time long before human beings could accurately determine genetic origins. I’ve detailed in many of my blog posts that mate selection is a psycho-biological function that millennia of evolution has hardwired into the psyches of both sexes. So internalized and socialized is this process into our collective unconsciousness that we rarely recognize we’re subject to these motivators even when we repeatedly manifest the same behaviors prompted by them (ex. women having a second kid with the Alpha Bad Boy). It’s simple deductive logic to follow that for a species to survive it must provide its offspring with the best possible conditions to ensure its survival - either that or to reproduce in such quantity that it ensures survival. The obvious application of this for women is sharing parental investment with the best possible mate she can attract and who can provide long term security for her and any potential offspring. Thus women are biologically, psychologically and sociologically the filters of their own reproduction, where as men’s reproductive methodology is to scatter as much of his genetic material as humanly possible to the widest pool of sexually available females. He of course has his own criteria for mating selection and determining the best genetic pairing for his reproduction (i.e. “she’s gotta be hot”), but his criteria is certainly less discriminating than that of women (i.e. “no one’s ugly after 2am”). This is evidenced in our own hormonal biology; healthy men possess between 12 andl7 times the amount of testosterone (the primary hormone in sexual arousal) women do and women produce substantially more estrogen (instrumental in sexual caution) and oxytocin (fostering feelings of security and nurturing) than men. That stated, both of these methodologies conflict in practice. For a woman to best ensure the survival of her offspring, a man must necessarily abandon his method of reproduction in favor of her own. This then sets a contradictory imperative for him to pair with a woman who will satisfy his methodology. A male must sacrifice his reproductive schedule to satisfy that of the woman he pairs with. Thus, with so much genetic potential at stake on his part of the risk, he wants not only to ensure that she is the best possible candidate for breeding (and future breeding), but also to know that his progeny will benefit from both parent’s investment. Side note: One interesting outcome of this psycho-biological dynamic is men’s ability to spot their own children in a crowd of other children more quickly and with greater acuity than even their mothers. Studies have shown that men have the ability to more quickly and accurately identify their own children in a room full of kids dressed in the same uniforms than the mothers of the child. Again, this stresses the subconscious importance of this genetic trade off. These are the rudiments of human sexual selection and reproduction. Obviously there are many other social, emotional and psychological intricacies that are associated with these fundamentals, but these are the underlying motivations and considerations that subconsciously influence sexual selection. Social Conventions To counter this subconscious dynamic to their own genetic advantage women initiate social conventions and psychological schemas to better facilitate their own breeding methodologies. This is why women always have the “prerogative to change her mind” and the most fickle of behaviors become socially excusable, while men’s behavior is constrained to a higher standard of responsibility to “do the right thing” which is invariably to the advantage of a woman’s reproductive strategy . This is why guys who are 'Players’, and fathers who abandon mothers to pursue their innate reproduction method are villains, and fathers who selflessly sacrifice themselves financially, emotionally and life decision-wise, even to the benefit of children they didn’t father, are considered social heroes for complying with women’s genetic imperatives. This is also the root motivation for female-specific social dynamics such as “lets just be friends” (LJBF) rejections and women’s propensity for victimhood (as they’ve learned that this engenders 'savior’ mental schemas for men’s breeding schedules - Cap’n Save a Ho) and even marriage itself. Good Dads vs. Good Genes The two greatest difficulties for women to overcome in their own methodology is that they are only at a sexually viable peak for a short window of time (generally their early 20s) and the fact that the qualities that make a good long term partner (the Good Dad) and the qualities that make for good breeding stock (Good Genes) only rarely manifest themselves in the same male. Provisioning and security potential are fantastic motivators for pairing with a Good Dad, but the same characteristics that make him such are generally a disadvantage when compared with the man who better exemplifies genetic, physical attraction and the risk taking qualities that would imbue her child with a better capacity to adapt to it’s environment (i.e. stronger, faster, more attractive than others to ensure the passing of her own genetic material to future generations). This is the Jerk vs. Nice Guy paradox writ large on an evolutionary scale. Men and women innately (though unconsciously) understand this dynamic, so in order for a woman to have the best that the Good Dad has to offer while taking advantage of the best that the Good Genes man has, she must invent and constantly modify social conventions to keep the advantage in her biological favor, and in accordance with her pluralistic sexual strategy. Reproductive Schedules This paradox then necessitates that women (and by default men) must subscribe to short term and long term schedules of mating. Short term schedules facilitate breeding with the Good Genes male, while long term breeding is reserved the Good Dad male. This convention and the psycho-social schemas that accompany it are precisely why women will marry the Nice Guy, stable, loyal, (preferably) doctor and still fuck the pool boy or the cute surfer she met on spring break. In our genetic past, a male with good genes implied an ability to be a good provider, but modern convention has thwarted this, so new social and mental schemas had to be developed for women. Cheating For this dynamic and the practicality of enjoying the best of both genetic worlds, women find it necessary to ‘cheat’. This cheating can be done proactively or reactively. In the reactive model, a woman who has already paired with her long term partner choice, engages in a extramarital or extra-pairing, sexual intercourse with a short term partner (i.e. the cheating wife or girlfriend). That’s not to say this short term opportunity cannot develop into a 2nd, long term mate, but the action of infidelity itself is a method for securing better genetic stock than the committed male provider is capable of supplying. Proactive cheating is the Single Mommy dilemma. This form of ‘cheating’ relies on the woman breeding with a Good Genes male, bearing his children and then abandoning him, or having him abandon her, (again through invented social conventions) in order to find a Good Dad male to provide for her and the children of her Good Genes partner to ensure their security. I want to stress again that (most) women do not have some consciously constructed and recognized master plan to enact this cycle and deliberately trap men into it. Rather, the motivations for this behavior and the accompanying social rationales invented to justify it are an unconscious process. For the most part, women are unaware of this dynamic, but are nonetheless subject to it’s influence. For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she’s able to attract and to ensure her own and her offspring’s survival with the best provisioning partner is an evolutionary jackpot. Cuckoldry On some level of consciousness, men innately sense something is wrong with this situation, though they may not be able to place why they feel it or misunderstand it in the confusion of women’s justifications for it. Or they become frustrated by the social pressures to 'do the right thing’, are shamed into martyrdom/savior-hood and committed to a feigned responsibility to these conventions. Nevertheless, some see it well enough to steer clear of single mothers, either by prior experience or observing other male cuckolds saddled with the responsibility of raising and providing for - no matter how involved or uninvolved - another man’s successful reproduction efforts with this woman. Men often fall into the role of the proactive or reactive Cuckold. He will never enjoy the same benefits as his mate’s short term partner(s) to the same degree, in the way of sexual desire or immediacy of it, while at the same time enduring the social pressures of having to provide for this Good Genes father’s progeny. It could be argued that he may contribute minimally to their welfare, but on some level, whether emotional, physical, financial or educational he will contribute some effort for another man’s genetic stock in exchange for a mitigated form of sexuality/intimacy from the mother. To some degree, (even if only by his presence) he is sharing the parental investment that should be borne by the short term partner. If nothing else, he contributes the time and effort to her he could be better invested in finding a sexual partner with which he could pursue his own genetic imperative by his own methodology. However, needless to say, there is no shortage of men sexually deprived enough to 'see past’ the long term disadvantages, and not only rewarding, but reinforcing a single mother’s bad decisions (bad from his own interest’s perspective) with regard to her breeding selections and schedules in exchange for short term sexual gratification. Furthermore, by reinforcing her behavior thusly, he reinforces the social convention for both men and women. It’s important to bear in mind that in this age women are ultimately, solely responsible for the men they choose to mate with (baring rape of course) and giving birth to their children. Men do bear responsibility for their actions no doubt, but it is ultimately the decision of the female and her judgment that decides her and her children’s fate Schedules of Mating Rejection is better than Regret. While sifting through some of my past posts on the SoSuave forum it hit me; over 90% of what I advocate there can be reduced to overcoming a fear of rejection. 90% of the dilemmas AFCs find themselves in, and a majority of men’s concerns, with the opposite sex find, their roots in the methods and means they use to reduce their exposure to female rejection. These are buffers meant to reduce the potential for this rejection of intimacy. Men of course aren’t the only ones who use buffers - women have their share as well - but I think it would be much more productive for guys to recognize this propensity in themselves and see the methods they use, and often ego-invest in their personal psychologies, to buffer themselves against rejection. Virtually every common problem guys deal with finds its basis in these buffers: LDRs - Long Distance Relationships. A guy will entertain an LDR because it was based on a previous acceptance of intimacy and being no longer convenient (due to distance) the guy will cling to the “relationship” because it’s a buffer against potential rejection from new women instead of accepting the relationship as being finished and maturely re-entering the dating pool. It’s a perceived “sure thing”, even if only rarely rewarding. Playing Friends - Usually after an LJBF rejection where the perception is the potential love interest “might” later become an intimate with time and qualification. No matter how misguided, the time and effort spent by a guy in proving himself as the would-be “perfect boyfriend” is a buffer against further rejection by new potential females, which is then further compounded by a moralistic sense of duty to be an actual friend to his LJBF girl. In essence, his buffer against further rejection is his misplaced dedication to the LJBF girl. Another variation of this is the Cap’n-Save-A-Ho dynamic. Emails, IMs and Texts -1 should also add lengthy phone conversations to this list as well, but really any technology that seemingly increases communication serves as a buffer (for both genders) the more it limits interpersonal communication. The rationalization is that it keeps him in constant contact with his sex interest (which in and of itself is a mistake), but only serves as a buffer against her rejection. The latent perception being that it’s easier to read a rejection (or hear one) than to potentially be rejected in person. A lot of guys will counter this with how texts and IM’s are just how this generation plies it’s Game. The difference I’d argue is that when digital communication becomes your preferred method of interacting with women, it’s a buffer. Facebook & Online Dating - This one should be fairly obvious for the same reasons as above - Online dating is perhaps the best buffer ever conceived - particularly for less than physically ideal women. In fact it’s so effective that businesses can be built upon the common insecurities and fear of rejection of both sexes. Objectification of Gender - This might be less obvious, but both sexes objectify one another. Naturally when we think of this, the popularized notion is that men objectify women as sex objects, but women have a tendency to objectify men as “success objects” for the same reason. It is easier to accept rejection from an object than it is to take it from a living, breathing, human being. This is why we refer to intergender communication as a “game.” We “score” or we get “shot down” not personally or emotionally rejected; the buffer is in the language and mental approach. Idealization of Gender - This is the myth of the “Quality Woman.” The buffer operates in perceived self-limitations based on a search for an ideal mate. Thus a tendency to fixate on one woman (ONEitis) or one type of woman (a gender Archetype) develops. By limiting to, and/or fixating on one woman (or type) the potential for rejection decreases, while insuring that any real rejection will come only from what will later be deemed non-qualified women. Rejection = 'Low Quality Woman’ and is thus disqualified. This works in a similar fashion to the objectification buffer in that the woman delivering the rejection is reduced to an object. Scarcity Mentality - The “Take What I Can Get and Be Glad I Got It” mentality acts as a buffer in that it works opposite of the Idealization buffer. Deprivation is motivation, and by sticking with the “sure thing” as the “only thing”, the potential for new rejection is then eliminated. Older Women, Younger Women -1 should also include certain body types in this category as well, but the buffer is in certain types of women being less likely to reject a man due to their personal circumstances. The Cougar dynamic debate has been done into irrelevancy now, but the buffer is that older women, acting in accordance with their conditions, will be more inclined to accept the advances of younger men. In the same vein, very young girls will be more apt to accept the advances of older men due to naivete and fat women are easier to become intimate with due to sexual deprivation. In and of themselves these preferences aren’t buffers per se, but an internalized preference for particular women develop by associating that particular type of woman with the minimization for potential rejection. Leagues - This is the opposite of a “high standards” buffer which could be grouped with Scarcity. There is the woman some guys actually fear because she is perceived to be so much more socially valuable than the average guy estimates himself. Think of a hot, statuesque, corporate director who runs marathons, travels a lot, has good friends, dresses well, etc, etc, etc. The average frustrated chump tells himself “wow is she out of my league I would just get shot down because I would need to possess A, B & C to be her social status / physical status equal for her to even be interested”. Ergo, the internalized idea of Leagues is a useful rationalization buffer against rejection. Pornography -1 realize this will draw some fire from the masturbation / no¬ masturbation set, but porn (as men use it) is a buffer against rejection. Porn doesn’t talk back, porn doesn’t need a few drinks to loosen up nor does porn require any social skills to produce rewards. It’s convenient, immediate, sexual release that requires nothing more than a PC and an internet connection (or a magazine if you prefer the analog means). We can argue the obsessive- compulsive aspect of it, or the “my girlfriend and I enjoy porn together” reasoning, but for the single guy the root reasoning is its facility as a buffer. I should also add that it’s this very facility that makes women hate it (when they do). Porn gives a guy his reward for free; a reward that should be her single best agency is rendered valueless when a man can get off to an infinite variety of sexual experience at the click of a mouse. It’s unlimited access to unlimited sexual availability without the stress of learning methods to earn it from women as a reward. These are really just a few notable examples, but once you become aware of how buffers manifest you’ll begin to see how and why they are useful against rejection. Buffers are generally the paths of least rejection that become ego- invested “preferences.” Buffers aren’t so much about those “preference” as they are about the rejection aversion motivations behind them. At this point you might be thinking, “Well, what the hell, I don’t want to feel rejection, why not employ buffers against it?” The main reason for embracing rejection is that rejection is better than regret. Scan back through this short list of buffers; how many of these have become greater, longer term problems for you than a briefly painful rejection would’ve been? Buffers also have a tendency to compound upon themselves in that one tends to dovetail into another, or more, until you no longer realize that they were originally rejection prevention methodologies and gradually become associated with your genuine personality. After a long enough period, buffer become “just how I am.” Lastly, experience teaches harsh, but it teaches best. Rejection, real, raw, in your face rejection stings like a bitch. It must be something so intolerable that human beings will devise countless social and psychological constructs in order to avoid it. However, there is no better teacher than getting burned by the stove. As a Man, you are going to face rejection in far more facets of your life than just dealing with a woman. The buffers you learn in one aspect of your life will be just as encumbering when they’re transferred to another aspect of your life. All of these buffers listed, and many more, become indicators of how you confidently deal with adversity. Some make you look like a Beta male pussy, others are subtle and nagging parts of an internalized personality, but dependence upon them incrementally reveals your real character to a woman. Are you Alpha enough to take a rejection on the chin, smile and confidently come back for more? Or will you run, will you block yourself, will you hide with convenient buffers? Compensation One of the higher orders of physical standards women hold for men is height. There are countless threads in the manosphere community that address this, but I think that for the better part it’s not difficult to observe this in the Teal world’. I should also add that this is one characteristic that is central to the Social Matching Theory in that humans are sensitive to asymmetries and imbalances. Now, before I get told in so many ways that this isn’t always the case or the “not all girls are like that” exceptions to the rule, let me start by saying that this isn’t the point of this section. I don’t want to debate the logistics of why women prefer a taller mate or the tendency for like to attract like in this respect. What I’m on about is really the root of the infamous “short man’s disease.” That’s right, you know who I’m talking about; the ultimate in compensation for inferiority, the dreaded ‘short man’s disease.’ You know the guy. About 5' 6”, pounding out the weight on the bench press. Bad ass attitude, hangs with the bigger guys (which is pretty much all of them) and throws his ego around. What a tool, right? But if you think this is only limited to short men, you’re making a mistake. You see, in so many ways we all compensate for deficiencies. I once read a thread on another “non-community” forum that saw fit to start a topic asking why men lie and it got me to thinking why any of us lie, man or woman. At the time I’d also been fielding a lot of questions regarding issues we kind of take for granted after having discussed them to death in the manosphere; one of those being the nature of personality and one’s ability to change their own or have it changed by circumstance, or often both. I think it’s a tragic miscalculation on our part to think of personality as static, unchangeable or to question the ingenuousness of that change, but more tragic is the doubting of ourselves for that change. One simple truism that a lot of people love to use as their convenient escape clause is the JBY (just be yourself) notion. This of course is just what ones says as advice when they really don’t know what else to say. Given that though, what is it that makes a personality shift ‘genuine’? Any number of us probably know an individual who began acting differently at some point in their life. This can be the result of some kind of tragedy or trauma (think PTSD) or it can be that the individual felt a need to change their fundamental way of thinking and made the change of their own accord. Usually in these cases we think of them as posers or try-hards, trying to be something they’re not. They reflect this change in their appearance, their regular practices, their friends or the people they associate with, attitudes, behaviors etc. And this is what’s jarring for people who knew their prior personality. What makes us doubt the sincerity of a personal change is what’s at issue. If their change is something we agree with or generally think of as positive, we are less inclined to doubt the ingenuousness of this change. But when their change conflicts with our own interests, when it dramatically clashes with what we’ve come to expect of that individual, this is where we doubt their sincerity. We say “dude, stop trying to be something you’re not”, we tear it down, we fall back on JBY platitudes because it clashes with our interpretations. And in this doubt, we fish for reasons as to why a person would want that change; essentially, what are they compensating for? It may be funny to presume someone driving a monster truck down the highway is making up for a small penis, but the root of that ‘compensating’ is what makes us feel uncomfortable in our own internal compensating. It’s a difficult enough task for an individual to critically assess their own personality, and even more so to effect a change in it, but the final insult is to have other’s doubt the veracity of it. What others fail to see is that at some point in the development of their own personalities, they themselves had to compensate for deficiencies, discontentments and prompts to grow and mature. This is a gigantic hurdle for most average men wanting to transition to being something more. I like the term positive masculinity, but the crux of all that is the ingenuousness of the actual change. Why are you changing? There is a saying that average frustrated chumps (AFCs) are like a bunch of crabs in a barrel. As soon as one is about to climb out there are always half a dozen ready to pull him back in again. Add to this a self-doubt from societal conditionings that tell him to stay the same, not to aspire to more, he’s doing it right, and it’s amazing that any AFC progresses beyond what he was. This has been termed the ‘Societal Cockblock’; they tell him he’s compensating, and in a way they’re right, but for the wrong reason. PUA skills, psychology, Positive Masculinity are all compensations for deficiencies. They go beyond behavior modification - that’s the easy answer. PUAs teach a set of behaviors and scripts to be aped in order to mask a deficit. These are easy pickings for the JBY apologists because they are actions that generally don’t match a person’s prior personality. They’re not “really” like that, so they’re posers, or worse, they’ve been duped by guys hawking the PUA brand of self-help tools. What they don’t see is the genuine desire to change and the reasons for it. When we compensate, we improvise, we fake it till we make it; but who determines when we’ve stopped faking it? You do. I read all kinds of articles doubting the realized capacity a person has to adopt ‘natural Game’ into their personality. It’s an internalization process for sure, but there has to come a point of transition where a Man’s default response is his Game response. That’s who he is now. Buffers ALPHA What you’re about to read here is not going to make me any new friends. I know because any discussion of what constitutes Alpha Male characteristics in a Man always becomes clouded by the self-perceptions of how well we think we align with them. The ‘community’, the ‘manosphere’, the new understanding of gender relations that’s picked up momentum for the last 12 years has always generated it’s own terminologies for more abstract concepts. The danger in this is that these terms lack real, universal definition. For purposes of illustrating a concept these terms are usually serviceable - we have a general understanding of what makes for a ‘Beta’ or a Herb, or a man who falls into a sublimated ‘provider’ mentality. Even ‘Alpha’ in a specific context is useful as an illustrative tool, when the subject isn’t directly about ‘Alpha-ness’. It’s when we try to universally define what constitutes the qualities and attributes of an Alpha male that the sparks start to fly. So before you continue on reading further, think about what you believe makes a man Alpha. Got it in your head now? Good, now put all of that aside, purge that from your head, and read the next few paragraphs from the perspective that you don’t know anything about Alpha. The Alpha Buddha I was first introduced to Corey Worthington, the Alpha Buddha, courtesy of Roissy and his post “Umm, sorry?” You can go ahead and look this up and read this from the Chateau’s perspective, and I think the analysis is pretty good, but it might be easier for readers to simply search for “Corey Worthington” on youtube. Corey Worthington was a teenage kid from Melbourne, Australia who made internet infamy by hosting a raucous house party, unbeknown to his parents, resulting in $20,000 of property damage. He was later interviewed by an attractive local news anchor who made efforts to shame him into self-realizations and apologies. It’s probably better to simply watch the video (linked on my blog) to get an idea of Corey’s Alpha cred. I call Corey the Alpha Buddha not in the hopes that men will aspire to his almost Zen-like ‘being’ in Alpha, but rather to provide an example of Alpha in it’s most pure form. He literally is Alpha, unclouded by pretense, afterthought, or conscious awareness of any influence that could have a hope of prompting introspection about his state. Corey Worthington is a piss poor example of a human being, but he’s a textbook example of Alpha. I could use a lot of adjectives to describe this kid, but “beta” wouldn’t be one of them. What’s funny, and a bit ironic, is this kid has probably never come across Mystery Method or “the PUA community” or even heard of ‘peacocking’ and he gets naturally what millions of guys pay small fortunes at PUA seminars to acquire over the course of a lifetime. He’s a selfish little prick, but what makes him insulting to ‘normal’ men is his having the natural, internalized Alpha bravado that so many AFCs wish they had. If you could bottle and sell this Alpha essence, you’d be rich beyond imagine. Right about now all of those self-affirming preconceptions you had about Alpha- ness (that I told you to stow away before reading this) are probably yelling to be let out of the mental box you put them in. “,..but, but Rollo, how can you possibly think this arrogant douchebag kid could ever be an example of anything remotely Alpha?! ” You’ll be pleased to know I fully empathize your outrage. You work hard to be a “better man”, you put in the self analysis, you paid your dues coming to terms with unplugging and reinventing yourself. You’re a success, Corey is fuckup. Corey’s not a better Man than you are, however, he understands Alpha better than you do. Alpha is mindset, not a demographic. Alpha is as Alpha does, it isn’t what we say it is. There are noble Alphas and there are scoundrel Alphas, the difference is all in how they apply themselves. There’s a tendency to approach every “Alpha” argument from what a guy thinks is righteousness; ergo, his personal definition of Alpha is what appeals best to his sense of virtue. He earned his Alpha cred, played by the rules, and by God people (women) should respect that. However, the sad truth is that prisons are full of Alpha males who simply channeled their drive toward destructive and anti-social endeavors. There are plenty of examples of indifferent Asshole Alphas who you wouldn’t say are upstanding moral leaders at all, yet women will literally kill each other (or themselves) in order to bang them because they exude a natural Alpha-ness. Just as Corey does here. There are Alpha drug dealing gang leaders, and there are Alpha husbands, fathers and leaders of industry. It’s all in the application. Genghis Khan was Alpha as fuck, and a leader-of-men, but probably would be on most people’s douchebag list for that era. Here’s an illustration: Guy’s like Corey infuriate men who have invested their self-worth in the accomplishments of what they think ought to be universally appreciated and rewarded. So when they’re confronted with a natural Alpha being undeservedly rewarded for brazenly acting out of accord with what they think the rules ought to be, they seethe with resentment. The natural response in the face of such an inconsistency is to redefine the term ‘Alpha’ to cater to themselves and their accomplishments as “real men” and exclude the perpetrator. The conflict then comes from seeing his new definition of Alpha not being rewarded or even appreciated as well as a natural Alpha attitude and the cycle continues. Your respect (or anyone else’s) for an Alpha has nothing to do with whether or not he possess an Alpha mindset. Three failed marriages and 100+ lays has nothing to do with a man having or not having an Alpha mindset. There are many well respected betas who Ve never had a passing thought of infidelity, or may have 300 lays either with prostitutes or because they possess fame or stunning good looks and women come to him by matter of course. The take home message here is that you are not Alpha because of your achievements, you have your achievements because you are Alpha. You possess a mindset you either had to develop or it came naturally to you. I constantly field questions from young men asking me whether some action or behavior they displayed to a woman was Alpha, or Alpha enough. The real answer is that Alpha behaviors are manifestations of an Alpha mindset. And just like Corey the Alpha Buddha, the introspect required to wonder if something was or wasn’t Alpha wouldn’t ever be a consideration enough to ask. You almost need to have a childlike understanding to really appreciate what Alpha really is. Kids get Alpha. Even the picked on, introverted, beta-to-be kid has a better understanding of Alpha than most adult men do because he lacks the abstract thinking required to rationalize Alpha for himself. Most men, by our socialization, and to varying degrees, lose this in-born Alpha mindset over time. The naturals, the Corey’s of the world, have a better grasp on it’s usefulness and re-purpose it; either to their adulthood advantage or their detriment. Defining Alpha I understand why guys, both of the red and blue pill variety have a problem with using the terms Alpha and/or Beta; depending on the perspective, terms that are definitive about what someone has an investment in make us uncomfortable. It’s much more comfortable to put those issues into more subjective understandings because when we’re objective about them we can’t help the wondering about, or we doubt, our own status within that definition. Objective terms are very close to absolutes depending upon who’s doing the defining. From a generalized perspective, I feel that the terms Alpha and Beta are good reference points in assessing the characteristics that women find arousing (and attractive) in men for both short and long term mating strategies. However, I think that beyond these convenient terms, men need to be more realistic about how they apply to their own self-impressions in contrast with how women are interpreting the Alpha and Beta cues that they exhibit. For the record, at points in my life I’ve personally been the worst, bottom scraping Beta, the douchebag Alpha rock star, and the strong (but lesser) Alpha father and husband. So it’s with this in mind that I think guys shouldn’t believe that their 'stars are set’ and they’ll never live up to the manosphere standard of Alpha. Living Up The reason that so many guys get so bent about what defines an Alpha is usually because they don’t fit that general definition very well. So it’s a logical ego defense to make necessity a virtue and redefine it to better suit their own conditions. It’s exactly the same dynamic as the debate over Looks vs. Game. Game takes priority for those without Looks and vice versa. A personal definition of “what’s Alpha?” becomes whatever plays to an individual guy’s strengths, and women who can’t appreciate them (i.e. all of them) are relegated to being less-than quality women. Sour grapes are sour, but deductively it makes sense; we want to be the embodiment of what we ‘know’ is attractive to women and others. The worst beta schlub you know thinks he’s Alpha, because every woman he’s ever known has defined and affirmed for him that being Beta is what women want. Ethics of Alpha The problem then is looking at the definition objectively. In an objective light it’s difficult to look at ourselves as not measuring up to an Alpha ideal. So it becomes the first recourse to cast suspicion on the whole idea of being Alpha at all. It’s a pissing contest between immature men then. Or is it? There is a LOT of observable, provable evidence that many so-called Alpha traits do in fact elicit very predictable, desired, favorable behaviors (usually breeding cues) in women. From an evolutionary psychology perspective Alpha is just as unprincipled, just as efficiently ruthless and uncaring as it’s female counterpart - feminine Hypergamy. So then the definition moves into an ambiguous moral ground; is it ethical to be / act Alpha? To be Alpha implies that you necessarily rise above a certain degree of common mediocrity depending upon the context - whether you do so like a guy from hotchickswithdouchebags.com or like a perfect “honorable” gentlemen is irrelevant, you still position yourself above “other guys”. To some extent this is selfishness or implies a self-importance that questions moral tenets. At this point I should also add here that women never doubt themselves on moral grounds for outshining their own competition in the sexual market place - they just do so covertly and with a polite smile, unburdened by ethical doubts. Hypergamy is its own excuse. Alpha Selectivity And that brings us to the subjectively deductive end of defining Alpha. Every sexual competitor seeks to disqualify their rivals from breeding opportunities. Most animals fight for territory or harem rights. Humans generally (though certainly not exclusively) do the same combat in the psychological. We seek to disqualify sexual competitors by calling into doubt the sexual credibility of a rival. “Yeah, he’s really good looking, but that means he’s probably gay” from a man, or “You think that blonde with the big boobs is hot? Girls who dress like that are usually sluts” from a woman are both psychological, sexually disqualifying forms of combat. This also applies to the observably, provably, sexually successful male capable of OVERTLY flaunting his high sexual value with two (or more) concurrent women. He must be of low moral character to so flagrantly manipulate his multiple girlfriends, right? His observable success, as a sexual competitor, conflicts with what a Beta believes should constitute a Beta-defined definition of Alpha-ness as it characterizes him personally. Thus, the polygamist either must be disqualified as a sexual competitor based on subjective (moral) grounds, or a guy is forced to alter his own definition of Alphaness and therefore his own self-estimate. Every guy has a Game. Everyone thinks they are Alpha in their own way. Even the worst doormat Nice Guy, hammered flat by women for a lifetime, thinks his supplications or Cap’n Save-a-Ho mindset is the best way to win a woman’s intimacy. He’s invested in thinking he’s unique in his understanding of how best to arrive at sex with a woman. Likewise, Alpha-ness is a moving target that’s conveniently applied or disparaged based on personal circumstances. Personally I believe Alpha-ness can, and does, have a concrete, objective definition. The problem arises when anyone asserts that they can definitively outline Alpha traits when it conflicts with the subjectiveness and ego- investments of those who define it personally for themselves. So we get a wide variety of what makes a man Alpha - he’s the guy of high moral character, princely ambition and integrity, as well as the self-important cad banging his wife and “their” girlfriend. They are both Alpha. Thus I would propose that while certainly contextual, objective Alpha-ness is NOT exclusive to social status or personal integrity, but rather an attitude of expressly manifested traits. These can be innate or learned, but the definition is not dependent on moral grounds (or a lack of). A scoundrel and a champion can be equally Alpha or Beta in their own psyche. The Origin of Alpha “Safe sex, safe clothing, safe hairspray, safe ozone layer,...too late! Everything that’s been achieved in the history of mankind has been achieved by not being safe. ” - Lemmy Kilmister, Motorhead A Rational Male reader Jeremiah presented me with a well worn question: “ My question is, Tomassi, do you think alpha traits are usually learned or genetically inherited? What percentage of modern men “get it” and of the men who “get it” how many of them have always “gotten it” and how many of them learned to adapt? It is hard to believe there are still naturals out there when feminism is being rammed up the anus of every man before he sprouts his first tooth. ” I don’t think distilling the essence of Alpha ‘presence’ in a Man is as subjective as most people feel compelled to qualify, enumerate or otherwise yammer on about in as personally identifying a manner as they can muster. In my estimation Alpha is a state of mind, not a demographic. The manosphere will endlessly debate the qualifications of what is Alpha, but I think for the most part, the influence of an Alpha mindset (whatever the qualifiers) is more or less agreed upon. However, with this in mind, I think it’s a perfectly valid question to ask whether an Alpha is born that way or molded into his Alpha mindset. This is actually the classic debate psychology has always put to its various schools of thought; Nature vs. Nurture - is a dynamic influenced by inherent, biological, environmental prompts or is that dynamic a learned, socialized and acculturated phenomenon? And of course the equally classic conflict comes from people attempting to define various dynamics in terms of absolutes, when to greater or lesser degrees a dynamic is influenced by both nature and nurturing elements. While the Tomassi school of psychology is firmly planted in the nuts and bolts of behaviorism, it’s also important to take into account that external influences can and too often do modify innate, inborn predilections - even inborn self- preservation instincts. So with this in mind, my perspective on the origin of Alpha is that biology determines the starting point for Alpha, what happens to it from there is modified by a man’s environmental conditions. Alpha ‘energy’, for lack of a better term, is to varying degrees, part of a male human’s biologically determined “starting package”; from there, through social feedback, it’s either refined and developed by his upbringing, acculturation and social affirming, or it’s repressed, constrained and mitigated by his social environment. When I was in art school one of my most influential teachers told me, “There are two types of artists; those who were born with a natural, innate gift for art, and those who lack that gift, but possess such a passion for art that it drives them to be good at it. The true masters are the artists that combine both natural talent and the drive that comes from a passion for it.” I’ve always referred back to this model in my creative efforts, but I believe this model can be extended beyond just the artistic sense. The Learned Alpha Manosphere godfather, RooshV has an excellent breakdown of The Myth of the Natural that perfectly encapsulates the learning theory of Alpha. The premise behind this is that Alpha behavior, and consequently facility with women, comes as a set of modeled behaviors based upon trial and error: If I were forced to agree on what a natural is, it would be a man who’s a prodigy of sex—someone who gets laid way above other men with no formal instruction in game. This means he was not exposed to any 12 DVD “Cocky Humor” sets or seminars in a hotel room with three dozen other guys. You look at him and think, “Wow, he gets laid automatically. He was born to get laid!” But he wasn’t. Just because he didn’t read a book doesn’t mean he didn’t learn through trial and error like you did, practicing his game on a large number of women. It doesn’t mean that he wasn’t conscious and deliberate with his behavior, incrementally improving his moves and tactics over a long period of time. He has experimented like you have experimented, and he has also connected his attempts with results to figure out what works and what doesn’t. He may not be obsessive about it enough to log his data into a spreadsheet, but he’s mindful and aware of what he’s doing. He understands the mechanism behind charm and can often turn it on or off depending on what he wants. He has learned the type of humor and story-telling that gets a positive response in women. The last thing you can say about him was that he was born into the world with the “automatic” ability to fuck a lot of girls. Essentially what Roosh explores here is a very basic behavioral psychology premise - macro-psychological dynamics to micro-psychological schema are developed, deliberately or unconsciously, through a process of deductive trial and error management. Whether you’re aware of it or not, everyone has Game to varying degrees. Every man you know has some concept of behaviors and mental attitudes he believes will best help him arrive at sexual intimacy with a woman. Even the worst Blue Pill Beta believes he has some idea of how best to get with a girl. All of this proto-Game has been in a constant state of trial and error management since you were five years old and had your first interaction with the opposite sex on the kindergarten playground, right up to the point when you started reading in the manosphere and discovered the Red Pill. And you will continue to modify your old behavior and mental sets based upon the new information available to you after you adopt formalized Game. In fact, in its rawest sense, the PUA community, the manosphere and all its permutations are really a meta-effort in behavioral modification by way of experimentation and information feedback. For some this learning process comes easier than it does for others. Again Roosh: The reason he blows you away isn’t because of his genetics, but because of how early he started. A unique set of circumstances threw him into the sex game years before you, during a time he was lucky enough to be surrounded by giggly schoolgirls. By the time you did your first approach, he had already practiced his game on hundreds of women. While I do agree with this from a behavioral standpoint, this is where I have to depart from accepting Roosh’s theory entirely. There are far too many biological and environmental determinants involved in developing an Alpha male to ascribe an Alpha status based solely on learned behavior. The simple, observable, fact is that a genetically better looking, more physically arousing male is going to statistically have more opportunities to experiment and develop his Alpha Game prowess than a less physically impressive male. In theory, a man with a more advantageous physical presence will “start earlier” in his process of deductively evaluating behaviors since his efforts will be more frequently encouraged by the women who are naturally attracted to his physique. Unfortunately all of that assumes developing a behavioral set in a vacuum. There’s literally a world of environmental conditions and variables that would predispose a man towards behavioral development of Alpha status or (more often) limit him from it. Roosh touches on this: At this point you may be thinking, “Well, there have to be guys who were born with it. Look at Mozart! ” Nobody questions that Mozart’s achievements were extraordinary compared with those of his contemporaries. What’s often forgotten, however, is that his development was equally exceptional for his time. His musical tutelage started before he was four years old, and his father, also a skilled composer, was a famous music teacher and had written one of the first books on violin instruction. Like other world-class performers, Mozart was not born an expert — he became one. I don’t think this example excludes for a natural, innate talent, but it does help to illustrate the environment’s role in molding a person by limiting or encouraging

