MGTOW: Not All Women Are Like That!

[Omega 3 snake oil]

Hey everyone,

Just finished the latest podcast, I highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't listened yet.

In it Stef talks with a young man who expressed deep and genuine concern about his ability to find a woman for long term partnership and child rearing purposes. The man is 32, very bright, and seems to have a lot going for him.

I think Stef's insights re: men's sense of value and obligation were spot on. The back and forth between Wes (I think?) and Stef was one of the best I've ever heard. Kudos and thanks to both of them.

One point of contention with what Stef said re: finding a female partner...

Stef gave his usual advice re what to do when looking, i.e. being up front about what you want, making sure a woman you date knows you are serious, etc. He was also critical of Wes for carrying on casual/physical relationships with women and not explicitly stating he's looking for wife material.

To this I say, Stef really hasn't dated lately.

Young, single women can barely commit to meeting for lunch, let alone life long partnership. Not just with Wes (who sounds like a total catch), or myself (still pretty decent I think), but men in general. They simply aren't interested.

And Stef cautions against trying to change people to fit your own needs -- he says, find a woman who's an anarchist. That's like saying, quit your day job and dig for gold in your backyard -- if you hit the jackpot it'll so be worth it.

I still agree with 90+ percent of what Stef said, but in my mind it is not reasonable to tell a young man to join a losing cause, while chastising him for seeking sex in a way that is by no means immoral.

Put another way:  I think I'm a bit like Wes, only from a lower middle class background and probably less successful. Still I find myself with a fair number of options for short term relationships and very few options for long term ones--or a bit more honestly, I find myself with many appealing options for short term, and few appealing options for long term relationships.

Is it really reasonable to expect a guy like Wes or myself to be entirely--even naively-- straightforward with women who do not expect nor necessarily deserve it?

 

[Kevin Beal]

And Stef cautions against trying to change people to fit your own needs -- he says, find a woman who's an anarchist. 

I listened to that convo too and I don't remember this, and it would fly in the face of advice he's given before about not to look for a partner who already shares your conclusions, but rather, is a rational person. There are many people who are anarchists who I'm sure Stef would advise people stay far away from. Being an anarchist means very little, obviously.

 

 

Is it really reasonable to expect a guy like Wes or myself to be entirely--even naively-- straightforward with women who do not expect nor necessarily deserve it?

I don't know about reasonable. You shouldn't do it because it's "reasonable". You should do it because it's efficient and you need to be as efficient as you can be with so many rotten apples out there. That's what the argument was. Either it's valid or it's not.

[MMX2010]

Is it really reasonable to expect a guy like Wes or myself to be entirely--even naively-- straightforward with women who do not expect nor necessarily deserve it?

 

 

 

I approach this question from two different mindsets. 

 

(1) If you're 100% dedicated to finding a stable, lifelong partner with whom to have children, then Stefan's advice is 100% accurate.  (You are a rocket ship, burning up large amounts of fuel headed towards a specific destination.) 

 

(2) If you're less than 100% dedicated that way, and instead want to have a series of short-term relationships, then Stefan's advice is 100% accurate - but with a caveat.  One of my favorite Rollo Tomassi (therationalmale.com) aphorisms is, "Women always want honesty, but they never want full disclosure." 

 

To be straightforward with such a woman IS NOT saying, "I have very high standards for whom I wish to have long-term stable relationships with, and you don't quite measure up, but I'm totally cool with allowing you to be my short-term girlfriend."  It's instead saying, "I'm open to long-term relationships, but I do not currently seek exclusivity.  I may seek exclusivity in the future." 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2011/08/25/imagination/

 

(If you google "rollo tomassi" "never want full disclosure", you'll get dozes of results - because he says that ALL the time.   But that article is the best summary.) 

 

---------------------

 

The most important thing, though, is that YOU need to be straight-forward for your own sake.  You're not a jerk.  You're not comfortable with lying and exploitation.  BUT you know that short-term women won't be aroused by your 100% full disclosure, so their nature compels your actions. 

 

If short-term women were aroused by your 100% full disclosure, you would neither be single nor conflicted right now.  Heck, if practically every woman was aroused by your 100% full disclosure, then neither you nor I would be single right now, because we would've stumbled upon (so long ago) a respectable woman we could commit to. 

[jpahmad]

Telling a women anything more than what she needs to know, because she is a women = White Knighting

[PatrickC]

Is it really reasonable to expect a guy like Wes or myself to be entirely--even naively-- straightforward with women who do not expect nor necessarily deserve it?

 

The problem I have with Wes is that by calling himself MGTOW it presumes that he staves off female attention because it's all about them manipulating him as a man. Except he then does the exact same thing with them by treating them as a piece of punani that he can discard when he gets bored.

 

MGTOW for me is about reasserting the values and boundaries I have with myself as a man and the kind of values I expect from other men and women in my life. If sex is the highest value Wes holds, then he'd be better off taking the PUA approach and forgetting about MGTOW altogether, as any of the few woman of quality out there will take a wide berth from him.

[RyanT]

And Stef cautions against trying to change people to fit your own needs -- he says, find a woman who's an anarchist. That's like saying, quit your day job and dig for gold in your backyard -- if you hit the jackpot it'll so be worth it.

 

Did he? Been about 2 week now since I listened to the show but I'm pretty sure his advice was 'find a girl who shows signs she already thinks for herself' with anarchism and atheism merely used as example.

 

That's like saying if you are going to try digging for gold, finding quartz first might help,

rather than just digging about in your back yard, failing to find any

then claiming gold must therefore not exist...

[Omega 3 snake oil]

The problem I have with Wes is that by calling himself MGTOW it presumes that he staves off female attention because it's all about them manipulating him as a man. Except he then does the exact same thing with them by treating them as a piece of punani that he can discard when he gets bored.

I don't recall him saying anything like it.

 

And your comment really highlights what I'm getting at--men seeking sex in a way that is by no means dishonest, manipulative or exploitative is somehow viewed as all those things.

[PatrickC]

I don't recall him saying anything like it.