not a single word

 

[Carbon]

The RATIONAL MALE Rollo Tomassi The Rational Male Rollo Tomassi The Rational Male, first edition copyright © 2013 Rollo Tomassi. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior permission of the publisher and author. ISBN: 1492777862 ISBN - 13: 978-1492777861 Published by Counterflow Media LLC, Nevada Design and layout by Rollo Tomassi. The Basics There is no ONE 3 The Cardinal Rule of Relationships 8 Truth to Power 9 The Desire Dynamic 13 Imagination 14 Schedules of Mating 16 Buffers 20 Compensation 22 Alpha 25 Defining Alpha 27 The Origins of Alpha 30 The Contextual Alpha 33 Plate Theory Plate Theory I - Abundance & Scarcity 40 Plate Theory II - Non-Exclusivity 43 Plate Theory III - Transitioning 47 Plate Theory IV - Goal-State Monogamy 52 Plate Theory V - Lady’s Game 55 Plate Theory VI - Scarcity to Abundance 58 Plugged In AFC - Average Frustrated Chump 63 Playing Friends 65 Letting Go of Invisible Friends 68 Enter White Knight 70 The Honor System 72 The Savior Schema 74 Inter-gender Friendship 76 Unplugging Dispelling the Magic 83 Identity Crisis 85 Dream Girls and Children with Dynamite 88 Kill the Beta 90 Appreciation 95 Dream Killers 98 Have A Look 101 The Five Stages of Unplugging 103 The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill 104 Game The Evolution of Game 111 Rewriting the Rules 117 Navigating the SMP 120 Just Be Yourself 125 The Nice Guy - Jerk Spectrum 128 Beta Game 131 The Pheromonal Beta 134 Dread Games 138 The Meta Game 141 Communication The Medium is the Message 147 Just Get It 151 Dijo Sin Hablar 154 The Horse’s Mouth 155 Qualities of the Prince 157 Social Conventions Operative Social Conventions 165 AFC Social Conventions 170 The Paradox of Commitment 174 Bitter Misogynists 176 Hypergamy The Disposables 183 War Brides 186 Mrs. Hyde 188 Hypergamy Doesn’t Care 192 Relational Equity 194 The Hypergamy Conspiracy 197 Women & Regret 200 The Pet 202 The Iron Rules of Tomassi Iron Rule I 209 Iron Rule II 212 Iron Rule III 214 Iron Rule IV 219 Iron Rule V 221 Iron Rule VI 224 Iron Rule VII 228 Iron Rule VIII 229 Iron Rule IX 232 Mythology The Myth of the Lonely Old Man 239 The Myth of Women & Sex 241 The Myth of the ‘Good Girl’ 244 The Myth of the Biological Clock 247 The Myth of Male Looks 249 The Myth of Leminine SMV 253 Of Love and War 257 The Feminine Imperative The Leminine Reality 265 The Leminine Mystique 270 The Wall 272 The Threat 275 Positive Masculinity vs. Equalism 278 Afterword Contents Introduction In January of 2001 1 was entering a state university for the first time in my life at the ripe age of 32. My relatively late-life enrollment was the result of a what I believed then was a misspent youth and I was atoning for the indiscretions of what I call my hock star’ 20’s. I had a lot of catching up to do thanks to the decisions I’d made in my early and mid-twenties and a sense of incompleteness that I felt at the time. In hindsight I’m glad I did return to school, better late than never, because I was learning the intrinsic value of an education. I can remember listening to the grumblings of guys in my class who were ten years my junior saying, “What the hell do I need to learn this shit for? It won’t help me in the job I’m studying for.” I suppose I might’ve felt the same way at 22 if I hadn’t been more concerned with playing the next gig in the next band I was in on a weekend in Hollywood. I could never have appreciated the value of being an educated person. While a good job is definitely a concrete goal of bettering oneself, being educated, on a great many subjects, and learning how to learn, is its own reward. Although I didn’t attend a ‘liberal arts university’ per se, my degree is in fine art. However after having worked in design, advertising, marketing and branding throughout my professional life I knew that my minor (if later a double major) had to be in psychology. My initial interest in psychology was due to the want of a better understanding of the often difficult personalities I was forced to deal with in my career, so personality studies and behaviorism was a natural fit for me. Much of what I have compiled in this book is the direct result of over a decade of applying these schools of psychology to the gender dynamics I’ve experienced personally, as well as the collective experiences of millions of men around the world. Connecting Dots While I was studying psychology, I felt a natural attraction toward behaviorism. Like most people, I was peripherally familiar with the more touchy-feely branches of psychology like psycho-analysis and the “sit down on the couch and lets talk about feelings” applications most people associate with psychology. Behaviorism was a much more concrete approach; one based on behaviors and the motivators for them. One of the primary foundations of Game-awareness is basing your estimation of a woman upon her actions and behaviors rather than her words or implied intents. This principle is founded in behaviorism’s cardinal principle - behavior is the only reliable evidence of motivation. Even motivations not consciously recognized by the actor can influence behavior regardless of a consciously rationalized motive. In other words, sometimes we don’t realize why we’re hypocrites or saints as the case may be. Coming to terms with this behavioral foundation was the first dot I connected between hard psychology and inter-gender dynamics. For roughly a year or two before I enrolled I’d been actively posting on a few online forums attempting to help some young men with their ‘girl problems’. Initially these forums weren’t in any way related to what would later become the ‘community’ or Game oriented in nature. I’d heard of the early Pick Up Artists like Mystery and a few others, but they weren’t promoting anything I hadn’t already known from my more libertine rock star twenties. I was more interested in helping these guys not make the mistakes (for much of the same reasons) with women that I had. However I just couldn’t shake the feeling that there was a distinct connection between what these guys were going through, what the PUAs of the time were advocating and the behavioral psychology I was becoming more and more saturated in. The average Beta guys who were agonizing over their girlfriend problems and the behavioral basis upon which PUA techniques were founded on had a common root in psychology. About this time I had joined the online community at SoSuave.com. This forum would become my testing ground for connecting the dots I was beginning to become aware of. I should say that I did make an effort to propose that inter-gender relations were based in, sometimes harsh, behaviorism with colleagues and teachers. I was kind of taken aback more often than not when the same teachers who were promoting behavioral psychology as a hard science were the most outspoken critics of what I was brining to light for them. I couldn’t understand, then, what would possibly prevent them from connecting the dots and coming to the uncomfortable conclusions I was making. I know now, and you will too by the end of this book, but at the time I hadn’t figured out the influence the feminine imperative and romantic idealism had on their willingness to accept what I was proposing in spite of their adherence to hard behaviorism. My inquiries and hashing out theories and ideas would have to be done on a forum where I could look for input, or maybe find that other men had concepts I hadn’t considered, in a meeting place of similar ideas. SoSuave was that forum for me for well over twelve years. Most of the concepts you will read in this book are the result of over a decade of debate, critical inquiry and refinement. However, in most cases, I still encourage their questioning and none are unmodifiable or above further refinement. What you’re about to read are a refinement of the core ideas and concepts I’ve formalized on my blog - The Rational Male (therationalmale.com). I began The Rational Male at the request of my readers on various men’s forums and comments on blogs in the ‘manosphere’ in 2011. After the popularity of the blog exploded inside a year it became apparent that a book form of the basic principles was needed for new readers as I moved past them, and built upon the prior concepts. For the most part I’ve rewritten and edited for publishing the blog posts of the first year at Rational Male. I’ve left in most of the jingoisms and acronyms that are characteristic of the blog (for instance, SMV is sexual market value) and are commonly used in the manosphere, however I’ve made every attempt to define them as I go along. Furthermore, many of the concepts I explore in this book came from a question by one of my readers. As with most commenters, their anonymity is assumed in the form their online ‘handle’. The important thing to remember is the concept being discussed and not so much the importance of who is proposing or contradicting a concept. Before you begin reading The primary reason I decided to codify the Rational Male into a book came from a reader by the name of Jaquie. Jaquie was an older, married woman, who genuinely took to what I proposed about inter-gender dynamics on Rational Male. Jaquie wasn’t exactly a typical reader for me, but she asked me to help her understand some concepts better so she could help her son who was about to marry a woman whom she knew would be detrimental to his life. Jaquie said, “I wish you had a book out with all of this stuff in it so I could give it to him. He’s very Beta and whipped, but if I had a book to put in his hands he would read it.” So it is for the sons of Jaquie’s that I decided to put this book out. And it’s in this spirit that I’ll need to ask you, the reader, to clear your head of a few things before you begin to digest any of it. The Rational Male literally has millions of readers world-wide, so there’s a strong likelihood that you bought this book to keep on a shelf and loan to friends because you’re already familiar with its concepts. There’s a certain power and legitimacy that the printed word has that a blog or some online article lacks, so if you already are a Rational Male reader be sure you do loan the book out, or encourage the plugged-in to read and discuss it. If you are picking this book up for the first time, or had it handed to you by a friend or loved one, and have never heard of the Rational Male or the manosphere or have had any exposure to the ideas I put forth here, I’ll humbly ask that you read with an open mind. That sounds like an easy cop out - open your mind - it kind of sounds like something a religious cult would preface their literature with. We all like to think we already have open minds and we’re all perfectly rational, and perfectly capable of critical thinking. I ask you to clear your head of the preconceptions you have of gender because what you’re about to read here are very radical concepts; concepts that will challenge your perspective on women, men, how they interact with each other, and how social structures evolve around those relations. You will violently disagree with some of these concepts, and others will give you that “ah ha!” moment of realization. Some of these concepts will grate on the investment your ego has in certain beliefs about how men and women ought to relate with each other, while others will validate exactly the experiences you may have had personally with them. Some are ugly. Some are not complementary of women and some of men, you’ll think I’m a misogynist on first glance because it’s the default response you’ve been taught to react with. For others, you might feel some kind of vindication for getting burned by your ex and realizing what was at play when it happened. I realize it’s a tall order, but strive not to let your personal feelings color what I lay out for you here. You’ll love me and you’ll hate me. You’ll think “well, not in my case, and here’s why,..” or you’ll think “wow this is some really ground breaking stuff.” I’m not a psychologist, or a PUA, or a men’s rights activist, or a motivational speaker. I’m just a guy who’s connected some dots. Introduction “Why do my eyes hurt?” “You’ve never used them before. ” The Basics ONEitis: An unhealthy romantic obsession with a single person. Usually accompanied by unreciprocated affection and completely unrealistic idealization of the said person. ONEitis is paralysis. You cease to mature, you cease to move, you cease to be you. There is no ONE. This is the soul-mate myth. There are some good Ones and some bad Ones, but there is no ONE. Anyone telling you anything else is selling you something. There are lots of 'special someones’ out there for you, just ask the divorced / widowed person who’s remarried after their “soul-mate” has died or moved on with another person they insist is their real soul-mate. This is what trips people up about the soul-mate myth, it is this fantasy that we all at least in some way share an idealization of - that there is ONE perfect mate for each of us, and as soon as the planets align and fate takes its course we’ll know that we’re ‘ intended ’ for each other. While this may make for a gratifying romantic comedy plot, it’s hardly a realistic way to plan your life. In fact it’s usually paralyzing. What I find even more fascinating is how common the idea is (and particularly for guys) that a nuts & bolts view of life should be trumped by this fantasy in the area of inter- sexual relationships. Men who would otherwise recognize the value of understanding psychology, biology, sociology, evolution, business, engineering, etc., men with a concrete awareness of the interplay we see these aspects take place in our lives on a daily basis, are some of the first guys to become violently opposed to the idea that maybe there isn’t “someone for everyone” or that there are a lot more ONEs out there that could meet or exceed the criteria we subconsciously set for them to be the ONE. I think it comes off as nihilistic, or this dread that maybe their ego-investment in this belief is false - it’s like saying “God is dead” to the deeply religious. It’s just too terrible to contemplate that there maybe no ONE, or there maybe several ONEs to spend their lives with. This western romanticized mythology is based on the premise that there is only ONE perfect mate for any single individual and as much as a lifetime can and should be spent in constant search of this 'soul¬ mate.’ So strong and so pervasive is this myth in our collective consciousness that it has become akin to a religious statement, and in fact has been integrated into many religious doctrines as the feminization of western culture has spread. I think there’s been a mischaracterization of ONEitis. It’s necessary to differentiate between a healthy relationship based on mutual affinity and respect, and a lopsided ONEitis based relationship. I’ve had more than a few guys seeking my advice, or challenging my take on ONEitis, essentially asking me for permission to accept ONEitis as legitimate monogamy. “But Rollo, it’s got to be OK for a guy to have ONEitis for his wife or girlfriend. After all she’s the ONE for him, right?” In my estimation ONEitis is an unhealthy psychological dependency that is the direct result of the continuous socialization of the soul-mate myth in our collective consciousness. What’s truly frightening is that ONEitis has become associated with being a healthy normative aspect of a long term relationship (LTR) or marriage. I come to the conclusion that ONEitis is based in sociological roots, not only due to it being a statement of personal belief, but by the degree to which this ideology is disseminated and mass marketed in popular culture through media, music, literature, movies, etc. Dating services like eHarmony shamelessly marketeer and exploit exactly the insecurities that this dynamic engenders in people desperately searching for the ONE “they were intended for.” The idea that men possess a natural capacity for protection, provisioning and semi-monogamy has merit from both a social and bio-psychological standpoint, but a ONEitis psychosis is not a byproduct of it. Rather, I would set it apart from this healthy protector/provider dynamic since ONEitis essentially sabotages what our natural propensities would otherwise filter. ONEitis is insecurity run amok while a person is single, and potentially paralyzing when coupled with the object of that ONEitis in an LTR. The same neurotic desperation that drives a person to settle for their ONE whether healthy or unhealthy is the same insecurity that paralyzes them from abandoning a damaging relationship - This is their ONE and how could they ever live without them? Or, they’re my ONE, but all I need is to fix myself or fix them to have my idealized relationship. This idealization of a relationship is at the root of ONEitis. With such a limiting, all-or-nothing binary approach to searching for ONE needle in the haystack, and investing emotional effort over the course of a lifetime, how do we mature into a healthy understanding of what that relationship should really entail? The very pollyanna, idealized relationship - the “happily ever after” - that belief in a ONE promotes as an ultimate end, is thwarted and contradicted by the costs of the constant pursuit of the ONE for which they’ll settle for. After the better part of a lifetime is invested in this ideology, how much more difficult will it be to come to the realization that the person they’re with isn’t their ONE? To what extents will a person go to in order to protect a lifetime of this ego investment? At some point in a ONEitis relationship one participant will establish dominance based on the powerlessness that this ONEitis necessitates. There is no greater agency for a woman than to know beyond doubt that she is the only source of a man’s need for sex and intimacy. A ONEitis mindset only cements this into the understanding of both parties. For a man who believes that the emotionally and psychologically damaging relationship he has ego-invested himself is with the only person in his lifetime he’s ever going to be compatible with, there is nothing more paralyzing in his maturation. The same of course holds true for women, and this is why we shake our heads when see an exceptionally beautiful woman go chasing back to her abusive and indifferent Jerk boyfriend, because she believes he is her ONE and the only source of security available to her. Hypergamy may be her root imperative for sticking with him, but it’s the soul¬ mate myth, the fear of the “ONE that got away” that makes for the emotional, almost spiritual, investment. The definition of Power is not financial success, status or influence over others, but the degree to which we have control over our own lives. Subscribing to the soul-mate mythology necessitates that we recognize powerlessness in this arena of our lives. Better I think it would be to foster a healthy understanding that there is no ONE. There are some good Ones and there are some bad Ones, but there is no ONE. Religion of the Soul-Mate What you’ve just read was one of my earliest posts back on the SoSuave forums from around 2003-04.1 was finishing my degree then and had the Fallacy of the ONE graphically illustrated for me in a psychology class one day. I was in class, surrounded by (mostly) much younger students than myself, all very astute and as intellectual as they come for mid twenty-somethings. At one point the discussion had come