 

And your comment really highlights what I'm getting at--men seeking sex in a way that is by no means dishonest, manipulative or exploitative is somehow viewed as all those things.

 

I'm sorry, but it was pretty clear that is what he was doing. Whether he was being explicit about it was a different matter.

 

I also never suggested that someone seeking sex was being dishonest. I was suggesting calling oneself MGTOW and then being dishonest about his motives with the women he met.

[AustinJames]

To me it seems dating is a zero-sum game.  You're either looking for casual sex, in which case you have a slim chance of stumbling upon a life partner; or you're looking for a life partner, in which case you are not likely to start off the relationship with casual sex.

 

I think it's important to recognize the benefits of life partnership.  The advantages of monogamy are objectively undeniable.  If you acknowledge the benefits, and still decide to seek out casual sex, I would say you're in a "high-risk, low-reward" scenario.  This is similar to (if not a type of) addictive behavior.  Examining the root of this behavior may be worth your while.

 

 

 

I still agree with 90+ percent of what Stef said, but in my mind it is not reasonable to tell a young man to join a losing cause, while chastising him for seeking sex in a way that is by no means immoral.

 

 

I don't think Stef was chastising him for seeking casual sex.  If I remember correctly, it was the lie of omission inherent in his approach that was immoral.  It's hard to argue that finding a long-term partner is "a losing cause."  To me, that's like saying that finding the right career is a losing cause, so you should just work the first menial job made available to you.

 

 

 

To this I say, Stef really hasn't dated lately.

Young, single women can barely commit to meeting for lunch, let alone life long partnership. Not just with Wes (who sounds like a total catch), or myself (still pretty decent I think), but men in general. They simply aren't interested.

Is it really reasonable to expect a guy like Wes or myself to be entirely--even naively-- straightforward with women who do not expect nor necessarily deserve it?

 

I'll get the anecdotal evidence out the way... I have dated lately, and have only found women who are interested in long-term partnership.  I suspect this is because that's what I'm looking for.  It is more on the rare side, but it has a lot to do with where you look, and how you look; asking important questions up-front, and being nakedly honest.  This approach is not compatible with lies of omission.  It is necessary to be entirely straightforward from the start.

 

Being straightforward is one of the greatest tools you have in filtering out what you don't want in a life partner.  If that's your goal, be straightforward with every woman you meet.  If your goal is just to "get some," I suppose there's no practical reason for honesty, but, depending on the circumstance, that may be inconsiderate, or even immoral.

 

What kind of relationship do you consider ideal for yourself, Snake Oil?

[maieesa]

I really enjoyed this conversation as well. Interestingly, I have found a similar challenge in that being direct with guys about not being interested in casual sex, but having a desire to explore being monogamous and committed, usually results in them not wanting to talk to me anymore at all. Alternatively, they may hang out as a friend for a while, but always checking in, as to whether I am looking to just fuck around...I appreciate the honesty. 

I am curious about your notions, PatrickC, about what MGTOW means...or anybody's. Can you tell me more? (If that should be a separate thread, or if it already is, please tell me)

 

MGTOW for me is about reasserting the values and boundaries I have with myself as a man and the kind of values I expect from other men and women in my life. If sex is the highest value Wes holds, then he'd be better off taking the PUA approach and forgetting about MGTOW altogether, as any of the few woman of quality out there will take a wide berth from him.

 

k C.

[MMX2010]

I really enjoyed this conversation as well. Interestingly, I have found a similar challenge in that being direct with guys about not being interested in casual sex, but having a desire to explore being monogamous and committed, usually results in them not wanting to talk to me anymore at all.

 

I, personally, would find that a strange thing to say - because most women say the opposite.  Do men ask you questions after you say this, or does the conversation abruptly end, like someone popped a balloon? 

[PatrickC]

I am curious about your notions, PatrickC, about what MGTOW means...or anybody's. Can you tell me more? (If that should be a separate thread, or if it already is, please tell me)

 

PGP started a thread on the topic of MGTOW recently where some of us wrote about our thoughts on MGTOW (including myself). It's by no means comprehensive, but I'm sure they wouldn't mind if you asked specific questions that interested you.

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42645-mgtow/

 

I have found a similar challenge in that being direct with guys about not being interested in casual sex, but having a desire to explore being monogamous and committed, usually results in them not wanting to talk to me anymore at all. Alternatively, they may hang out as a friend for a while, but always checking in, as to whether I am looking to just fuck around..

 

I am curious here. Why are you still hanging out with some of these men once establishing the needs of those relationships, in which neither parties needs were going to be met? In other words, your desire for a monogamous relationship and these men's need for casual sex. I take it some of these men moved on (from the relationship) once they understood the disparity. But some remained, presumably in the hope that you might change your mind.

 

I guess I'm curious why you were still having a relationship of sorts (not romantic) with these 'hangers on' so to speak. What were or are the benefits for you?

[maieesa]

 

In response to:

I am curious here. Why are you still hanging out with some of these men once establishing the needs of those relationships, in which neither parties needs were going to be met? In other words, your desire for a monogamous relationship and these men's need for casual sex. I take it some of these men moved on (from the relationship) once they understood the disparity. But some remained, presumably in the hope that you might change your mind.

 

I guess I'm curious why you were still having a relationship of sorts (not romantic) with these 'hangers on' so to speak. What were or are the benefits for you?

 

 

 

Yes, all of those I had in mind when writing that, have since moved on.  I don't have any male freinds, who I get to spend time with on a regular basis, except for my housemates.  Whether it was me or they who discontinued the relationship.  At the time, however, I was also just interested in their friendship, a couple were friends who I had grown up with, and we were simply in the same "circle," so to speak, others were guys who I worked with.  And a few, we were good friends at the time, and we spent time doing other activities, going hiking or walking and having meals and drinks, and conversation as friends, helping one another out with mundane things, playing martial arts, being eachother's wedding dates...some relationships have been like a platonic partnership for periods of time, mutually beneficial and enjoyable, but where I was not interested in becoming physically intimate without a commitment, and where he would want to be able to have sex with whoever else might be willing for a night, and so it remained platonic.  Basically, we could both find some of our needs were met and that was cool.  And a few such were more like acquaintances, who I had met in classes, which had us spending time together, perhaps working on projects, etcetera, and as neither of us found value in spending time together in a 'just a friendship,' way.  However, they would continue to call every few weeks, just to "say hi," and then once a month, and then every few months...you get the idea.  I have no gripe with any of them.  I prefer straightforward communication, so, I can appreciate their honesty.