around to religion and much of the class expressed being agnostic or atheist, or “spiritual, but not religious”. The rationale was of course that religion and belief could be explained as psychological (fear of mortality) constructs that were expanded to sociological dynamics. Later in that discussion the idea of a 'soul mate’ came up. The professor didn’t actually use the word 'soul’, but rather couched the idea by asking for a show of hands as to how many of the class believed “there was a special someone out there for them?” or if they feared “the ONE that got away.” Damn near the entire class raised their hands. For all of their rational empiricism and appeals to realism in regards to spirituality, they (almost) unanimously expressed a quasi- Karmic belief in connecting with another idealized person on an intimate level for a lifetime. Even the Frat guys and hook-up girls who I knew weren’t expressly looking for anything long term in their dating habits still raised their hands in assent to a belief in a ONE. Some later explained what that ONE meant to them, and most had differing definitions of that idealization - some even admitted to it being an idealization as the discussion progressed - yet almost all of them still had what would otherwise be termed an irrational belief in ‘predestination’ or, even amongst the least spiritual, that it’s just part of life to pair off with someone significant and there was “someone for everyone”. This discussion was the catalyst for one of my awakening realizations - despite all odds, people largely feel entitled to, or deserving of, an important love of their life. Statistically and pragmatically this is ridiculous, but there it is. The feminized Disney-fication of this core concept has been romanticized and commercialized to the point of it becoming a religion, even for the expressly non-religious. The Shakespearean longing for the ONE, the search for another soul (mate) who was destined to be our match has been systematically distorted beyond all reason. And as I’ll elaborate later, men will take their own lives in the delusion of having lost their soul-mate. Soul-Mate Men This perversion of the soul-mate myth is attributable to a large part of the feminized social conventions we deal with today. The fear of isolation from our imagined soul-mate, or the fear of having irrecoverably lost that ‘perfect ONE’ for us fuels so much of the personal and social neuroses we find in the contemporary matrix of our society. For example, much of the fear inherent in the Myth of the Lonely Old Man loses its teeth without a core belief in the Soul- Mate Myth. The fear of loss and the delusions of Relational Equity only really matter when the person men believe that equity should influence is their predestined ONE. The feminine imperative recognized the overwhelming power the Soul-Mate Myth had over men (and women) from the beginnings of its rise to ascendancy as the primary gender social imperative. Virtually all of the distortions of the core soul-mate dynamic evolved as a controlling schema for men. When it is soul-mate women who are the primary reward for a soul-mate necessitous man, there are a lot of opportunities to consolidate that power upon. To be clear, don’t think this is some fiendish plot of a fem-centric cabal socially engineering that soul-mate fear into men. Generations of men, raised to be oblivious to it, willingly and actively help perpetuate the Soul-Mate Myth. Soul-Mate Women Although Hypergamy plays a large role in determining what makes for an idealized soul-mate for women, they aren’t immune to the exploitations of that core fear. Though it’s more an unfortunate byproduct than an outright manipulation, I’d argue that in some ways hypergamy intensifies that neurosis. An Alpha Widow knows all too well the languishing associated with pining for the Alpha that got away - particularly when she’s paired off long-term with the dutiful, Beta provider after her sexual market value (SMV) declines. For women, the soul-mate represents that nigh unattainable combination of arousing Alpha dominance matched with a loyal providership for her long term security that only she can tame out of him. Hypergamy hates the soul-mate principle, because the soul-mate is an absolute definition, whereas hypergamy must alway test for perfection. Hypergamy asks, “Is he the ONE? Is he the ONE?” and the Soul-Mate Myth replies, “He HAS to be the ONE, he’s your soul-mate, and there’s ONLY one of those.” Building the Mystery Due to this core concept and soul-mate mythology, both sexes will seek to perfect that idealization for themselves - even under the least ideal of conditions and expressions. We want to build our intimate relations into that soul-mate idealism in order to relieve the fear and solve the problem, and most times so badly that we’ll deftly ignore the warnings, abuses and consequences of having done so. For women the impact of the most significant Alpha male is what initially defines that soul-mate idealization. For men it may be the first woman to become sexual with him or the one who best exemplifies a woman he (mistakenly) believes can love him in a male-defined orientation of love. However, these are the points of origin for building that soul-mate ideal upon. This ideal is then compounded upon with layers of investments in the hopes that this person “might actually be the one fate has prescribed for them.” Emotional investment, personal, financial, even life-potential investments and sacrifices then follow in an effort to create a soul-mate. In the absence of an ideal, one must be created from available resources. This process is why I say the Soul-Mate Myth is ridiculous - it’s psychologically much more pragmatic to construct another person to fit that ideal than it ever will be to “wait for fate to take its course.” People subscribing to the myth would rather build a soul-mate, consequences be damned. So women will attempt to Build a better Beta, or tame down an Alpha, while men will attempt to turn a whore into a housewife, or vice versa. One of the most bitter aftertastes of having awakened to the red-pill truth is abandoning old paradigms for new. I’ve described this before as akin to killing an old friend, and one friend that needs killing is exactly this mythology. Disabusing yourself of this core fear is vital to fully unplugging yourself from the old paradigm, because so much of fem-centric social conditioning is dependent upon it. Dropping the Soul-Mate Myth isn’t the nihilism a lot of people might have you believe it is. If anything it will free you to have a better, healthier future relationship with someone who is genuinely important to you - a relationship based on genuine desire, mutual respect, complimentary understanding of each other and love, rather than one based on a fear of losing your ONE and only representation of contentment in this life. In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. This is a foundation of any relationship, not just intersexual ones, but family, business, etc. relationships as well. It is a dynamic that is always in effect. For my own well being and that of my family’s, I need my employer more than he needs me, ergo I get up for work in the morning and work for him. And while I am also a vital part for the uninterrupted continuance of his company and endeavors, he simply needs me less than I need him. Now I could win the lottery tomorrow or he may decide to cut my pay or limit my benefits, or I may complete my Masters Degree and decide that I can do better than to keep myself yoked to his cart indefinitely, thereby, through some condition either initiated by myself or not, I am put into a position of needing him less than he needs me. At this point he is forced into a position of deciding how much I am worth to his ambitions and either part ways with me or negotiate a furtherance of our relationship. The same plays true for intersexual relationships. Whether you want to base your relationship on ‘power’ or not isn’t the issue; it’s already in play from your first point of attraction. You are acceptable to her for meeting any number of criteria and she meets your own as well. If this weren’t the case you simply would not initiate a mutual relationship. In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. This is a foundation of any relationship, not just intersexual ones, but family, business, etc. relationships as well. It is a dynamic that is always in effect. For my own well being and that of my family’s, I need my employer more than he needs me, ergo I get up for work in the morning and work for him. While I am also a vital part for the uninterrupted continuance of his company and endeavors, he simply needs me less than I need him. Now I could win the lottery tomorrow or he may decide to cut my pay or limit my benefits, or I may complete my Masters Degree and decide that I can do better than to keep myself yoked to his cart indefinitely, thereby, through some condition either initiated by myself or not, I am put into a position of needing him less than he needs me. At this point he is forced into a position of evaluating my necessity to his future ambitions and either part ways with me or negotiate a furtherance of our relationship. The same plays true for intersexual relationships. Whether you want to base your relationship on ‘power’ or not isn’t the issue; it’s already in play from your first point of attraction. You are acceptable to her for meeting any number of her criteria and she meets your own as well. If this weren’t the case you simply would not initiate a mutual relationship. This is the first comparison we make with another individual - call it ‘sizing up’ if you like - but we make innate (and often unconscious) comparisons about everything and in the case of initial attraction we decide if the other person is acceptable for our own intimacy. This principle isn’t so much about ‘power’ as it is about control. This might sound like semantics, but it makes a difference. It’s very easy to slip into binary arguments and think that what I mean by the cardinal rule of relationships is that one participant must absolutely rule over the other - a domineering dominant to a doormat submissive. The problem with our modern interpretation of power is to think of it in extreme, absolute terms. Control in a healthy relationship passes back and forth as desire and need dictate for each partner. In an unhealthy relationship you have an unbalanced manipulation of this control by a partner. Although control is never in complete balance, it becomes manipulation when one partner, in essence blackmails, the other with what would otherwise be a reinforcer for the manipulated under a healthy circumstance. This happens for a plethora different reasons, but the condition comes about by two ways - the submissive participant becomes conditioned to allow the manipulation to occur and/or the dominate initiates the manipulation. In either case the rule still holds true - the one who needs the other the least has the most control. Nowhere is this more evident than in interpersonal relationships. Too many people who I’ve counseled and read my blog assume that this Rule means that I’m advocating the maintaining a position of dominance at the expense of their partner’s best interests; far from it. I do however advocate that people - young men in particular - develop a better sense of self-worth and a better understanding of their true efficacy in their relationships (assuming you decide to become involved in one). Don’t get me wrong, both sexes are guilty of manipulation; Battered women go back to their abusive boyfriends/husbands and pussy-whipped men compromise themselves and their ambitions to better serve their girlfriends insecurities. My intent in promoting this Rule is to open the eyes of young men who are already predisposed to devaluing themselves and placing women as the goal of their lives rather than seeing themselves as the prize to be sought after. Compromise is always going to be a part of any relationship, but what’s key is realizing when that compromise becomes the result of manipulation, what is in effect and developing the confidence to be uncompromising in those situations. This is where a firm understanding of the cardinal rule of relationships becomes essential. There’s nothing wrong with backing down from an argument you have with your girlfriend, but there is something wrong when you continually compromise yourself in order to ‘keep the peace’ with the understanding that she’ll withhold intimacy as a result of you holding your ground. That is a power play, also known as a ‘shit test’. She initiates it thus becoming the controlling party. No woman’s intimacy (i.e. sex) is ever worth that compromise because in doing so you devalue your own worth to her. Once this precedent is set, she will progressively have less respect for you - exactly opposite of the popular conception that she’ll appreciate your compromising for her and reward you for this. And really, what are you compromising in order to achieve? Set in this condition, you’re appealing for her intimacy. That isn’t genuine desire or real interest in you, it’s a subtle psychological test (that all too many men are unaware of) meant to determine who needs the other more. There is no more a superior confidence for a man than one with the self-understanding that he will not compromise himself for the recognized manipulations of a woman, and the fortitude to walk away knowing he has in the past, and will in the future find a better prospect than her. This is the man who passes the shit test. It’s called ‘enlightened self-interest’, and a principle I wholly endorse. Truth to Power Denying the utility of Power, vilifying it’s usages, is in itself a means of using Power. Real change works from the inside out. If you don’t change your mind about yourself, you wont change anything else. Women can change their hair color, their makeup, clothes, breast size, and any number of cosmetic alteration on a whim, or as they can afford them, but the constant discontent, the constant inadequacies they complain of are rooted in their self-perceptions, not how others really perceive them. This is an outside-in mentality; hoping the external will change the internal, and it’s just this mentality that lesser men apply to themselves - the only difference being the application. The Average Frustrated Chump (AFC for lack of a better term) has the same problem as the vain woman (OK, really any woman) - a lack of true self¬ understanding of their own problem. It’s very difficult to do self-analysis and self-criticism, particularly when it comes to questioning our own beliefs and the reasons our personalities are what they are. It’s akin to telling someone they’re not living their lives ‘correctly’ or that they’re raising their children ‘wrong’; only it’s more difficult because we’re doing the telling about ourselves to ourselves. Self-estimation (not self-esteem) never happens spontaneously, there always has to be some crisis to prompt it. Anxiety, trauma and crisis are necessary catalysts to stimulate self-consciousness. A breakup, a death, a betrayal; tragically, it’s at these points in our lives that we do our best introspection, we have our ‘moments of clarity’ and yes, discover what abysmal, simpering chumps we’ve allowed ourselves to be molded into. Denial The first step to really unplugging from our preconditioning (i.e. the feminine Matrix) is recognizing that this conditioning has led to the beliefs we think are integral to our personalities. The psychological term for this is called ‘ego- investment’. When a person internalizes a mental schema so thoroughly, and has become conditioned to it for so long, it becomes an integral part of their personality. So to attack the belief is to, literally, attack the person. This is why we see such a violent reaction to people’s political, religious, inter-social/inter- sexual, inter-gender, etc. expressions of belief - they perceive it as a personal attack, even when presented with irrefutable, empirical evidence that challenges the veracity of those beliefs. One common frustration that Game-aware Men express is how difficult it is to open an AFCs eyes as to why he’s not hooking up, why he’s not getting dates (or 2nd dates if he is), why he’s constantly getting 'lets just be friends’ (LJBF) rejections, etc., and all the flaws in what is really ego-investment internalizations. As I’m fond of saying, it’s dirty work unplugging chumps from the Matrix, and this is made all the more difficult when a person is in a categorical state of denial. People resort to denial when recognizing that the truth would destroy something they hold dear. In the case of a cheating partner, denial lets you avoid acknowledging evidence of your own humiliation. Short of catching a spouse in bed with your best friend, evidence of infidelity is usually ambiguous. It’s motivated skepticism. You’re more skeptical of things you don’t want to believe and demand a higher level of proof. Denial is unconscious, or it wouldn’t work: if you know you’re closing your eyes to the truth, some part of you knows what the truth is and denial can’t perform its protective function. One thing we all struggle to protect is a positive self-image. The more important the aspect of your self-image that’s challenged by the truth, the more likely you are to go into denial. If you have a strong sense of self-worth and competence, your self-image can take hits but remain largely intact; if you’re beset by self¬ doubt (a hallmark of self-righteous AFC thinking), however, any acknowledgment of failure can be devastating and any admission of error painful to the point of being unthinkable. Self-justification and denial arise from the dissonance between believing you’re competent, and making a mistake, which clashes with that image. Solution: deny the mistake. Attribute it to an outside element (women won’t play by “the rules”) rather than resort to introspection (maybe I’m wrong about “the rules”?). Therefore we see AFCs tenaciously cling to a moralistic sense of purpose in their methods which is only reinforced by popular culture in our media, our music, eHarmony, our religion, etc. Articles of Power The term Power has a lot of misapplied connotations to it. When we think of Powerful people, we think of influence, wealth, prestige, status and the ability to have others do our bidding - all of these are not Power. As much as we’d like to convince ourselves that women are attracted to this definition of Power, this is false. Because what I’ve described as aspects of Power here are really manifestations of Power. Here’s a cosmic secret revealed for you: Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances. Real Power is the degree to which we actually control the directions of our lives. When we allow our thinking, our personality disorders and our mental schemas, combined with their accompanying behaviors, to determine the course of our decisions, we relinquish real Power. The man who succumbs, by force or by will, to the responsibilities, liabilities and accountabilities that are required of him by society, marriage, commitment, family, fatherhood, career choice, the military, etc. leaves him very little influence over the course of his own life. The painter Paul Gauguin is one of history’s most powerful men. At middle age Paul was a “successful” banker, with a wife and children and by all