[J. D. Stembal]

To me it seems dating is a zero-sum game.  You're either looking for casual sex, in which case you have a slim chance of stumbling upon a life partner; or you're looking for a life partner, in which case you are not likely to start off the relationship with casual sex.

 

I think it's important to recognize the benefits of life partnership.  The advantages of monogamy are objectively undeniable.  If you acknowledge the benefits, and still decide to seek out casual sex, I would say you're in a "high-risk, low-reward" scenario.  This is similar to (if not a type of) addictive behavior.  Examining the root of this behavior may be worth your while.

 

 

 

 

I don't think Stef was chastising him for seeking casual sex.  If I remember correctly, it was the lie of omission inherent in his approach that was immoral.  It's hard to argue that finding a long-term partner is "a losing cause."  To me, that's like saying that finding the right career is a losing cause, so you should just work the first menial job made available to you.

 

 

 

 

I'll get the anecdotal evidence out the way... I have dated lately, and have only found women who are interested in long-term partnership.  I suspect this is because that's what I'm looking for.  It is more on the rare side, but it has a lot to do with where you look, and how you look; asking important questions up-front, and being nakedly honest.  This approach is not compatible with lies of omission.  It is necessary to be entirely straightforward from the start.

 

Being straightforward is one of the greatest tools you have in filtering out what you don't want in a life partner.  If that's your goal, be straightforward with every woman you meet.  If your goal is just to "get some," I suppose there's no practical reason for honesty, but, depending on the circumstance, that may be inconsiderate, or even immoral.

 

What kind of relationship do you consider ideal for yourself, Snake Oil?

 

This is a spot on analysis, AJ.

 

Every man who prioritizes "getting some" knows where to look. I spent many years looking for love in dark corners of night clubs. As it turns out, I wasn't looking for a long-term relationship, and they pretended to not be looking for that either. One of the worst and most dishonest relationships I had was a women I met in a club. She had a son, but lied to me and told me it was her male friend's kid, who was her ex-boyfriend or husband, I am not certain. After I broke up with her, she claimed that I had impregnated her months earlier (and not told me out of fear that I would leave her), but later admitted that she miscarried when I called the bluff. Was either statement the truth? I don't know.

 

When looking for a virtuous life partner, where to look is less clear to men. Stefan has covered it once or twice in the call in show, and suggested some ideas. You could always look for love on this forum or on AVFM, and hope that you find a woman in your area, but unfortunately, as Sandman and other MGTOW proponents have pointed out, women are starting to wise up and ditch the feminist ideology out of a reproductive strategy and not out of any philosophy that promotes true equality. Women are sensing the shift in sentiment about feminism among men, and changing their tune in response. Going forward, men will have to take a very careful analysis to separate the mimics from the real female philosophers.

 

I would argue that the majority of women (and men!) on FDR and AVFM are mimics, and not true agents of philosophy. This is where the Against Me argument comes in. You have to sit down and ask people face to face if they support you being thrown in jail or killed for selling unlicensed contraband, not paying taxes, or supporting armed revolt against authority where necessary for self-preservation. If the other person isn't behind you 100%, you should expel them from your life no matter how virtuous they claim to be.

[maieesa]

I, personally, would find that a strange thing to say - because most women say the opposite.  Do men ask you questions after you say this, or does the conversation abruptly end, like someone popped a balloon?

Just be clear, I haven't been dating/single for a while, so this isn't a super current perspective..

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "the opposite" Do you mean that most women say that they aren't interested in a relationship, but would rather just fk around?

 

Do you mean that to say, that my writing that men did "not want to talk to me at all anymore," is strange? 

Rereading my own text, that is a bit sloppy.  I don't mean so much that they would walk away mid-conversation, but that they would no longer want to spend time getting to know one-another, or go on another date. I never did date much before, truthfully.

[PatrickC]

So these 'hangers on' as I referred to them (not you, just for brevity) had other attributes that you were happy to reciprocate with them. It just seemed that coming from your first post you said that you were struggling with these guys pursuing you for sex.

 

It's difficult sometimes to be understood in text, so perhaps I misinterpreted you. Feel free to correct me if I am. I wonder if some of that struggle comes from the fact that you really aren't listening to them and making concrete decisions about those relationships. Constructing the correct boundaries etc. Or at the very least you are not being definitive enough about the kind of relationship you wish to pursue with them. Since you might be inadvertently leading them on.

 

I mean it might be a small picture, but it's pretty clear you are an attractive woman. I find the more attractive a women the more precise she has to be about her platonic needs with male friends. It can get all kind of foggy for the uninitiated man, if you know what I mean.

[J. D. Stembal]

So these 'hangers on' as I referred to them (not you, just for brevity) had other attributes that you were happy to reciprocate with them. It just seemed that coming from your first post you said that you were struggling with these guys pursuing you for sex.

 

It's difficult sometimes to be understood in text, so perhaps I misinterpreted you. Feel free to correct me if I am. I wonder if some of that struggle comes from the fact that you really aren't listening to them and making concrete decisions about those relationships. Constructing the correct boundaries etc. Or at the very least you are not being definitive enough about the kind of relationship you wish to pursue with them. Since you might be inadvertently leading them on.

 

I mean it might be a small picture, but it's pretty clear you are an attractive woman. I find the more attractive a women the more precise she has to be about her platonic needs with male friends. It can get all kind of foggy for the uninitiated man, if you know what I mean.

 

Indeed.

 

Very attractive women lure many prospective male suitors who shower them with attention. I have a suspicion, although I can't say for certain, that the majority of Maieesa's platonic relationships were men who subconsciously or consciously desired access to her eggs. When they realized that access was not forthcoming, they moved on. The dead give away for me is that she claims to have invited male friends to wedding receptions. For men, this is code for "I'm considering giving you some eggs." I'm being completely serious. If you invite a man to a wedding reception, he will think that he has a shot at sleeping with you. The reason why we know this is true is that no woman would ever allow her husband or boyfriend to go to a wedding with another woman.

[MMX2010]

Just be clear, I haven't been dating/single for a while, so this isn't a super current perspective..

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "the opposite" Do you mean that most women say that they aren't interested in a relationship, but would rather just fk around?

 

Do you mean that to say, that my writing that men did "not want to talk to me at all anymore," is strange? 

Rereading my own text, that is a bit sloppy.  I don't mean so much that they would walk away mid-conversation, but that they would no longer want to spend time getting to know one-another, or go on another date. I never did date much before, truthfully.

 

I meant that most women would say that they're interested in having short-term sex and exploring the possibility of a long-term relationship within that context. 

 

I'll provide links to relevant posts from Rollo Tomassi's blog after my post.

 

Women engage in two types of sex: acquisitive and transactional.  When a woman isn't sure of a man's commitment, but wants to make him stick around, that's acquisitive sex.  But once a woman is secure of a man's commitment, (usually because he married her and/or had a child with her in a modern American culture that punishes men who stray), she switches to transactional sex. 

 

When you say you're not interested in casual sex but want to explore being monogamous and committed, I translate that to, "I never engage in acquisitive sex, but I believe there's a specific aspect of either my personality or essence that is absent from other women and would be to your extreme benefit to acquire through monogamous commitment."    So in my mental note of you, I would write in big neon-letters, all the way at the top of my list, "Thinks extremely highly of herself.  Genuine or pretentious?" 

 

From there, I would Frame my interactions in terms of answering that question. 

 

------------------------

 

More crucially, the older a woman is when she says she's not interested in casual sex, the more I wonder whether the "Alpha Widow" phenomenon is happening.  So I would also Frame my interactions in terms of answering this second question. 

 

--------------------------

 

First link: Rollo explains the difference between acquisitive and transactional sex. 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2013/12/03/saving-the-best/

 

Second link: Heartiste explains the "alpha widow" concept. 

 

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/five-minutes-of-alpha-fifty-years-of-pining/

[MMX2010]

When looking for a virtuous life partner, where to look is less clear to men. Stefan has covered it once or twice in the call in show, and suggested some ideas. You could always look for love on this forum or on AVFM, and hope that you find a woman in your area, but unfortunately, as Sandman and other MGTOW proponents have pointed out, women are starting to wise up and ditch the feminist ideology out of a reproductive strategy and not out of any philosophy that promotes true equality. Women are sensing the shift in sentiment about feminism among men, and changing their tune in response. Going forward, men will have to take a very careful analysis to separate the mimics from the real female philosophers.

 

I would argue that the majority of women (and men!) on FDR and AVFM are mimics, and not true agents of philosophy.

 

Agree with you 100%. 

 

I've two simple tests to separate mimics from non-mimics. 

 

(1) Can people discuss the evolutionary biological, (meaning "objectively, scientifically true"), discoveries regarding the duplicitous nature of female sexuality without calling people "misogynistic" or downvoting? 

 

(2) Can people discuss political issues like: (a) whether women are really equal to men, and (b) whether women's inequality to men implies that they shouldn't participate in politics?   (The second question is very interesting, highly emotionally charged, and excellent arguments can be made for either case.) 

 

Most people simply cannot pass both tests, especially not the first one.  That first test illustrates my highest pet peeve, "supporting scientific exploration except when it threatens their most sacred beliefs".  It's what Creationists do, and we rightfully ridicule them for it. 

[J. D. Stembal]

 

Agree with you 100%. 

 

I've two simple tests to separate mimics from non-mimics. 

 

(1) Can people discuss the evolutionary biological, (meaning "objectively, scientifically true"), discoveries regarding the duplicitous nature of female sexuality without calling people "misogynistic" or downvoting? 

 

(2) Can people discuss political issues like: (a) whether women are really equal to men, and (b) whether women's inequality to men implies that they shouldn't participate in politics?   (The second question is very interesting, highly emotionally charged, and excellent arguments can be made for either case.) 

 

Most people simply cannot pass both tests, especially not the first one.  That first test illustrates my highest pet peeve, "supporting scientific exploration except when it threatens their most sacred beliefs".  It's what Creationists do, and we rightfully ridicule them for it. 

 

I have a problem with the concept of egalitarism in most instances. We aren't born as equals, we aren't raised as equals, and we aren't expected to act as equals. I think we should just stop using the word outside of mathematics. Egalitarianism, as a political theory, completely falls apart when you try to apply it to reality as a form of social justice. The only equality we actually possess as a species is our right to freedom if we can operate under the philosophy of non-aggression.

[MMX2010]

I have a problem with the concept of egalitarism in most instances. We aren't born as equals, we aren't raised as equals, and we aren't expected to act as equals. I think we should just stop using the word outside of mathematics. Egalitarianism, as a political theory, completely falls apart when you try to apply it to reality as a form of social justice. The only equality we actually possess as a species is our right to freedom if we can operate under the philosophy of non-aggression.

 

It's one thing to discuss equality in the abstract, but quite another to discuss gender equality in the concrete with scientific research in your holster. 

 

The following is the latest post from Rollo Tomassi.  It should be considered Chapter One of the MGTOW Bible. 

 

First the link.  Then a copy-paste of the article, using the quote feature to separate other people's words from Rollo's.  Finally, my tl;dr summary with questions / implications. 

 

------------------------------

 

http://therationalmale.com/2014/12/17/estrus/

 

Last week saw the publication of the latest paper by Dr. Steven W. Gangestad and Dr. Martie Hasselton titled Human Estrus: Implications for Relationship Science. Anyone who’s read the Rational Male for more than a year is probably familiar with my citing Dr. Hasselton in various posts (her catalog of research has been part of my sidebar links since I began RM), but both she and Dr. Gangstad are among the foremost notable researchers in the areas of human sexuality and applied evolutionary psychology. For this week’s post I’ll be riffing on what this paper proposes with regard to a condition of estrus in women.