appearances, a man of great merit and considerable wealth. Then one day Paul decided he’d had enough and wanted to paint. He left his wife, children and his money, and decided he would become a painter. He cast off his former life to live the life he chose, he had the power to assume control of it. Eventually he died in Tahiti, but not after having one of the most interesting of lives and becoming a world renowned painter. You may think, what a horrible man he was to abandon his responsibilities to selfishly pursue his own desires, but the fact remains that he had the Power within himself to do so that most men would shudder to even consider. So entrapped are we in our self-expectation and self-imposed limitations that we fail to see that we have always had the keys to our own prisons - we’re just scared shitless to use them. This Power is the root of that all important term ‘confidence’ we toss out every time we tell a 19 year old chump what women really want so he can get laid. It’s this ability to make our own decisions, right or wrong, and to confidently own them that separate us from “other guys.” It’s this self-guided Power that evokes a seemingly irrational confidence to Spin Plates, to date non-exclusively, to assert ourselves and to be unafraid to make ourselves the prize, and it’s just this Power that women want to be associated with. Lack of this Power is exactly what makes master Pick Up Artists (PUAs) revert to some of the most pathetic AFCs once they become involved in an LTR. They sell women on this idealization and the perception that they possess this Power only to discover the AFC insecurities these behaviors were meant to cover up once they’ve bought the act. This isn’t to devalue PUA skills as effective behavior sets, rather it’s meant to illustrate the behaviors that should be manifest as a result of effecting a real personal change. It should be that adopting a positive-masculine mental schema prompts these PUA skills as a result. Instead we have the cart before the horse in a mad rush to get that all important pussy we’ve been deprived of for so long, by masking our deficit in real Power and understanding with rote memorized PUA techniques hoping that by practicing them they’ll turn into “natural game” and we’ll mature enough to initiate a lasting personal change. We’ll return to this later. The Soul-Mate Myth There is no ONE Chapter I The Cardinal Rule of Relationships You cannot negotiate genuine Desire. This is a very simple principle that most Men and the vast majority of women are willfully ignorant of. One the most common personal problems I’ve been asked advice for in the past 10 years is some variation of “how do I get her back?” Usually this breaks down into men seeking some methodology to return his relationship to an earlier state where a previously passionate woman couldn’t keep her hands off of him. Six months into a comfortable familiarity and the thrill is gone, but in truth it’s the genuine desire that is gone. It’s often at this stage that a man will resort to negotiation. Sometimes this can be as subtle as him progressively and systematically doing things for her in the hopes that she’ll reciprocate with the same sexual / intimate fervor they used to have. Other times a married or long term couple may go to couples counseling to “resolve their sex issues” and negotiate terms for her sexual compliance. He’ll promise to do the dishes and a load of laundry more often in exchange for her feigned sexual interest in him. Yet, no matter what terms are offered, no matter how great an external effort he makes so deserving of reward, the genuine desire is not there for her. In fact, she feels worse for not having the desire after such efforts were made for her compliance. Her desire has become an obligation. Negotiated desire only ever leads to obligated compliance. This is why her post¬ negotiation sexual response is often so lackluster and the source of even further frustration on his part. She may be more sexually available to him, but the half¬ hearted experience is never the same as when they first met when there was no negotiation, just spontaneous desire for each other. From a male perspective, and particularly that of an uninitiated beta male, negotiation of desire seems a deductive, rational solution to the problem. Men tend to innately rely on deductive reasoning; otherwise known as an “if then” logic stream. The code is often something like this: I need sex + women have the sex I want + query women about their conditions for sex + meet prerequisites for sex = the sex I want. Makes sense right? It’s simple deductive pragmatism, but built on a foundation that relies on a woman’s accurate self-evaluations. The genuine desire they used to experience at the outset of their relationship was predicated upon a completely unknown set of variables. Overtly communicating a desire for reciprocal desire creates obligation, and sometimes even ultimatums. Genuine desire is something a person must come to - or be led to - of their own volition. You can force a woman by threat to comply with behaving in a desired manner, but you cannot make her want to behave that way. A prostitute will fuck you for an exchange, it doesn’t mean she wants to. Whether in a monogamous marriage, LTR or a one night stand (ONS), strive for genuine desire in your relationships. Half of the battle is knowing you want to be with a woman who wants to please you, not one who feels obligated to. You will never draw this genuine desire from her by overt means, but you can covertly lead her to this genuine desire. The trick in provoking real desire is in keeping her ignorant of your intent to provoke it. Real desire is created by her thinking it’s something she wants, not something she has to do. The Desire Dynamic A woman’s imagination is the single most useful tool in your Game arsenal. Every technique, every casual response, every gesture, intimation and subcommunication hinges on stimulating a woman’s imagination. Competition anxiety relies on it. Demonstrating Higher Value (DHV) relies on it. Prompting sexual tension relies on it. Call it “Caffeinating the Hamster” if you will, but stimulating a woman’s imaginings is the single most potent talent you can develop in any context of a relationship. This is the single greatest failing of average frustrated chumps; they vomit out everything about themselves, divulging the full truth of themselves to women in the mistaken belief that women desire that truth as a basis for qualifying for their intimacy. Learn this now: Women never want full disclosure. Nothing is more self- satisfying for a woman than to think she’s figured a Man out based solely on her mythical feminine intuition (i.e. imagination). When a man overtly confirms his character, his story, his value, etc. for a woman, the mystery is dispelled and the biochemical rush she enjoyed from her imaginings, her suspicions, her self-confirmations about you are gone. Most guys with a Beta male mindset classically do exactly this on the first date and wonder why they get LJBF’d promptly after it - this is why. Familiarity is anti- seductive. Nothing kills Game, organic passion and libido like comfortable familiarity. Despite their common filibuster tactics, women don’t want to be comfortable with a potential (or proven) sex partner, they need their imaginations stoked to be excited, aroused and anxious to want sex with a potential partner. In an LTR there’s an even more critical need to keep prodding that imagination. I would go so far as to say it’s imperative for a healthy relationship, but then you’ll ask, how do you go about that when your LTR girlfriend or wife already knows your story and the familiarity becomes cemented in? The easy answer is never let it be from the outset - the health of any LTR you might entertain depends and survives on the frame you enter into it with. The foundations of a healthy LTR are laid while you’re single and dating non- exclusively. I’ve yet to meet the guy who’s told me he’s getting more frequent, more intense sex after his LTR / Marriage / Live-in situation was established. The primary reason for this is the relaxation of the competition anxiety that made the urgency of fucking you with lustful abandon in your dating phase an imperative to get you to commit to her frame. That’s the crux of the matter that so many guys fail in, they surrender the frame before they commit to an LTR. They believe, (thanks to their feminine conditioning) that commitment necessitates, and is synonymous with, acquiescing to her frame control. Combine this with anti-seductive familiarity and the growing commonness of your own value because of it, and you can see exactly why her sexual interest wanes. So what do you do to prevent that? First and foremost, understand that whose frame you enter into an LTR sets the foundation of that LTR. If you find yourself buying into an “it’s women’s world and we just live in it” mentality where your default presumption is that commitment means she wins by default, you lose and that’s just how it is, don’t even consider an LTR. She enters your world, not the other way around. Secondly, you need to cultivate an element of unpredictability about yourself prior to, and into, an LTR. Always remember, perfect is boring. Women will cry a river about wanting Mr. Dependable and then go off to fuck Mr. Exciting. In an LTR it’s necessary to be both, but not one at the expense of the other. Too many married men are terrified to rock the excitement boat with their wives or LTRs because their sex lives hang in the balance of placating to her and her already preset frame. She must be reminded daily why you’re fun, unpredictable and exciting, not only to her, but other women as well. This requires covertly, tactfully, demonstrably implying that other women find you desirable. Women crave the chemical rush that comes from suspicion and indignation. If you don’t provide it, they’ll happily get it from tabloids, romance novels, The View, Tyra Banks or otherwise living vicariously through their single girlfriends. By playfully staying her source of that rush you maintain the position of stimulating her imagination. Married men, who were defeated before they committed, don’t think that elements of Game apply to marriage out of fear of upsetting their wives frame, when in fact being cocky & funny, neg hits and many other aspects of Game work wonderfully. Just kicking her in the ass or busting her chops, playfully, is sometimes enough to send the message that you’re fearless of her response. You can break her frame with cockiness and the imaginings that come with it. Breaking from an established, predictable familiarity is often a great way to fire her imagination. Married guys will report how sexual their wives become after they get to the gym and start shaping up after a long layoff (or for the first time). It’s easy to pass this off as looking better makes women more aroused (which is true), but underneath that is the breaking of a pattern. You’re controllable and predictable so long as you’re pudgy and listless - what other woman would want you? But start changing your patterns, get into shape, make more money, get a promotion, improve and demonstrate your higher value in some appreciable way and the imagination and competition anxiety returns. Imagination There are methods and social conventions women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male’s genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she’s capable of attracting. Ideally the best Man should exemplify both, but rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by an innate need for security, the feminine as a whole had to develop social conventions and methodologies (which change as her environment and personal conditions do) to effect this. Not only are men up against a female genetic imperative, but also centuries-old feminine social conventions established and adapted from a time long before human beings could accurately determine genetic origins. I’ve detailed in many of my blog posts that mate selection is a psycho-biological function that millennia of evolution has hardwired into the psyches of both sexes. So internalized and socialized is this process into our collective unconsciousness that we rarely recognize we’re subject to these motivators even when we repeatedly manifest the same behaviors prompted by them (ex. women having a second kid with the Alpha Bad Boy). It’s simple deductive logic to follow that for a species to survive it must provide its offspring with the best possible conditions to ensure its survival - either that or to reproduce in such quantity that it ensures survival. The obvious application of this for women is sharing parental investment with the best possible mate she can attract and who can provide long term security for her and any potential offspring. Thus women are biologically, psychologically and sociologically the filters of their own reproduction, where as men’s reproductive methodology is to scatter as much of his genetic material as humanly possible to the widest pool of sexually available females. He of course has his own criteria for mating selection and determining the best genetic pairing for his reproduction (i.e. “she’s gotta be hot”), but his criteria is certainly less discriminating than that of women (i.e. “no one’s ugly after 2am”). This is evidenced in our own hormonal biology; healthy men possess between 12 andl7 times the amount of testosterone (the primary hormone in sexual arousal) women do and women produce substantially more estrogen (instrumental in sexual caution) and oxytocin (fostering feelings of security and nurturing) than men. That stated, both of these methodologies conflict in practice. For a woman to best ensure the survival of her offspring, a man must necessarily abandon his method of reproduction in favor of her own. This then sets a contradictory imperative for him to pair with a woman who will satisfy his methodology. A male must sacrifice his reproductive schedule to satisfy that of the woman he pairs with. Thus, with so much genetic potential at stake on his part of the risk, he wants not only to ensure that she is the best possible candidate for breeding (and future breeding), but also to know that his progeny will benefit from both parent’s investment. Side note: One interesting outcome of this psycho-biological dynamic is men’s ability to spot their own children in a crowd of other children more quickly and with greater acuity than even their mothers. Studies have shown that men have the ability to more quickly and accurately identify their own children in a room full of kids dressed in the same uniforms than the mothers of the child. Again, this stresses the subconscious importance of this genetic trade off. These are the rudiments of human sexual selection and reproduction. Obviously there are many other social, emotional and psychological intricacies that are associated with these fundamentals, but these are the underlying motivations and considerations that subconsciously influence sexual selection. Social Conventions To counter this subconscious dynamic to their own genetic advantage women initiate social conventions and psychological schemas to better facilitate their own breeding methodologies. This is why women always have the “prerogative to change her mind” and the most fickle of behaviors become socially excusable, while men’s behavior is constrained to a higher standard of responsibility to “do the right thing” which is invariably to the advantage of a woman’s reproductive strategy . This is why guys who are 'Players’, and fathers who abandon mothers to pursue their innate reproduction method are villains, and fathers who selflessly sacrifice themselves financially, emotionally and life decision-wise, even to the benefit of children they didn’t father, are considered social heroes for complying with women’s genetic imperatives. This is also the root motivation for female-specific social dynamics such as “lets just be friends” (LJBF) rejections and women’s propensity for victimhood (as they’ve learned that this engenders 'savior’ mental schemas for men’s breeding schedules - Cap’n Save a Ho) and even marriage itself. Good Dads vs. Good Genes The two greatest difficulties for women to overcome in their own methodology is that they are only at a sexually viable peak for a short window of time (generally their early 20s) and the fact that the qualities that make a good long term partner (the Good Dad) and the qualities that make for good breeding stock (Good Genes) only rarely manifest themselves in the same male. Provisioning and security potential are fantastic motivators for pairing with a Good Dad, but the same characteristics that make him such are generally a disadvantage when compared with the man who better exemplifies genetic, physical attraction and the risk taking qualities that would imbue her child with a better capacity to adapt to it’s environment (i.e. stronger, faster, more attractive than others to ensure the passing of her own genetic material to future generations). This is the Jerk vs. Nice Guy paradox writ large on an evolutionary scale. Men and women innately (though unconsciously) understand this dynamic, so in order for a woman to have the best that the Good Dad has to offer while taking advantage of the best that the Good Genes man has, she must invent and constantly modify social conventions to keep the advantage in her biological favor, and in accordance with her pluralistic sexual strategy. Reproductive Schedules This paradox then necessitates that women (and by default men) must subscribe to short term and long term schedules of mating. Short term schedules facilitate breeding with the Good Genes male, while long term breeding is reserved the Good Dad male. This convention and the psycho-social schemas that accompany it are precisely why women will marry the Nice Guy, stable, loyal, (preferably) doctor and still fuck the pool boy or the cute surfer she met on spring break. In our genetic past, a male with good genes implied an ability to be a good provider, but modern convention has thwarted this, so new social and mental schemas had to be developed for women. Cheating For this dynamic and the practicality of enjoying the best of both genetic worlds, women find it necessary to ‘cheat’. This cheating can be done proactively or reactively. In the reactive model, a woman who has already paired with her long term partner choice, engages in a extramarital or extra-pairing, sexual intercourse with a short term partner (i.e. the cheating wife or girlfriend). That’s not to say this short term opportunity cannot develop into a 2nd, long term mate, but the action of infidelity itself is a method for securing better genetic stock than the committed male provider is capable of supplying. Proactive cheating is the Single Mommy dilemma. This form of ‘cheating’ relies on the woman breeding with a Good Genes male, bearing his children and then abandoning him, or having him abandon her, (again through invented social conventions) in order to find a Good Dad male to provide for her and the children of her Good Genes partner to ensure their security. I want to stress again that (most) women do not have some consciously constructed and recognized master plan to enact this cycle and deliberately trap men into it. Rather, the motivations for this behavior and the accompanying social rationales invented to justify it are an unconscious process. For the most part, women are unaware of this dynamic, but are nonetheless subject to it’s influence. For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she’s able to attract and to ensure her own and her offspring’s survival with the best provisioning partner is an evolutionary jackpot. Cuckoldry On some level of consciousness, men innately sense something is wrong with this situation, though they may not be able to place why they feel it or misunderstand it in the confusion of women’s justifications for it. Or they become frustrated by the social pressures to 'do the right thing’, are shamed into martyrdom/savior-hood and committed to a feigned responsibility to these conventions. Nevertheless, some see it well enough to steer clear of single mothers, either by prior experience or observing other male cuckolds saddled with the responsibility of raising and providing for - no matter how involved or uninvolved - another man’s successful reproduction efforts with this woman. Men often fall into the role of the proactive or reactive Cuckold. He will never enjoy the same benefits as his mate’s short term partner(s) to the same degree, in the way of sexual desire or immediacy of it, while at the same time enduring the social pressures of having to provide for this Good Genes father’s progeny. It could be argued that he may contribute minimally to their welfare, but on some level, whether emotional, physical, financial or educational he will contribute some effort for another man’s genetic stock in exchange for a mitigated form of sexuality/intimacy from the mother. To some degree, (even if only by his presence) he is sharing the parental investment that should be borne by the short term partner. If nothing else, he contributes the time and effort to her he could be better invested in finding a sexual partner with which he could pursue his own genetic imperative by his own methodology. However, needless to say, there is no shortage of men sexually deprived enough to 'see past’ the long term disadvantages, and not only rewarding, but reinforcing a single mother’s bad decisions (bad from his own interest’s perspective) with regard to her breeding selections and schedules in exchange for short term sexual gratification. Furthermore, by reinforcing her behavior thusly, he reinforces the social convention for both men and women. It’s important to bear in mind that in this age women are ultimately, solely responsible for the men they choose to mate with (baring rape of course) and giving birth to their children. Men do bear responsibility for their actions no doubt, but it is ultimately the decision of the female and her judgment that decides her and her children’s fate Schedules of Mating Rejection is better than Regret. While sifting through some of my past posts on the SoSuave forum it hit me; over 90% of what I advocate there can be reduced to overcoming a fear of rejection. 90% of the dilemmas AFCs find themselves in, and a majority of men’s concerns, with the opposite sex find, their roots in the methods and means they use to reduce their exposure to female rejection. These are buffers meant to reduce the potential for this rejection of intimacy. Men of course aren’t the only ones who use buffers - women have their share as well - but I think it would be much more productive for guys to recognize this propensity in themselves and see the methods they use, and often ego-invest in their personal psychologies, to buffer themselves against rejection. Virtually every common problem guys deal with finds its basis in these buffers: LDRs - Long Distance Relationships. A guy will entertain an LDR because it was based on a previous acceptance of intimacy and being no longer convenient (due to distance) the guy will cling to the “relationship” because it’s a buffer against potential rejection from new women instead of accepting the relationship as being finished and maturely re-entering the dating pool. It’s a perceived “sure thing”, even if only rarely rewarding. Playing Friends - Usually after an LJBF rejection where the perception is the potential love interest “might” later become an intimate with time and qualification. No matter how misguided, the time and effort spent by a guy in proving himself as the would-be “perfect boyfriend” is a buffer against further rejection by new potential females, which is then further compounded by a moralistic sense of duty to be an actual friend to his LJBF girl. In essence, his buffer against further rejection is his misplaced dedication to the LJBF girl. Another variation of this is the Cap’n-Save-A-Ho dynamic. Emails, IMs and Texts -1 should also add lengthy phone conversations to this list as well, but really any technology that seemingly increases communication serves as a buffer (for both genders) the more it limits interpersonal communication. The rationalization is that it keeps him in constant contact with his sex interest (which in and of itself is a mistake), but only serves as a buffer against her rejection. The latent perception being that it’s easier to read a rejection (or hear one) than to potentially be rejected in person. A lot of guys will counter this with how texts and IM’s are just how this generation plies it’s Game. The difference I’d argue is that when digital communication becomes your preferred method of interacting with women, it’s a buffer. Facebook & Online Dating - This one should be fairly obvious for the same reasons as above - Online dating is perhaps the best buffer ever conceived - particularly for less than physically ideal women. In fact it’s so effective that businesses can be built upon the common insecurities and fear of rejection of both sexes. Objectification of Gender - This might be less obvious, but both sexes objectify one another. Naturally when we think of this, the popularized notion is that men objectify women as sex objects, but women have a tendency to objectify men as “success objects” for the same reason. It is easier to accept rejection from an object than it is to take it from a living, breathing, human being. This is why we refer to intergender communication as a “game.” We “score” or we get “shot down” not personally or emotionally rejected; the buffer is in the language and mental approach. Idealization of Gender - This is the myth of the “Quality Woman.” The buffer operates in perceived self-limitations based on a search for an ideal mate. Thus a tendency to fixate on one woman (ONEitis) or one type of woman (a gender Archetype) develops. By limiting to, and/or fixating on one woman (or type) the potential for rejection decreases, while insuring that any real rejection will come only from what will later be deemed non-qualified women. Rejection = 'Low Quality Woman’ and is thus disqualified. This works in a similar fashion to the objectification buffer in that the woman delivering the rejection is reduced to an object. Scarcity Mentality - The “Take What I Can Get and Be Glad I Got It” mentality acts as a buffer in that it works opposite of the Idealization buffer. Deprivation is motivation, and by sticking with the “sure thing” as the “only thing”, the potential for new rejection is then eliminated. Older Women, Younger Women -1 should also include certain body types in this category as well, but the buffer is in certain types of women being less likely to reject a man due to their personal circumstances. The Cougar dynamic debate has been done into irrelevancy now, but the buffer is that older women, acting in accordance with their conditions, will be more inclined to accept the advances of younger men. In the same vein, very young girls will be more apt to accept the advances of older men due to naivete and fat women are easier to become intimate with due to sexual deprivation. In and of themselves these preferences aren’t buffers per se, but an internalized preference for particular women develop by associating that particular type of woman with the minimization for potential rejection. Leagues - This is the opposite of a “high standards” buffer which could be grouped with Scarcity. There is the woman some guys actually fear because she is perceived to be so much more socially valuable than the average guy estimates himself. Think of a hot, statuesque, corporate director who runs marathons, travels a lot, has good friends, dresses well, etc, etc, etc. The average frustrated chump tells himself “wow is she out of my league I would just get shot down because I would need to possess A, B & C to be her social status / physical status equal for her to even be interested”. Ergo, the internalized idea of Leagues is a useful rationalization buffer against rejection. Pornography -1 realize this will draw some fire from the masturbation / no¬ masturbation set, but porn (as men use it) is a buffer against rejection. Porn doesn’t talk back, porn doesn’t need a few drinks to loosen up nor does porn require any social skills to produce rewards. It’s convenient, immediate, sexual release that requires nothing more than a PC and an internet connection (or a magazine if you prefer the analog means). We can argue the obsessive- compulsive aspect of it, or the “my girlfriend and I enjoy porn together” reasoning, but for the single guy the root reasoning is its facility as a buffer. I should also add that it’s this very facility that makes women hate it (when they do). Porn gives a guy his reward for free; a reward that should be her single best agency is rendered valueless when a man can get off to an infinite variety of sexual experience at the click of a mouse. It’s unlimited access to unlimited sexual availability without the stress of learning methods to earn it from women as a reward. These are really just a few notable examples, but once you become aware of how buffers manifest you’ll begin to see how and why they are useful against rejection. Buffers are generally the paths of least rejection that become ego- invested “preferences.” Buffers aren’t so much about those “preference” as they are about the rejection aversion motivations behind them. At this point you might be thinking, “Well, what the hell, I don’t want to feel rejection, why not employ buffers against it?” The main reason for embracing rejection is that rejection is better than regret. Scan back through this short list of buffers; how many of these have become greater, longer term problems for you than a briefly painful rejection would’ve been? Buffers also have a tendency to compound upon themselves in that one tends to dovetail into another, or more, until you no longer realize that they were originally rejection prevention methodologies and gradually become associated with your genuine personality. After a long enough period, buffer become “just how I am.” Lastly, experience teaches harsh, but it teaches best. Rejection, real, raw, in your face rejection stings like a bitch. It must be something so intolerable that human beings will devise countless social and psychological constructs in order to avoid it. However, there is no better teacher than getting burned by the stove. As a Man, you are going to face rejection in far more facets of your life than just dealing with a woman. The buffers you learn in one aspect of your life will be just as encumbering when they’re transferred to another aspect of your life. All of these buffers listed, and many more, become indicators of how you confidently deal with adversity. Some make you look like a Beta male pussy, others are subtle and nagging parts of an internalized personality, but dependence upon them incrementally reveals your real character to a woman. Are you Alpha enough to take a rejection on the chin, smile and confidently come back for more? Or will you run, will you block yourself, will you hide with convenient buffers? Compensation One of the higher orders of physical standards women hold for men is height. There are countless threads in the manosphere community that address this, but I think that for the better part it’s not difficult to observe this in the Teal world’. I should also add that this is one characteristic that is central to the Social Matching Theory in that humans are sensitive to asymmetries and imbalances. Now, before I get told in so many ways that this isn’t always the case or the “not all girls are like that” exceptions to the rule, let me start by saying that this isn’t the point of this section. I don’t want to debate the logistics of why women prefer a taller mate or the tendency for like to attract like in this respect. What I’m on about is really the root of the infamous “short man’s disease.” That’s right, you know who I’m talking about; the ultimate in compensation for inferiority, the dreaded ‘short man’s disease.’ You know the guy. About 5' 6”, pounding out the weight on the bench press. Bad ass attitude, hangs with the bigger guys (which is pretty much all of them) and throws his ego around. What a tool, right? But if you think this is only limited to short men, you’re making a mistake. You see, in so many ways we all compensate for deficiencies. I once read a thread on another “non-community” forum that saw fit to start a topic asking why men lie and it got me to thinking why any of us lie, man or woman. At the time I’d also been fielding a lot of questions regarding issues we kind of take for granted after having discussed them to death in the manosphere; one of those being the nature of personality and one’s ability to change their own or have it changed by circumstance, or often both. I think it’s a tragic miscalculation on our part to think of personality as static, unchangeable or to question the ingenuousness of that change, but more tragic is the doubting of ourselves for that change. One simple truism that a lot of people love to use as their convenient escape clause is the JBY (just be yourself) notion. This of course is just what ones says as advice when they really don’t know what else to say. Given that though, what is it that makes a personality shift ‘genuine’? Any number of us probably know an individual who began acting differently at some point in their life. This can be the result of some kind of tragedy or trauma (think PTSD) or it can be that the individual felt a need to change their fundamental way of thinking and made the change of their own accord. Usually in these cases we think of them as posers or try-hards, trying to be something they’re not. They reflect this change in their appearance, their regular practices, their friends or the people they associate with, attitudes, behaviors etc. And this is what’s jarring for people who knew their prior personality. What makes us doubt the sincerity of a personal change is what’s at issue. If their change is something we agree with or generally think of as positive, we are less inclined to doubt the ingenuousness of this change. But when their change conflicts with our own interests, when it dramatically clashes with what we’ve come to expect of that individual, this is where we doubt their sincerity. We say “dude, stop trying to be something you’re not”, we tear it down, we fall back on JBY platitudes because it clashes with our interpretations. And in this doubt, we fish for reasons as to why a person would want that change; essentially, what are they compensating for? It may be funny to presume someone driving a monster truck down the highway is making up for a small penis, but the root of that ‘compensating’ is what makes us feel uncomfortable in our own internal compensating. It’s a difficult enough task for an individual to critically assess their own personality, and even more so to effect a change in it, but the final insult is to have other’s doubt the veracity of it. What others fail to see is that at some point in the development of their own personalities, they themselves had to compensate for deficiencies, discontentments and prompts to grow and mature. This is a gigantic hurdle for most average men wanting to transition to being something more. I like the term positive masculinity, but the crux of all that is the ingenuousness of the actual change. Why are you changing? There is a saying that average frustrated chumps (AFCs) are like a bunch of crabs in a barrel. As soon as one is about to climb out there are always half a dozen ready to pull him back in again. Add to this a self-doubt from societal conditionings that tell him to stay the same, not to aspire to more, he’s doing it right, and it’s amazing that any AFC progresses beyond what he was. This has been termed the ‘Societal Cockblock’; they tell him he’s compensating, and in a way they’re right, but for the wrong reason. PUA skills, psychology, Positive Masculinity are all compensations for deficiencies. They go beyond behavior modification - that’s the easy answer. PUAs teach a set of behaviors and scripts to be aped in order to mask a deficit. These are easy pickings for the JBY apologists because they are actions that generally don’t match a person’s prior personality. They’re not “really” like that, so they’re posers, or worse, they’ve been duped by guys hawking the PUA brand of self-help tools. What they don’t see is the genuine desire to change and the reasons for it. When we compensate, we improvise, we fake it till we make it; but who determines when we’ve stopped faking it? You do. I read all kinds of articles doubting the realized capacity a person has to adopt ‘natural Game’ into their personality. It’s an internalization process for sure, but there has to come a point of transition where a Man’s default response is his Game response. That’s who he is now. Buffers ALPHA What you’re about to read here is not going to make me any new friends. I know because any discussion of what constitutes Alpha Male characteristics in a Man always becomes clouded by the self-perceptions of how well we think we align with them. The ‘community’, the ‘manosphere’, the new understanding of gender relations that’s picked up momentum for the last 12 years has always generated it’s own terminologies for more abstract concepts. The danger in this is that these terms lack real, universal definition. For purposes of illustrating a concept these terms are usually serviceable - we have a general understanding of what makes for a ‘Beta’ or a Herb, or a man who falls into a sublimated ‘provider’ mentality. Even ‘Alpha’ in a specific context is useful as an illustrative tool, when the subject isn’t directly about ‘Alpha-ness’. It’s when we try to universally define what constitutes the qualities and attributes of an Alpha male that the sparks start to fly. So before you continue on reading further, think about what you believe makes a man Alpha. Got it in your head now? Good, now put all of that aside, purge that from your head, and read the next few paragraphs from the perspective that you don’t know anything about Alpha. The Alpha Buddha I was first introduced to Corey Worthington, the Alpha Buddha, courtesy of Roissy and his post “Umm, sorry?” You can go ahead and look this up and read this from the Chateau’s perspective, and I think the analysis is pretty good, but it might be easier for readers to simply search for “Corey Worthington” on youtube. Corey Worthington was a teenage kid from Melbourne, Australia who made internet infamy by hosting a raucous house party, unbeknown to his parents, resulting in $20,000 of property damage. He was later interviewed by an attractive local news anchor who made