 

In the introduction section of The Rational Male I relate a story of how in my Red Pill formative years I came to be a connector of dots so to speak. While I was studying behavioral psychology and personality studies a great many issues jumped out at me with regards to how many of the principle of behavioral psychology could be (and were already being) applied to intersexual relations.

For instance, the basic concepts of intermittent reinforcement and behavioral modification seemed to me an obvious and learned practice of women in achieving some behavioral effect on men by periodically rewarding (reinforcing) them with sex ‘intermittently’. Operant conditioning and establishing operations also dovetailed seamlessly into the Red Pill concepts and awareness I’d been developing for several years prior to finishing my degree.

 

Since then the ideas I formed have naturally become more complex than these simple foundations, but what I only learned by error was how thoroughly disconnected both students and my teachers were with what I saw as obvious connections. I met obstinate resistance to flat denial when I wrote papers or gave a dissertation about the interplay between the foundations of behaviorism and interpersonal relationships. It was one thing to propose that men would use various aspects to their own advantage, but it was offensive to suggest that women would commonly use behavioral modification techniques to achieve their Hypergamous ends.

 

This peer resistance was especially adamant when I would suggest that women had a subconscious pre-knowledge (based on collective female experience) of these techniques. I never thought I had brass balls for broaching uncomfortable considerations like this – I honestly, and probably naively, assumed that what I was proposing had already been considered by academia long before I’d come to it.

 

I was actually introduced to the work of Dr. Hasselton during this time, and along with Dr. Warren Farrell, she’s gone on to become one of my go-to sources in respect to the connection between contemporary behavioral ‘dots’ with theories of practical evolved function in intersexual dynamics. I owe much of what I propose on Rational Male to this interplay, and while I doubt Hasselton would agree with all of what I or the manosphere propose, I have to credit her and her colleague’s work for providing me many of the dots I connect.

 

I understand that there are still evo-psych skeptics in the manosphere, but I find that much of what passes for their piecemeal “skepticism” is generally rooted in a desire to stubbornly cling to comforting Blue Pill idealisms. That said, I’d never ask any reader to take what I propose here on faith, but personally I’ve found that the questions proposed by evo-psych reflect many of the observations I had in my college days.

 

Hypergamous Duplicity

 

For the social theater of the Feminine Imperative, one of the more galling developments in psychological studies to come out of the past fifteen years has been the rise of evolutionary psychology. The natural pivot for the Imperative in dealing with evo-psych has been to write off any concept unflattering to the feminine as being speculative or proving a biased positive (by “misogynistic” researchers of course), while gladly endorsing and cherry-picking any and all evo-psych premises that reinforce the feminine or confirm a positive feminine-primacy.

 

Up until the past two years or so, there was a staunch resistance to the concept of Hypergamy (know as sexual pluralism in evo-psych) and the dual natures of women’s sexual strategy. Before then the idea of Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks was dismissed as biased, sociologically based and any biological implications or incentives for Hypergamy were downplayed as inconclusive by a feminine-centric media.

 

However the recent embrace of Open Hypergamy and “Sandbergism” of the last two years has set this narrative on its head, and the empowered women who found the idea of their own sexual pluralism so distasteful are now openly endorsing, if not proudly relishing, their roles in a new empowerment of Hypergamous duplicity.

 

Your Beta qualities are officially worthless to today’s women:

 

 

 

For those of you that aren’t aware, women now are often out earning men and more of them receive college degrees than men. As of now there aren’t really any programs to help guys out. Assuming this trend continues what do you think will happen to dating? I think that attractive women, will have their pick regardless.

 

However, for a lot of women, trying to lock down a guy in college will be more of a big deal. I don’t think hook up culture will disappear, but will definitely decrease.

 

With the exception with my current boyfriend, I have always earned more than any guy I have dated. It has never been an issue. I just don’t have to think about their financials, my attraction is based on their looks and personality. I am guessing the future will be more of that.

 

I thought this The Red Pill subthread was an interesting contrast to the Estrus theory proposed in the Gangstad-Hasselton paper (comments were good too). Yes, the woman is more than a bit gender-egotistical, and yes her triumphalism about the state of women in college and their earning is built on a foundation of sand, but lets strip this away for a moment. The greater importance to her in relating this, and every woman embracing open Hypergamy, is the prospect of better optimizing the dual nature of her sexual strategy.

 

In many a prior post I’ve detailed the rationales women will apply to their sexual pluralism and the social conventions they rely upon to keep men ignorant of them until such a time (or not) that they can best consolidate on that dualism. Where before that strategy was one of subtle manipulation and pretty lies to keep Betas-In-Waiting ready to be providers after the Alpha Fucks decline at 30, the strategy now is one of such utter ego-confidence in feminine social primacy that women gleefully declare “I’m not just gonna have my cake and eat it too, I’m getting mine with sprinkles and chocolate syrup” with regard to Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks.

 

The Estrus Connection

 

For all of the ubiquitous handwringing the manosphere imparts to the social implications of today’s Open Hypergamy, it’s important to consider the biological underpinnings that motivate this self-interested conceit.

 

From Human Estrus: Implications for Relationship Science:

 

 

 

In the vast majority of mammalian species, females experience classic estrus or heat: a discrete period of sexual receptivity – welcoming male advances – and proceptivity – actively seeking sex – confined to a few days just prior to ovulation, the fertile window. Only at this time, after all, do females require sex to conceive offspring. The primate order is exceptional. Although prosimians (e.g., lemurs, tarsiers) exhibit classic estrus, the vast majority of simian primates (monkeys and apes) are sexually active for at least several days outside of the fertile period [2]. Humans are an extreme case: Women may be sexually receptive or proceptive any time of the cycle, as well as other nonconceptive periods (e.g., pregnancy).

 

Do Women Retain a Functionally Distinct Fertile Phase?

 

Graded sexuality. Women’s sexual activity is not confined to an estrous period. But are women’s sexual interests truly constant across the cycle? Many female primates (e.g., rhesus macaques and marmosets) are often receptive to sexual advances by males outside of the fertile phase, but they initiate sex less [2].

 

In fact, women’s sexual interests do appear to change across the cycle. Women exhibit greater genital arousal in response to erotica and sexually condition to stimuli more readily during the follicular phase [5-8].

 

A recent study identified hormonal correlates of these changes by tracking 43 women over time and performing salivary hormone assays [9]. Women’s sexual desire was greater during the fertile window, and was positively related to estradiol levels (which peak just before ovulation), but negatively related to progesterone levels (which rise markedly during the luteal phase).

 

Changes in the male features that evoke sexual interest. Since the late 1990s, some researchers have argued that what changes most notably across the cycle is not sexual desire per se but, rather, the extent to which women’s sexual interests are evoked by particular male features – specifically, male behavioral and physical features associated with dominance, assertiveness, and developmental robustness. Over 50 studies have examined changes across the cycle in women’s attraction to these male features.

 

The importance of behavioral features? Whereas preference shifts of major interest early on concerned male physical features (e.g., facial masculinity; scent), several recent studies have focused on women’s reactions to men’s behavior and dispositions. Previous research had found that women find male confidence, even a degree of arrogance, more sexually appealing during the fertile phase [e.g., 15-16]. Recent studies replicate and extend that work, finding not only that fertile-phase women are more sexually attracted to “sexy cad” or behaviorally masculine men (relative to “good dad” or less masculine men), but also that, during the fertile phase, women are more likely to flirt or engage with such men [17,18]. Females of a variety of species, including primates [2], prefer dominant or high ranking males during the fertile phase of their cycles. These males may pass genetic benefits to offspring, as well as, potentially, offer material benefits (e.g., protect offspring). Women’s fertile-phase sexual attraction to behavioral dominance appears to have deep evolutionary roots.

 

Much of what’s explored here I laid out in Game terms in Your Friend Menstruation over two years ago, but the implications of the behaviors prompted by women’s menstrual cycle and biochemistry strongly imply an estrus-like predictability. This estrous state is a foundational keystone, not just to developing Game, but a keystone to understanding the dynamics behind Hypergamy, women’s dualistic sexual strategy, Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks, and can even be extrapolated into the drive for ensuring feminine social dominance in both overt and covert contexts.

 

When women embrace a social order founded upon a feminine state of openly revealed Hypergamy they confirm and expose the reality of this estrous state.

 

Whereas before, in a social order based on concealed Hypergamy, this state could be dismissed as a social construct (and a masculine biased one at that), or one that had only marginal influence to reasoning women with a “higher” human potential. No longer – the confirmation of a true estrus in women via open Hypergamy literally confirms virtually every elementary principle Game has asserted for the past 13 years.

 

 

 

Dual Sexuality

 

Within the dual sexuality framework, fertile-phase sexuality and non-fertile-phase sexuality possess potentially overlapping but also distinct functions [22,23]. In a number of primate species, extended sexuality – female receptivity and proceptivity at times other than the fertile phase – appears to function to confuse paternity by allowing non-dominant males sexual access [e.g., 24]. These males cannot rule out their own paternity, which might reduce their likelihood of harming a female’s offspring. In humans, by contrast, extended sexuality may function to induce primary pair-bond partners to invest in women and offspring [e.g., 22].

 

I found this part particularly interesting when you contrast this dynamic with the social resistance that standardized paternity testing has been met with. In a feminine-primary social order based on open Hypergamy, the Feminine Imperative can’t afford not to legislate a mandated cuckoldry. If Beta provider males will not comply with the insurance of a woman’s long-term security (as a result of being made aware of his place in Open Hypergamy) then he must be forced to comply either legally, socially or both. The old order exchange of resources for sexual access and a reasonable assurance of his paternity is replaced by a socialized form of cuckoldry.

 

 

 

Some studies have found that women’s sexual interests in men other than partners are strikingly rare during the luteal phase, relative to the fertile phase [25,26]. Other research has found moderating effects; for example, women who perceive their partners to lack sex appeal experience increased attraction to men other than partners, less satisfaction, and a more critical attitude toward partners, but only when fertile [27,28]. Fertile-phase women in one study were more assertive and focused on their own, as opposed to their partner’s, needs, especially when attracted to men other than partners during that phase [29].

 

Most research on cycle shifts has been inspired by theory concerning women’s distinctive sexual interests during the fertile phase. One study explicitly sought to understand factors influencing women’s sexual interests during the luteal phase, finding that, at that time, but not during the fertile phase, women initiated sex more with primary partners when they were invested in their relationship more than were male partners [30]. This pattern is consistent with the proposal that extended sexuality functions, in part, to encourage interest from valued male partners. Others have proposed that women’s estrus phase has been modified by pair-bonding.

 

Initiating sex or being receptive to a primary partner’s sexual interest during the luteal phase (the Beta swing of the cycle) follows when we consider that a woman being sexual during this phase poses the least potential of becoming pregnant while simultaneously (rewarding) reinforcing that primary partner’s continued investment in the pairing with sex (intermittent reinforcement). This is a very important dynamic because it mirrors a larger theme in women’s socio-sexual pluralism – it’s Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks on a biological scale.

 

Compare this intra-relationship predisposition for Beta sex and contrast it with the larger dynamic of open Hypergamy Alpha Fucks during a woman’s prime fertility window in her peak SMV years, and her post Epiphany Phase necessity to retain a comforting (but decidedly less sexually exciting) Beta provider.

 

Women’s sexual strategy on a social scale, mirrors her instinctual, estrous sexual strategy on an individual scale.

 

 

 

Cues of Fertility Status

Females across diverse species undergo physical and behavioral changes during estrus that males find attractive: changes in body scents in carnivores, rodents, and some primates; changes in appearance, such as sexual swellings, in baboons and chimpanzees; changes in solicitous behavior in rodents and many primates [2,31] Because women lack obvious cyclic changes, it was widely assumed that cycle shifts in attractiveness were eliminated in humans, perhaps with the evolution of

pair bonding [32].