efforts to shame him into self-realizations and apologies. It’s probably better to simply watch the video (linked on my blog) to get an idea of Corey’s Alpha cred. I call Corey the Alpha Buddha not in the hopes that men will aspire to his almost Zen-like ‘being’ in Alpha, but rather to provide an example of Alpha in it’s most pure form. He literally is Alpha, unclouded by pretense, afterthought, or conscious awareness of any influence that could have a hope of prompting introspection about his state. Corey Worthington is a piss poor example of a human being, but he’s a textbook example of Alpha. I could use a lot of adjectives to describe this kid, but “beta” wouldn’t be one of them. What’s funny, and a bit ironic, is this kid has probably never come across Mystery Method or “the PUA community” or even heard of ‘peacocking’ and he gets naturally what millions of guys pay small fortunes at PUA seminars to acquire over the course of a lifetime. He’s a selfish little prick, but what makes him insulting to ‘normal’ men is his having the natural, internalized Alpha bravado that so many AFCs wish they had. If you could bottle and sell this Alpha essence, you’d be rich beyond imagine. Right about now all of those self-affirming preconceptions you had about Alpha- ness (that I told you to stow away before reading this) are probably yelling to be let out of the mental box you put them in. “,..but, but Rollo, how can you possibly think this arrogant douchebag kid could ever be an example of anything remotely Alpha?! ” You’ll be pleased to know I fully empathize your outrage. You work hard to be a “better man”, you put in the self analysis, you paid your dues coming to terms with unplugging and reinventing yourself. You’re a success, Corey is fuckup. Corey’s not a better Man than you are, however, he understands Alpha better than you do. Alpha is mindset, not a demographic. Alpha is as Alpha does, it isn’t what we say it is. There are noble Alphas and there are scoundrel Alphas, the difference is all in how they apply themselves. There’s a tendency to approach every “Alpha” argument from what a guy thinks is righteousness; ergo, his personal definition of Alpha is what appeals best to his sense of virtue. He earned his Alpha cred, played by the rules, and by God people (women) should respect that. However, the sad truth is that prisons are full of Alpha males who simply channeled their drive toward destructive and anti-social endeavors. There are plenty of examples of indifferent Asshole Alphas who you wouldn’t say are upstanding moral leaders at all, yet women will literally kill each other (or themselves) in order to bang them because they exude a natural Alpha-ness. Just as Corey does here. There are Alpha drug dealing gang leaders, and there are Alpha husbands, fathers and leaders of industry. It’s all in the application. Genghis Khan was Alpha as fuck, and a leader-of-men, but probably would be on most people’s douchebag list for that era. Here’s an illustration: Guy’s like Corey infuriate men who have invested their self-worth in the accomplishments of what they think ought to be universally appreciated and rewarded. So when they’re confronted with a natural Alpha being undeservedly rewarded for brazenly acting out of accord with what they think the rules ought to be, they seethe with resentment. The natural response in the face of such an inconsistency is to redefine the term ‘Alpha’ to cater to themselves and their accomplishments as “real men” and exclude the perpetrator. The conflict then comes from seeing his new definition of Alpha not being rewarded or even appreciated as well as a natural Alpha attitude and the cycle continues. Your respect (or anyone else’s) for an Alpha has nothing to do with whether or not he possess an Alpha mindset. Three failed marriages and 100+ lays has nothing to do with a man having or not having an Alpha mindset. There are many well respected betas who Ve never had a passing thought of infidelity, or may have 300 lays either with prostitutes or because they possess fame or stunning good looks and women come to him by matter of course. The take home message here is that you are not Alpha because of your achievements, you have your achievements because you are Alpha. You possess a mindset you either had to develop or it came naturally to you. I constantly field questions from young men asking me whether some action or behavior they displayed to a woman was Alpha, or Alpha enough. The real answer is that Alpha behaviors are manifestations of an Alpha mindset. And just like Corey the Alpha Buddha, the introspect required to wonder if something was or wasn’t Alpha wouldn’t ever be a consideration enough to ask. You almost need to have a childlike understanding to really appreciate what Alpha really is. Kids get Alpha. Even the picked on, introverted, beta-to-be kid has a better understanding of Alpha than most adult men do because he lacks the abstract thinking required to rationalize Alpha for himself. Most men, by our socialization, and to varying degrees, lose this in-born Alpha mindset over time. The naturals, the Corey’s of the world, have a better grasp on it’s usefulness and re-purpose it; either to their adulthood advantage or their detriment. Defining Alpha I understand why guys, both of the red and blue pill variety have a problem with using the terms Alpha and/or Beta; depending on the perspective, terms that are definitive about what someone has an investment in make us uncomfortable. It’s much more comfortable to put those issues into more subjective understandings because when we’re objective about them we can’t help the wondering about, or we doubt, our own status within that definition. Objective terms are very close to absolutes depending upon who’s doing the defining. From a generalized perspective, I feel that the terms Alpha and Beta are good reference points in assessing the characteristics that women find arousing (and attractive) in men for both short and long term mating strategies. However, I think that beyond these convenient terms, men need to be more realistic about how they apply to their own self-impressions in contrast with how women are interpreting the Alpha and Beta cues that they exhibit. For the record, at points in my life I’ve personally been the worst, bottom scraping Beta, the douchebag Alpha rock star, and the strong (but lesser) Alpha father and husband. So it’s with this in mind that I think guys shouldn’t believe that their 'stars are set’ and they’ll never live up to the manosphere standard of Alpha. Living Up The reason that so many guys get so bent about what defines an Alpha is usually because they don’t fit that general definition very well. So it’s a logical ego defense to make necessity a virtue and redefine it to better suit their own conditions. It’s exactly the same dynamic as the debate over Looks vs. Game. Game takes priority for those without Looks and vice versa. A personal definition of “what’s Alpha?” becomes whatever plays to an individual guy’s strengths, and women who can’t appreciate them (i.e. all of them) are relegated to being less-than quality women. Sour grapes are sour, but deductively it makes sense; we want to be the embodiment of what we ‘know’ is attractive to women and others. The worst beta schlub you know thinks he’s Alpha, because every woman he’s ever known has defined and affirmed for him that being Beta is what women want. Ethics of Alpha The problem then is looking at the definition objectively. In an objective light it’s difficult to look at ourselves as not measuring up to an Alpha ideal. So it becomes the first recourse to cast suspicion on the whole idea of being Alpha at all. It’s a pissing contest between immature men then. Or is it? There is a LOT of observable, provable evidence that many so-called Alpha traits do in fact elicit very predictable, desired, favorable behaviors (usually breeding cues) in women. From an evolutionary psychology perspective Alpha is just as unprincipled, just as efficiently ruthless and uncaring as it’s female counterpart - feminine Hypergamy. So then the definition moves into an ambiguous moral ground; is it ethical to be / act Alpha? To be Alpha implies that you necessarily rise above a certain degree of common mediocrity depending upon the context - whether you do so like a guy from hotchickswithdouchebags.com or like a perfect “honorable” gentlemen is irrelevant, you still position yourself above “other guys”. To some extent this is selfishness or implies a self-importance that questions moral tenets. At this point I should also add here that women never doubt themselves on moral grounds for outshining their own competition in the sexual market place - they just do so covertly and with a polite smile, unburdened by ethical doubts. Hypergamy is its own excuse. Alpha Selectivity And that brings us to the subjectively deductive end of defining Alpha. Every sexual competitor seeks to disqualify their rivals from breeding opportunities. Most animals fight for territory or harem rights. Humans generally (though certainly not exclusively) do the same combat in the psychological. We seek to disqualify sexual competitors by calling into doubt the sexual credibility of a rival. “Yeah, he’s really good looking, but that means he’s probably gay” from a man, or “You think that blonde with the big boobs is hot? Girls who dress like that are usually sluts” from a woman are both psychological, sexually disqualifying forms of combat. This also applies to the observably, provably, sexually successful male capable of OVERTLY flaunting his high sexual value with two (or more) concurrent women. He must be of low moral character to so flagrantly manipulate his multiple girlfriends, right? His observable success, as a sexual competitor, conflicts with what a Beta believes should constitute a Beta-defined definition of Alpha-ness as it characterizes him personally. Thus, the polygamist either must be disqualified as a sexual competitor based on subjective (moral) grounds, or a guy is forced to alter his own definition of Alphaness and therefore his own self-estimate. Every guy has a Game. Everyone thinks they are Alpha in their own way. Even the worst doormat Nice Guy, hammered flat by women for a lifetime, thinks his supplications or Cap’n Save-a-Ho mindset is the best way to win a woman’s intimacy. He’s invested in thinking he’s unique in his understanding of how best to arrive at sex with a woman. Likewise, Alpha-ness is a moving target that’s conveniently applied or disparaged based on personal circumstances. Personally I believe Alpha-ness can, and does, have a concrete, objective definition. The problem arises when anyone asserts that they can definitively outline Alpha traits when it conflicts with the subjectiveness and ego- investments of those who define it personally for themselves. So we get a wide variety of what makes a man Alpha - he’s the guy of high moral character, princely ambition and integrity, as well as the self-important cad banging his wife and “their” girlfriend. They are both Alpha. Thus I would propose that while certainly contextual, objective Alpha-ness is NOT exclusive to social status or personal integrity, but rather an attitude of expressly manifested traits. These can be innate or learned, but the definition is not dependent on moral grounds (or a lack of). A scoundrel and a champion can be equally Alpha or Beta in their own psyche. The Origin of Alpha “Safe sex, safe clothing, safe hairspray, safe ozone layer,...too late! Everything that’s been achieved in the history of mankind has been achieved by not being safe. ” - Lemmy Kilmister, Motorhead A Rational Male reader Jeremiah presented me with a well worn question: “ My question is, Tomassi, do you think alpha traits are usually learned or genetically inherited? What percentage of modern men “get it” and of the men who “get it” how many of them have always “gotten it” and how many of them learned to adapt? It is hard to believe there are still naturals out there when feminism is being rammed up the anus of every man before he sprouts his first tooth. ” I don’t think distilling the essence of Alpha ‘presence’ in a Man is as subjective as most people feel compelled to qualify, enumerate or otherwise yammer on about in as personally identifying a manner as they can muster. In my estimation Alpha is a state of mind, not a demographic. The manosphere will endlessly debate the qualifications of what is Alpha, but I think for the most part, the influence of an Alpha mindset (whatever the qualifiers) is more or less agreed upon. However, with this in mind, I think it’s a perfectly valid question to ask whether an Alpha is born that way or molded into his Alpha mindset. This is actually the classic debate psychology has always put to its various schools of thought; Nature vs. Nurture - is a dynamic influenced by inherent, biological, environmental prompts or is that dynamic a learned, socialized and acculturated phenomenon? And of course the equally classic conflict comes from people attempting to define various dynamics in terms of absolutes, when to greater or lesser degrees a dynamic is influenced by both nature and nurturing elements. While the Tomassi school of psychology is firmly planted in the nuts and bolts of behaviorism, it’s also important to take into account that external influences can and too often do modify innate, inborn predilections - even inborn self- preservation instincts. So with this in mind, my perspective on the origin of Alpha is that biology determines the starting point for Alpha, what happens to it from there is modified by a man’s environmental conditions. Alpha ‘energy’, for lack of a better term, is to varying degrees, part of a male human’s biologically determined “starting package”; from there, through social feedback, it’s either refined and developed by his upbringing, acculturation and social affirming, or it’s repressed, constrained and mitigated by his social environment. When I was in art school one of my most influential teachers told me, “There are two types of artists; those who were born with a natural, innate gift for art, and those who lack that gift, but possess such a passion for art that it drives them to be good at it. The true masters are the artists that combine both natural talent and the drive that comes from a passion for it.” I’ve always referred back to this model in my creative efforts, but I believe this model can be extended beyond just the artistic sense. The Learned Alpha Manosphere godfather, RooshV has an excellent breakdown of The Myth of the Natural that perfectly encapsulates the learning theory of Alpha. The premise behind this is that Alpha behavior, and consequently facility with women, comes as a set of modeled behaviors based upon trial and error: If I were forced to agree on what a natural is, it would be a man who’s a prodigy of sex—someone who gets laid way above other men with no formal instruction in game. This means he was not exposed to any 12 DVD “Cocky Humor” sets or seminars in a hotel room with three dozen other guys. You look at him and think, “Wow, he gets laid automatically. He was born to get laid!” But he wasn’t. Just because he didn’t read a book doesn’t mean he didn’t learn through trial and error like you did, practicing his game on a large number of women. It doesn’t mean that he wasn’t conscious and deliberate with his behavior, incrementally improving his moves and tactics over a long period of time. He has experimented like you have experimented, and he has also connected his attempts with results to figure out what works and what doesn’t. He may not be obsessive about it enough to log his data into a spreadsheet, but he’s mindful and aware of what he’s doing. He understands the mechanism behind charm and can often turn it on or off depending on what he wants. He has learned the type of humor and story-telling that gets a positive response in women. The last thing you can say about him was that he was born into the world with the “automatic” ability to fuck a lot of girls. Essentially what Roosh explores here is a very basic behavioral psychology premise - macro-psychological dynamics to micro-psychological schema are developed, deliberately or unconsciously, through a process of deductive trial and error management. Whether you’re aware of it or not, everyone has Game to varying degrees. Every man you know has some concept of behaviors and mental attitudes he believes will best help him arrive at sexual intimacy with a woman. Even the worst Blue Pill Beta believes he has some idea of how best to get with a girl. All of this proto-Game has been in a constant state of trial and error management since you were five years old and had your first interaction with the opposite sex on the kindergarten playground, right up to the point when you started reading in the manosphere and discovered the Red Pill. And you will continue to modify your old behavior and mental sets based upon the new information available to you after you adopt formalized Game. In fact, in its rawest sense, the PUA community, the manosphere and all its permutations are really a meta-effort in behavioral modification by way of experimentation and information feedback. For some this learning process comes easier than it does for others. Again Roosh: The reason he blows you away isn’t because of his genetics, but because of how early he started. A unique set of circumstances threw him into the sex game years before you, during a time he was lucky enough to be surrounded by giggly schoolgirls. By the time you did your first approach, he had already practiced his game on hundreds of women. While I do agree with this from a behavioral standpoint, this is where I have to depart from accepting Roosh’s theory entirely. There are far too many biological and environmental determinants involved in developing an Alpha male to ascribe an Alpha status based solely on learned behavior. The simple, observable, fact is that a genetically better looking, more physically arousing male is going to statistically have more opportunities to experiment and develop his Alpha Game prowess than a less physically impressive male. In theory, a man with a more advantageous physical presence will “start earlier” in his process of deductively evaluating behaviors since his efforts will be more frequently encouraged by the women who are naturally attracted to his physique. Unfortunately all of that assumes developing a behavioral set in a vacuum. There’s literally a world of environmental conditions and variables that would predispose a man towards behavioral development of Alpha status or (more often) limit him from it. Roosh touches on this: At this point you may be thinking, “Well, there have to be guys who were born with it. Look at Mozart! ” Nobody questions that Mozart’s achievements were extraordinary compared with those of his contemporaries. What’s often forgotten, however, is that his development was equally exceptional for his time. His musical tutelage started before he was four years old, and his father, also a skilled composer, was a famous music teacher and had written one of the first books on violin instruction. Like other world-class performers, Mozart was not born an expert — he became one. I don’t think this example excludes for a natural, innate talent, but it does help to illustrate the environment’s role in molding a person by limiting or encouraging