 

In 1975, a pioneering study documented increased attractiveness of women’s vaginal odors midcycle [33]. A quarter century later, research revealing other detectable fertile-phase changes began to accumulate, including increased attractiveness of women’s upper torso odors, increased vocal pitch and attractiveness, and changes in women’s style of dress and solicitous behaviors [34]. Meta-analysis of this literature confirms that changes across the cycle in women’s attractiveness are often subtle, but robust (K. Gildersleeve, PhD dissertation, UCLA, 2014).

 

A notable recent study demonstrated that hormones implicated in attractiveness shifts in non-humans also predict attractiveness shifts in humans [35]. Photos, audio clips, and salivary estrogen and progesterone were collected from 202 women at two cycle points. Men rated women’s facial and vocal attractiveness highest when women’s progesterone levels were low and estrogen levels high (characteristic of the follicular phase, and especially the fertile window).

 

Emerging evidence suggests that these changes affect interactions between males and females. During the fertile window, women report increased jealous behavior by male partners [25,29,36]. A possible mediator of such changes – testosterone – is higher in men after they smell tshirts collected from women on high- than on low-fertility days of the cycle [37; cf. 38]. A recent study examined related phenomena in established relationships by bringing couples into the lab for a close interaction task (e.g., slow dancing) [39]. Following the interaction, male partners viewed images of men who were attractive and described as competitive or unattractive and noncompetitive. Only men in the competitive condition showed increases in testosterone from baseline – and only when tested during their partner’s fertile phase.

 

What remains less clear is how we can understand shifts in attractiveness from a theoretical perspective. It is unlikely that women evolved to signal their fertility within the cycle to men [22,34]. In fact, the opposite may have occurred – active selection on women to conceal cues of ovulation, which could help to explain weak shifts in attractiveness relative to many species. Concealment might have promoted extended sexuality with its attendant benefits from investing males, or facilitated women’s extra-pair mating. Possibly, the subtle physical changes that occur are merely “leaky cues” that persist because fully concealing them suppresses hormone levels in ways that compromise fertility. Behavioral shifts, by contrast, may be tied to increases in women’s sexual interests or motivation to compete with other women for desirable mates [e.g., 40].

 

Usually after first-time readers have a chance to digest the material I propose in Your Friend Menstruation the first frustration they have is figuring out just how they can ever reliably detect when a woman is in this estrous state. On an instinctual level, most men are already sensitive to these socio-sexual cues, but this presumptuousness of sexual availability is rigorously conditioned out of men by social influence. In other words, most guys are Beta-taught to be ashamed of presuming a woman might be down to fuck as the result of picking up on visual, vocal or body posture cues.

 

Beyond this perceptiveness, there are also pheromonal triggers as well as behavioral cues during estrus that prompt a mate guarding response in men.

 

I would however propose that the evolved concealment of an estrus-like state and all of the attendant behaviors that coincide with it are a behavioral mechanic with the purpose of filtering for men with a dominant Alpha capacity to “Just Get It” that a woman is in estrus and thus qualify for her sexual access either proceptively or receptively.  Women’s concealed estrus is an evolved aspect of filtering for Alpha Fucks.

 

In addition, this concealment also aids in determining Beta Bucks for the men she needs (needed) to exchange her sexual access for. A guy who “doesn’t get it” is still useful (or used to be) precisely because he doesn’t understand the dynamics of her cyclic and dualistic sexual strategy. Her seemingly erratic and self-controlled sexual availability becomes the Beta Bucks interest’s intermittent reinforcement for the desired behavior of his parental investment in children that are only indeterminately of his genetic heritage.

 

Evidence of this intermittent reinforcement can also be observed in what Athol Kay from Married Man Sex Life has described as wives “drip feeding” sex to their husbands. The confines of a committed monogamy in no way preclude the psycho-sexual influences of estrus. Thus placating a less ‘sexy’, but parentally invested man with the reinforcer of infrequent (but not entirely absent) sex becomes a necessity to facilitate the prospect of a future sexual experience with an Alpha while ensuring the security of her Beta.

 

In closing here I think the importance of how this estrous state influences women on both an individual and social level can’t be stressed enough in contrast to the social embrace of open Hypergamy. The Hypergamy genie is not only out of the bottle, but women are, perhaps against their own interests, embracing the genie with gusto.

 

Just today Vox posted a quick hit article about how men are discovering that pornography is now preferable to relating with the average woman. In an era of open Hypergamy I don’t believe this is a rationalized preference so much as it’s simply a pragmatic one. Men are rapidly awakening to a Red Pill awareness, even without a formal Red Pill education, and seeing the rewards (the intermittent reinforcement) simply aren’t worth the investment with women who blithely express their expectations of them to assume the role they would have them play in their sexual strategies.

 

------------------------------------

 

The tl;dr summary is this, with facts correctly labeled FACTS and speculations correctly labeled SPECULATIONS. 

 

FACT #1: Every woman is biologically programmed disloyalty for men AND programmed with a brain that deliberately hides from herself the disloyalty she had towards men. 

 

SPECULATION #1: The purpose of this deceptive brain is to help her lie more convincingly to men and society around her, which enables her to commit disloyalty and get away with it.

 

FACT #2: A woman who reaches her thirties after a string of bad relationships and then emerges with a new-found understanding of the importance of loyalty-to-men is not rejecting female bad behavior.  She is, instead, displaying it - because her new-found support of male loyalty develops right when she's least capable of deceiving men with her looks. 

 

FACT #3: A woman who reaches her early twenties after no major relationship gaffes, and who possesses strong support for male loyalty is actually rejecting bad female behavior.  This is because she has the power to behave poorly, but actively decides not to.  (Such woman are rare in modern America, and some speculate that no such woman exists.) 

 

SPECULATION #2: Men who fully realize the truth behind this article inevitably question whether women should have voting rights.  Good arguments can be made for either case.  (1) "No, women should never get voting rights, because they will inevitably vote to confiscate the wealth of productive families.  And removing this incentive to rob will provide a strong incentive for women to support male-loyalty."  (2) "Yes, women should be allowed to vote, because preventing them from voting makes them extremely vulnerable to male predatory behavior.  I accept your argument that women have no loyalty to men, but this argument doesn't prove that men have loyalty to women." 

 

SPECULATION #3: Men who fully realize the truth behind this article also inevitably question what positive qualities, if any, a woman is capable of possessing.  There are two major conclusions, both of which are interesting and (perhaps) reasonable. 

 

(1) I call this the "Every woman is really six years old!" argument.  It goes something like, "Government inevitably increases whenever women have been allowed to vote.  There is literally no example wherein this doesn't happen.  The increased size of the government inevitably sides with women on every issue, which means that it inevitably sides against men on every issue.  As the government grows larger and larger, the problem gets worse and worse, until the society itself becomes bankrupt.  Sadly and hilariously, the root cause of this societal collapse is that not every woman is good enough, (however you define "good enough" is up to you), to attract the lifelong, loyal support of a wealthy, considerate man.  So, rather than either self-improving or facing the world bravely and alone, women grow the government at the expense of society.  Hence, there are no strong women, no independent women, and no self-sufficient women.  Every woman is six years old." 

 

(2) I call this the "Every woman is really seventeen years old!" argument.  It goes something like, "I agree that the root cause of government growth is a woman's inability to attract life-long male support.  However, I think every woman is capable of bravery, self-sufficiency, and independence.  So it's our job, as a society, to merely warn women about her natural fearfulness, and then shield her from this fearfulness by not growing the government.  A stoic, male-centric government that does NOT give in to every female desire will provide sufficient incentive by which women can learn to face the world independently and bravely.  So every woman is really seventeen years old.  She just needs to be gently booted into the real world and reminded of what bravery and independence really are.  Withtime, she'll learn to appreciate the boot-in-the-butt." 

 

FACT #4: You can tell everything about a woman based on both whom she has sex with and when, in her ovulatory cycle, she engages in sex.  (In fact, the when is most important!)  The paragraphs where Rollo describes women having sex with their husbands during the phase of her ovulatory cycle when she's least likely to get pregnant is bone-chilling but ultimately true.  Nothing says, "I'm only pretending to love you!", more strongly than this. 

[maieesa]

 

I meant that most women would say that they're interested in having short-term sex and exploring the possibility of a long-term relationship within that context. 

 

I'll provide links to relevant posts from Rollo Tomassi's blog after my post.

 

Women engage in two types of sex: acquisitive and transactional.  When a woman isn't sure of a man's commitment, but wants to make him stick around, that's acquisitive sex.  But once a woman is secure of a man's commitment, (usually because he married her and/or had a child with her in a modern American culture that punishes men who stray), she switches to transactional sex. 

 

Exactly, and they are the same women who are not telling you if they have HPV or some other sexually transmitted infection. 

I mention HPV, specifically because it is quite common for women and men to be asymptomatic and also because while decreasing the likelihood, use of condoms does not protect you from contracting it. 

Most of the thousands of strains of the virus are somewhat innocuous, as a healthy immune system will fight it off like a flu.  However there are what is known as "high-risk strains," which cause cellular mutations leading to cancer of the cervix, penis, anus or throat.  Multiple exposure increases the risk of cancer.

We don't know a whole lot about it, but there is speculation that it can also be passed on maternally. 

I am especially vulnerable to contracting this type of cancer. And while it is one of the easiest to treat successfully, if caught early, it is not worth the risk as far as I am concerned. I would rather be celibate.

That being said, if a dude isn't willing to be having sex with only me, then the other females who he may be sleeping with are a threat to my physical health as well as my emotional health (due to most females' crazy-pants penchant for histrionics and deceitfulness).

It's my estimation, that I know women as well as you, albeit in different ways and from very different perspectives.

And I know what you are pointing to is a true phenomenon.

 

How many times do you think that I have heard from the mouths of babes, something to the effect of, "I don't tell guys that I have HPV." or "Guys are going to assume that you are lying about how many people you've had sex with anyway. So if you tell them the truth, they will just think it's twice as many, therefore you should just lie to them."  or "If you want to have a baby, just get pregnant.  It isn't really up to him."  And this kind of talk, even from the types who act as though they have integrity. 

 

When you say you're not interested in casual sex but want to explore being monogamous and committed, I translate that to, "I never engage in acquisitive sex, but I believe there's a specific aspect of either my personality or essence that is absent from other women and would be to your extreme benefit to acquire through monogamous commitment."    So in my mental note of you, I would write in big neon-letters, all the way at the top of my list, "Thinks extremely highly of herself.  Genuine or pretentious?" 

 

From there, I would Frame my interactions in terms of answering that question. 

 

The way that I see it, to say that there is something innate about my "personality or essence," that sets me apart, would be to remove responsibility from females, as we are often apt to do.  I grew up in this society, with these influences and experiences, and I choose to be how I choose to be.  I do not believe that females have no choice but to take the easy route and get away with absolutely the most that they can just get away with anymore than I discharge men who act that way.

If you mean to say that acquisitive sex is always manipulative, with the conscious or subconscious intention of towing a man on the line until the hook is set, then no, I have not engaged in acquisitive sex.  For most of my adult life, I believed that I didn't want to be married at all. 

If on the other hand, you mean to say that any sex between partners who are not yet married would always be considered acquisitive sex, then I have.  Within a relationship with agreement on monogamy until further discussion.

When I have really just wanted to get laid in the past, I've come to a mutually beneficial arrangement with a trusted friend.  We both knew that it was just that once, and then back to normal. Simple.

 

 

 

More crucially, the older a woman is when she says she's not interested in casual sex, the more I wonder whether the "Alpha Widow" phenomenon is happening.  So I would also Frame my interactions in terms of answering this second question.

 

no.

 

Can you see who it is who 'downvotes' posts?

If you cannot, know that I did not.

I'm enjoying the conversation and I do not take exception to any of it.