read every word high quality post

 

[looksmaxxed]

I wonder if my local library has this book.

print it and put it in the education section

 

[Unhuman]

Rollo Tomassi makes me laugh. He has made entire career out of destroying people's self esteem and shilling is book as the cure.

 

[Lygodactylus]

Nigga I ain't know how to read that's a lot of words, I gotta be frank

 

[thecel]

Rollo Tomassi makes me laugh. He has made entire career out of destroying people's self esteem and shilling is book as the cure.

So what if he destroys people’s self-esteem? The blackpill does that too. It’s worth it. Viewing reality accurately is way more important than self-esteem is. It’s better to have shit self-esteem and be redpilled than to have high self-esteem and be bluepilled. People these days have way too much self-esteem. Most people think they’re unique, special, and worth a whole bunch; most people are pretty shit in actuality.

 

[Unhuman]

So what if he destroys people’s self-esteem? The blackpill does that too. It’s worth it. Viewing reality accurately is way more important than self-esteem is.

The problem is that the act of breaking down someone's ego is biased towards generating Rollo Tomassi fame and money whilst the lives of his followers don't actually improve.

Also having a high self-esteem doesn't necessarily mean that you're delusional however people often believe in delusions in order to increase their self-esteem (the bluepill). You can accurately view reality whilst having a healthy self-esteem (in fact I would say it's necessary in order to defy societal programming). The blackpill gets some stuff right but ultimately is a crab bucket.

 

[Richard_Hungwell]

So what if he destroys people’s self-esteem? The blackpill does that too. It’s worth it. Viewing reality accurately is way more important than self-esteem is. It’s better to have shit self-esteem and be redpilled than to have high self-esteem and be bluepilled. People these days have way too much self-esteem. Most people think they’re unique, special, and worth a whole bunch; most people are pretty shit in actuality.

I disagree. I believe people ARE unique and special and worth a lot as an individual on an intrinsic level...it's just that in the context of the dating market or job market or whatever that many aren't because certain traits and skills (that not everyone has and are largely based upon luck) are greatly valued over others.

I don't think it's worth basing your self-esteem and worth as a man off of that just because you happened to be born a bit short or have an average looking face and therefore women don't value you on a physical level. Having low self-esteem because women don't find you pretty is cucked and gynocentric as hell. What would our ancestors think of us?

 

[enchanted_elixir]

Rollo is blackpilled he talks about the importance of looks and the concept of “alpha seed and beta need” where women will have sex with hot men who have no money and status when they’re young then seek provisioning for the offspring from the beta.

No he doesn't, his statement about looks is self-contradictory

 

[enchanted_elixir]

The TL;DR is:

Men age like fine wine. And women age like milk.
Men gain money and status, and become very attractive to women as an oldcell. And he can go be a provider (aka buxxing) for her.


LOL @ graph from him. Where an average 20 year old dude, has equal SMV as a 54 year old guy.

Also LOL at this math man.
Are they forgetting, most men get fat and uglier in their 30's?

sauce: https://blacklabellogic.com/2016/03/02/exploring-the-sexual-market-value/


***
I like in this grpah. that popped up.
How he is correct. That a woman her peak SMV; will be MASSIVELY higher in vlaue than a man his SMV.
I dunno about the steep decline

sauce: http://www.andychalkley.com.au/books/Girl_Power/OEBPS/content/Chapter20.html

People's SMV peak when their looks peak, this graph is bullshit for the men and to a slight degree for women

 

[enchanted_elixir]

So what if he destroys people’s self-esteem? The blackpill does that too. It’s worth it. Viewing reality accurately is way more important than self-esteem is. It’s better to have shit self-esteem and be redpilled than to have high self-esteem and be bluepilled. People these days have way too much self-esteem. Most people think they’re unique, special, and worth a whole bunch; most people are pretty shit in actuality.

Bluepill = cucked
Redpill = delusional

 

[klip11]

Couldnt read but sounds like a redpill mgtow men age like fine wine cope

Men peak in their 50s

 

[gtuktm]

dn

 

[Deleted member 22639]

The TL;DR is:

Men age like fine wine. And women age like milk.
Men gain money and status, and become very attractive to women as an oldcell. And he can go be a provider (aka buxxing) for her.


LOL @ graph from him. Where an average 20 year old dude, has equal SMV as a 54 year old guy.

Also LOL at this math man.
Are they forgetting, most men get fat and uglier in their 30's?

sauce: https://blacklabellogic.com/2016/03/02/exploring-the-sexual-market-value/


***
I like in this grpah. that popped up.
How he is correct. That a woman her peak SMV; will be MASSIVELY higher in vlaue than a man his SMV.
I dunno about the steep decline

sauce: http://www.andychalkley.com.au/books/Girl_Power/OEBPS/content/Chapter20.html

Just remember everyone, NONE of these RP guys are actually dating 18 year old attractive girls
That should tell you that what they preach doesn’t align with reality that well
@thecel
Thoughts?
I have actually read the book btw a while back

 

[AscensionMan98]

Couldnt read but sounds like a redpill mgtow men age like fine wine cope

Only top 5-10% men age like fine wine. The rest get fucked after 25.

 

[klip11]

Just remember everyone, NONE of these RP guys are actually dating 18 year old attractive girls
That should tell you that what they preach doesn’t align with reality that well
@thecel
Thoughts?
I have actually read the book btw a while back

All RP guys are dating prime women

 

[klip11]

Only top 5-10% men age like fine wine. The rest get fucked after 25.

Life begins at 49

 

[Deleted member 68446]

dnr keep coping

 

[AlexBrown84]

being 20 mogs

living in the moment mogs

 

[King Solomon]

This girl exposed this old moron.